Remember how CO2 is supposed to cause warmer winters, and warmer nights? Well now CO2 also produces cold snaps. No matter what weather you get, there is a citation to blame CO2. Nature (the formerly great science journal) and Northeastern University have produced another permutation of outputs from models we know are broken.
The first line in the press release is false and smugly so: “most scientists — 97 percent of them, to be exact — agree that the temperature of the planet is rising and that the increase is due to human activities….” 10 seconds on Google would have shown — 60% of geoscientists and engineers don’t agree.
If Kodra and co were trying to be accurate, they could have said “97% of annointed climate scientists agree… “. If they were trying to be scientific, of course, they wouldn’t mention a consensus at all. If they had good evidence, they’d talk about that instead.
They dug deep in The-Book-of-Cliches for the press release. Strip away the advertising spin and I think this is the nub of the work:
“While global temperature is indeed increasing, so too is the variability in temperature extremes. For instance, while each year’s average hottest and coldest temperatures will likely rise, those averages will also tend to fall within a wider range of potential high and low temperate extremes than are currently being observed. This means that even as overall temperatures rise, we may still continue to experience extreme cold snaps…
Essentially, by using a models that didn’t predict the pause, nor the missing hot spot, and with homogenized, reanalyzed data that probably does not resemble the observations, they found something “interesting”. The modern witchdoctors are at work. Runestones, tea-leaves, broken models, what’s the difference?
“The study used simulations from the most recent climate models developed by groups around the world for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and “reanalysis data sets,” which are generated by blending the best available weather observations with numerical weather models. The team combined a suite of methods in a relatively new way to characterize extremes and explain how their variability is influenced by things like the seasons, geographical region, and the land-sea interface. The analysis of multiple climate model runs and reanalysis data sets was necessary to account for uncertainties in the physics and model imperfections.
So because the models don’t work, they did a lot of runs, and because there are infinite ways to reanalyze data, they used several different datasets too. (It’s not like history ever has one correct “temperature”.) They felt the average of all these errors showed something about the variability of artificial simulations of our climate. Bravo.
They also felt they should tell us this big news: “It suggests that the natural processes that drive weather anomalies today could continue to do so in a warming future.” It would have been something special indeed if they found that nature had stopped.
This study was done by “Evan Kodra, PhD’14”. (I guess he must be quite excited about graduating then? Congrats to Evan… )
Asymmetry of projected increases in extreme temperature distributions
Evan Kodra & Auroop R. Ganguly | doi:10.1038/srep05884
- Received | Published
A statistical analysis reveals projections of consistently larger increases in the highest percentiles of summer and winter temperature maxima and minima versus the respective lowest percentiles, resulting in a wider range of temperature extremes in the future. These asymmetric changes in tail distributions of temperature appear robust when explored through 14 CMIP5 climate models and three reanalysis datasets. Asymmetry of projected increases in temperature extremes generalizes widely. Magnitude of the projected asymmetry depends significantly on region, season, land-ocean contrast, and climate model variability as well as whether the extremes of consideration are seasonal minima or maxima events. An assessment of potential physical mechanisms provides support for asymmetric tail increases and hence wider temperature extremes ranges, especially for northern winter extremes. These results offer statistically grounded perspectives on projected changes in the IPCC-recommended extremes indices relevant for impacts and adaptation studies.
Producing something this bad costs a lot of money — it took some part of $10 million from an “Expeditions in Computing Grant “. An expedition indeed. The duo used, wait for it… “computational tools from Big Data science to systematically examine this aspect of climate change for the first time.” (That’ll show those climate modelers using slide rules with Small Data science. And us naive types who use a spreadsheet.)
So now it’s come to ‘The climate is responsible for the climate’??
These warmists come up with the best dead pan comedy since Leslie Nielsen.
470
Only problem is…it is not funny anymore. Has well and truly entered the realm of ludicrous!
410
I’d go one step more and say it’s criminal. So many leading warmists should be behind bars – and they would be if they were in another area, such as financial management or corporate governance.
603
I suspect when the shift comes these people will adopt the Nuremberg defence. Kind of relative to the last thread.
232
Peter, let’s not forget that the young poorly-trained PhD grad here (and the presumably young writer of the clumsy press release) are probably doing the best they can. The real problem is higher up in the system.
210
How high up in the ‘system’ are we talking Jo? We have simply been ‘blaming’ the Left and Green sides of politics for all this climate scam for a long while saying they were the root cause. It is interesting to see many Conservatives coming out and backing the very same scam. Look at the NSW Gov. Look at the UK’s Gov. Look at NZ’s Gov. Look at Abbott’s ‘Direct Action’ plan. Now you point out that the poor old Baird Government’s view comes from listening to the ABC and Fairfax news reports. Why should the poorly-trained journos at Fairfax and the ABC be expected to be more scientifically tuned than a State Government, cant they be excused as victims as well? Why too, would the punters of any particular party be in a position to be immune from the manipulations of an even higher force in the ‘system’. This whole climate scam is all about powerful money and control and yet we are quite content to limit our scientific understanding of who is behind all of this scam and say the science is settled it is the political party behind some bare-footed treehouse dwellers. We are happy to put it down to just a couple of names, Lefties and Greenies. Science settled. Culprits identified. Of the 24hours, 7 days a week, and multiplicity of radio and tv broadcast channels that the ABC uses, what percentage of that bandwidth would you reckon is consumed with promoting the climate scam to warrant such claims of being a driving force in promoting the scam? Sure I have seen the propaganda on some news reports, 7.30 show and your mates at Catalyst but they are a tiny part of broadcast content. Radio National’s rural report at times seems prepared to question the scam. What about all the other documentary and arts content and community services that they promote? Evil too?
51
I agree Joanne. That’s why I always refer to the leaders. Perhaps not all of them but certainly that’s where some of the blame rests. The followers, such as the young idealists or budding PhD students are predominately gullible non-thinkers who have anti-establishment minds (are are right to be so in many cases). However, as I stated several times before, the real blame rests with the scientific community. They are supposed to be intelligent and honest people always seeking the truth through correct research methods and practices, not promoting their biased views and in some cases conducting corrupt research. In essence the vast majority of relevant scientists who are not so much pro-AGW but instead are silent on the matter have much to answer. Perhaps they don’t belong behind bars along with the financial scammers who are taking advantage of the hoax (except for those who have liberated from us substantial money to promote their corrupt research) but they should at least be marked as dishonest and lose their status. Perhaps they could go back to school and learn how to conduct proper research, or find another profession.
30
Jo, you should re-blog this post by Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) here.
It shows that CO2 has an incredibly close fit to USHCN data adjustments.
30
Thanks TS for bringing this to my attention.
I have commented there:
Phil Jones says:
August 3, 2014 at 6:29 am
What’s a good reason for changing the temperatures? Urbanization?…. That would lower temps after adjustment…
Reply
Philip Shehan says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 3, 2014 at 9:03 am
Yes Phil and that is what the adjustments of GISS data find, although the effect is small, less than 0.1 C.
Still, a very clumsy and counterproductive effort if the object is to fudge the data to suit warmist arguments.
On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, the adjustments are conducted legitimately based on sound scientific principles.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
08
Philip,
Go over to Steven Goddard’s blog and have a close look at his ongoing series of posts about USHCN data adjustments. If they do not have an actual measurement, then they just make stuff up! Not only that but all of the adjustments cool the past and warm the present. All of them. They are adjusting data measure in the 1930’s now, over 70 years since the measurement was taken. There is no scientific justification for doing this.
By the way, if Hansen says one thing, then I know the opposite is true.
60
“By the way, if Hansen says one thing, then I know the opposite is true.”
Spoken like a true “skeptic”
16
Hansen says that the urban heat island effect means that we must adjust later temperatures downward compared to earlier ones to truly understand what is happening to temperature.
So you know that we must increase later temperatures upward, meaning that temperatures have actually risen faster than otherwise thought.
07
Yes well, Hansen is no longer seen as being credible, and that must impinge on all of his previous pronouncements.
Post hoc adjustments to empirical measurements can never be justified. You measure what you measure. If you have reason to believe that the empirical measurements were wrong, for some reason, then you throw the data away, and start again. Simple.
The reason why the raw data has never been released (and according to Phil Jones, “lost”), is that its absence prevents any sort of forensic investigation into its probity.
Without probity of the base data, how can we believe any statements about temporal variations in climate?
Ockham’s razor would suggest that the whole warming scare was just a figment of Hansen’s imagination, albeit a lucrative one for those involved.
80
I think is referring to this Hansen.
40
Or maybe this one.
40
I believe Philip would be stupid enough to let a fox guard a henhouse, so long as the fox persuaded him it suited the agenda.
I mean, seriously, using the guy who was partly instrumental in creating most of the pre-1979 warming trend, as a reference, really does speak heaps to Philip’s total lack of scientific integrity and credibility.
50
I’ll disagree with RW. In other sciences, you apply algorithms to data to remove the effects of variables that you would like to control or minimise the effects of. They usual describe the results as being “deconvoluted” rather than “homogenized”. The results are usually checked with another instrument or by using samples of standards. Nobody accepts them as infallible.
Again, climate scientists try to mimic real scientists and adjust the data. To be a real one, you check thoroughly that the result is what you claim it is.
31
Yes, because it is based on observations …
30
@ Vic… I agree with you here and I had a similar response to RW when he made a similar statement like “Post hoc adjustments to empirical measurements can never be justified”, another time – he actually took my point so I’m not sure why he is repeating this.
03
“Post hoc adjustments to empirical measurements can never be justified”
How about:“Post hoc adjustments to empirical measurements can never be justified, unless those adjustments are very clearly demarcated, raw data is readily available (and placed side by side with adjusted figure) for direct comparison, and where there is a clearly justifiable and provable reason for said adjustment, and then error bars are increased to reflect said adjustment by an amount double that of the relevant adjustment, and not homogenised and averaged out over multiple measurements since clearly making all the adjustments in one direction in the present and the opposite direction in the past is a very effective way to manufacture a trend where one didn’t exist before, and which doesn’t reflect a trend that actually occurs in reality.
30
Winston… exactly. The world would not be able to function without adjusting against known standards that enable comparisons across data sets. RW’s comment, as it stands, puts every testing agency/business out of a job.
BBL, I have a mate I need to ring to tell to throw out his NIST buffers and thermometers.
02
Philip Shehan you made the comment,
Your credibility has just crashed because that’s exactly what a real scientist should be – a true skeptic.
00
GA, I think that you missed Winstons point. The homogenization is meant to correct for changes in thermometer readings that are not related to changes in global climate. To be sure that is all it does you need to show how it has changed the raw data, the uncertainty that it introduces, that it does to what it claims to do and that there is something to correct other than random noise.
That random and unidentified events always seem to have over estimated the past temperatures and underestimated the present clearly means that the results of the homogenization process are meaningless.
20
Hansen is no longer seen as credible by “skeptics” because he has committed the unpardonable sin of being right.
In 1981, he published a paper in which he said that the anthropogenic global warming signal would become detectable above the noise in that decade.
This was considered ‘alarmist’ by climate scientists who did not think the signal would be detected for several decades.
He got it right. And you “skeptics” just can’t fotgive him.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/
05
Sure, the signal was detectable to fans of the cult, but not to scientists.
What a pathetically weak claim it was that the warming of the 1980’s was outside normal variability, when our accurate decadal records were so short, when the rate of the 1980’s was the same as the 1870s (ask Phil Jones) and when we don’t know what natural forces drive the climate.
You really must give up the kool aid. The signal is still not detectable scientifically.
71
Ms Nova.
“Sure, the signal was detectable to fans of the cult, but not to scientists.
What a pathetically weak claim it was that the warming of the 1980′s was outside normal variability”
Hansen was making a prediction in 1981 about what would happen in the future and as I have noted, most climate scientists at the time thought that it was a rather “heroic’ prediction, premature by several decades.
I don’t know what you mean by the statement that accurate decadal records were short at that time but skeptics and AGW proponents alike use records going back that far and further to support their arguments, but again, Hansen was making a prediction about the future.
As far as comparisons of temperature trends in the 1870s (or 1970s if that is a typo) and the 1980s or any two ten year periods goes, the error margins for a trends that short a period would render them statistically indistinguishable, but yes the trends for warming rates for the two decades probably are about the same.
But again Hansen was saying that the signal would become distinguishable from the noise sometime in the 80s and that can only be really seen with a few further decades of data in hindsight which is what the second link above does.
Even in 1981 a there was quite a deal of knowledge of forces driving the climate.
Hansens 1981 paper discusses many natural forcings and factors: radiation balance, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake.
Fig 5 of the paper shows a very good match of the theory with data using just 3 forcings, solar, volcanic eruptions and CO2.
And again looking back with an additional 3 decades of data and knowledge of forcings, natural and anthropogenic, the anthropogenic signal can be seen to start rising from the noise of the natural signal at about the end of that decade.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html
You may wish to put a counterargument to these pieces of evidence, but to suggest that the argument is “pathetically weak” and that people thinking it has merit are cult members and Kool aid drinkers – well I suggest such statements are not those of a genuine skeptic.
03
“The modern witchdoctors are at work. Runestones, tea-leaves, broken models, what’s the difference?”
The Plan “if a strong enough scientific consensus on the causes and consequences of anthropogenic climate change could be forged and sustained, then the compelling force of such rationality would over-ride the differences in worldviews, beliefs, values and ideologies which characterise the human world.”
The word science here is not science, but simply policy based claims.
150
‘The climate is responsible for the climate’??
Surely you can’t be serious?
I’m deadly serious, and don’t call me Shirley!
200
Shirley, they can’t be serious.
90
OOPS. Too slow.
“What can you make of this new Nature paper?”
“A hat, a broach, a pterodactyl?”
120
Leslie Nielsen was funny. Warmists are not. They have cost us billions.
By the way…
============================================
Evan Kodra
Graduate Student, Interdisciplinary Engineering
=> http://www.northeastern.edu/sds/kodra.html
Main background – applied Statistics
CEWS focus – temperature and rainfall extremes, stochastic rainfall modeling
DSCS focus – uncertainty quantification, Bayesian statistics
Evan Kodra is a PhD student in the SDS Lab. He has a BS and MS in Statistics from the University of Tennessee, and his research experience includes two internships at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and has been a graduate research assistant at the University of Tennessee and Northeastern University. His research has been highlighted in Nature magazine, USA Today, and MSNBC, among others.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
Kodra, E., Steinhaeuser, K.S., and A.R. Ganguly (2011): Persisting cold spells in the 21st-century warming environment. Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L08705, 5 pp. Research Highlights in Nature and Nature Climate Change, (Selected) News: USA Today, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, Our Amazing Planet
Kodra, E., Ghosh, S., and A.R. Ganguly, (2012): Evaluation of global climate models for Indian monsoon climatology. Environmental Research Letters 7, 014012, 7 pp., doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014012.
Parish, E., Kodra, E., Steinhaeuser, K., and A.R. Ganguly (2012). Estimating future global per capita water availability based on changes in climate and population, Computers & Geosciences,42: 79-86. Most downloaded of recent articles in journal Computers and Geosciences
============================================
This guy is a STATISICIAN! He plays with numbers and computer models all day! He hasn’t the faintest clue of the climate. In fact, he doesn’t care. His job is to produce material for the Warmist Movement in order to make them look like they’re doing something smart to average Jane/Joe taxpayer…This is another useless academic (among a sea of useless academics in our modern universities). They produce nothing of value to society. Any idiot can tinker with numbers and come up with conclusions to support an agenda, in order to get a piece of paper and accumulate an educational debt for three letters (PhD) attached to their name!
Have anyone noticed that warmists produce next to no value? Even their analysis are useless! This is why you will NEVER find these people working in industries that actually matter!
In my previous career as an aero engineer, numbers are everything. Accuracy was within 1%. We cannot lie, because people would die and we would be legally held accountable!
Why are warmists NOT legally and financially held accountable for their BS?!
210
I have reiterated time and again that computer modelling is statistics, not science. Whatever the “consensus” may be, it’s not about science.
At best, a good model (if such a thing exists) will help to point a scientist where to look for the actual science. They are a tool only.
160
Good, accurate models only exist if they are complemented by real world testing.
In the case of aero engineering, you have:
(1) Computer model. => Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
(2) Wind tunnel model. => To check the CFD numbers. (Computer model match wind tunnel data?)
(3) Flight simulation => To fly the design in virtual world and test the flight control algorithm for the plane.
(4) Prototype testing. => To confirm everything. As well as test for things you haven’t anticipated…This latter stuff is then re-integrated back into (3) to improve the accuracy and safety.
When done right, a pilot will feel little difference between simulated and real world flight. (Feel: The way the plane behaves to the pilot’s commands.)
In this Global Warming nonsense, they don’t actually test their modelling! It is assumed to be true! They don’t even test their hypothesis! It is presumed humans have an impact on the climate without actually testing it! In fact, they’re going against the scientific method, while claiming that they are for science! That’s a HUGE red flag for me!
On a side note, they’re changing the name AGAIN!
Global Cooling => Global Warming => Climate Change => Climate Disruption.
When it comes to activism, branding is everything!
180
And Aussiebear, The claim that models are not tested is untrue.
Climate modelling undergoes precisely the same procedure that you outline in step 4. Models are tested against data and adjustments made where necessary and become more complex as more parameters and forcings are identified and quantified.
For instance, a major hurdle in accurately predicting the amount of temperature rise is the uncertainty in the “sensitivity factor”. This is the the temperature rise resulting from increasing CO2 concentration. This is known quite accurately known to be about 1 degree for a laboratory set up. In the atmosphere however, the effects of feedback mechanisms, positive and negative, primarily due to the water vapour are not well understood or quantified.
The current value is given as between 1.5 and 4.5 C. Early models used a figure of around 3 C. I have noted elsewhere that I expect that the figure is more likely to be around 2 C.
Skeptic poster boy Steve McIntyre came up with a model that fits the data very well using a value of 1.65 C.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/model-comparison21.png
The difference is that “skeptics” do not howl down areonautical engineers for having made dud predictions and claiming that the models have failed during this process.
221
Fitting to what has happened is easy when there are many variable parameters. Hence to BS stats you are so fond of to ignore the data post 2000.
You should study some science.
101
Vic, at the risk of copping it from Griss again, I have studied a bit of science.
Refinement of models and theories has been a part of science (and as Aussiebear points out, engineering)from the outset.
Copernicus’s heliocentric model of the solar system for instance.
I do not ignore temperature data post 2000. I simply apply the requisite caution on the interpretation of short term data which has large error margins.
117
.
You mean you “ignore data after 2000”, see 4 little words replace all those 11.
81
No bobl, I do not ignore data after 2000.
It contributes most of the data for this statistically significant warming trend of the last 25 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1989/mean:1/offset:0.24/plot/uah/from:1989/trend/offset:0.24
Trend: 0.174 ±0.115 °C/decade (2σ)
114
Phil, you have baggage, your history is that you ignore what you don’t like, even your own calculation that AGW is less than 1.9 F per doubling (after accounting for your error in units). If you are so prepared to ignore your own math calculation for your ideology, I gauge there is little hope for you.
101
bobl.
Actually what I have calculted previously is that the relationship between temperature and log CO2 concentration for the periods from 1958 and 1979 to the present as 2 C for doubling of CO2, in agreement with a literature value for the period since 1850. I do not attribute all of that temperature rise to anthropogenic forcings, although I think it is a good first approximation to the sensitivity parameter.
The calculation above is for the temperature rise over a time period, not CO2 concentration.
111
And de havilland and Lockheed?
06
Philip #14.1.1.3
>”Trend [from 1989]: 0.174 ±0.115 °C/decade (2σ)”
How does that compare with the CMIP5 model mean projection trend Philip?
Isn’t that about 0.33 °C/decade? No wonder you don’t want to draw attention to post 2000.
And didn’t AR5 throw the models under a bus when they issued their 0.23 °C/decade “opinion” projection out to 2050 (I think it was)?
The cynic in me says the “opinion” was needed to scrape in to the upper limit of obs trend CI above (0.174 + 0.115 = 0.289 Voila!).
Or is it simply that the opinion of climate scientists carries more weight than their models i.e. my cynicism is completely unwarranted?
50
Should be:
Philip #1.4.1.1.3
10
Richard, could you give me a reference to the models you are discussing?
In the meantime, one parameter which will have a bearing on the success of the a model is the sensitivity parameter.
I am on the record as saying that I think it will be at the low end of the IPCC 1.5 to 4.5 C range. Many earlier models used a value of 3 C or more.
Climate skeptic Steve McIntyre has come up with a model which matches the data well using a value of 1.65 C (green line)
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/model-comparison21.png
Models generally do not attempt to predict the effect of events such as volcanic eruptions or enso events which do not occur at regular, and therefore predictable times. These short term effects pass, unlike an error in the sensitivity factor.
They can however be factored in when hindcasting.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html
Some models appear to be quite successful but I don’t know what the parameters are:
http://web.archive.org/web/20111019211836/http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ar4mods.jpg
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html
06
Philip #1.4.1.1.9
>”Richard, could you give me a reference to the models you are discussing?”
The clue was here:
“How does that compare with the CMIP5 model mean projection trend Philip?”
In other words, the state-of-the-art CMIP5 model “ensemble” for the IPCC’s state-of-play, AR5 2014.
>”Some models appear to be quite successful”
Nope. Only one model (inm-cm4) has mimiced the 21st century “hiatus” at near surface with about 3 others close (i.e. the rest are junk). But at the AGW-critical tropical mid-troposphere inm-cm4 is wildly astray like the rest (i.e. they are all junk in current configuration.
See #43 – #43.1.1 for CMIP5 model trajectories on the way to breaking below the lower 95% confidence limit (i.e. on the cusp of falsification):
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/broken-models-predict-extreme-cold-snaps-co2-does-everything/#comment-1527110
CMIP5 vs Observations:
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hawkins.png
IPCC Climate Models Divergence From Reality Widens (update to June 2014):
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a3fd3d44b9970b-pi
BTW, wrt the question “How does [0.174 °C/decade obs trend from 1989] compare with the CMIP5 model mean projection trend [0.33 °C/decade to 2050] Philip?”
Your comment on this?
On the face of it, the state-of the art climate models appear to be overshooting the real world by a factor of 1.9 (i.e. nearly double since 1989). That “divergence problem” now being exacerbated by flatlined observations this century (i.e. the overshoot factor is now over 3 for this century),
As Judith Curry puts it (see #43 at link above):
“…we have long reached the point of diminishing returns from climate models in terms of actually understanding how the climate system works;…..”
I’m sure you will have to agree this is a reasonable assessment in view of the models-obs “divergence”.
Do you agree Philip?
10
Thank you Richard for the links.
Only the one by Judith Curry is really useful. Nigel Lawson’s complaints about the BBC and the graph showing a single model is not.
Curry’s link shows an ensemble of model runs and and the mean of the temperature data.
I have commented many times on the error margins for temperature data covering short periods. I think it a bit dangerous to extrapolate “flatlining” into the far future, as extrapolations of various short periods from the 20th century temperature rscords would see projections going all over the place, including a rise in temperature by the end of the last century much greater than observed to a strong decline.
Even neglecting this the temperature data remains within the envelope of the ensemble.
Yes I did see your clue, but I was hoping for a link with some details about these particular models and the parameters used in the runs.
Curry herself mentions one item that I have already noted several times. The sensitivity parameter is one that will have a significant effect on the projections.
I have stated that on empirical grounds alone I think that it is that the low end of the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5 C per doubling of CO2 concentrations, about 2 C. I have presented climate skeptic Steve McIntyres model showing a very good agreement with data using a parameter of 1.65 C. The green line here:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/model-comparison21.png
Historically a higher parameter has been used. Hansen’s 1981 model assumed 2.8 C and the data fitted the model quite well, but the longer the time period, the greater the divergence will be for a positive or negative error in this parameter.
If overestimation is the reason for the divergence, it is a minor problem that can be easily corrected as McIntyre has done.
01
Philip #1.4.1.1.11
>”…the graph showing a single model is not.”
It is not a “single model”. It is the “output of state-of-the-art CMIP5 [hotlinked in link below] models” (i.e. the CMIP5 “average”):
http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/07/ipcc-climate-model-prediction-failure-divergence-global-warming-climate-reality-2014.html
These are the same, but updated, as the Curry graph i.e. as you put it, “an ensemble [average] of model runs and and the mean of the temperature data”
>”the temperature data remains within the envelope of the ensemble”
But now at the lower limit of the confidence interval and the trajectory is OUT of the envelope i.e. falsification.
>”Yes I did see your clue [CMIP5], but I was hoping for a link with some details about these particular models and the parameters used in the runs.”
Do I really have to hold your hand Philip? CMIP5 Overview here:
http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/
CMIP5 – Modeling Info – Forcing Data here:
http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/forcing.html
For a model intercomparison project (e.g. CMIP5), the parameters are a common RECOMMENDATION (e.g. solar) or SPECIFICATION (e.g. RCP CO2 emissions) that the modeling groups adhere to in order to acquire relative performance measures. In other words, the model groups do NOT submit simulations initialized by parameters of their own choosing.
>”If overestimation is the reason for the divergence,….”
Well, er, yes it is if the model mean forecast is 0.33 C/decade and current obs are 0.00 C/decade.
>”it is a minor problem that can be easily corrected as McIntyre has done.”
Philip, look at the McIntyre graph CAREFULLY:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/model-comparison21.png
You should be able to see that the black line is NOT just HadCRUT4, it is “HadCRUT4+Decadal”. The pointer is that the black line extends out to 2017 i.e. that part of the graph CANNOT be observations.
What McIntyre (or whoever it was) has done (why I don’t know) is append the UKMO DECADAL FORECAST (actually only a 5 year forecast now) to the observations (but not the latest – see below).
To the uninitiated (e.g. yourself), this would leave the impression that “the divergence, …..is a minor problem that can be easily corrected as McIntyre has done.”
The red flag for the observant (e.g. not yourself) was that the 2017 black line levels are higher than the 1998 and 2010 El Nino years of the actual HadCRUT4 observations.
The latest UKMO Decadal Forecast is here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
Refer Figure 3. Note that the decadal forecast (blue) STARTS at the observation level of Hadley, GISS and NCDC (black). The CMIP5 projections (green) do NOT start from the latest observation data as UKMO states in the Fig 3 caption (see link).
In other words, the CMIP5 projections are INCOMPATIBLE with the UKMO Decadal Forecast initial start dates and levels, and the simulation trajectories obviously.
UKMO reduced their “Decadal” forecast to 5 years because the 10 yr forecasts were becoming increasingly untenable because the observations are finding them out very quickly. So now UKMO produce a new 5 yr forecast every year initialized by the latest observations to reduce their embarrassment. As they state:
“Forecast issued in January 2014. The forecast will be updated in January 2015”.
UKMO’s forecast weaseling would be comical if it wasn’t that it is held out as scientific rather than just wild (and inaccurate) speculation that is swallowed by the credulous and gullible among the public – and by politicians.
00
Re #14.1.1.10
>”But at the AGW-critical tropical mid-troposphere inm-cm4 is wildly astray like the rest (i.e. they are all junk in current configuration”
At global (not tropical) mid-troposphere, inm-cm4 is the best of 102 model runs from 24 families (graph provenance: Beisner and Legates):
http://images.christianpost.com/full/74866/global-mid-tropospheric-image.jpg
Clearly, a big difference between the best (one only) and the rest.
‘Simulating present-day climate with the INMCM4.0 coupled model of the atmospheric and oceanic general circulations’
E. M. Volodin
N. A. Dianskii
A. V. Gusev
(2009)
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/227251252_Simulating_present-day_climate_with_the_INMCM4.0_coupled_model_of_the_atmospheric_and_oceanic_general_circulations
00
Philip #1.4.1.1.11
>”I have stated that on empirical grounds alone I think that it is that the low end of the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5 C per doubling of CO2 concentrations, about 2 C”
INM-CM4 derived Equilibrium CS (Transient CS will be lower) is 2.07K. See Extended Data Table 1, page 27:
http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/SherwoodBD2014.pdf
INM-CM4 is the only CMIP5 model within cooee of 21st century observations. See #1.4.1.1.3, global mid-:
http://images.christianpost.com/full/74866/global-mid-tropospheric-image.jpg
But even that result will be invalidated (it’s already dodgy) if the pause/hiatus extends to 2020+.
Worse again if there’s cooling of course.
00
Should be:
“See #1.4.1.1.3, global mid-[trop graph repeated here]:
00
Richard C (NZ),
Sorry but I appear to have sent my initial reply to your August 8, 7:08 pm comment to the wrong place.
It is here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/broken-models-predict-extreme-cold-snaps-co2-does-everything/#comment-1532077
I will add a few more remarks here.
You wrote (quoting me initially):
” ‘If overestimation is the reason for the divergence,….’
Well, er, yes it is if the model mean forecast is 0.33 C/decade and current obs are 0.00 C/decade.”
I am not sure what period the “current obs” refer to.
I noted the problem of error margins associated with short time periods above.
RSS data from 2000 for instance does indeed show a trend of 0.00 ± 0.231 °C/decade (2σ). But the other satellite data set, UAH shows a trend of 0.11 ±0.23 °C/decade (2σ). So even without considering the margins for the mean of the models, the UAH data is in agreement for that period.
My apologies for including only the link to the McIntyre’s graph and not the explanatory text, but then you did the same with the C3 graph. I should have saved it but will endevour to find that page.
With regard to your comment:
“Philip, look at the McIntyre graph CAREFULLY:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/model-comparison21.png
You should be able to see that the black line is NOT just HadCRUT4, it is“HadCRUT4+Decadal”. The pointer is that the black line extends out to 2017 i.e. that part of the graph CANNOT be observations.”
No, “that” part of the graph from 2013 to 2017 (the + decadal part) cannot be observations, but as the black line of the graph up to 2013 (Hadcrut 4) is identical to Hadcrut 4 data with 12 month smoothing, the observant is entitled to conclude it does consist of observations.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to/mean:12
With regard to the your following statements:
”To the uninitiated (e.g. yourself), this would leave the impression that “the divergence, …..is a minor problem that can be easily corrected as McIntyre has done.”
In other words, the model groups do NOT submit simulations initialized by parameters of their own choosing.”
Divergence is a problem that can be easily corrected if it is determined that the actual sensitivity factor is smaller than that used as input parameters for the models. And as I note before, Hansen’s first model used a parameter of 2.8 C and McIntyre a parameter of 1.65 C.
It would be impossible to project any kind of future temperature without an input value for that parameter (together with an input parameter for the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2.) Not to mention input values for solar radiation etc.
In fact your own comment and the abstract and table of the link you give in your 9:21 pm post affirms precisely the point I am making (and as I stated I also think the value is around 2 C).
“INM-CM4 derived Equilibrium CS (Transient CS will be lower) is 2.07K. See Extended Data Table 1, page 27:
http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/SherwoodBD2014.pdf
“Mixing inferred from observations appears sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity greater than 3◦C for a carbon dioxide doubling. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5◦C,thereby constraining model projections toward relatively severe future warming.”
I am not discussing the UKMO decadal forecasts, comical or otherwise.
01
Well, that’s probably because aeronautical engineers don’t try to build an aircraft while it’s flying and they don’t tell people it flies magnificently when they know the critical aerodynamic lift parameters of the wing might be wrong by a factor of three.
161
Thing is [Raven], we came along while the system was already in the air.
And yes, climate is difficult compared to aeronautics because it is complex.
And it is the scientists themselves who point to the consequent uncertainties. The sensitivity range of 1.5 to 4.5 C is the IPCC figure. And within these uncertaintieds the models are doing very well.
http://web.archive.org/web/20111019233002/http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mostmods.jpg
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html
211
Whats more, aircraft that can’t fly tend to be about as useful as climate models that can’t predict the climate. Such failures are not used much to fly passengers around the world. For that one would need a design based on a model that works!
Do you honestly think the early aeronautical models worked the same as they do now?, do you honestly think there weren’t issues along the way? The big difference is that we don’t actually use models that are incapable of working or proven wrong to design aircraft, nor do we use a consensus of wrong models, instead engineering uses a single correct model.
For example, fluid mechanics make a difference to energy flows in the climate, do you reckon climate models take account of fluid mechanics? Err NUP! What’s more it’s impossible to actually do so. Instead they parameterise the effect, parameterise… that’s spelled G.U.E.S.S.
151
Pardon me. That comment should have been addressed to Raven.
bobl.
“Do you honestly think the early aeronautical models worked the same as they do now?, do you honestly think there weren’t issues along the way?”
This is precisely the point I am making about climate models which are still developing.
And again, climate is a much more complicated system than an aircraft, so models are bound to have lower precision as regard to prediction, even in later stages of developement. That does not mean they do not work.
See the links in my comment.
116
Excuse me Philip, but do you know which Engineer used the “Still Developing” inaccurate aeronautical model to design an aircraft and what Prison I can visit him in?
You completely miss the point as usual, Engineers DON’T use unproven, known to be wrong models, or a consensus of unproven models of which all but one are guaranteed to be wrong to design aircraft, but we are to accept that such an ensemble of wrong models should be used to reengineer the entirety of western society.
YUP, the phrase “Completely Nuts” springs to mind…
101
Maybe some aeronautical engineers should be howled down. Remember the Nomad?
70
Actually Vic, if an Aeronautical model was published that was as bad as climate models are, it would never make it to publication, it would be howled down by the researchers own peers. If it did make it to publication my guess it would be howled down within minutes. It certainly could never be allowed to stand!
So Engineers with failed aeronautical models , do (or rather did) get howled down by sceptics, usually their own very sceptical peers. If god-forbid an aircraft ever got into service and failed, you can rest assured that engineer would not ever design any more aircraft (from his gaol cell). Thats a pretty good “Howling down” in my book.
Compare and contrast the cushy, preferential, Dorothy dix treatment climate scientists get when they’re wrong, they get promoted like Gavin. Me, I think they should share the Gaol cell with that Aeronautical engineer.
111
Same with buildings, bridges, etc etc..
If any of these FAILED like the climate models have, the designer would be out of that job for a long long time,….
or at best demoted to menial tasks……. tasks along the lines of trend fitting, etc.
And WOE-BETIDE if that error was from corruptly manipulating data !! Then it would be major in-the-slammer time.!!!
82
bobl, It’s your statement:
“Do you honestly think the early aeronautical models worked the same as they do now?, do you honestly think there weren’t issues along the way?”
This statement indicates that you are aware that there is progress in the design of an aircraft. So it is with climate models, dealing with a vastly more complicated system.
“Excuse me Philip, but do you know which Engineer used the “Still Developing” inaccurate aeronautical model to design an aircraft and what Prison I can visit him in?”
Why would an aircraft designer who starts with a less effective aircraft design and improves it with further research testing and refinement of the model ends up in jail?
Actually I was watching a doco last night on aircraft design during the cold war. There were numerous examples given of designs and prototypes that were not proceeded with because they failed to live up to expectations. The nuclear powered bomber was an interesting example.
And as Vic points out, even aircraft that make it into production can have faults that escaped the notice of the engineers. I don’t think anyone went to jail over the Nomad.
Or the de Havilland Comet.
And back to the cold war there was the Lockheed Starfighter, known as the widowmaker.
112
I think that some people might have missed the point. The Nomad was from the Government Aircraft Factories.
80
Griss, there are examples of modern day bridges where the engineers have got it wrong despite building bridges for centuries. Tacoma Narrows, London Millennium pedestrian bridge spring to mind. As for aeronautical designs, I think the models have all been refined along the way from lessons learned from the production aircraft. I would dare say that many of the new commercial craft still have post-design ‘retrofits’ as we venture into new material and scales. As for totally new experimental designs like our scram jet designs. I would venture to say that the models they are using are definitely still being developed as new things are learned and past attempts have not all been glowing successes as their early models might have suggested.
51
Yes Joe, both those were because of lack of understanding of external forces.
The wind triggering a natural bridge resonance, and the natural inclination of humans to walk in step, particularly in response to a stimulus of movement of the walking surface.
But notice that both were remedied. !!!
Now if only the climate scientists showed any interest at all in remedying their mistakes, maybe they would get somewhere.
61
Actually, Tacoma was rebuilt, differently.. a remedy of sorts, 🙂
ie each mistake, the Engineers LEARNT something.
Climate science doesn’t seem to have that capacity, they just keep reinforcing their previous errors and misunderstandings.
70
And the De Havilland Comet, while not a commercial success (insufficient seating to cover operating costs), it did morph into a spectacular career as the Nimrod, used by RAF Coastal Command as a maritime surveillance platform, for many decades.
And all fighter aircraft are designed to be unstable. It makes them extremely responsive to the pilot, when avoiding enemy fire. The Star-fighter was a better fighter aircraft than most of the younger pilots could handle. Those with quick enough reflexes, a “feel” for the aircraft, and good enough flying ability, loved it.
So Philip continues with his propaganda, based on half truths and no background knowledge. I honestly believe that he has access to a pre-prepared list of “point scoring phrases” that are designed to influence the ill informed.
It is a pity that they won’t work here. The breadth of experience of the regulars on this site, is just too broad.
70
“I honestly believe that he has access to a pre-prepared list of “point scoring phrases” that are designed to influence the ill informed. “
Yep RW, seen all the repetitive alarmist BS put together by their lower priests, many times before.
It is ignorant and boring, and shows the zero credibility and non-existent thought patterns of those who regurgitate it.
52
Reluctant as I am to join the conversation here where Philip Shehan has taken over with his speaking from authority, dismissing everyone as he usually does, it’s amazing how easily he fell for one or two sensationalist stories and then attempted to pass them off as verbatim.
Rereke details how the DH Comet morphed into the Hawkewr Siddeley Nimrod, and had a successful 44 year long operational life span.
It’s also not well known how much of a (relatively) easy fix the DH Comet was, replacing those square windows with round ones, a lesson learned from that point by every aircraft manufacturer.
And hey, if engineers paid any heed to models, the Boeing 747 would never have been built. Models proved conclusively that it would never even lift off the ground, let alone fly.
And, as for the good old F-104, its record speaks for itself.
Of all the Century Series Fighters, the F-104 produced more variants than nearly all the others put together.
An their life spans:
F-100 – 26 years
F-101 – 30 years
F-102 – 23 years
F-105 – 29 Years
F-106 – 29 years.
That F-104 had an operational life of 54 years, probably one of the longest lived fighters in U.S. history. You’d think if it was as bad as Philip Shehan made out, it would have been removed from service long before it was, eh!
Amazing how a couple of stories put out by ill informed people gain credence, and then people like Philip Shehan quote them verbatim in his speaking from his position of authority.
But then, hey, what would I know about it. Philip will probably just call it a strawman argument, say I’m just making it up, or lying, or it’s just opinion, or just from some ‘blogger’, or not the full truth, or just that I’m disagreeing with his absolute truths.
Tony.
81
Tony, just where have I taken over and spoken from authority or dismissed everyone else?
In spite of claims that nobody reads or takes any notice of my posts, they have generated a large number of responses, which I have attempted to address.
The point under discussion Tony, was this statement from bobl:
“Do you honestly think the early aeronautical models worked the same as they do now?, do you honestly think there weren’t issues along the way?”
(No that is my point. the same situation applies to complex sytems like climate.)
and this
“Excuse me Philip, but do you know which Engineer used the “Still Developing” inaccurate aeronautical model to design an aircraft and what Prison I can visit him in?”
My point being that even such simple systems as aircraft (or bridges as Joe points out) do not emerge from the process perfect in every way.
Yes the problem with the Comet was square windows. An engineering mistake and the victims just as dead as if the wings had fallen off.
How many examples of engineering disasters would you like? There is a television series devoted entirely to this subject.
08
Philip, just think this through for a minute.
From a sensitivity range of 1.5 to 4.5 C, the IPCC can apparently draw an overall confidence level of 95% . . . and this is excluding any & all other uncertainties.
You don’t need to be a climate scientist to understand this is not possible.
70
Raven, What is the 95% confidence limit you are referring to?
A 95% probability that the sensitivity factor is in this range?
That humans are having an impact on global temperatures by addition of CO2?
The sensitivity range is entirely positive. That is the entire range affirms the warming impact of CO2.
The magnitude of the warming is, however, unclear.
There is no contradiction.
07
“I honestly believe that he has access to a pre-prepared list of “point scoring phrases” that are designed to influence the ill informed.”
Yes Rereke, (and Griss) you can tell that from all the stock topics covered in my responses here.
Like the one I just wrote about the structure of Clorophyll in response to TdeF below. Had it right in my pocket because I just knew that subject would come up.
And I knew you were an electrical engineer so had my response to you ready when you brought that up too.
08
“”The difference is that “skeptics” do not howl down areonautical engineers for having made dud predictions and claiming that the models have failed during this process.””
Please be aware those ‘whatever’ engineers are NOT charging us an arm and a leg for their mistakes. 🙁
50
Richard.
Thank you again for the information.
The link you originally provided on the single model showed the graph only without the explanation in the second link.
The chart itself shows only one dataline (the faint pink line) and the 36 month smoothing line thick red, it does look very much like a single run.
If this is an average, it is still not a helpful graph in assessing the accuracy of the models as it does not indicate the variation in the model runs that go in to calculating the average.
The graphs Curry presents do indicate this by presenting the ensemble of the individual runs. (Ensemble does not mean the average, it means the entire collection of the individual models being discussed.)
In the case of the fist graph in Curry’s link, this is the entire collection of multiple lines, showing the results of runs of the specified number of runs (eg RCP 2.6 32 models)etc for a total of 180 runs.
I do not know what the designations RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5 etc indicate. Nor what the separate models within each designated subset represent. Eg, are they the same algorithm with different input parameters? If so what are the parameter values?
The second panel shows “ALL RCPs” . I do not know what the designation (5 -95%range, two reference periods means.
Nor do I understand what ALL RCPs min-max (299 ensemble members) means, other than presumably in this case there are 299 runs, and the entire ensemble of individual lines are not shown but fit within the envelope of the grey lines.
In this case the observed temperatures are entirely within the envelope so nothing is “falsified”.
The first graph shows the results of 180 models. The second 299 models. Does the designation mean all the CMIP5 models in existence? All “RCP” models? All the models in the ensemble of 299? Are there more than 299 RCP models? How many models are there in total? How representative of all the runs are those presented in each graph?
It is these answers and others I am looking for.
No, you do not have to hold my hand.
I hope the answers to these questions may be found in the links within the links you have provided, and I will examine them closely later, but will sign off for now. If you are able to provide your thoughts on these matters I would appreciate them, but thank you again for providing me with a starting point.
01
Pardon, that reply was meant to be to Richard C (NZ)’s comment:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/broken-models-predict-extreme-cold-snaps-co2-does-everything/#comment-1531792
01
Philip #1.4.1.1.4
>”In fact your own comment and the abstract and table of the link you give in your 9:21 pm post affirms precisely the point I am making (and as I stated I also think the value is around 2 C).”
Not really. The “derived” ECS (e.g. 2.07 for inm-cm4) is a characteristic of each respective model i.e. it is not a control knob (a parameter) that can be “tweaked”.
I think you are confusing terminology between GCMs and energy balance models e.g. from Wiki:
“For coupled atmosphere-ocean global climate models (e.g. CMIP5) the climate sensitivity is an emergent property: it is not a model parameter, but rather a result of a combination of model physics and parameters. By contrast, simpler energy-balance models may have climate sensitivity as an explicit parameter.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
For GCMs participating in CMIP (the “ensemble”), the input parameters are either recommended or specified as I explained. It is then necessary to “derive” ECS for each model from the simulation runs.
What this all means is that all but one or two of the models (one of which is inm-cm4) are configured too hot i.e. they already exhibit far too much warming. And if the hiatus continues even an ECS of 2K is excessive.
But if cooling occurs (more likely given the solar recession), the entire concepts of TCS and ECS will be false obviously. This would be an acute embarrassment for the climate science community given the prominence CS has for the CO2 case.
>”I am not sure what period the “current obs” refer to”
Current observations as at 2014 by decade because that was the terms of the trend e.g. RSS 0.00 ± 0.231 °C/decade as you note. UAH is an outlier among the major metrics.
>”but then you did the same with the C3 graph”
I thought it was obvious for someone expressing knowledge of the topic. These graphs should be very familiar if so and an explanation like you require has not been necessary in my experience of the climate debate of about 10 years or so. If you didn’t know what you were looking at then either you are a newby on a learning curve or not particularly adept at analysis of these graphs.
>”No, “that” part of the graph from 2013 to 2017 (the + decadal part) cannot be observations, but as the black line of the graph up to 2013 (Hadcrut 4) is identical to Hadcrut 4 data with 12 month smoothing, the observant is entitled to conclude it does consist of observations.”
Philip, try to understand. McIntyre’s (if him) green line looks better ONLY because of the addition of the UKMO Decadal Forecast of 2012 – 2017 (or whatever) appended to HadCRUT4 observations. The addition of ACTUAL data to Aug 2014 would show a rather different picture i.e. the green line overshooting observations too. Forster and Rahmstorf are in the same boat from 2010.
>”Divergence is a problem that can be easily corrected if it is determined that the actual sensitivity factor is smaller than that used as input parameters for the models. And as I note before, Hansen’s first model used a parameter of 2.8 C and McIntyre a parameter of 1.65 C. It would be impossible to project any kind of future temperature without an input value for that parameter”
Wrong Philip. Again, you seem to be confused by terminology. See the explanation of CS above. CS is NOT “input parameters for the models”. I repeat, CS is a characteristic of each respective model (“an emergent property” as above).
It is entirely possible to make GCM projections of temperature without CS as an input parameter, every model group manages to do so. None of the CMIP ensemble has CS as an input parameter whether by individual selection, recommendation, or specification.
>”I am not discussing the UKMO decadal forecasts, comical or otherwise.”
Philip, it was YOU, not me, that posted a graph with a UKMO Decadal Forecast tacked on to observations. You got yourself into this by doing that, now you want to weasel out?
10
Philip #1.4.1.1.4
>”The link you originally provided on the single model”
It was NOT a “single model”, it was an ensemble average.
>”I do not know what the designations RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5 etc indicate”
Good grief, this is fundamental to GCM projections by radiative forcing methodology. RCP = RECOMMENDED CONCENTRATION PATHWAYS.. Read the CMIP5 Overview at the link I provided and follow the RCP hotlink to here:
RCP Database (version 2.0)
http://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at:8787/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome
>”…are they the same algorithm with different input parameters?”
NO AND NO. Each modeling group configures the physics of their model with either formulae or parameters as they decide or are able e.g. they can construct their own radiative transfer or can out-source a radiative transfer module of the likes of AER’s RRTMG here:
http://rtweb.aer.com/
THEN, the COMMON input parameters are either recommended (e.g. solar) or specified (PRESCRIBED e.g. RCP) for CMIP so read up on CMIP, RCP, and SRES (see link below).
In other words, the models are hard-wired for CO2 RF methodology whether right or wrong.
>”In this case the observed temperatures are entirely within the envelope so nothing is “falsified”.”
Not yet. But as I explained, the trajectory of the observations is on the way OUT of the envelope. Probably only a matter of months now until observations are below the lower confidence limit. When that occurs the models will be falsified.
>”I hope the answers to these questions may be found in the links within the links you have provided, and I will examine them closely later,”
Yes the answers take a bit of research of CMIP, RCP, SRES, and I suggest, the relelevant parts of AR4/5 (AR4 is easier by far) but the answers are there nevertheless.
You might start with this:
‘IPCC Special Report: Emissions Scenarios (SRES)’
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf
00
Should be:
RCP = [REPRESENTATIVE] CONCENTRATION PATHWAYS
00
‘Climate Sensitivity and Feedback’
Barry A. Klinger, George Mason University, CLIM 690 Scientific Basis of Climate Change
What is relationship between changes in radiative forcing and changes in temperature?
What are feedbacks and how do they influence these changes?
http://mason.gmu.edu/~bklinger/CLIM690/lec7_sensitiv.pdf
Excerpts
Direct effect of GHG [simple model, no feedbacks]: For T0=288 K, ΔF=4 W/m2, F0=238 W/m2 [Climate Sensitivity for doubled CO2 (2xCO2)] = 1.2 K
Climate Sensitivity in
CMIP3 Models [including feedbacks]
avg = 3.2C
range 2.1C – 4.4C
Models differ because of
•radiative forcing (small)
•internal variability (pretty small)
•different model behavior due to different physical & numerical choices
•numerics (e.g. how derivatives converted to differences)
•coupling between different components
•cloud parameterization
•cloud radiation
•mixing parameterization
•interaction among all of the above
•many model changes from TAR to AR4,
BUT change in sensitivity in given model fairly small
Transient Climate Response (TCR)
TCR typically 45-65% of
equilibrium climate sensitivity [ECS]
+ + +
Feedbacks make a big difference in TCR/ECS. All moot of course if/when cooling sets in.
00
Aussiebear,
As I have noted previously, engineers get their results right within 1% (and often much much better)because thay are dealing with simple systems and the science on which their calculations are based is known to a high degree of precision and accuracy.
In aeronautical engineering that involves strengths and weights of materials, fluid dynamics (as you note) etc.
Dealing with complex systems such as climate or biology means that the reproducability of results and error margins are larger.
Again, as I have previously noted, I began in the physical sciences, dealing with simple systems, the structure of and interactions between relatively simple molecules, and had considerable sympathy for Rutherford’s view that if you have to resort to statistics, you have not done the experiment properly.
Then I moved into biomedical research and understood that the effects of administering x mg of drug per gram of rat body weight requires statistical analysis.
Similarly, computer modelling which aids in understanding the interaction of a drug molecule with a single receptor site, which is a basis of modern drug design, is one thing. Attempting to model the functioning of more complex living systems is another.
115
Oh what bull,
Statistics is destroying medical science, it’s a cheap replacement for chemistry and physics because medical practitioners can’t handle real chemistry and physics ans know bugger all about engineering solutions. So they run statistical trials instead and then try to interpret the results from some vague outcome when what they really need to know is whether the drug bound to the correct places and mediated the correct effects.
Medicine could be deterministic (and it’s on its way to becoming so) but the statistical methods used now are only 1 step removed from waving chicken bones over the subject and should be abandoned.
131
bobl, At the risk of appearing rude, you are close to sounding ridiculous.
Like I said, in my purely physical science days, I had some sympathy for Rutherford’s position on the uses of statistics in science.
Statistics in biomedicine are not by any means limited to clinical trials of medicines carried out by clinicians, who are handed the drug along with placebos by the scientists who developed them and told to give them to patients and note the responses. And the pill pushers, to put it crudely, are not even told which are the drugs and which are the placebos. This, as you rightly suggest does not require much understanding of physics or chemistry.
I hope I am not insulting my clinician friends (hope you are not reading this Joe, I know this is simplifying your role and expertise quite a bit) if I say I consider this hack work to barely qualify as science. Those who did the real science in developing the drug do however need such knowledge, and of many other disciplines too.
Statistics are necessary when dealing with scientific data from complex systems. It is not a cheap replacement for chemistry and physics. My research area is based on the biomedical applictions of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, which is solidly about chemistry and physics.
I repeat, biological systems are very messy and complicated systems, with thousands, possibly millions different processes going on in the sample you are studying. The “sample” may be an entire human. The response of the sample to the experimental process will vary due to the multitude of interactions going on, even for the same sample tested at different times.
Results from one sample to another for a specific experiment will never be as reproducable as the chemical shifts for the NMR spectrum of one sample of N-methyl formamide to another.
You have to use many different samples and analyse the results statistically.
114
Nope,
Medical science is crude and unscientific. Yes, in recent times some chemical and physics knowledge is used to study drug cell interactions in the early stages (I acknowledged that), right up until at phase I they abandon all pretence to real science and switch the chicken bone waving of statistics.
How may drugs have been abandoned because statistics showed that a drug that was proven to mediate a cure in a test tube failed to show efficacy statistically in-vivo. A situation that would make any Engineer sit up and say “Why”. Instead they ditch it and move on to the next money making scheme.
Let’s not talk about radiation therapy, which in fact has no successful statistics in prolonging cancer sufferers lives but is still routinely used. Medicine can’t even stick to the same set of chicken bones to wave. Medicine seemingly accepts that radiation therapy works when there is no statistical support for that conclusion, but rejects other therapies because they lack the same statistical certainty… wish they would make up their minds!
Want an example.
Chillies, contains Capsaicin, KNOWN antagonist for cancer, kills cancer in xenograft mice with excellent safety profile, but little effect in humans assumed dose rate needed is too high, and capsaicin is a large molecule, do you see the mighty pharma industries investigating why the miracle drug Capsaicin doesn’t work, do you see them investigating direct injection or novel delivery systems for capsaicin or is it just thrown into the too hard basket as a failed experiment?
101
Now you are being ridiculous.
210
No, he is being pragmatic. With Pharma, it always comes down to return on investment. If they cannot accurately estimate the investment required, then they don’t get funding, irrespective of the “possible” returns, if it happens to work, which it might not.
80
Thanks Rereke,
I could name a dozen drugs that have been ignored or blocked by the FDA that are known to have efficacy the absence of which in the market has probably led to multiple deaths. The development model for drugs is all wrong, it needs an overhaul, and it needs it now.
How about another example, metastudies have shown that a simple daily mini aspirin reduces cancer metastasis by 1/3 – there’s those statistics again, but try to find a oncologist that will prescribe aspirin to cancer sufferers… a so-called Off Label prescription! Same applies to alpha 5 reductase inhibitors, shown anecdotally to work on early cancer but fails on a trial with patients with advanced metastatic cancers. Are early cancers the same as late cancers – no. IF alpha 5 reductase inhibitors reduce metastasis then they’re probably useless on advanced cancer, but the trials don’t test on early cancer, even though the same drugs are safely and routinely used to treat baldness. The reason – the trials focus on cancer growth, not spread.
70
Rereke, as I have said once already, drug developement is a very small part of medical research.
bobl’s blanket statement
“Medical science is crude and unscientific.”
is idiotic.
19
It IS, it’s mostly guesswork… oh except for the bits like XRays, CT, MRI, Electron microscopes, which were all provided by (gasp) Engineers.
What are the two biggest companies in medicine today… Gotta be GE and Siemens both Engineering companies.
50
bobl, yes the scientific instruments you mention are constructed by engineers, after the scientific principles have been discovered by scintists, applications realised and the prototypes built by scientists and technical staff in universities and a market had been created for the instrument companies to fill. Pretty good guesswork.
Did I metion I have had a bit to do with NMR and MRI instruments? I know many instrument company engineers very well.
As I note elsewhere, I made a highly successful probe with novel design features for an NMR spectrometer, but in those days we put things in the public domain without thinking of filing a patent. Would never happen now.
06
Now you’ve got the idea, Philip.
Get back to us when someone has done the ‘climate’ experiment.
101
Raven, unfortunately, climate is largely an observational rather than experimental discipline, like astronomy or evolution.
The opportunities for climatologists to run experiments on the climate sysrtem are limited. They have to take observations of this extremely complicated system and extract information about what is going on.
And again, if you look at the graphs I provided, complicated as the system is, they do very well.
(That comment, where I incorrectly call you Roy, (apologies) is currently flagged as awaiting moderation. Don’t know why. I wasn’t rude to anyone or anything. Perhaps the moderators think I am overdoing the postings but There are a lot of people to respond to.)
112
Philip,
It would help if the climate scientists released their raw data, and the calculations required (code of the climate models), to reach the published conclusion. To be independently reviewed by anybody who was interested, irrespective of their field of expertise.
This happens in all fields of science, except in the climate field (and in those fields that are restricted by Government mandated secrecy).
Peer review should not be restricted to ones “mates,” but also opened to cynical and hostile review, because if it gets past the latter, then we can all be assured that it is robust.
51
“except in the climate field (and in those fields that are restricted by Government mandated secrecy).”
Is there a difference ???????
40
Did I mention I know a thing or two about peer review?
07
Unfortunately, not only is the experimental aspect missing, but so too the ‘discipline’ you mention.
40
Interesting Philip that you think that within 1% is good for engineering, yet while admitting that thing are far more difficult with the climate at the same time you still believe that global temperatures can somehow (who knows how??) be measured within 1000th of a degree!!!… the estimated rise in temperatures this past century and a half has been how much Philip?…. right, not enough to be statistically significant.
81
About 0.9 C.
A linear fit of data is not very good for the temperature trends over that period of time, never the less a linear fit of the data does show statistically significant warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from/mean:12/offset:0.24/plot/hadcrut4gl/from/trend/offset:0.24
Trend: 0.047 ±0.006 °C/decade (2σ)
Now the numbers returned here are not in thousandths of a degree. The parameter is the temperature change per period of time. The result could also be expressed as
Trend: 0.47 ±0.06 °C/century (2σ)
The data is better fit by an accelerating curve:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
Another way of looking at it is to plot the rise in temperature directly against log of CO2 concentration.
http://oi46.tinypic.com/29faz45.jpg
The temperature rise per doubling of CO2 concentration (2.04 ± 0.07 C) is statistically significant and within the IPCC range of 1.5 – 4.5 C.
(Actually I think 1% would be an apalling error margin for engineering in bridges or aircraft.)
110
You have it wrong Philip. We are talking about 150 years. So tell us then what period of time must we fit that 150 years into? I would say at least 2000 years. So, is less than one degree significant over that time period? No.
70
“You have it wrong Philip. We are talking about 150 years. So tell us then what period of time must we fit that 150 years into?”
Pardon?
I put up two graphs showing that a linear fit of temperature with time over that period is inferior to an accelerating curve.
This is not surprising as there is no theoretical reason whatsoever for expecting the temperature rise to be linear with time. Linear fits are useful approximations for periods of several decades, where the noise means that a curve cannot be distinguished as it can over a longer term and the period is not so short that the noise dominates giving very large error margins in a linear fit.
Over 150 years, there is a curve with a very good correlation coefficient R2 of 0.84 which matches the upward curve of CO2 concentration over that period, and which gives a linear fit of temperature to log CO2 concentration, which does have a theoretical justification.
18
I think we should be looking at the whole of the current interglacial.
We are DANGEROUSLY NEAR the coldest point in the whole of that period.
If we drift down even a tiny amount we are back in another Little Ice Age. = BAD
Whereas any warming takes us up much closer to the rest of the Holocene. = GOOD
80
You appear unable to follow your own logic Philip. You rant about statistical significance but seem unable to comprehend when I put your 0.9 degrees into a time frame suitable to see if it’s significant or not.
60
Exactly my point Griss, thank you.
50
No Philip, that is just a false correlation which is easily falsified by the fact that the require water vapor “forcing” is non-existent – water vapor has declined.
50
Backslider, I do not think you understand what is meant by statistical significance.
Please explain your statement “when I put your 0.9 degrees into a time frame suitable to see if it’s significant or not.”
And with regard to your point about the interglacial:
What has the interglacial period got to do with the increase in anthropogenic CO2 since the industrial revolution?
06
Wrong Philip. It is you who is having difficulty understanding your own 0.9 degrees being put into a time frame other than your 150 years. You cannot take a period of 150 years, then say that during that time the temperature has risen 0.9 degrees, and follow by saying “That rise is statistically significant!”. That defies logic. To determine whether or not it is statistically significant requires that you look at a far longer time frame…. which would show you that it is a tiny, insignificant blip (you may prefer to call it “noise”).
Get it now?
Further re. comprehension:
This assumes that your 0.9 degrees has something to do with anthropogenic CO2 since the industrial revolution. What has this to do with statistical significance, which should be agnostic?
30
Backslider;
‘You cannot take a period of 150 years, then say that during that time the temperature has risen 0.9 degrees, and follow by saying “That rise is statistically significant!”. That defies logic.’
No.
The statistical significance of a linear fit to data depends on the magnitude of the 95% (2 sigma) error margins around the calculated trend value. That is the data says that there is a 95% probability that the actual trend is within those margins of error.
If you are comparing two different periods in the temperature data for example, they are different within statistical significance only if the error ranges do not overlap.
A single data period shows statistically significant warming (or cooling) only if the error ranges are entirely in the warming (or cooling) side of the graph. (They do not cross the zero line).
This is entirely uncontroversial and is used by skeptics and AGW proponents alike.
When Phil Jones “admitted” to skeptics that a particular 15 year period of temperature data did not show statistically significant warming ‘but only just’ (the warming probability was 93%), he and the skeptics were in complete agreement about this.
So here is a graph of temeprature for Hadcrut 4 data and the linear fit going back to 1860:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/mean:12/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/trend/to
and here is the statistical analysis of the data:
Trend: 0.051 ±0.007 °C/decade (2σ)
Within a 95% probability, the actual range is between 0.044 and 0.058 °C/decade.
The range of values is entirely positive so the data shows statistically significant warming.
As you can see the linear fit is not a very good match to the data, which is better fitted by a curve.
This graph clearly does not allow a linear statistical analysis but the r2 factor for the curve is 0.84 which is a numewrical indication of how well the red line fits the black line. The maximum possible value is 1 for a perfect match of the fit line exactly on another perfectly noiseless data line.)
The rise in temperature is the difference in value of the red line between 1860 and the present (the data ends in 2010 here) which is about 0.9 C.
05
Philip – and how does that compare with the rest of the Holocene?
20
Backslider, you are changing the subject now but from the lack of argument or abuse I take it you now understand the concept of statistical significance.
The answer to the new question is given in another comment.
02
OK Backslider, I will amplify my answer here.
“Philip – and how does that compare with the rest of the Holocene?”
According to the link supplied by Griss the temperature change from the post glacial Holocene maximum (8000 years ago) to the present is a drop of 0.5 C.
The Temperature increase for the last 150 years is 0.9 C.
From the graph of the temperature vs log CO2 concentration, the increase with a doubling of the concentration will be a further 2 C.
01
Wha? You finally caught on that I have been asking something?
The fact is Philip that a rise in temperature of 0.9 degrees over 150 years is not significant if we look at the entire holocene (or even shorter periods)…. we have not even made it back to zero.
As for your “increase with a doubling of the concentration will be a further 2 C”, this is just a crock. AGW/CO2 theory relies upon an increase in water vapor as a “forcing”. This is not happening, in fact water vapor has fallen (ask the NOAA, they are up in arms over it).
10
Again, how could anyone talk with a straight face about statistical significance within a sensitivity range factor of three.
With one more parameter, I could make that elephant wiggle his trunk.
50
Raven, I think you are also slightly confused about statistical significance.
The calculated value of the linear fit of temperature rise versus log CO2 concentration gives a value for doubling of CO2 concentration of 2.04 ± 0.07 C.
That is there is a 95% probability that the figure is beetween 1.97 and 2.11 C.
That is the 95% confidence range is entirely positive – that the data shows statistically significant warming.
I do not necessarily attribute this entirely to the greenhouse action of CO2.
Other factors affect the observed temperature and may contribute to or subtract from warming due to CO2, but the simplifying assumption that natural forcings cancel out over the long term is reasonable, and there is a good linear fit of temperature with log CO2 concentration, which would be expected if CO2 is the main driver.
So I only claim 2 C as a resonable empirical first approximation of the sensitivity factor.
I am comparing this with the IPCC expected range of 1.5 to 4.5 C for the sensitivity factor. I am not sure what confidence the IPCC places in this range or how it is calculated, but again it is entirely positive.
It says that CO2 is causing the temperature to rise. The magnitude of this rise with CO2 concentration is not known precicely.
The fact that the empirically calculated first approximation value fits within this range supports it as a reasonable figure and that the simplifying assumption is valid.
05
Philip – I can just as easily show you that rise in atmospheric temperature correlates perfectly with frying pancakes, just as others have shown that it correlates perfectly with the rise in postage costs.
I have now mentioned several times, but you have ignored: AGW/Co2 theory is dependent upon a rise in atmospheric water vapor as a “forcing”. The NOAA shows us that this has fallen, rather than risen. Your theory is bunk.
Is there a good fit? No, there is not, particularly over the last 17 years. You are aware, are you not (???) that we had cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s, all the time while atmospheric CO2 was rising. Again, it does not fit.
20
Backslider.
Not this fatuous argument again. (Sorry Mods I will have to go through it again as I don’t know where I did it last time.)
I doubt very much that you can produce a perfect correlation (data points exactly along a straight line) for atmospheric temperature and any parameter associated with pancake frying.
Given the countless sets of data for all sorts of quantities, given time and effort, I could come up with multiple pretty good correlations between a nominated data set and another which are totally unrelated by cause and effect.
I am not in the least surprised that you could come up with a correlation between temperature and and rising postal costs.
Temperature is rising with time, inflation is rising with time.
Plot them against one another – Voila! A positive correlation. But I will bet you any amount of money you nominate that this correlation is not “perfect”.
What makes a correlation more than a correlation is a sound theoretical cause and effect relationship between the two quantities.
There is such a theoretical relationship for this one:
http://oi46.tinypic.com/29faz45.jpg
04
Philip – Yet again you conveniently ignore that FACT that atmospheric water vapor has FALLEN. Your theory is bunk.
20
Backslider, Shifting the goal posts again.
The discussion here is about the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration, cause and effect and statistical significance.
Even if correct, your statement does not mean “the theory” is bunk.
Please supply a reference to your statement.
11
How is it shifting the goal posts? If AGW/CO2 theory is falsified by a lack of atmospheric water vapor, upon which it relies (not to forget a lack of temperature rise, then we are wasting our time trying to prove/disprove a correlation. No matter how much you bark does not make a correlation valid.
Here is the reference you ask for.
10
Oh Philip, here is another one for you.
00
“As I have noted previously, engineers get their results right within 1% (and often much much better)because thay are dealing with simple systems and the science on which their calculations are based is known to a high degree of precision and accuracy.”
I can’t let this statement stand.
It’s obvious you’re not familiar with engineering. There is nothing simple about engineering. From the possible blends of concrete, to the amount of reo you use in a structure. The whole edifice is a monument to calculated assumptions. The reason they stand up is because of something else called “Factor of Safety”. Which for buildings and bridges is quite large.
Aeronautical engineering is based on millions of hours of testing.
50
Greg. Apologies. I knew I should have put the qualifier “relatively” before simple.
Yes a bridge is a fine structure with lots of parts and materials the strengths and properties of which are known to a very high degree of precision and accurately. Once built it stands there (with a little bit of give here and there factored in of course for high winds and heavy vehicles).
An aircraft, though it has moving parts, electronic and chemical processess going on and does not stand still is none the less a relatively simple system.
These systems are built by humans and thus every component and its function is not only known but designed specifcally to play its role in the final structure.
A biologial cell on the other hand has almost countless numbers of components and processes going on in it, many of which are not understood or even identified. Then start looking at organs and whole animals or people.
That’s why I did not need statistics when studying structures and interactions between “simple” molecues (even macromolecules like DNA and proteins), but needed stats when studing more complex and messy biological systems.
Similarly, nobody designed the complex and messy climate system, unless you believe in the almighty. And he/she is keeping the blueprints to him/herself. It is a fait accompli as far as humans are concerned. Scientists are engaged in trying to understand how it works. ‘Unravelling the mystery’ as the theme song from The Big Bang Theory goes. (The TV show, not the actual theory.)
This is another difference between science and engineering. An engineer knows how his creation works.
So relatively, engineering deals with simple structures and processes.
18
And you probably believe that all this came together by chance mutations, right?
10
Here we go again. If you don’t understand evolution then go learn about it.
Your simple sounding sentence is so full of fallacies, so I’ll make it very simple.
Mutations do not cause anything to come together, as you have stated and no evolutionary biologist thinks they do. If you understand the theories explaining the observation of evolution you would never have written this.
22
Gee… aye… go and do the math, then come back.
10
Are you back from your reading? Do you see where your question was not even wrong?
01
Oh… and gee… aye…. I know you are referring to “natural selection”, but the thing is this, natural selection can only work with what it’s got…. what is already in the genes of the organism. For anything else, mutation is required, which we all know tend to be harmful to the organism (you show me just one observed beneficial mutation, I can show you plenty of harmful ones). Thus, everywhere I look I find explanations like this:
and this:
You were saying?
10
and? I don’t think you progressed anything and did not overturn your fallacious statement nor even recognise it. I want to acknowledge that your demonstration of an understanding of evolution and its mechanisms has not progressed over time e.g.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/fun-on-friday-smile/
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/weekend-unthreaded-18/
so I am assuming directing you to my blog linked to my name first. If you make a comment that demonstrates that you understand evolution and the vast body of research that has gone into understanding it, I will be happy to engage in an off topic discussion until told to stop by the mods.
If you can’t make that effort then my standard response is as for comment 15.1.2.2.1 here http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/newman-says-the-party-is-over-for-the-ipcc/
please read them. I’m not responding to press statements and simplifications at pop sci museum web sites.
00
Gee… aye…. I know, you have no defense, so you must resort to ad hom.
I am well aware of the vast body of nonsense, yes. It’s little different from climate science (except it doesn’t threaten civilization)…. it’s all about the grants. How about presenting something that’s actually logical (I know you cannot, but try)…. I look forward to the link on your blog where you think you may be able to win over a true skeptic.
01
I don’t care whether I win you over, I just wish you’d be skeptical about something you understood. Find fault in those books and you’ll be a science hero.
10
Gee… aye… you wish? Listen, what I have already outlined very simply explains the core of evolution theory, ie. natural selection coupled with genetic mutations. We need not get more complex than this as it’s very easy to see what a crock that is. Mathematically impossible for a start (have you ever looked at the math, ie. the probability of random genetic mutations leading to the vast complexity and variety of life forms on this planet??). There is nothing more to “understand”.
00
thanks for providing your evidence and your argument by incredulity. Are you really asking me to post here a full and thorough explanation of all the research findings that is all summarised in a number of texts you can get yourself that took years to write? If you ask a question with substance instead of making empty assertions, based on fallacies then I’d engage you off site. If you are serious my email is linked to my name.
00
No, I asked you to post a link to your own blog where you think you may be able to explain.
Yes, I know it takes years to write, and plenty of research grants to come up with all the waffle required to make people think “Gee… aye, thats how it must be then…”. Climate “science” is no different…..
00
Oh, by the way, I know you probably think that I’ve just spent too much time rafter raising at the local AOG church, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. I was made to think twice about the theory of evolution by a scientist… a very highly respected professor, a molecular biologist (who it was is personal, sorry… gee… aye…)
00
And you probably believe that all this came together by chance mutations, right?
My answer was going to be:
Yes, and natural selection.
But I see Gee Aye has been responding.
With regard to your comment that natural selection can only occur with pre-existing genes, and organisms. That is not quite correct.
The primordial soup allowed the formation and reaction of many molecues.
When by chance you end up with some that are self replicating, like oligonucleotides, they make copies of themselves, but occasionally errors (mutations) will occur in the copying.
This is the start of evolution through natural selection.
11
As I said Philip, do the math….
00
Well gee…. aye…. she/he tells me that saying that is “full of fallacies”.
Amyhow Philip, you like to put yourself forth as somebody who understands statistics – why do you not apply them to this belief? I really cannot see how you can say such things with a straight face, it requires ignoring the most fundamental principles.
00
Yonnie, OT but I love your moniker. Until I saw it I thought that I might be last person alive who knew what a yonnie was. As a kid in suburban Melbourne in the 1950s we had collections of yonnies for fights with nearby kids – but we always stayed just out of reach of each side’s yonnies. I don’t recall anyone ever being injured.
50
Records were made to be broken
Time will provide hotter hots and colder colds – I didn’t need even an adding machine to know that. So much for “big data” sound like big nothing
190
All piss and wind.
As a result, there will be increased tendencies to heavy precipitation, and a greater propensity to gales.
180
Oh Gosh! I am really excited now. Big Data has explained why the apparent temperature in the Blue Mountains today (real Big Data temperature is 4C, wind speed 45kph) is minus 4C. And I thought it was just normal August weather at these exalted altitudes!
250
I’m glad you said “Apparent temperature”, because everone knows real temperatures only come out of climate models.
61
And will be different when you look at it next year, and the year after. And in 10 years time today’s temperature will probably be recorded as -4C (or 24C).
30
It would be very interesting to know the alleged mechanism by which even a slight increase in the average global temperature of a tiny amount can so dramatically change the weather world wide, causing every extreme bit of weather known to man and that even more frequently.
How can any model in a self evidently stable system which varies massively from summer to winter, morning to evening, latitude to latitude is so horrendously unstable as to not survive a slight change in the average temperature. This conclusion is from models so primitive that they cannot predict the biggest global weather events like El Nino or La Nina or a single hurricane. Can they explain why the ice extent in Antarctica is always the reverse of that in the Arctic? If the models produce such incredible sensitivity, even apparently to a change which is not actually occurring, they are just wrong.
When a global single number like world temperature cannot be predicted with any certainty, why should we believe the rest? It would be great if these models could predict the Roman warming or the warming in the middle ages or even the winter periods even with the benefit of hindsight. A model should be able to perfectly predict the past before you could even begin to use it to predict the future.
Then why the frantic search for explanations for the failure to warm? Why not accept the models are wrong, which means they were always wrong. Inadequate would be the kindest word. We were told absolutely that the science was ‘in’, an expression previously unknown to scientists or anyone else. ‘in’ what? I can guess.
331
Forget the numbers, which always seem to confuse the hired alarmist scientists, what about the science?
There doesn’t seem to be very much but the scant amount there is postulates that CO2 alone is a relatively insignificant GHG which when added to the atmosphere, by say human fossil fuel emissions, will as it increases have a very slight but declining effect on global temperature. That is the first postulate of the “settled science.
The second is that the slight warming effect of CO2 will cause evaporation of ocean water and form, in the atmosphere, that very powerful GHG, water vapour. Voila that interaction is the source of the alarmists promised climate catastrophe.
They call that interaction a positive feedback.
Now without that feedback there can be no human induced, caused by fossil fuel burning, significant global warming and hence no climate change due to “carbon pollution” (could the Nazis have imagined a better propaganda expression?….. so much for deniers).
Now the numbers should cause intelligent persons including scientists to question the positive feedback postulate…if not the entire hypothesis. It says something about the intelligence of the alarmists who imagine they are being scientific when confused by numbers.
By the way noticed a headline on ABC 24. “Wheat prices fall due to record global crop”. Interesting to see how the “irrationalists” explain away this item which is contrary to IPCC dogma.
151
And so it is. Just add sunlight to the higher humidity and the increased CO2 fertiliser and the plants’ growth is very positive! 🙂
It’s sad, really, so few of them seem to know this …
141
How many people, even scientists really believe that all plants on earth are made from only CO2 and H20. Almost nothing else. Shouldn’t we be black inside? How can CO2 have carbon and not be dirty. That is why so many photos show steam from chimneys, as the CO2 is invisible, but no one really believes it.
350 years ago a Dutch scientist Jan Baptist Van Helmont grew a 75 kg tree in a tiny piece of dirt. As he only added water, he concluded trees were made from water only. Even today people really cannot comprehend a 50 tonne tree growing from the air. Why isn’t there a big hole around a big tree?
All animal life eats plants, so they are made from the same stuff, plus calcium for bones. That is why everything burns. Do people really comprehend that all life on earth is now pollution? Dried plants are 86% carbon. Dried humans are about 70% carbon. So we are the pollution. Worse, evil carbon life forms eat other carbon life forms just so we can output more CO2. What a travesty! How thoughtless are we for just existing and dooming the planet. Get rid of all the plants and animals and the planet will be saved. Why? For whom?
What the world really needs is a personal carbon tax administered by the UN in a global economy. Animals and insects should pay too.
The trees would be rich and run the world, as in the film Avatar, which is actually a documentary.
201
The scientific illiteracy of supposedly educated people, politicians, bankers, economists, lawyers, journalists et al. is frankly unbelievable. Any high school student who knows a little biology should be able to understand that plants synthesise carbohydrate from CO2, sunshine and water, and animals rely on this in one form or another for their energy. Not too sure what carbon pollution is but it wasn’t in the curriculum when I studied a little organic chemistry half a century ago. Don’t think the molecules have changed all that much since then.
Perhaps a mandatory course in photosynthesis and the Krebs cycle should have been given to our politicians before they voted on the Carbon Tax.
151
Despite a lot of science study, even botany and zoology, the amazing idea that all life on earth is made from Carbon Dioxide came as a bit of a shock, despite being so obvious in hindsight.
Can you imagine if it was taught in schools that all trees, all grass, all flower, all plants, all animals were made from Carbon Dioxide? Could you imagine if Van Helmont’s experiment was repeated in schools, growing a 75Kg Willow tree from water alone? This scam would never have been started. Fear trades on ignorance, even among scientists.
Everything Green is made from Carbon
So the Greens would have to be renamed the Carbons. The 12th element of the periodic table they so hate is the very stuff they love.
Then they hate Chlorine too, even if it is in their blood.
Are there any Jewish Greens? If so, they hate Israel as well.
81
Just for fun, the chemical formula of Green Chlorophyll a is C55H72ON4Mg
Total weight. 732amu. Carbon? 660 amu. So 74% Carbon.
If you eliminate the Hydrogen and Oxygen from water, everything green is 90% solid carbon, plus some water.
You are right Robert, this should be taught, even in primary school. Five minutes would do plus a group willow tree project.
81
Sorry. 6th element of the Periodic table. Cannot believe I wrote 12. That is the atomic weight!
41
TdEf
The slip up on the carbon atomic number is fine. Do that sort of thing all the time.
I will also give you a pass on the slip up on the empricial formula and the subsequent error in the molar mass There are 5 oxygen atoms in the molecule.
What is not fine is this:
“Just for fun, the chemical formula of Green Chlorophyll a is C55H72ON4Mg
Total weight. 732amu. Carbon? 660 amu. So 74% Carbon.
If you eliminate the Hydrogen and Oxygen from water, everything green is 90% solid carbon, plus some water.” (My bold)
No, no, and again, no.
The hydrogen and oxygen in cholorphyll are not present as water of crystalisation. The atoms are covalently bound and are an essential part of the structure of the chlorophyll molecule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll_a
08
And thus far, 6 people don’t like an incontestable fact about the structure of chorolophyll.
03
Extra humidity usually means minimum temperatures do not get so low and maximums do not get so high. The only way the model can predict more extreme temperatures is for large and slow weather systems to move cold from the poles and heat from dry interior of continents. Don’t they need to calculate the effect of a billion butterflies to figure that out?
61
llew, see my remarks above (#1.4.1.1.1) on sensitivity and feedback.
Yes H2O is a greenhosuse gas. With warmer temperatures the H2o content of the atmosphere (humidity) increases. This is positve feedback. But it also leads to increased cloud formation, which reflects sunlight back into space and shades the earth. This is negative feedback. As Vic says, increased humidity flattens out temperature extremes. That is why deserts are very hot during the day and very cold at night. Modelling local and regional effects of global warming are more difficult than for the entire planet, but present models show the north of Australia becoming wetter, and southern Australia drier.
The heating effect of increasing CO2 concentration on its own is very accurately known.
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/log1-co2.jpg
114
Rainfall deficiencies continue in Queensland and northeastern New South Wales – July 8 2014 BOM.
Here is Horsham in South Western Victoria. Over 100 years of data in an area that is medium rainfall in plains until 2012.
80
Vic, you are giving me the weather report.
I was discussing future climate.
114
No, you were discussing predictions derived from models, that have never been published to the wider scientific community for review.
Outside of a defense contract, or in commercial research, such things are rarely heard of.
The last I looked, climate was not within the mandate of defense, neither was it a commercial proposition, apart from the hoards of second-rate academics who make their living out of government grants. Do you not see a problem with this?
60
Yes Rereke I was was discussing future climate which, as discussed elsewhere, depends in part on models which are formulated and refined with reference to theory and empirical data, the same process which bobl affirms is used by aeronautical engineers in designing aircraft.
If these models are never published, why do I keep seeing skeptics pointing to these models and claiming that they do not match the empirical data?
Mind you I do not hear from skeptics about models which do match the empirical data very well, which I have reproduced in several posts here, including one by climate skeptic Steve McIntyre using a sensitivity factor at the low end of the IPCC range.
Your resort to sloganeering ad hominem attacks on climate scientists is just that and nothing more.
As I have noted elsewhere, if this was the motivation of scintists, it would be in the self interst of scientists not involved in climate research to join in this sledging, in order to get their own hands on the research funds devoted to climate studies.
That scientists from other fields and scientific bodies, academies and institutions overwhelmingly affirm the value of this research goes a long way to explaining why I see no problem here.
07
Places that experience very low temperatures because of low humidity are not going to get more extreme if the humidity drops a tiny bit more. That is stupid. And so far, nothing is showing up that is consistent with that prediction of a wetter north and a drier south.
They can’t predict that the temperatures will be more extreme in the future because it requires knowledge that would make long term (more than four days) predictions reliable. It depends on weather patterns that are poorly understood.
40
And when released into the atmosphere, the IPCC are unable to agree on any quantification of the effect.
111
Raven, the IPCC gives a range for this parameter. 1.5 to 4.5 C. I have mentioned the difficulties in getting an accurate figure for the sensitivity factor.
Have I mentioned that climate is a complex system?
Do you think every problem in science has a simple solution?
28
Yes, and given they are unable to find agreement on what might likely be the figure, I suggest we must consider they have NFI.
Would there be more confident agreement on a range of 1.0 to 5.0°C ?
What about a range of 0.5 to 6.0°C ?
After all, the larger the range, the more confidence one can claim. Unfortunately, the higher confidence level does not indicate better knowledge.
What do I think?
I think there has yet to be an identifiable problem.
60
Raven,
Yes as a simple matter of mathematics, if a range is entirely within another range, the probability of the quantity being within that range MUST be greater for the outer range.
If real estate data in your area says that houses like yours in terms of size, local amenities etc are selling for between $700,000 and $800,000, are you saying you would have NFI about what it is worth?
And if some goober who swallowed your argument decided he had NFI about what it was worth came along and offered you $2 million would you or would you not take his money in an eyeblink?
03
Sorry Raven, forgot your other question.
The problem has been identified:
What are the feedback effects and their magnitudes on temperature rises cased directly by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Like the question: How do we cure cancer?, the problem is easily identifiable.
And in both cases the solution is not easily arrived at, but people continue to work on it.
03
Firstly, for your analogy to be comparable, the factor of three needs to be observed.
Therefor, $700K – $2.1M
Well, having spent most of my life in sales/marketing, I’d probably have started at $2.97M . . . 😉
Seriously though, your analogy is entirely non sequitur because, as you point out, we actually have real estate data.
10
Ahhh, no. The ‘problem, as you put it, is the subject of an hypothesis.
No, the questions are unalike; false premise.
The cancer cure analogy, presumably the similar ‘smoking causes cancer’ one, fails due to flawed logic.
That is, research has found links between, say, smoking and lung cancer and has the ability to consider lung cancer incidence as the variable under study. But no one says that smoking literally causes cancer in 100% of cases; just that there are links.
These studies have been carried out many times all around the world and the very repeatability lends credence and robustness to the findings. Thus, cancer research is properly grounded and provides a basis for further research.
By contrast, focusing all efforts on CO2 as the primary driver of this hypothetical problem seems plausible enough due to the basic underlying physics, but the passage of time hasn’t been at all kind to that idea.
If climate research was anything like cancer research, scientists would be looking harder at other causes or confounding issues by now. Oh, and they’d be conceding a point or two along the way as well.
10
Raven. The “factor of three” depends on your reference point.
If you started with the mean global temperature, 15 C, and asked what would the temperature be with a doubling of CO2 from the current 400 ppm, and the answer was 16.5 to 19.5 C?
Or we could use the absolute temperature scale. (The only scale that is not arbitrary and is used in scientific formulae involving the temperature parameter): 288 K, 288.5 K, 292.5 K.
The real point is that the entire range indicates a temperature increase.
01
Raven, there is no false analogy.
The question is the sensitivity factor.
I wrote:
Do you think every problem in science has a simple solution?
You replied:
I think there has yet to be an identifiable problem.
I stated that the problem is identified:
What are the factors affecting the sensitivity parameter and their magnitudes and what is the net resulting magnitude of the sensitivity factor?
As with cancer, this is a complex system, the solution to the problem difficult, but progress in understanding has been made, scientists continue to study the problem and further progress can be expected.
I did not mention lung cancer in particular and the details of that particular part of the overall cancer problem does not invalidate the comparison of two identifiable but difficult problems.
But while since you mention the smoking – lung cancer link, as I note elsewhere, the tactics employed by the “merchants of doubt” at the Marshall Institute on behalf of the tobacco industry were the model for their subsequent free market ant regulation campaigns, and that of their imitators, the most recent being the link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global warming.
And as I have demonstrated with numerous graphs here, the data has in fact been very kind to that link.
Here are a couple more
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2013/mean:12/normalise/scale:80/offset:355/plot/esrl-co2/from:1970
http://tinyurl.com/nyjroxe
01
Which is where your theory falls flat on it’s face – the required “forcing” does not exist.
10
Nope.
The “factor of three” is simply the consequence of 4.5 being three times greater than 1.5.
Where one might take it from there would be a derivative.
. . . which of course it hasn’t lately in the face of an unprecedented™ (did I really say that) rise in CO2.
Pause for thought?
00
Nope, you’ve ‘nominated’ a problem.
Of course, this so called ‘problem’ only exists in projections derived from a hypothesis.
Existential identification would be supported with empirical evidence.
Well, the point isn’t a matter of complexity or relative difficulty. The comparison is invalidated simply because no one has gathered a representative sample of ‘Earths’ together and conducted a study with CO2 as the variable.
So, yeah, false analogy.
Oh, purrleeese . . . you’d now like to resuscitate the correlation between a tobacco industry campaign and an imaginary anti-global warming campaign?
Philip, seriously . . . you aren’t an idiot and neither am I. I know diddly squat about climate science, but I just don’t believe anyone could be seduced by that specious tripe. Please don’t insult our intelligence. That is a dead parrot.
Alternatively, would you like me to provide a link to an alarming™ correlation between US postal charges and atmospheric CO2 concentrations? There’s plenty of similar correlations. I’ll even provide a plausible basis if you like, but in time honoured tradition, it won’t be falsifiable . . .
If I provide this link, that makes it valid and irrefutable, right?
Correlation = causation, right?
Anyway, it’s time to move on I think.
00
I think that the best way of finding the simplest solution, is to gather critique from the wider scientific community, and not restrict access to the raw data and the algorithmic processes, to just a few specialists, who all tend to think the same way, for the sake of consensus.
40
“but present models show the north of Australia becoming wetter, and southern Australia drier.”
roflmao !!!!
Are these the same models that predicted continually rising temperatures and are now becoming more and more DIVERGENT from REALITY ??
102
Pity that the NOAA tells us that water vapor has declined. What were you saying about AGW theory?
100
Mmmm. Obviously you didnt watch “Catalyst” on the FairfAbc, otherwise you would have known that Antartica is melting, the winds are getting sillier and are responsible for the non increase in temperature. I could not believe it! Lies and innuendoes.
91
I have seen both sides of the ‘debate’ get pretty vocal about extreme weather events as somehow supporting their view. Even right here I often see comments because it has snowed somewhere unusual that it somehow supports a particular point of view or debunks another. Given that all the broken models as well as the observations only see or predict very tiny changes in long term average temperature one would expect to see extreme hots being averaged out with extreme colds and yet those respective extremes seem to each be claimed by the different sides of the debate as supporting their view. I have not seen a lot of science to support the idea that the standard deviation of temps is undergoing a rapid increase even ignoring the tiny but hotly debated long term movement of the average.
31
No no no! Those periods never existed. Please get with the program…..
51
But, but, the Antarctic sea ice is showing the effects of climate change, don’t you know.
The ABC’s Catalyst just showed the study last night, so it must be right. Isn’t it?
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4056545.htm
Sorry about the /sarc, it just gets me like that.
YS @ #1, big grin.
201
Yeh! started to watch that Catalyst program but I can only take so much B_ll d_st so I turned it off.
A catalyst is a substance that promotes or speeds up a chemical reaction without actually being changed in the reaction. “The Catalyst” was the Applied Chemistry news letter during my time at RMIT.
The ABC’s catalyst is ………….well you decide.
Ron Cook
R-COO- K+
141
I resemble that remark.
40
No, it does not mean it must be right, but simply dismissing it because it does not suit your prejudices is hardly the attitude of a true skeptic.
120
Accepting it simply because it suits your own prejudices is hardly the attitude of a true scientist.
40
Backslider,
I saw the segment. There was only a limited explanation of the mechanism and effects (It’s television after all) but it was a very reasonable explanation of the observed phenomena, backed by evidence.
I do not unequivically accept this, and if someone here actually has a scientific counterargument to put, rather than rejecting it because it does not suit their prejuduces with no reason given whatsoever, I would be delighted to read it.
06
PS The segment begins 9 minutes and 30 seconds in here:
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/89193274
06
So, to demonstrate that you did not allow your prejudices to cloud your judgement, can you tell us what alternative plausible explanations might have been presented, but were not?
And could you hazard a guess as to why they were not presented (other than simply saying, “because they would be wrong”, which would also be a prejudicial statement)?
And can you tell us what parts of the segment you did not unequivocally accept? And explain why you had doubts, and indeed, what those doubts were?
60
No reply … interesting.
60
That’s Philip for you. He says things in a way to make it appear he has won the argument, then will not reply when he is refuted.
50
Rereke, (and Backslider) Go and count the number of posts directed at my comments.
I cannot answer them all in 24 hrs, and many I just don’t bother answering at all, either because they are not worth bothering with or I have in effect answered in other comments.
And people like Tinyfromoz will still lambast me for dominating this blog.
My comments are now being routinely held up “awaiting moderation” because I presume, I have spent a great deal of time this weekend putting up so many responses.
Rereke, Reports in the media of scientific stories, like papers published in the literature and talks given at conferences do not routinely list all alternative explanations, or any. There may be many alternative explanations, or none.
They put their case with supporting evidence. If people wish to question the evidence, and /or put forward an alternative explanation they are free to do so. At verbal presentations, people can do this in real time in the question session that follows.
That is how science works.
What is totally unscientific, and is so often the case here, is to dismiss the argument outright because it does not match your prejudices with such slam dunk scintific arguments such as “when author x says something I know the opposite is true”, or “the story/paper is published in a medium I don’t like because it carries material I don’t like’ -the once great journal Nature’ the abc, SkS. Etc etc etc.
People seriously go on what is supposed to be a forum for scientific discussion, use these ‘arguments’ and then call themselves “skeptics”
There were no problems with the evidence presented or the explanation that I could see in the story.
I do not unequivocally accept it as being correst because I am a true skeptic. The evidence was good, the conclusion reasonable and accounted for the observed pehnomena. It was actually a very good case. But there may be a better explanation. I have not seen one yet, and none of you guys are supplying one. You just don’t like this one because it does not suit your worldview.
That’s my point of my original comment.
Not one of you “skeptics” have shown me any such argument, in spite of my request that you do so. The “best”, the very best argument so far put is that it is on catalyst, the ABC.
You don’t like the the explanation bvecause it does not suit your “skeptic” prejudices.
At the risk of appearing rude,
Put up or shut up.
08
You first …
This site has a huge amount of observational data that has been put up over a number of years. That goes for other sites such as Tallbloke’s Talkshop and Real Science.
By the way Phillip, we are referring to observational science. Models do not count as they are by definition confirmation bias regardless of how many terraflops of CPU cycles are used to run them.
Also true science can never prove a proposition to be true, it can only prove a proposition to be false. Which is why alarmism is dogma and not science, because the proposition that we are headed toward Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming is not provable. No amount moving the goal posts or changing the game alters the fact the observations we have from history is that warming is good for humans and the biosphere and cold is bad for everything.
The CAGW cult is trying to convince us that a unproveable non-problem requires collectivist control over everything.
If you want to worry about something, worry about a cold period. In the past that has resulted in famines and the collapse of cultures. Much of the wheat producing areas of Canada and Siberia are marginal and we will loose that food production capacity if there are a significant drop in ambient temperatures over the coming decades.
By the way, the best skill available for a society to solve a problem is adaptability. The best way to have an adaptable society is to have one where centralised control is limited as much as possible and the reliance on the individual is maximised.
50
That’s a lovely, emotive argument Philip.
The truth however is that we skeptics know where all the bullshit comes from, so we can easily dismiss it out of hand.
We also understand how difficult it is for you and why you must so vigorously defend the warmist stance: You come from a scientific background. You would probably lose most of your friends and whatever standing you have should you come over to the dark side, become a true skeptic and admit that AGW theory is a crock.
Think about it.
30
“The truth however is that we skeptics know where all the bullshit comes from, so we can easily dismiss it out of hand…should you come over to the dark side, become a true skeptic…”
And thus does a “skeptic” demonstrate his concept of “true skepticism.”
03
Truthseeker, the links you put up as counterargument on antarctic sea ice are to the arctic.
03
Philip, you have severe comprehension problems. Why should we even BOTHER with anything that sites like SkS have to say when they have historically been full of BS and dishonesty? Skepticism does not even come into it, some people value their own time.
20
May I suggest that while you grapple with notions of true or untrue scepticism, you’ll need to also accommodate the growing credibility gap of alarmist AGW promotion.
10
One of my colleagues, who is a deeper thinker than I, recently observed that Philip, like a lot of “journeymen scientists”, have a proficient ability in a specialised area, some have a high proficiency in that area, and a few may be considered experts in their specialisation.
Based on this world view, they assume that all of science works in the same way, and therefore uncritically accept what other specialists say, without question, especially if they are acknowledged as experts, in their particular field.
This is what appears to underpin Philip’s high participation rate on this thread. We are seen as attacking his ordered view of the scientific community; something he feels the need to defend, because it is part of his security.
I will not not occur to Philip, to recognise that many of the commentators here do not share that world view, and do not see Science as an ordered collection of specialities.
Rather, the majority of commentators here have a very wide range of general knowledge and experience that they can bring to bear on each problem. And, from that point of view, climate science stand apart from the rest of the scientific continuum, in that it has clearly defined boundaries, that are mandated by politics, and not by general scope of interest of the participants.
As such, it is obviously a faux science, and it is that idea, that we are actually debating with Philip, and his ilk.
As I said, she is a deeper thinker than I.
30
RW,
We are talking about your wife right? They are smarter than us at most things.
Cheers
00
Philip,
The arguments you make are spurious and contain no content. The links I supplied are doorways.
As Morphius says to Neo in the Matrix …
I can only show you the door. You have to walk through it.
00
Crakar,
No, the colleague to which I refer, is not my wife, thank deity. But she is a polymath, and multilingual.
And, she can put eight rounds of 9mm full metal, into a 1 inch grouping at 25 yards, in less than 5 seconds. I have watched her do it.
No wonder she has never married. 🙂
10
RW,
Yes but think of the advantages, your well learned friend would play Battle Field 4 with me instead of complaining “are you playing that kids game again?”
Of course you would need to tread carefully or you may wake up one day with a gaping chest wound. I know see why you keep your Heckler Koch under your desk 🙂
00
RW,
Yes but think of the advantages, your well learned friend would play Battle Field 4 with me instead of complaining “are you playing that kids game again?”
Of course you would need to tread carefully or you may wake up one day with a gaping chest wound. I now see why you keep your Heckler Koch under your desk 🙂
00
Victoria is experiencing one of those global warming cold snaps right now.
211
Feels like its coming off the sea ice.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-217.51,-37.53,805
90
Jo could have pointed out that the models can’t even predict anything about the single most influential global climate affecting phenomena , the ENSO .
Six months ahead the models can’t predict if there will be an ENSO event
Four months ahead they aren’t sure what phase an ENSO event will take, El Nino or La Nina.
Six weeks ahead and the models can’t tell if the event will be strong or weak
One month ahead and the models cant say when the event will start.
When the event starts the models can’t say how strong it will be.
A month after it has supposedly started the models aren’t sure if they have an ENSO event in any case.
Or at least thats the history of the present and a couple of past model predicted ENSO events.
But if they exclude or sufficiently adjust, krige, infill, zombie, estimate the 1930’s,40’s, 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s weather data enough they can predict more extremes in future weather events all due to some small additions to a minor atmospheric gas called CO2, increases that are now being questioned as to the real sources of most of that gas due to increasingly doubted data on the true origins and sources, the still not known natural emission sources and the unknown amounts from those sources of CO2 plus the still unknown sinks for CO2 and how much CO2 is absorbed by those sinks.
[ Yeh! the NCDC does all of that adjusting and etc to 50 or a hundred year old data to get the results wanted and they admit it ; ref; Climate Etc blog; Understanding adjustments to temperature data plus all 2044 comments on this single Climate Etc post ]
Now lets see from the abstract’
“Projections” & “projected increases” x 4
“projected changes ”
“projected asymmetry”
“appear robust”
“assessment of”
“statistically grounded perspectives on projected changes”
“Magnitude of the projected asymmetry depends significantly on region, season, land-ocean contrast, and climate model variability as well as whether the extremes of consideration are seasonal minima or maxima events.”
Translation; We have all these variables so we not sure on what we are actually trying to say and we are not at all sure as to whether temperatures will go up or down or where or when or if this might happen or if it will.
Poofshe!!
212
If a thousand climate scientists banged away on a thousand computers eventually they will produce the datasets of ACORN.
132
Nah, the law of the pseudo scientific forest is all data will be ‘squirrelled’ away.
40
So Yonnie do you then employ the monkeys and lock the climate modeling scientists up in the zoo as an exhibit of a protected at great expense species that is heading towards extinction as they fail to adapt to the changing scientific and public climate.
Probably a good course to take as the cost of peanuts and type writers for the monkeys would be miniscule compared to the costs of grants and super computers for those climate modeling scientists.
And we can safely say the results from the monkeys and their typewriters would not be discernibly different from those of the climate modeling scientists. and their super computers and climate models.
81
…why did the chicken cross the road? Climate change!
110
Everybody knows you fix the models
Everybody knows of Climategate
Everybody knows you want more taxes
Everybody knows you’re on the take
Everybody knows it’s all concocted
And your data’s all been doctored
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows.
251
I recall a quote from a Russian scientist working in the Arctic – I think it was in ‘National Geographic’ magazine.
He remarked that climate researchers should get out of the office more.
The computer-modelled doubleplusgood duckspeaking (with apologies to George Orwell!) that passes for science here clearly proves the Russian to be correct.
110
….and this appears in NATURE?
Jo, I like your remark about the ‘formerly great science journal.’
How true. How did junk like this get published in Nature?
111
The claim that 60% of geoscientists and engineers do not support AGW is based on a survey of those employed in Canada’s mining industry. On that basis I am surprised that it is only 60% (and engineers are not scientists).
The petition of 31,487 “scientists” is a project of Frederick Seitz, a free market, anti regulation ideologue who as the book Merchants of Doubt points out has been using precisely the same tactics when working for industry in the smoking, acid rain, and ozone depletion campaigns.
It was launched with a phony “research paper” tricked up to look like a peer reviewed article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. PNAS repudiated the attempted fraud in the strongest terms.
The petition has been collecting signatures since 1998. Signatories are only required to have (or claim) a BSc degree or higher qualification. Possession of such degrees does not qualify someone for the description “scientist” unless they are engaged in research.
The website does not explain how it verifies the claimed qualifications or identities of the signatories. Joke names such as Geri Halliwell (aka Ginger Spice) have appeared on the list.
The largest field of signatories, over 10,000, are engineers and over 2000 are medical practitioners. Generally these people are not scientists.
There is no provision for those who may have signed since 1998, but have changed there stance in the ensuing 16 years of accumulating evidence to have their names removed. I have changed my views since 1998.
Indeed the website says that it marks the names of those who have died (and therefore unable to review their position) with an asterisk.
See my comment below. You remarks are irrelevant, out of date and incorrect. — Jo
435
“Philip Shehan”,
Quit your BS sunshine.
NOBODY is listening !
165
And yet here you are, responding. As for Griss…
420
And so far 10 people have listened enough to not like what I have written.
422
Hardly.
Some trolls just get their obligatory red check, without the pain of reading their rubbish.
164
Yes john, I have frequently remarked on the practice of people automatically thumbs downing posts from people they have identified as idealogical enemies. They don’t even like simple thank yous from me to skeptics for providing information.
Some people have answered these remarks from me by saying that I should not be thin skinned at being upset by this practice and it only encourages them. They are quite wrong. I smile inwardly and delight in drawing attention to it.
I said the other day that I do not routinely call people here stupid. At the time I thought that this is a clear and entirely justified exception.
And these MORONS call themselves “SKEPTICS”
210
Yep, I constantly get red thumbs from MORONS.. 🙂
And I laugh at them, as I do at you.
and I KNOW I am well and truly under your skin, and enjoying every minute of it. 🙂
82
Think outside the square Philip.
This has nothing to do with ideology, even if that notion fits your own ideology . . which is a bit revealing and of circular logic all on it’s own, I think you’d agree.
But no, if Al Gore were posting here, he’d likely get some thumbs down as well and it’s not because of some perceived idealogical difference, but because he’s a BS artist.
Oh dear . . time to think outside that square again.
I wouldn’t seek to describe yourself as a moron, but you appear to not realise what the argument is about. Scepticism is a cornerstone of science and I’m wondering why you wouldn’t embrace it. Could that not be ideology at play.
90
Touchy about the little thumbs? I would say the one going off on little red thumbs is more the moron than anyone who has a disagreement with the god of red thumbs.
20
Make that 27 people.
211
No, make that in excess of 30, and still counting … 🙂
Poor Philip. Everybody is out of step apart from him.
60
For all Brian’s scientific ‘credentials’, he still hasn’t worked out that the more he whinges about red thumbs, the more he gets.
40
43 now that i gave him one,
Heywood perhaps Brian is using a flawed model to predict the red thumb count?
40
Heywood, I have said more than once that although we routinely disagree and you can be quite rude on occasion I consider you to be no fool.
On this occasion your reading comprehension skills are lettting you down so your post looks a bit silly.
I wrote:
“Some people have answered these remarks from me by saying that I should not be thin skinned at being upset by this practice and it only encourages them. They are quite wrong. I smile inwardly and delight in drawing attention to it.”
04
Crakar, it’s John’s hypothesis, not mine but I think it subsantially correct. And again, these people call themselves “skeptics”.
john robertson
August 2, 2014 at 12:32 am · Reply
Hardly.
Some trolls just get their obligatory red check, without the pain of reading their rubbish.
05
To be honest Phillip it does not really matter whether a group of scientists have a shared view to form a consensus on an issue or not because a little while ago we had an election where a majority of the people came together with a shared view and we voted in a government to reject all the consensus science surrounding AGW.
Now about that catalyst program regarding the Antarctic ice do you really accept the view they share? I am in the engineering field not scientific but still to be honest i have seen conspiracy theories constructed stronger than that.
Cheers
50
Guys, I just posted this comment below:
“On those red thumbs again.
Thus far 5people don’t like the fact that I have simply presented evidence that I undertook a PhD in chemistry.”
Crakar you are talking politics rather than science, but to say that the whole election was decided because the punters rejected “all the consensus science surrounding AGW” really is just a bit of a stretch.
See my detailed response to Rereke (or was it Raven? – So many critics to answer, so little time.) on the catalyst program just posted. (May be awaiting moderation)
05
PS Crakar, If you are correct on that, according to the polls it looks like the punters are reconsidering the science.
05
Phillip,
Agreed one is politics the other is science and yet both are driven by consensus. The political consensus outweighs the scientific one (at least in this case). Therefore it is irrelevant whether 97% or indeed just 3% believe in such and such as it all matters none now. Punters reconsidering the science LOL if only that where true, sadly they vetoed the carbon tax because they saw a dollar to be made not because of some higher level of learning. I know people that still think Al Gore told the truth when he showed them a cartoon of angry co2 men acting like blankets in the atmosphere “trapping heat”.
Re catalyst:
For us to first establish the Antarctic is warming we must first establish the rise in temps, however we only have a few stations scattered around the coast and not one inland above 2500M ASL, so how do we know it has warmed? Well we use the GRACE sats to calculate an accurate (three decimal place) temp profile……………………and the conspircay theory gets even worse as we continue.
Cheers
30
Really? So why do you even mention red thumbs?
Philip Shehan
August 1, 2014 at 9:05 pm · Reply
And so far 10 people have listened enough to not like what I have written.
——————————————————————————–
Philip Shehan
August 2, 2014 at 10:29 am · Reply
Make that 27 people.
——————————————————————————–
Philip Shehan
August 4, 2014 at 2:20 pm · Reply
On those red thumbs again.
Thus far 5people don’t like the fact that I have simply presented evidence that I undertook a PhD in chemistry.
——————————————————————————–
Trust me, the more you mention it, the more people will give you.
I would suppose that a couple of red thumbs is better than just being banned like many of us have on more ‘warm’ blogs.
30
“So why do you even mention red thumbs?”
Heywood, for the third time,
“Some people have answered these remarks from me by saying that I should not be thin skinned at being upset by this practice and it only encourages them. They are quite wrong. I smile inwardly and delight in drawing attention to it.”
I once got red thumbs for thanking you for answering a question I asked. What sort of idiot does not like that?
I refer to those idiots who red thumb anything by people they identify as ideological enemies regardless of content. red thumbs by people who have read a comment and do not agree are another matter (although why people bother is beyond me. Anonymous feed back without reasons is useless. But I suppose I should thumbs up those battling against the tide here who I agree with.
And as I said, these people, in all seriousness call themselves “skeptics”. They give real skeptics, including intelligent people who do not accept AGW a bad name.
04
“Some trolls just get their obligatory red check, without the pain of reading their rubbish.”
Which is pretty much the case with all of your posts.
Anyone who has been here for more than a few weeks KNOWS they are, to 95% probability, a bunch of meaningless, irrelvant twaddle.
30
The whole world is morons because Phily said so. Love the megalomania.
20
Again, you have NOTHING but AGW propaganda BS !
It is what YOU DO.
It is what YOU ARE !!!!!!!
156
Hi Phil:
(pointed out long ago by ferd berple)
231
Phil is perhaps labouring under the mistaken assumption that all ‘Climate Scientists’ are qualified Atmospheric Physicists.
They are not: The ranks include Oceanographers, Marine Studies Professors, Paleoclimatologists, Physicists, Mathematicians, ecologists …. etc etc … (and not many of them are probably fully qualified “computer modelling experts”.
170
markx, I labour under no such misapprehension.
A climate scientist is someone who undertakes research in the science of climate. These people come from a variety of backgrounds.
At the risk of upsetting Griss by refering to my own experience, I undertook a PhD in Chemistry, and ended up in biomedical research.
Nor do all climate studies involve “modelling”.
Nor do I think that people have to be practicing scientists to be able to comment meaningfully on climate science. It only requires an ability to reason and understand scientific argument.
524
Gees, there you go big-noting yourself again.
PATHETIC !!!!!!
107
In Defence of Phil
He is presenting a warmist point of view, Klimatariat orthodoxy. Its important for the blog to have opposing ideas, so that we can sharpen our thinking through debate. If you lose your resident troll then you ain’t got nuffin.
61
Its just that he is like a that bit at the end of an LP on a manually operated turntable.
A meaningless repetition of nothing.
72
That’s his defensive strategy in an environment where he is greatly outnumbered and Phil is probably unaware that he is doing it.
Resident trolls are hard to come by, let’s not squander what we have. With the use of wit and wisdom we should be able to overpower this free radical and get a few laffs along the way.
60
Thank you el gordo but I object to the use of the term troll.
If as you correctly say, any worthwhile discussion blog needs different viewpoints, those who politely put reasoned arguments that are in the minority are not trolls. (I reserve the right to indulge the occasional impolite retaliatory head kicking directed at serial abusers. See #13.1.2.1.1 above. My restraint with respect to Griss is in recognition that even skeptics here are aware of his mode of scientific discussion.)
28
“impolite retaliatory head kicking directed at serial abusers”
in that respect you are like a blind man trying to pin a tail on a non-existant monkey. !!
And I choose my mode to match yours. You produce NO science, just rubbish propaganda and manipulated data.
I am glad to see I am constantly in your mind.
Keep thinking of me, dear. 🙂
63
Agreed, the term ‘troll’ has probably passed its used by date. I’ve been banned all over the place for being a right wing troll, so I can appreciate what life is like living on the edge, outside groupthink of a particular blog.
So what is your honest opinion of the plateau in temperatures?
61
el gordo, the current plateau is probably real, but as I have said before, the observed temperature is the sum of natural and anthropogenic forcings. For starters the 11 year solar cycle is currently in a low phase.
The rate of temperature change, be it positive negative or “flat” varies over the short term, and the temperature record for the last century and a half is littered with such short term variations, but underlying these variations is a long term increase in temperature with increasing CO2 concentration.
07
I agree, that there is an apparent correlation between changes in temperature and changes in CO2 concentration. But if you are going to make that statement in the way you did, you also need to demonstrate cause and effect, and since it is cyclic, account for any overlapping phase differences between the cyclic variations.
If A and B are related in a cyclic but phase differentiated way, you need to demonstrate that A->B, rather than B->A.
This discussion has not been held, for climate change, as far as I am aware, outside of the purview of propaganda.
50
Rereke, I am not going to go over all the evidence for a causal effect between the anthropogenic increase CO2 concentration and atmospheric temperature. I could not go over all the evidence if I knew it and wanted too.
This is not “cyclic”.
Rereke, I have just commented to Heywood that although we disagree and he is occasionally very rude, I have said more than once that he is no fool but his comment was plain silly.
I put you in the same category, but to claim that this discussion has not been held is something more than silly.
I don’t believe you are serious.
05
Do do not have to. That theory has already been falsified by the drop in atmospheric water vapor – it relies on an increase. Let go sonny, let go…..
30
Philip,
Surely you have seen, “An Inconvenient Truth”, in which Al Gore claims that temperature follows CO2?
He points to the fact that there appears to be a correlation, in the two cyclic phenomena; CO2 levels and temperature; and then states quite categorically that temperature follows CO2, and he carries the audience along with that statement.
He is a consummate showman, and very slick with the patter, and he invites the audience to see the relationship he wants them to see. In a metaphorical sense, he wants them to follow the cups, and not see that he is removing the pea, off the edge of the table, whilst they follow those cups.
So does CO2 drive temperature, or does temperature drive CO2?
I can demonstrate in the laboratory that warming carbonated water will outgas CO2. I did that at high school. But demonstrating the method by which CO2 can cause ocean temperatures to rise, is a little harder to do empirically. I go with Ockhams Razor.
But, if you are correct, and it is not cyclic, then you are saying, in affect, that Al Gore was wrong, when he presented that graph? I would be interested to see your response.
Oh, and you need to answer Backslider’s point, which is kind of important, seeing as how you are the self proclaimed expert on this thread … Over to you.
40
Philip #13.4.1.1.3
>”For starters the 11 year solar cycle is currently in a low phase.”
Rubbish. Did you not learn ANYTHING from the recent solar discussions here at JN?
Solar cycle 24 is currently at MAXIMUM or thereabouts:
‘Solar Terrestrial Activity Report’
http://www.solen.info/solar/
What has entered a “low phase” (as you put it) is the bicentennial component of solar activity, explanatory text and graphs of that here:
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html
Good-bye global warming for the rest of this century at least.
10
Philip –
I have to call you out here. You say you “undertook” a PhD in chemistry. But I have considerable doubts as to whether you obtained it, judging by your comment at 12.7.1 (and my comment to that comment).
161
LevelGaze and Griss.
Here is the first paper I wrote while undertaking my PhD studies.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022236485902641
19
Not in the least bit interested in your grand-standing !!
Bet you are now tracking hits. !
53
Griss, It was a direct answer to a direct challenge.
04
On those red thumbs again.
Thus far 5people don’t like the fact that I have simply presented evidence that I undertook a PhD in chemistry.
15
Because its IRRELVANT grand-standing. !!!
30
Oops, up two for my reply.
04
While you are talking about climate modelling Philip, why don’t you come out and admit that they have failed miserably? Why pretend that they are of any worth?
122
Well, he’d be better described as a ‘researcher’, then.
After all, it’s not like he’s carried out any experimental science.
50
Nonsense! Unfortunately you’re hard-wired to this sophistry.Conned and brain-washed.
31
Phill,
It’s a consensus after all – everyone is entitled to an opinion…
50
Philip Shehan,
Just a question, why are the top bankers, movers & shakers running an organisation like this?
World Resources Institute
Even Al Gore is there, can’t you see the public scorn of this sort of agency.
A few questions about WRI
1. Are they in it for the money?
2. Are they qualified to run such an organisation?
3. Do you think their Experts are qualified in Climate Change?
Have a look at this group “The Experts of WRI”
Many are operating in 3rd world countries, it looks like exploitation to me rather than concern of the worlds people?
WRI’s 1st GOAL is:
So the PROOF is there for all in this group, none are doing it for money eh?
Philip, please look closely at each of the Directors of WRI and see the MONEY pouring into their bank accounts.
This isn’t about models, theories or even belief
IT IS simply GREED
171
Dave: So what?
Why is it that only free market think tanks and industry groups should involve themselves in this subject?
320
Any billionaire, whether of the left or right, is by definition a dishonest scoundrel who would sell his own grandmother into prostitution if it would improve his quarterly profits.
Alarmists seem to naively consider that only their billionaires are philanthropists interested in saving humanity. Skeptics on the other hand harbour no such illusions. Wake up, for god sake. George Soros, the Rockefellers and the like are complete swine whose only interests are to extricate any wealth accumulated by the middle classes and redirect it into their own pockets.
I don’t know what motivates you to advocate on their behalf, but I regard them as no better than any of the previous fascist dictators throughout history who aspire to control humanity under the pretext of molding human society in their image. They can only achieve this through subjugating, enslaving, impoverishing or murdering (either indirectly or directly) large swathes of the human race.
Have you not learned the lessons of history, or do you think this particular brand of dictator will somehow turn out differently than all the others in the past? Not one of these bastards will practice the draconian lifestyle they preach for everyone else, yet this elitism doesn’t want to make you hurl?
I prefer to stand arm in arm with the common man against such people, whose position of privilege usually owes more to the level of unscrupulousness into which they are prepared to descend, rather than any actual merit or intellect with which they are endowed.
213
Phill,
Name one free-market think tank or indusstry group involved in the subject?
60
Sorry James. I thought I answered this but the comment appears to have been lost. That was a short response. mentioning only Australia’s own Institute of Public affairs.
As you have been patient I will gve a more detailed answer here.
Three very well respected scintists including Fred Sykes, Springer, (I forget the third) founded a think tank to fight the anti star wars scintists in the Reagan era, The George C Marshall Innstitute, The cold war one, these free market idealogues and their Institute turned fighting the smoking, acid rain, ozone depletion battles in favour of the free market and in opposition to government regulation. In fact the strategy for each of these was exactly the same as they adopted on fighting AGW.
I was about to mention the book the Merchants of Doubt on this but could not remember the authors so googled it and came up with this run down which gives you the picture. soi will finish here, with the closing comment that the Marshall Institute has spawned many imitators, including Australia’s IPA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
05
PS James, You can see Oserkes present a summary of the book here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0
You can skip the chairman’s intro and the the question session at the end, and even the bit at the end of the talk where she reads a long passage from the end of the book.
06
Sorry about the typos, a lot of comments to answer and I am being a bit sloppy.
07
“I am being a bit sloppy”
First your maths, then your chemistry, now your typing. !!
First two… more than a bit sloppy !
40
This “percentage of scientists think” is all BS. I would guess that 97% of scientists have a high school understanding of what is going on. I had a few (too many) beers with a couple of friends about 5 years ago. We had pleasant conversations about religion, abortion and politics until someone brought up the weather. These two had PhDs in Chemistry but neither of them knew that the oceans had a pH of about 8 and that there was no claim that the oceans would become acidic.
They believed because it was “science”. You would have thought that it would be second nature to check.
132
Vic, The oceans being mildly alkaline is a piece of trivia.
The important thing is that with increasing CO2 concentration, dissolved CO2 is converted into carbonic acid and lowers the pH. This has consequences for marine life.
“Acidification” by any other name, whether neutralization, lowering of the pH, reduction in alkalinity etc. has the same chemical and biological consequences.
327
Philip –
Were you never as a child taught the chemical mechanism of “buffering”?
181
Levelgaze,
You are inviting me to respond in such a way as to get another bucket of abuse from Griss.
Let me just say that I am familiar with the concept, which operates within certain chemical limits.
319
Phil,
………….and those “chemical limits” are reached at 400ppm?, 600ppm?, 800ppm? You must be kidding.
81
It was cheap propaganda. Less basic would have been a better but less scary description. Even the twit who came up with it regrets ever describing it as acidification of the oceans but it still continues.
The consequences are bugger all.
121
Vic, since the addition of CO2 is to in effect add carbonic acid to the ocean, calling the process acidification seems fair enough. If it was called decreasing the basicity, skeptics would acuse warmists of scaring the public into thinking that the ocen floor was being lowered.
Anyway, as I said, it is the effects which matter, not what you call it.
The ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from 8.25 to 8.14 since industrialization.
That does not sound like much but as you are aware the pH scale is logarithmic, and a drop of 0.1 pH units represents an increase of 30% in hydronium ion (H3O+)concentration. If CO2 concentration continues as expected, a further drop of 0.3 to 0.5 units is expected by 2100.
This has consequences for the dissolution of calcium carbonate skeletons of plankton and other marine organisms which are the basis of the ocean food chain, among other harmful effects.
321
So Philip, what happened back when CO2 levels were significantly higher than today. We do not need to go very far back in history to see levels of say 600ppm or more: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/nova_past_climate1.gif
I think you will find that plankton did just fine.
You are aware that CO2 has been at historically low levels, to the point almost of threatening the existence of all life on this planet, are you not?
140
The world biosphere has been living on the equivalent of old style POW rations for such a long time.
Some plants even managed to evolve to cope with this basic lack of CO2, by added extra processes into their systems, that’s how long CO2 has been in short supply.
Even our current level is still dangerously low.
The ideal would be 1000ppm +/- 200.
Unfortunately, even with our help, it is highly unlikely to ever get there again.
This is the really MORONIC thing about the CO2 fraud, it is deliberately attempting to curtail the massive world benefits of raise CO2..
…. thankfully with very little effect.:-)
152
*crickets*
60
Ok Philip, clearly you do not wish to reply. Let me show you the insignificance of your ignorance: Plankton has been around for 500 million years +. Do you really think something terrible is going to happen?
71
Oh! We’ll let you put it another way: Tell us Philip what have atmospheric CO2 levels been over that period of 500 million years?
61
The log for 8.25 is 0.9159
The log for 8.14 is 0.9106
Don’t rely on Phlogiston Phil’s calculations.
40
Graeme pH is already a logarithmic measurement. A pH of 8.25 means that the hydrogen (or more correctly hydronium ion) concentration is 10 to the power of minus 8.25.
You need to take the antilog to get the concentration.
A knock at the door signalling pizza and footy night may interupt my doing the calculation.
5.623 x 10-9.
for ph 8.14:
Damn there’s the door.
Before I start eating:
7.244 x 10-9
That’s a 28.8 % increase in hydrogen ion concentration.
Gotta get my slice before Ray scoffs the lot.
16
And requires something like another 1500% increase before it neutralises.
BTW, that 8.25pH is a mythical unmeasured, unsubstantiated figure, made up by Calderia using a model.
Caldeira employed such a formula to conclude that the pH of the oceans had changed by about 0.15 of a unit since 1750.
He assumed, without providing any empirical evidence, that the pre-industrial pH was 8.25.
ie he made a GUESS that suited his agenda.
Only a total moron would accept that sort of junk science.
Only a total moron would think we have a capacity to measure ocean pH to one decimal place even now.
The ocean pH change and “de-caustification” is a total mock-up, because the alarmists have nothing else to work with.
Note: The concept of pH was arrived at in about 1910 iirc.. Sorenson ?
61
Furthermore, the pH of sea water can vary considerably even in one area, by as much as 0.3pH and even more between different areas.
Places near river openings can actually have pH > 7 because rivers can go as low as around 5.5. Frogs can tolerate down to pH=5
The formulas used by Caldeira were based on PURE water chemistry, …..but sea water is NOT pure water,
It has MASSIVE buffering effects because of old seashells, limestone and other calcium and similar compounds present in the marine environment.
Most marine creatures developed in times of MUCH greater atmospheric CO2, and THRIVED,…
…because they mostly live on sea vegetation and algae of one sort or another, which of course THRIVES in a higher CO2 environment.
61
whoops, sign the wrong way around
should read… Places near river openings can actually have pH < 7.
51
Slight error in 13.7.1.2.2.
I’m sure someone will correct it for me. 😉
30
My mistake, I shouldn’t post from a hotel lobby.
On the other hand I don’ t accept that that the anti log applies to a reciprocal. I calculate the hydrogen ion concentration to have moved increased less than 2%. But what does it matter, your 8.25 figure is entirely fictional. It was the result of a computer calculation based on the assumption that the oceans were becoming acid. The usual rubbish assumption that only the gullible accept.
40
No problem Graeme. Sorry trying to get through a lot of rplies here but I will just say I don’t understand what you mean by antilog applying to a reciprocal.
I confess that although I knew the oceans were alkaline and that they were becoming less so (to keep everyone happy), I simply googled to get a figure and picked that one, so I don’t know how reliable it is, but there are many others by different methods and all show a lowering of the pH.
So I disagree that you have to be gullible to think that the pH is falling. And it is after all basic (no pun intended) chemistry.
04
Above pH7 you would say that [HO-] has dropped about 0.1% going from pH of 8.25 to 8.14. Ask a chemist.
And nobody has measured the mean pH of the oceans today to that sort of precision.
50
And certainly not 50 odd years ago. IIRC, the 8.25 was derived from “a model” .. enough said. :lol
From Prof. Brice Bosnich
“There is a mathematical relationship between pressures of CO2 (pCO2) and the resulting pH of pure water. Caldeira employed such a formula to conclude that the pH of the oceans had changed by about 0.15 of a unit since 1750. He assumed, without providing any empirical evidence, that the pre-industrial pH was 8.25. This work has been challenged because it is not consistent with observation”
“The alarmist argument asserts that were the oceans to become progressively more acidic from increasing amounts of carbon dioxide released in the air, the exo-skeletons of organisms (corals, shells, and other calciferous organisms) might be dissolved,….. there is no conclusive evidence that this process is occurring to any measurable extent,”
Seashell creation is a ACTIVE process carried out by the inhabitant.
When the inhabitant dies, the seashell either becomes a new home, or becomes parts of a natural and enormous ocean buffering effect.
Seashells have been around for many millions of years, when the CO2 concentration was many times higher than the dangerously low levels we currently have.
73
Then of course you have the NATURAL increase of plankton as they are able to take benefit from any increased CO2 level.
That’s what happens when you increase CO2, the biosphere expands… NATURALLY !!!
52
Vic, at the risk of upsetting people, my PhD was in chemistry.
04
I’m gonna call you out on this one Philip. I am getting very tired of you making statements then refusing to follow up on them.
You mention plankton, which has been around for 500 million years +. Thus you must also look at atmospheric CO2 levels over this entire period. We find that levels were far higher than today, yet what happened to the plankton and other sea creatures which have been around since the year dot? That’s right, they survived quite happily.
While you are looking at that, perhaps you can also tell us what happened with climate.
I also expect you to outline for us all a scientific experiment mimicking the PH drop you speak of in which you can show the dissolution of calcium carbonate skeletons. I know you cannot.
40
Oh… I was also wondering if you could explain to us how yabbies, fresh water snails, mussels etc. manage to have calcium carbonate skeletons, considering the PH of fresh water.
40
Phill,
Increasing CO2 will increase the temperature of the oceans releasing CO2 – where will it ever end?
103
I’m pretty sure the atmosphere, at any temperature, can not warm the oceans.
So….. We’re all gonna DIE!!!!!!!
10
No, acidification means “making it acidic”. It will have to go through a base state in order to get to that, so “acidic” is not the opposite of “alkaline”, because a third state “neutral” is involved.
Any sane person would expect a Chemist to have known that.
30
Actually, I like to use the word “Caustic” rather than “alkaline”.
Once CO2 gets passed the enormous buffering effects in seawater, it may have the possibility of making the seawater LESS CAUSTIC.
See, I can even use alarmista wishy-washy text. 🙂
31
I can live with “Caustic”. By tomorrow, I will agree with you. By next week, it will have been my idea.
50
I beat you to it here several months ago 😛
Re. Pip’s assertion that marine life are threatened with the dissolution of calcium carbonate skeletons (keenly awaiting his replies), I think I have a far better chance of doing that with a caustic solution rather than acid….
30
Fellas, I have not answered on the effect of lower pH (are we all happy with that terminology?) on marine life because I recalled seeing an article with empirical data showing the effects on antarctic krill but did no know where to find it. Meanwhile on buffering I came across this:
Ocean pH is regulated by a process called ‘buffering’. Hydrogen ions reacts with calcium carbonate (both limestone and chalk are types of calcium carbonate). Continued buffering relies on there being enough chalk in the water to cope with the increased levels of carbon dioxide being dissolved into the seas, but this is a slow process and happens over thousands of years. So the rate of buffering at the moment does not match the rate of carbon dioxide addition and so the ocean buffering system is not able to prevent the rapid decrease in pH that we are seeing in the oceans today.
There is also a link within the link to the effects on krill but not the one I was looking for.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/2011/04/12/ocean-acidification/
05
Not on the effects on exoskeletons but relevant.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1937.html
05
“So the rate of buffering at the moment does not match the rate of carbon dioxide addition “
No proof given, just the opinion of a rabid greenie trying to push an agenda.
He also repeats the UNPROVEN change of pH since before it could be measured.
And you seriously accept that as “wurd” ?
I thought you were once a scientist….. many, many years ago, obviously !!!
30
We are not seeing a rapid decrease in PH. It’s actually quite impossible to measure this – PH varies so widely and can change on a daily basis depending on where you are measuring.
40
Philip,
I would like you to sit and ponder for a moment where we are today, and in light of predictions of dire catastrophes and tipping points by alarmists, positive feedbacks of water vapour causing catastrophic warming, predictions of extreme weather events far and above that which would normally occur in the regular course of events, all of which have failed to materialize, and then tell me that you honestly believe that it is not scientifically dishonest to claim increasing certainty that CAGW is real and a certain danger to humanity. Is this really the way you believe scientists should behave?
Do you really remain convinced that those driving the climate debate don’t have a hidden political, activist or financial incentive to stall, delay or otherwise deceive in order to desperately keep alive their precious pet theory that has delivered them monetary gain, fame and influence?
And given that observations will likely continue to diverge from the predicted path to hell in a hand basket, just how long do you think they can safely maintain the pretense of certainty and deny they are in error until calls for them to be subject to the full extent of the law on the basis of financial losses incurred by various businesses and entire industries as a result of negligent and/ or fraudulent advice they have given? Don’t you think the time is now to honestly state that climate modeling is fraught with uncertainty and that CAGW theory does not appear to have stood up to scrutiny, and has poor predictive ability and may possibly prove to be completely erroneous in its putative effect on our planetary climate?
250
Winston, I dispute that all the predictions of AGW have failed to materialize. The general thrust, that increasing CO2 concentrations are increasing global temperatures is extremely well established. Of course there is a great deal of uncertainty in many of the finer details of where, when, and how much. That is why research continues.
We are yet to reach the 2 C higher than pre-industrial temperatures which most climatologists nominate as the point at which the real problems will begin, so the absence of “catastrophes” definitavely attributable to AGW is no surprise.
There are at least as many reasons to argue that the “skeptic” argument is being run by self interested groups to suit their own agenda as to argue that AGW is the product of such malfeasance.
Contrary to what is regularly put about most scientists accept AGW and it is not in their narrow self interest to do so.
You see, research funds are finite. The Australian Research Council for instance has a certain budget per year to distribute according the merit of submitted grant applications.
Every buck that goes to climate science means a buck less available to research in other areas. Self interest would lead non climate scientists to debunk this area of research so they could get their hands on the money. They do not do so because they analyse the science and accept that it is sound and worth further funding.
I have commented on models and temperature trends and given examples in other comments here.
325
No it’s not, not at all. Where do you get this from?
One of the core tenets of AGW theory is increased water vapor. The NOAA in fact shows us that water vapor has fallen. Without this “forcing” AGW theory falls flat on it’s face.
191
*crickets*
Philip – why is it that whenever you are asked something of significance you simply ignore it?
You claim:
Yet ignore the crucial point that ATMOSPHERIC WATER VAPOR HAS DECLINED, as attested to by the NOAA.
So again, where do you get this false belief from? What in the World supports it in your mind?
50
Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
~John Kenneth Galbraith
🙂
20
Phill,
The 2C higher than pre-industrial revolution temperatures?
That would have been the mini-ice age Phill, it was in all the lithographs at the time.
100
Philip
The old 2C “magical figure” — it was just invented for political reasons and has nothing to do with science
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html
70
The general thrush came up when the data revealed that the global temperatures would not drop but go up so the Global Cooling scare was put on ice. Since then, dodgy maths was used to cool the past to make the warming look more extreme and still the evidence is not convincing because the rate of warming was the same as prior to 1942.
The only predictive test failed. The temperatures have not gone up when the warming should have accelerated.
You still haven’t apologised for your spruiking of SS junk statistics.
101
Regardless of WHERE they are employed, it demonstrates the lie of 97% consensus. And that is the point you missed.
110
Say WHAT!
You do know that what you know as Engineering is actually “Engineering Science” and that engineering science is the master discipline for almost all the applied sciences such as Biomechanics, and Computing for example.
So ignorant of history… Every engineer on the planet is by definition a “Scientist” because they have a qualification in Engineering Science!
I await the apology for your insult.
Pistols at 30 paces is too messy, so Ill accept an apology in lieu.
80
bobl, you can call a department or course whatever you like.
Training in a science based discipline. whether it is engineering, dentistry, meteorology, medicine, pharmacy physics, chemistry geology etc etc etc does not make that the holder of that qualification a scientist.
A scientist is a person who is engaged in scientific research, the discovery of new knowledge about the world. An engineer or anyone else who engages in such research is a scientist.
Bulldust, engineers and medics must understand the established scientific knowledge on which their discipline is founded. That does not make them scientists. A scientist is engaged in adding to that body of knowledge.
07
Digging deeper are We? Who says medics and engineers don’t add to the knowledge in their respective fields? You do realize there are medical doctors and engineers working at universities and research institutions, right? Why do I even have to explain this?
40
bulldust, it is you who are digging yourself in deeper.
Warning: those who are distressed at my recounting my professional experience should cease reading now.
I am certainly aware that there are medical graduates working in universities on research projects.
I have not only worked with such people, I have supervised those undertaking post graduate degrees in the department of cncer medicine at the University Of sydney and the Department of surgery at the University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital.
Those that conduct research are acting as scientists. Those that do not are not. The scientists are are a minority of medical (and no doubt engineering) graduates.
People who undertake vocational courses do so because they wish to become medical practitioners or engineers or whatever that vocation is. During their undergraduate studies, some come to have an interest in research, and pursue that interest, usually towards a higher degree.
I was once told by a medical practitioner that those of his profession who do go into academia, taking on teaching and research and the administrative tasks that go along with it are generally considered a bit odd by their clinician collegues. They could certainly earn more treating patients than spending the time on those activities.
These days some medical practitioners will do a post graduate degree may not because they are interested in research as such, but because having that qualification is an aid to them in pursuing specialist clinical careers. It’s called credentialism. They do the course get the extra letters after their name and there ends their temporary foray into research.
Some find that a post graduate degree, where the key to success is not swotting up on the course material and the answers are not written in the back of the book, where often the problem is to work out what question you should be asking and finding an answer is not guaranteed, a difficult adjustment to make.
Many just put in the time and get the qualification and get back to their primary interest, clinical work. Others really do find that research and even teaching at least as interesting as dealing with patients (nobody likes the administrative work)and continue with research throughout their careers. But these people are a minority.
07
Philip, you said no engineers or medics are scientists. Then you stated correctly that some are. Your endless rhetoric cannot distract from that simple contradiction.
You were wrong on this point and refuse to acknowledge it.
BTW I have been in academia, government, business and self-employed. I can say that my first hand experience in each qualifies me to distinguish one from the other, and the grey zones between them. Your binary view of the world is both wrong and moot.
40
Bulldust. For the nth time.
If a person is undertaking scientific research they are doing science. If they are not they are not. Such people can have any degree or qualification you care to name or none at all.
Some people with engineering or medical degrees do original scientific research. That makes them scientists.
Some do not.
05
You seem to have a very short memory retention, I mentioned this before, at 13.12.1.3, but you didn’t appear to comprehend what I typed, so I will try again. Here is a definition that is used in most English speaking locations, other than on Planet Shehan.
scientist n. A person conducting research in or with expert knowledge of a (usu. physical or natural) science; a person using scientific methods; a student of science. [f. L. scient]
[The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 1993 Edition]
I use scientific methods, so that makes me a scientist. And I am constantly learning about new scientific developments, so that makes me a student of science. I also have expert knowledge (for which I am valued), and I conduct research for my clients, so that makes me a scientist, as well. Unless you consider wearing a white lab coat to be a prerequisite, in which case …
30
“Some people with engineering or medical degrees do original scientific research. That makes them scientists.”
So, that make you NOT a scientist. Thanks for the confirmation. 🙂
And it make me a scientist, which I already knew. Thanks.
You have done NOTHING original since you first started blogging.
Same old inherently shoddy linear trending based on corrupted dat and zero understanding.
Oh.. you did learn to use 2 sig figs instead of 3.. took you 6 months or so, iirc.
I noticed in one post you presumed to lecture others about significant figures.. roflmao !!!
20
Umm, a scientist is one who practises science
World English Dictionary
scientist (ˈsaɪəntɪst)
— n
a person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods.
Last time I looked I practised Electrical Engineering which is a profession studying and applying the sciences of Chemistry and Physics, ergo by this definition a Scientist, one who practises science. Now about that apology, come on, I’m sorry Bob, I was wrong…. you can do it Phil.
60
Yes bobl, and the practice of science is the investigation of the natural world and the formulation of new knowledge about the natural world by the scientific method.
For a very good readable introduction to the history and philosophy of science, I recommend “What is this thing called Science” by Alan Chalmers.
Very briefly, scientists study the natural world and extend scientific knowledge by observation, hypotheses, experiment formulation and testing of theories etc. (the scientific method)
Scientific knowledge pervades knowledge in our society. That does not mean that people whose jobs involve the application of scientific knowledge are scientists. That includes electricians as well as engineers.
05
By the way bobl, you wrote “So ignorant of history… Every engineer on the planet is by definition a “Scientist” because they have a qualification in Engineering Science!”
Warning: Those who are distressed by me referring to my professional qualifications should stop reading now.
Chalmers’ book on the History and Philosphy of Science is not the only book I own on this subject. I have a line of them on my shelf.
My interest in this area led me to undertake a graduate diploma in HPS while working as a research scientist.
‘Now about that apology, come on, I’m sorry Phil, I was wrong…. you can do it bobl.’
06
OK I hold a PhD in Phlangenation. This PhD was awarded to me, by my fellow Phlangenists, as meeting the required standard, whilst we were having a few beers, sitting on the end of a pier. Thus my thesis has been thoroughly pier reviewed.
English is English Philip, so you need to comply with the common usage.
I hold a degree in Military Science, which is a branch of Engineering Science. However, I do not hold an Engineering Practicing Certificate.
I cannot therefore call myself an Engineer, and I cannot advertise as being one. However, I can be a Member of an Engineering Institute, and, in fact, I am a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, even though I cannot practice as an Engineer (or even legally wire a light switch, in Australia).
You just make up egregious arguments Philip, to suit yourself.
20
No Rereke, I use scientist in the way that scientists use it, and the way every book and article I have read or written on the History and Philosophy of Science, which is the study of the theory and practice of science and scientists, and every participant in lectures, seminars and tutorials on HPS uses it.
As I noted in my comments on the qualifications of authors or research papers, whether or not you hold a PhD in Phlangenation,( and as an honourable person I am sure yours is not from some dodgy internet “university”) if you are engaged in research in Phlangenation, you are a scientist. Is that Phlangenationologist?
Yes credentialism can be a bitch. I am a biomedical research scientist, have given talks at medical conferences, supervised and given lectures to medical practitioners undertaking higher degrees, and yet I am not qualified to so much as issue a prescription for aspirin.
I do not call myself an electrical engineer, in spite of having constructed a probe for a multinuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer, and as far as light switches go, I am a lawbreaker.
06
As a post script Rereke, it occurs to me that although the description of my probe design and construction carried out before I had my PhD appeared in a peer reviewed journal, I never considered that this aspect of my work was “science”.
Certainly it was a very clever piece of work, if I do say so myself (and I do, you bet I do, but so did many others) but I did not discover anything new about the natural world in making the thing (The results obtained by using it is another matter). So as far as I am concerned this was not “science”. A clever bit of amateur electrical engineering perhaps, or just plain tinkering, but not science.
The main improvement resulted from coming across data concerning the properties of various metals with regard to the formation of eddy currents in metals exposed to a radiofrequency pulses in a magnetic field.
This causes severe problems in the nuclear magnetic resonance spectra of low frequency quadrupolar nuclei in the form of diabolical “rolling baselines” which can completely obscure a broadline signal. The usual remedy involves throwing out perhaps over 90%, even 99%, of the baby (the signal) with the bathwater (the accoustic ringing.
I came across a table giving various parameters of eddy currents for various metals. The material out which the standard commercial probe was constructed was revealed to be a particularly lousy metal in this regard. The “beta squared” value for aluminium is 0.0005. The other metals in the table had values less than 1 with the exception of stainless steel (3.61). The value for lead is 118.
It did not take a scientific genius to spot the possibilities here, and start tinkering.
With other improvements this meant that could detect a signal in 1 minute that would have taken 4 weeks to acquire with the standard set up. Like I said, a clever piece of tinkering but based entirely on the technical data in the literature so not science.
The kicker is that this was before universities and their research personel understood the importance of “intellectual property”, so I published in the open literature without taking out a patent. You would be shot for doing that these days.
06
PPS. Rereke, the “post script” remark above indicates that there is an earlier post which is , for some reason, awaiting moderation at this time.
I will also take this opportunity to reference the article on the probe. As an electrical engineer you may find it interesting, if you can get access to a non paywalled copy.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022236485903257
06
In response to your 13.10.1.3.1, (which I cannot respond to directly, because you seem to be having a good time post-scripting your postscripts).
You use the word “scientist”, to denote people who do science. Well done. Full marks.
If you say so.
But the point I was trying to make, is that the concept of Science, as a proper noun, is not actually defined, and there are grey areas between disciplines, and on the edges of disciplines, that may or may not fit your definition of science. Is the study of “out-of-body experiences”, part of science or not? Is the precision of pitch on a stainless steel bolt, a scientific question or not? From your previous comments, I would assume that they are not, from your perspective. And if so, you would be wrong, from mine.
Then we have something in common. I can’t issue a prescription either.
If you don’t hold a recognised engineering qualification, and Registration as a Practicing Engineer, then you are legally prohibited from referring to yourself as an Engineer, and you will certainly be held accountable, and liable, should somebody be injured as a result of using your probe. Even poking themselves in the eye with it, would qualify.
I would be inclined to live in fear, if I were you.
30
“If you don’t hold a recognised engineering qualification, and Registration as a Practicing Engineer, then you are legally prohibited from referring to yourself as an Engineer.”
Now here again is difference between scientists and many other professions.
Nobody licences scientists.
It is not about qualifications or whether you studied in a department that called itself Engineering Science, or did a subject called Domestic Science at school, or your job means you vae to know the scientific background knowledge behind it, be you an electrical engineer or an electrician.
A scientist is someone , anyone, who undertakes scientific research, the seeking of new knowledge about the natural world through the scientific method.
Who decides who is a scientist?
Other scientists who recognise you as such by accepting your papers for publication, listening to what you have to say at conferences, giving you a job as a scientist, etc.
13
“You use the word “scientist”, to denote people who do science. Well done. Full marks.”
What I actually wrote is that I use scientist in the way that scientists themselves, and those who study the theory and practice of science use it.
Is the study of “out-of-body experiences”, part of science or not?
If it is done according to the scientific method, attempting to discover something about the natural world, yes it is. Why not?
(I think they would be wasting their time though.)
A scientific experiment on this:
Stick some cards with symbols on top of the cabinet in the operating room (where many of these occurences are reported to happen). Ask the subject what was on the cards.
My guess is that the answer would be: “Cards? What cards?”
“Is the precision of pitch on a stainless steel bolt, a scientific question or not?”
No, as you put it. It sounds like a technical issue, not a discovery about how the world works.
04
Engineers and medics don’t know science? That is some of the most stunning ignorance I have seen all year, and I’ve seen plenty…
61
Phillip, “Thanks” for the rehash of talking points so old they’ve been wrong for years.
If you were at all interested in the petition you would know it’s been done twice, and your remarks are irrelevant because they apply to the smaller first round. It is testament to how modern science is broken that volunteers collected and verified such a huge list of 31,500 scientists, including 9,000 PhDs and hundreds of professors. And they did it twice. Skeptics vastly outnumber and outrank believers. There is no list remotely close to this, despite there being $45 billion paid by the US government alone since 1989 to fund scientists to find evidence that there is a crisis with carbon.
The website answered almost all your objections if you had bothered to look:
http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php
I guess that page has only been there for six years though. Too new for you?
110
Ms Nova, I have seen the “update” link to the Oregan petition before. It does not entirely assuage my concerns.
The update affirms that signatories to the petition are only required to have a batchelors degree in a science based discipline or equivalent. This is not what is generally meant by the term “scientist”. This petition is frequently claimed to represent the opinions of 31,000 scientists. Even “top scientists” in the US congress.
The update claims that “The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.”
So what is the proportion of science and engineering graduates do the signatories of this petition represent?
The total number of US science and engineering graduates in the US is difficult to find, but one source gives the number of students enrolled in engineering bachelors degrees for each of the last 20 years as about 400,000. (Figure 2.12 here:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c2/c2s2.htm)
Bachelors degrees in the US take 4 years, so the number of graduate engineers per year is in the order of 100,000 (This neglects the drop out rate). That would mean since 1998 some one and a half million engineers graduated in the US.
The number of engineers who have signed the petition is 9,800. This represents less than 1% of graduates since 1998, and does not count pre 1998 graduates.
This is not much of a figure on which to claim a consensus.
I will continue discussion of the petition later.
010
Philip. You clearly have a comprehension problem. It is only the warmist camp who claim a “97% consensus” and only they who believe that consensus establishes anything. The point of the Oregon Petition is not to try to establish a consensus, but rather to show that such a thing does not exist.
Are you telling us that you believe the “97% consensus”? If so, please explain to us all the supposed veracity of it.
70
Backslider, I have a comprehension problem? Repeating the quote from the petition project given above”
“The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.”
07
Yes, you very much do: “if there is a consensus” not “there is a consensus”.
Trust me Philip, skeptics think that the whole concept of “consensus” is anti science. What do you think?
40
You almost got it right. Punctuation was wrong. You put a question mark instead of a period. An exclamation point would have worked as well.
20
To continue, on the misrepresentation the nature of the petition was demonstrated demonstrated when Bob Lutz, former General motors Vice Chairman said in a television interview, that the petition represented “the opinion of the about 32,000 of the world’s leading scientists.” Very flattering to the dentists etc who signed, but entirely inaccurate, yet you hear this kind of thing said over and over again.
And this misrepresentation of the true value of the petition is in line with the actions of its authors.
The updated link did not and could not remove the fact that the petition was launched with a paper tricked up to look like a peer reviewed article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, which drew a strong objection from the Academy.
And the authors do seek the imprimatur of “peer review”. In the update the authors proudly proclaim that their 2007 review paper (not original research) was published in the “peer reviewed” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. An odd place to put an article about climate.
The petition contained fake names such as Dr Gerri Halliwell, AKA Ginger Spice. Demonstrating the lack of checking of those who signed.
The update spins this:
“Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.”
Only one? The discovery of obvious fake names was made by the public, not the petition organizers, and covered in the media.
And of course, it is much more difficult to detect fraudsters who do not use obvious joke names, or people who use their real name but misrepresent their qualifications.
If the aim was to discredit the project, rather than the work of internet pranksters, it succeeded.
When this was exposed in the press, the petition organizer, Dr Robinson acknowledged that little was done to verify the credentials of the signers. He stated “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake.”
In the wake of this embarrassment, the petition organizers claim to have cleaned up their act. I guess we have to take their word for that.
To be continued.
17
All subjective argument Philip, and it is not even very good propaganda.
“Very flattering to the dentists etc who signed …”. Dentists are scientists, since they study science (see my response to you at #13.12.1.3). The are only considered to not be scientists, on planet Shehan. Some of these Doctors of Dentistry, may be world leaders in their field. How would you know, and who are you to decide?
So a certain Dr Gerri Halliwell signed it? Who determined that the signatory was actually the persona, Ginger Spice, and not a bona fide Dr Gerri Halliwell? You imply an impropriety, but provide no evidence other than coincidence, that any impropriety actually occurred.
Regarding forged signatures, anybody who has tried to organise a petition will know that your opponents will try to discredit it by using the names of non-existent or deceased persons. You therefore check for that, and there is a considerably body of work, in existence, around rigourous processes that can be used. These processes are applied prior to the names being included on the signatory list.
The process is not perfect, and some will get through. It always happens, and as long as the number does not materially affect the outcome, it is usually ignored.
Except, that is, on Planet Shehan, where the situation can be blown out of all proportion for propaganda purposes. Yes, some people will make up funny names. Yes, they will need to be eliminated from the final result. But as long as the published outcome does not include those name in the weighted count, the petition still stands.
You are making a big deal out of this, and making much of the organisers “embarrassment”, in claiming that the project was discredited.
Second rate propaganda, Philip. You really are not very good at this stuff, are you?
I wouldn’t bother continuing, if I were you. I have spent a lifetime dismantling this sort of cr*p, and I will seriously take you to pieces, point by point, at the next opportunity.
50
Rereke.
So a dentist who signed this petition, or a holder of a BSc degree who works selling carpets (such is the value of a generalist degree these days) is one of the world’s leading scientists by virtue of sending in a signed scrap of paper to the petition organisers?
Yes, I am prepared to make a judgement call on that.
I dont think so.
“Some of these Doctors of Dentistry, may be world leaders in their field. How would you know, and who are you to decide?”
Please read my comment at #13.10.1.1.1
Philip Shehan
August 3, 2014 at 5:16 am · Reply
I discuss the difference between clinicians and scientists in Medicine.
You yourself wrote:
“science” is defined as the pursuit of knowledge.”
So, someone who is engaged in research in dentistry is practicing science. If they are only fixing people’s teeth, they are not.
Who determined Dr Gerri Halliwell was not a bona fide scientist?
Dr Arthur Robinson, organiser of the petition.
“Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. “It’s fake,” he said.”
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?slug=2748308&date=19980501
And as I noted above:
When this was exposed in the press, the petition organizer, Dr Robinson acknowledged that little was done to verify the credentials of the signers. He stated “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake.”
This is the point, the lack of checking on those claiming to be, in your terms, “scientists” including carpet salesmen with a BSc (“or equivalent”).
Claiming that a petition containing 32,000 names, only some of whom are actual scientists and representing less than 1% of those qualified to add their names (lax as that qualification is) as indicating a consensus among scientists is absolute drivel.
Carelessness and exageration are one thing, attempting to pass off a “paper” as a publication in a peer reviewed journal is another.
It is the people who go on television claiming that that this petition represents the opinion of “32,000 of the worlds leading scientists” who are blowing this petition out of all proportion.
[It is unnecessary to repeat, or paraphrase, previous comments. It just wastes space and the readers time. Please keep your comments concise. -Fly]
06
Rereke,
Longer response to your comment awaiting moderation. In the meantime:
“Second rate propaganda, Philip. You really are not very good at this stuff, are you?
I wouldn’t bother continuing, if I were you. I have spent a lifetime dismantling this sort of cr*p, and I will seriously take you to pieces, point by point, at the next opportunity.”
I detect a certain level of belligerance here Rereke.
This is often characteristic of someone on the losing side of an argument.
Thing is, part of the job description of a scientist is to pick apart in minute detail research papers and grant applications looking for errors in reasoning and whether the claims made stack up. Not to mention when simply reading papers in the course of one’s own research.
In short, that makes me a professional at this kind of thing, and in fact I am recognised among my peeers as being very good at it.
Now, don’t take this personally, but you, on the other hand, are an amateur.
Feel free to give the point by point dismantling a shot.
17
Yep, Phill, this is real world stuff, let nothing come between a climate-change researcher and his grant application. The future of the planet depends on the outcome.
It’s like the hypotheses are given and the survival of humankind exists on the whim of the gods of hyperbole and art of determining the exact interpretation of ‘the’ in the context of null.
For someone that has leather elbows in his tweed jacket and marks papers for a crust you certainly lay a lot of stock on your own professionalism.
So don’t take it personally, but on any hand you like to nominate you really are an amateur.
40
Fly, I wish it was not necessary to repeat or paraphrase comments but people keep challenging me on the same points over and over sometimes with a slight twist. If I direct them to an earlier comment experience tells me that many will not bother.
Many of the comments I get are lengthy and complex, and do not lend themselves to short answers.
Skipping bits leads to comebacks like “Ah but you did not mention…” so yes I sometimes try to anticipate.
I think that the response I gave to Rereke, though not short, was concise.
As I have mentioned here today I am constantly being told that I am not answering comments or answering too many.
I have to ration myself on time and effort, so If I can get away with not repeating myself unnecessarily, I will take it.
Apologies though for any problems I cause the moderators.
You do an excellent job diligently. (On a volountary basis?)
04
James, How do you know so much about my wardrobe?
04
Phillip, it seems you have nothing — you don’t have a larger list of scientists who endorse your faith. You don’t have problems with the latest list of names, (so you repeat the old claims to fill up space). So now you say that dentistry is not science based, and nor is engineering? You are “brave”.
The point about science is that it is supposed to be coherent across topics. A law in one discipline is meant to apply to the others. Engineers don’t use different laws of motion to the ones physicists do.
So if one small immature and new branch of science can’t convince thousands of disinterested, independent scientists in other branches — that doesn’t bode well for the strength of the case. I guess the Phillip-Shehan world-view is that all the other scientists are wrong, or in a conspiracy of sorts (big-oil?), or maybe only “climate science” is real science.
Me of course, wouldn’t use any of these surveys to decide if a theory was right, I look at the evidence. But since you brought up the petition…
30
Show us the Dentist who signed it.
20
Sorry mods if this is a paraphrasing going on here but I am sure Ms Nova is busy so I think I had better summarise my position as concisely as possible rather than just tell her to read links to my above posts.
Ms Nova,
I don’t think this is correct: “You have nothing.”
In my analysis of the petition here, I think I “have” quite a lot.
I do indeed still have a problem with the latest list of names.
In spite of the admission by the Dr Arthur Robinson, organiser of the petition, that very little was done to verify the credentials of signatories and the claim that they are now doing better.
Maybe, maybe not, but given the fast one they tried to pull with the phony PNAS paper, and the weak and implausible explanation for their review on climate ending up in the America Journal of Surgeons and Physicians, rather than one with slightly more relevance to the subject, pardon me if I am a little “skeptical” when it comes to their reassurances.
But taking these assurances at face value and the list is squeaky clean, there is still the problem that there is no mechanism for the removal of names of people who have changed their opinion on AGW since 1998 (I have), or the dead (if known to be so, marked with an asterisk.)
So the dead are a captured constituency here. The organiser’s have their once expressed opinion preserved in aspic, and their vote counts forever.
‘So now you say that dentistry is not science based, and nor is engineering? You are “brave”.’
No, I wrote that people simply because someone has trained in science based discipline, that does not in itself make them a scientist. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Applying established knowledge to the solution of problems, however important those problems and activities are, does not make one a scientist.
If they are engaged in the scientific project, searching for new knowledge about the natural world by the scientific method, they are acting as scientists. For a detailed explanation of the distinction, see my posts above.
That is why I disputed the claim that someone with a BSc “or equivalent” is a scientist, let alone one of the “worlds leading scientists” – a claim I hear made over and over again in reference to this petition.
If this was described as a petition by people with at least a bachelors degree in science,(or equivalent), I would have no problem with this point.
And I did a calculation showing that even excluding people who graduated before 1998, the engineers signing the petition, (one third of total signatories) represents considerably less than 1 % of those eligible to express an opinion.
I do not get the impression that engineers as a group are any more “warmist” in their tendencies than other science based graduates.
Therefore the claim that this petition represents any kind of a consensus is weak to say the least.
“…you don’t have a larger list of scientists who endorse your faith…Me of course, wouldn’t use any of these surveys to decide if a theory was right, I look at the evidence. But since you brought up the petition…”
I don’t have any faith, religious or secular. I look at the evidence and draw conclusions. My conclusion on this matter has changed with the accumulation of evidence.
I don’t need a larger list of science graduates who support AGW.
As far as I know, no-one has organised one along the lines of the Oregon petition. The probable reason being that it would be recognised as a worthless exercise, as this one is.
Ms Nova it was you who brought up the subject of the petition.
I clicked the link to the “60% of geoscientists and engineers don’t agree” statement in your introduction, where the petition was brought up, and linked. So I responded to the claims of both in my comment.
02
Well, Philip was saying that not all scientists do modelling, so I guess Gerri is in either way . . . 😉
20
The REAL embarrassment is those people who put up the “silly” names in the first place..
Almost certainly from the alarmista bletheren.
Childish and puerile, right up your alley.
Were you one of them, perhaps ?
31
By whom?
scientist n. A person conducting research in or with expert knowledge of a (usu. physical or natural) science; a person using scientific methods; a student of science. [f. L. scient]
[The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 1993 Edition]
I might add that “science” is defined as the pursuit of knowledge, which would include those seeking to gain knowledge, but exclude so-called experts, who claim to know all there is about a subject.
20
A dentist or engineer or electrician or lawyer or mechanic may claim to know all there is about the subject. He or she may even be right.
Scientists never make such a claim. A scientist spends his or her working life trying to find the answers to things he or she does not know.
14
Ah, Philip,
I now understand your position. In order to win the argument, you must redefine reality, or at least misinterpret what is written.
Read what I quoted before. Anybody who considers them self to be a student of science (student, meaning somebody who seeks knowledge), or is using the scientific method to clarify knowledge, can reasonably be called a scientist, by standard usage of the English language.
When I referred to the exclusion of so-called experts, who claim to know all there is to know about a subject, I was referring specifically to you.
For it is you, who holds yourself up as the sole arbiter of what words mean, in order to win your argument. And, it is you, who either deliberately, or through lack of English comprehension, misunderstood my statement that “science” is defined as the pursuit of knowledge.
Anybody who seeks to learn something new is, by definition, a scientist. Now, name me another person, other than yourself, who does not want to learn something new.
31
No Rereke, you can learn something knew by reading a book. Caesar’s History of the Gallic Wars for instance. That does not make someone a scientist. It does not even make them a historian.
Thanks for clearing up the point that your comment about know all experts was referring to me.
I take it that is because I can write and converse knowledgeably and be published on a wide range of subjects.
Yes it’s tough being a renaissance man in an age of specialisation. Of course I do not know all. But I do know quite a lot including the fact that my friends and colleagues have that opinion of me.
You may be more modest, but you probably have a great deal to be modest about.*
And my point about scientists is that among all the professions, they are the ones whose primary job description is to confront their own ignorance, rather than concentrate on what they already know.
*Pinched that from Churchill’s comment about Clement Atlee. Google them.
04
“they are the ones whose primary job description is to confront their own ignorance”
Yet it is something you categorically refuse to do..
Go figure !!
20
Yes it does, under the English definition of the word, because they are seeking knowledge. You seek to enforce a different definition, by appearing to insist that the knowledge has to be totally new, within the realms of some arbitrary frontier. But what you read in a book, on say the Gallic Wars, for an example, may lead you to have a new and novel idea about how some political situation may be addressed in todays world. Is that not the creation of new knowledge? And is not the creation of new knowledge, an acceptable definition of research? And is not research the purpose of science?
Philip, you seem to have a bunch of ideas, and definitions, and concepts in your head, that work for you. Great. But don’t go around trying to enforce those ideas and definitions and concepts on other people. Offer them up for consideration, certainly, and if they get accepted, and used, then that is all for the good. But don’t get defensive and hurt and angry and argumentative, if and when they are rejected by some, or even ignored by the majority of people.
You are obviously young and idealistic. Don’t worry, once the Politik Reale has had its way with you, you will end up as cynical as the rest of us.
20
“You can learn something new by reading a book … that does not make someone a scientist
Then WTF do you think a Literature Review is for !!
And RW, I got the impression he was well and truly retired and has basically forgotten most of what he might once have known,..
…. except those things he can do ad-nausium with a widget.
20
Rereke. Of course reading about science is a necessearry prerequisite for doing science, you have to have the background knowlege. That is why the introduction in scientific papers gives the background to the new research.
This is a “necessary but not sufficient condition” for science. You then have to use that knowledge in the conduct of the research.
Similarly, having read the Gallic Wars does not make me a historian. If as you say I used that to go on and do some original work in history (or political theory or whatever) that would make me a historian, or a political scientist.
(I have some problems about the term “science” as applied to social sciences etc. In the distinction between “hard” and “soft” sciences these are at the decidedly squishy end of the spectrum. So I do not view things in black and white.)
Thanks for the compliment about my apparent age, but I have grown old and more than a little cynical since my idealism derailed and almost ended my academic career (whistleblower) but I won’t go into that again here.
If you clicked on the abstract of my paper on the probe, you will see it was published 28 years ago.
04
Rereke, I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a scientist.
And I do see the grey areas in this. My interest on the history and philosophy of science lies in the fact that people talk about science all the time, and we think we now what it is, but when you start to look at it, which is what HPS. There is grey all over the place. It often looks like one giant grey swamp with no way out, and you are up it in a barbed wire canoe.
That is why there are entire departments, courses conferences journals and qualifications devoted to it. Mine is a graduate diploma in Humanities (HPS).
The great physicist Richard Feynman thought the whole subject a waste of time.
I can see his point, up to a point, in that the vast majority of working scientists go about their business without knowing or caring about what the HPS people think they are doing, or should be doing. (Don’t get me started on skeptics who keep telling me about Popper and falsification, which is all the HPS they know.) But I have always been something of a generalist, wandering off the reservation to look at wider subjects.
So I do not in any way dismiss your arguments.
I wrote about a spectrum in another context.
In this context I opined that the idea propagated by many, that a petition signatory who may have completed a BSc decades ago (possibly with poor grades not because he is not smart but his major was in partying and chasing girl students) but has worked selling home furnishings ever since (and may have become very rich and successful in the process)can be transformed into one of “32000 of the world’s leading scientists” is identifying people at one extreme end of the spectrum with those at the other in a way I find unacceptable.
04
Rereke, With regard to my age and the paper which I said a wrote while still a graduate student. You may calculate on that basis that I am somewhat younger than I am due to a fair bit of unproductive time I, like the furniture salesman, spent while enrolled.
My undergraduate academic record is somewhat checkered.
Every subject failed first year (My first “first” year that is), a year off, withdrawals (not counted as failure) from subjects during the year, going part time. But I did gradually get my sh**t together.
My undergraduate academic record is fhus composed entirely of grades of N (not passed) K1 K2 (withdrew first or second term – not counted as failure, B’s and A’s)
04
Thank you for those comments, and for being so candid.
One of the points where we talk past each other, is over the word “science.” Yes, it is Physics and Chemistry, and most of the ‘ologies, and you can draw the line at that.
But mankind seeks knowledge in other areas as well, and so science can be defined as the systematic pursuit of knowledge, in all fields. The key point being the word, “Systematic.” Personally, I define science as being the application of the scientific method, including the principle of falsifiability, in any field where knowledge is sought. Unfortunately, political science need not apply.
If you want to know what I do, and what I have done for the past half century, decode my gravitar.
20
“like the furniture salesman”
I would have thought more like a used car salesman…..
… as you constantly display here.
Full of propaganda and misdirection and irrelevant prattle….
….. trying desperately to make a sale from unsaleable good.
20
“A scientist spends his or her working life trying to find the answers to things he or she does not know”
Philip, you have just defined yourself as “NOT” a scientist. Well done. 🙂
Glad you have finally come to the realisation the rest of us came to ages ago.
31
“A dentist or engineer or electrician or lawyer or mechanic may claim to know all there is about the subject”
And that would have to be one of the most stupid, moronic statements I have ever seen even you make !
Your mind is stupidifying ! You desperately need to take a break, before you lose it completely.
31
The French have a saying
Plus ca change ,plus ca fait la meme chose
The more things change , the more they stay the same.
30
Always willing to be helpful ,I have posted the following on a warmista site in offer to offer comfort to them on a simple solution to the problems of the World.
The major concern for alarmist types is the miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at 400ppm. Now how do you reduce that amount ,well 2 methods ,one is to stop adding to it , you know ,the stop the World I want to get off movement .
There is another simpler method , increase the amount of oxygen and nitrogen ,A plant in every country doing nothing but spewing out a nice mix of oxygen and nitrogen , now that’s a whole lot simpler and cheaper than any other suggestion I have heard .What do we want? OXYGEN! When do we want it ? NOW!
I am in discussions with my dentist as to how best to patent my idea going forward and as to what we might call the product , since laughing gas is already taken I would welcome suggestions from the lovable readers.
81
Marvellous stuff oxygen, the WW2 bomber crews reckon it was the best hang-over cure known and you cannot blame them for drinking a little.
20
Seems like only yesterday they called them Cold Air Outbreaks (CAO), they have been caught backsliding yet again.
41
The claim by James Taylor about geoscientists and engineers is wrong, as was noted at WUWT some time back. It comes from the Lesfrud & Meyer paper, and refers to geoscientists and engineers (only) within the petro-chemical industry in Alberta, Canada. This will in no way represent a global percentage. However, despite it doesn’t say what Taylor claims, the paper is deeply flawed regarding it’s highly CAGW-biased analysis. For a full explanation of those flaws, see:
http://wearenarrative.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/cagw-bias-in-academia-lesfrud-and-meyer-2013-revisited/
which was also guest-posetd at WUWT
Apart from above within the intro, good post 🙂
42
A good article on Andrew Bolt the other day.
The warming pause is 13 years and four months:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warming_pause_is_13_years_and_four_months/
33
I thought it was no warming for 17+ years.
Or is it warming as usual for 15 years?
http://tinyurl.com/m7okhxg
426
Read the text [snip]
EVEN WITH the massive manipulation in Hadcrut and Giss, the average of the data sets is NO WARMING for 13 + years.
The uncorrupted data is 17+ years.
Even Schmidt and Jones can’t manufacture any warning. Because there is NONE !!!!
236
It hasn’t been warming for 17+ years, but ask anyone at random have they heard of the hiatus … and you’ll get a blank stare. Surely its newsworthy even if its 13+ years, yet nothing from the Australian Brainwashing Corp.
172
Its not an hiatus (which means a break in continuity), nor is it a pause (which implies continuance afterwards)
It is a plateau, a levelling out..
and most probably the NATURAL cycle will now lead to (hopefully only a slight) cooling over the next couple of decades.
134
Thanx, plateau sounds good to me.
81
And the temperature record is littered with short term plateaus, declines, rises dips and spikes caused by natural and anthropogenic forcings superimposed on rising temperatures due to increasing CO2 concentration.
For example, breaking the last 90 years into 15 year segments:
http://tinyurl.com/loyk736
320
Nothing prior to 1979 is even worth bothering with.
Its been shown to be massively manipulated and adjusted to CREATE the warming trend.
YOU KNOW THAT……. but its all you have, so you keep using it even though you KNOW its a lie.
Intentionally using CORRUPTED and MANIPULATED data.. .. a hangover from your research days perhaps ??
All semi-reliable data sets since 1979 show a slight 15 year warming trend followed by a step at the 1998 ElNino then nearly flat or slight cooling trend for 15 years.
We are currently 15 or so years into a “going nowhere” period, while CO2 continues to rise,
There is NO CO2 signal in the temperature data, even with all the adjustments. !!
And all indications are that we are heading into a cooler period for a few decades.
This is a pity really, because a degree or so increase in temperature, combined with the increase in CO2, would be a massive benefit for the whole world.
164
Phill,
Yesterday evening whilst at work it snowed, this morning when I awoke it is warm and fine, tomorrow it will probably rain followed by winds.
I have noriced that this is the same weather I have experienced in this part of the world for almost 60 years.
Why should I try to stop the weather?
Why Should I be afraid?
102
James, with all due respect, this is known as anecdotal evidence, and does not carry a great deal of scientific weight.
15
Phill,
My observations are actually determined to be direct evidence and can be supported by contemporaneous notes which are first records and highly regarded as hard evidence much like the original temperature records.
Anecdotal evidence would be writing of my grandfather’s observations – this would also be classed as hearsay and not admissible because it is subject to contamination by third party filtering – much like the original temperature records which are then then corrupted and used to produce global warming models.
Which leads us to another evidential concept – Fruit of a Poisonous Tree…
51
Again James, with all due respect, first hand anecdotes even when backed by the occasional note jotting are still anecdotes. Anecdote does not mean hearsay.
If you have rigorously recorded data on a regular and frequent basis, that is another matter.
05
Thank you Philip – there goes your 0.9 degrees. Just where it should be.
30
Griss, the data I presented was UAH satellite data, from Spencer and Christy.
And all data sets show close agreement.
http://tinyurl.com/l5ojm6b
And when the “natural” cycles revert to warming and reinforce the warming effects of CO2 instead of countering them…
319
Yes they are mostly in agreement , NONE of them show any warming over the last 13-14 years.
And HOW puerile and stupid of you to show pre-1979 corrupted Giss and Hadcrut data when the WHOLE topic is about the last 13 or so years.
Again, you go the childish propaganda route.
117
And All of them have such whopping error margins that any meaningful inference as to what actually happeninmg with atmospheric temperature is impossible. From 2001:
Giss: 0.011 ±0.163 °C/decade
NOAA: -0.012 ±0.150 °C/decade
Hadcrut4: -0.018 ±0.146 °C/decade
RSS: -0.071 ±0.262 °C/decade
UAH: 0.041 ±0.262 °C/decade
And Griss, it was YOU who brought up the subject of allegedly corrupted Giss and Hadcrut data, to which I simply responded.
It is a remarkable coincidence that this allegedly corrupted data matches that of other data sets.
And as I have pointed out before, many of the adjustments to Giss data, such as correcting for the urban heat island effect, actually decrease recent temperatures relative to past ones.
A very clumsy and counterproductive error by warmist scaremongers.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
318
It is NO coincidence that the corruption of Giss and Hadcrut slowed to a crawl once reliable satellite measurements came into being.
And quoting Hansen, roflmao !!! He was one of the prime instigators of the per-1979 data tampering, and a MASSIVE beneficiary of the CO2 scam.
And again I see you use the massively wide SkS calculator to do your calculations for you.
I also see you are saying that we could currently be cooling by as much as 0.33c/decade. I doubt it is anywhere near that much.
103
Now Philip, let’s test your maths.
You have 5 series which since 2001 show very little difference.
What does that do to the error bars of the average of those data sets.
Also how does the SkS calculator cope with the “event” that happened half way through the data..
I assume it just ignores it and adds it to the deviation.
Silly, simplistic monkey-type maths if it does. (should suit you)
That “event” I mentioned was of course the ElNino effect of 2010-2012, which unlike the previous Elninos did not cause a step-up in global temps.
(We know the 1998 Elnino added a step of about 0.28C)
Have you figured out why not, yet? And the ramifications for the future temperature trend?
Tell your SkS trained monkeys to let your brain out of its cage, so you can do some original thinking of your own.
85
Also, have you realised that the SkS widget calculates the trend about the central time point.
Think about the ramifications of that, in light of the fact that time only goes in one direction.
Try drawing some lines representing the outer edge of the SkS values, and see how stupid it looks.
84
Oh look.. crickets chirping…. again !!
31
‘And when the “natural” cycles revert to warming and reinforce the warming effects of CO2 instead of countering them…’
During cool PDO cycles there are less El Nino and few spikes like 1998, so you’ll wait in vain for reinforcements to arrive.
91
Yes el gordo, but as these things occur in cycles, or at least go from warming to cooling contributions on a semi-regular basis, at some periods they will reinforce anthropogenic warming, and at other times counteract it.
For example, with three natural forcings and anthropogenic, you get the a very good match with the observed temperature:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html
The PDO adds a cycle between warming and cooling at 20-30 year intervals. If as this graph suggests, it is currently making a cooling contribution, in another 20 years or so, it will contribute to warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg
Overall, its long term effect averages out to zero.
415
“in another 20 years or so, it will contribute to warming”
If Sol stays in its slumber, we are going to be highly thankful for any slight warming that may bring.
72
So where is the “hot spot” ? … you know, the cornerstone of your religious belief.
The scam is OVER … get back under your rock.
51
Philip Shehan @ 16.1.1.2
quoted
“And when the “natural” cycles revert to warming and reinforce the warming effects of CO2 instead of countering them”…
***********
So I gather that unlike past episodes of both warming and cooling of the planet this ongoing “plateauing” of global temperatures for the last 13 or 17 years plus is not “Natural” going by your comment?
Naturally you have proof of that to back your claim up?
And this despite the increasingly strident alarmist’s shrill hoo ha crescendo for the last 20 plus years on how global temperatures were going to continue their dangerous increase due to and in direct relationship with the increase in that dreaded “carbon” we were all emmitting into the atmosphere, alarmists included and slightly more per alarmists than the average person and skeptic according to some very new UK research.
Of course now the temperatures aren’t rising in any statistically relevant manner and are even starting to slide slightly over the last four or five years despite the steady increase in that horrendous “carbon” stuff, we have all sorts of excuses coming out of the alarmist camp to explain the plateauing of the temperatures, none of which they can show slightest proof for as to being the cause of the slow down and plataeuing of the temperatures.
That “carbon” which we are so guilty of putting into the atmosphere and which was supposedly the cause of the entire increase in temperature apparently only got going around 1978, the time of the Great Pacific Climate Shift, according to the climate alarmist scientists .
The increase in temperature slowed to a non statistically relevant increase at the very latest in 1998, a period of just 20 years from 1978 to 1998 where global temperatures increased and a period upon which the entire claims as well as the alarmist cult of CAGW or what ever it is called now, has been constructed.
.And there is evidence the rise in global temperatures had slowed as far back as the mid 1990’s but in 1998, the Super El Nino year it is agreed by all scientists that was the time when the increase in global temperatures slowed and effectively stopped.
So there was a period of 20 years, 1978 to 1998 where the global temperature increased at a rate similar to that of the early 1800’s as the world came out of the LIA.
From 1998 to mid 2014 a period of some 15 plus years there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperatures, a point that even Phil Jones from the CRU has conceded,
Ben Santer a warmist who altered the entire intent to a human caused warming [ without the attending scientists being aware of the fact until they read the proceedings later at home ] of the science outcomes of the 1995 Madrid conference which said that humans MAY have some influence on global temperature increases but science was not sure of that, when he was editor of the proceedings, has said that the claimed cause for the increases in global temperatures, the emissions of anthropogenic CO2 will no longer be a viable hypothesis or a possible theoretical cause of the warming if global temperatures do NOT resume their rise by 2017.
So
1978 to 1998 is 20 years
1998 to 2014 is coming up 16 years.
3.5 years to go of plateaued temperatures to equal the 20 years of warming.
Or if your believe one of your own mob of alarmists, Ben Santer, then you have just only 2.5 years to 2017 at the most before the your whole alarmist cult falls over in a screaming heap to the great amusement of every skeptic and all those who are ready to swing straight to the winner if it suits their circumstances.
As for acidifying oceans
Please don’t make me choke on the stupidity of that claim.
They don’t even have any idea on just how much CO2 is being released by undersea volcanoes. There is now evidence that even dormant or supposedly extinct volcanoes are releasing vast amounts of CO2 over very wide areas around their old calderas.
So the thousands of undersea volcanoes are arguably doing something similar. releasing incredible amounts of CO2 into the oceans but it is being recycled or absorbed . We simply don’t know. We don’t know where at least half the CO2 humanity is supposedly releasing into the atmosphere, CO2 that was tied up in plant growth and sequestered as coal over 130 million or more years ago, actually goes to as it just disappears from the system.
Sydney Harbour holds 0.56 cubic kilometres of water. the amount of CO2 that is supposedly emmitted by mankind and is claimed to be absorbed by the oceans creating an acidic ocean from a alkalinity Ph of 7.2 or more, amounts to putting about 20 or 30 kilograms of dry ice, frozen CO2 into the 0.56 cubic kilometres of Sydney harbour waters each day, every day. .
Thats the equivalent of the amount of anthropogenic CO2 being released annually and absorbed by the 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of global ocean waters .
And each cubic kilometre of sea water weighs 1.1 billion tonnes
Now if you can detect that dry ice additive to those 0.56 cubic kilometres of water after a hundred or so years then you might get a Nobel or something.
You had better find some better excuses Phillip or you and your mob are going to be left sitting out there on that global warming rock looking like one of those shags that sit on those rocks and considering the pain and stupidity you and your ilk have inflicted on the world over the last twenty years in the name of your global warming cult, you will be a damn good target for every bit of vituperative slagging off that will deservedly be coming your way as well as being laughed at by all the world for your total stupidity.
And you might just be very lucky indeed to get off as lightly as that considering the pain and suffering you and your warmist cult believers have inflicted on so many.
192
Rom.
“From 1998 to mid 2014 a period of some 15 plus years there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperatures, a point that even Phil Jones from the CRU has conceded.”
Precisely. And by exactly the same token, there is no statistically significant pause or decline in temperature. Statistical significance cuts both ways.
The 13 year plateau or pause or hiatus or whatever you wish to call it fails to come close to statistical significance.
Periods of around 15 years will seldom have a statistically significant trend because the noise dominates the signal for short periods.
I posted a graph of temperatures broken up into 15 year segments above.
http://tinyurl.com/loyk736
The trend for the whole period shows statistically significant warming (that is the trend plus or minus the error give entirely positive values)
0.086 ±0.013 °C/decade (2σ)
Only 2 of of the constituent 15 years periods shows statistically significant warming, because they have a particularly large slope, so the signal to noise is sufficint to give stistical significance.
From 1924
Trend: 0.142 ±0.148 °C/decade (2σ)
1939
Trend: -0.088 ±0.144 °C/decade (2σ)
1954
Trend: 0.024 ±0.151 °C/decade (2σ)
1969
Trend: 0.165 ±0.162 °C/decade (2σ)
1984
Trend: 0.234 ±0.167 °C/decade (2σ)
1999
Trend: 0.099 ±0.138 °C/decade (2σ)
The idea that AGW will be sunk if the current temperature trend continues until 2017 is nonsense.
Again short term data sets mean that noise gives different trend lines, with large error margins when you alter the lenght of the period by as little as 2 years.
If I decide to start my time period 15 years ago, the slope is the same as for the period since 1979. Sure, if I choose to start 17 or 13 years ago I get different slopes, but that only makes my point that any conclusion that relies on cherry picking a start date within that narrow margin is worthless.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/from/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/trend
from 1997: 0.095 ±0.204 °C/decade
1999: 0.147 ±0.210 °C/decade
2001: 0.054 ±0.252 °C/decade
That said I am prepared to accept that there may well be a pause, plateau, hiatus, or even a decline in temperature over the last decade or so.
So what?
This is entirely expected according to AGW which states that the observed temperature is due to the sum of natural and anthropogenic forcings, and the temperature record is littered with such short term variations within a longer term increase.
318
Nice Philip. The problem for you is that you are unable to show any statistically significant increase in warming since we started coming out of the LIA. This is the crux for you Philip – the warming is natural.
132
Backslider,
I repeat what I wrote above.
From 1924 to the present:
0.086 ±0.013 °C/decade (2σ)
And no the warming is not entirely “natural”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html
28
Do you really believe that you can measure global temperatures within 1000th of a degree? Sheer lunacy.
So tell us then, what was it before 1924? (p***ing myself here)
81
As I’ve pointed out MANY times before, Backslider.
Philip’s grasp of basic mathematically principles seem tenuous at best.
A one trick monkey, reliant solely on the SkS widget.
72
As Phillip Shehan is prepared to use SkS as one of his sources for data I can assume that I can equally refer to the far more straight up honest WUWT as the intermediary source for John’ Christy’s RSS satellite data and the interpretation of that data
To quote from Shehan’s post @ 17.1.1.2.1
“The idea that AGW will be sunk if the current temperature trend continues until 2017 is nonsense.”
***************
From Santer, Meres, Solomon, Meehl and etc ; [ all of them very big wheels indeed in the alarmist warming science camp ]
Abstract ;
Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale
“A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.
****************
From that we can also conclude that if a period of no statistically significant increases in global temperatures occur for a period exceeding 17 years then the CAGW beliefs have no scientific basis.
Of course “believing” in something does not constitute science but is more akin to the mentalities that drive cults and fundamentalist religions.
_________________________
So to quote from a WUWT post ;
RSS Reaches Santer’s 17 Years
[quoted ] [ my bold ]
RSS stands for Remote Sensing Systems, which is a satellite temperature data set similar to the University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) dataset that John Christy and Roy Spencer manage. Information about RSS can be found at here and the data set can be found here.
The plot of the number on the left column from November 1, 1996 to October 31, 2013 can be found in the graph at the head of his article and here.
When the “Raw data” is clicked, we see that for 204 months, the slope is = -0.000122111 per year. I wish to make it perfectly clear that the focus is not on the magnitude of the negative number since this number is zero for all intents and purposes.
The only thing that is noteworthy is that the slope is not positive.
And of course, 204 months is equal to 17 years. In the “Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale” Benjamin Santer et al. stated that:
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
&
Richard Courtney offered a very interesting perspective in a comment previously:
“The Santer statement says that a period of at least 17 years is needed to see an anthropogenic effect. It is a political statement because “at least 17 years” could be any length of time longer than 17 years. It is not a scientific statement because it is not falsifiable.
However, if the Santer statement is claimed to be a scientific statement then any period longer than 17 years would indicate an anthropogenic effect. So, a 17-year period of no discernible global warming would indicate no anthropogenic global warming.
In my opinion, Santer made a political statement so it should be answered with a political response: i.e. it should be insisted that he said 17 years of no global warming means no anthropogenic global warming because any anthropogenic effect would have been observed.
Santer made his petard and he should be hoisted on it.”
************
I think that Phillip Shehan has just been hoisted on his own petard as well
81
Backslider,
0.086 ±0.013 °C/decade (2σ)
The parameter is temperature per time period
It could be expressed as
0.86 ±0.13 °C/century (2σ)
If a temperature is measured to 2 decimal places the a typical data point would be 11.57 °C. (With a laboratory alcohol thermometer, the uncertainty for a single measurement is typically ±0.05 °C.)
This is 4 significant figures. The result of a calculation can therefore be expressed up to 4 significant figures.
0.086 ±0.013 °C/decade , or 0.86 ±0.13 °C/century, or or 0.0086 ±0.00013 °C/year express the results to 2 significant figures.
16
ROM.
As I pointed out in a comment some time ago, the trend calculator by Kevin Cowtan was confirmed by none other than Christopher Monckton on WUWT.
Monckton’s calculation of the trend for a period of RSS data gave exactly the same trend as Cowtan’s program.
Although Monckton did not supply the actual figures 2 sigma error margins, his claims of statistical significance/non stistical significance for his calcuations matched those of Cowtan.
As a matter of formal logic, the statement “temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature” does NOT mean that “if a period of no statistically significant increases in global temperatures occur for a period exceeding 17 years then the CAGW beliefs have no scientific basis.”
For starters, the statement about “identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature” is not a statement about statistical significance.
But letting that one slide, the qualifier “at least” means that 17 years or greater may be required to identify human effects on temperature.
Courtney is incorrect in saying that this is not a scientific statement because it is not “falsifible”.
The statement says “temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature”
That statement is falsified if temperature records of less than 17 years identify human effects on temperature.
Courtney also writes:
So, a 17-year period of no discernible global warming would indicate no anthropogenic global warming.
The logical fallacy here is to require that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Science does not work that way.
If there is no evidence to support a hypothesis, there is no evidence. That is all that needs to be said. If, on the other hand there is such evidence, then, well, there is such evidence.
Furthermore, regarding the RSS data from November 1996 to October 2013.
Cowtan’s algorithm gives
Trend: -0.0002 ±0.0202 °C/year (2σ) or
Trend: -0.002 ±0.202 °C/decade (2σ)
These figures agree with that given in the paper, the small difference being attributable to the rounding errors for a 6 significant figure compared with a 1 significant figure result.
And yes the slope is negative, whatever that is worth given the size of the error margin.
The result for the other satellite data you mention, UAH, is
Trend: 0.0098 ±0.0206 °C/year (2σ) or
Trend: 0.098 ±0.206 °C/decade (2σ)
This time the slope is positive, whatever that is worth given the size of the error margin.
05
“This study was done by “Evan Kodra, PhD’14″. (I guess he must be quite excited about graduating then? Congrats to Evan… ”
PhD candidates regularly publish papers on their research project before graduating.
Five chapters of my thesis were based on published papers I had written, and two more were published after graduation.
424
You make sooooo much of your egotistical PhD in a totally no-related subject, yet try to dismiss this paper.
(Snipped)
(It appears that you have a problem with the concept of a civil debate,I am now watching you more to see what else I have to snip.It is the first stage of a downward spiral for you unless you better moderate yourself better before you hit that post button) CTS
147
What was that about “the left” and haters the other day?
418
That is why you are here.. you HATE !!
115
“Five chapters of my thesis were based on published papers I had written, and two more were published after graduation”
SO WHAT !!
We don’t need to know and WE DON’T CARE !!
TOTALLY IRRELEVANT !!!
Now zip up !!
136
The point, dear Griss, is in reply to Ms Nova’s remark on The authors newly acquired PhD and his authorship of a paper. This is, as I point out, quite usual.
616
But we don’t need to know about your irrelevant past. Not interested. !!
Why bring it up except to feed your own ego.
108
Because, dear Griss, my own experience is an example of what I am pointing out. That many of the authors of papers do not have PhD’s. Some are not studying for a higher degree, but have Masters, or Bachelors degrees. I have had such people as coauthors.
I would have thought that this knowledge would be welcome to those who do not see possession of a PhD as necessary for inclusion in the ranks of those qualified to be scientists or comment knowledgably on scientific matters.
414
Hi Phil,
Do you mind if I call you Phil?
Now I’ve forgotten what I was going to say.
It may come back later.
My apologies Phil.
KK
154
And my point is that the fact that students are often co-authors is well know.
But you had to say it in a way to self-aggrandize.
Are you having self-confidence issues again or something, that you need to constantly big-note yourself. ?
Perhaps you should go and find something worthwhile to do with your life, instead of wasting your time here.
but you can’t can you.. here is all you have… 😉
76
Griss. Thanks for the belly laugh. I should do something with my life other than wasting my time here? Do you have a potty under a hole in your chair? Do you ever leave this blog?
It does not seem well known to Ms Nova, who seems to think that this is a sign of scientific naivite:
“This study was done by “Evan Kodra, PhD’14″. (I guess he must be quite excited about graduating then? Congrats to Evan… ”
“Peter, let’s not forget that the young poorly-trained PhD grad here (and the presumably young writer of the clumsy press release) are probably doing the best they can.”
The fact is that by the time a PhD student is 2 or 3 years into his or her PhD, he or she is likely to be a world expert in his or her research topic. That is a very narrow field of expertise at that stage of the person’s career to be sure, but it is very deep.
39
But I’m not wasting my time.
That is the big difference.
Your time spent here is actually counter-productive to the warmist meme that you are feebly trying to support.. you just don’t realise it.
94
Philip Shehan says:
So, to paraphrase, “They know a great deal, about very little”.
You cannot be a specialist and a generalist. It is a question of trade-off within a finite time.
The problem is, that most true specialists are so specialised, that their narrow accumulation of experience does not allow them understand and acknowledge that simple concept.
30
If that were true it would have interesting ramifications to the global warming discussion.
One of the claims about climate change is that it allows southern animal species migrate northwards, causing the extinction of many original arctic species and causing all kinds of havoc on the arctic nature.
What is keeping those southern species south? It is the cold snaps once every 20-30 years, that kills off those species which are not adapted to the cold. This event pushes the extent of those invasive species southwards several hundred kilometers and they have to renew the slow advance towards north. And 20-30 years later their offspring die again from cold and the cycle starts again.
Now this “global warming causes cold snaps” would basically negate that effect completely. It might get warmer in the north increasing biomass, but those cold snaps would still keep invasive species, like common pine sawfly, in check.
It’s better than we thought!
50
May 23, 2014, phys.org
Climate scientist proposes extremely cold 2014 winter link to global warming
“The winter of 2014 was cold in the U.S., of that there was no doubt.
Subzero temperatures became the norm and heating bills skyrocketed.
At the time, very few who experienced it were blaming it on global warming, but that may very well have been the cause anyway,
Tim Palmer, a climate scientist and professor at the University of Oxford in the U.K. suggests—despite the fact that global temperatures haven’t been rising lately.
Interestingly, Palmer’s theory results in the same outcome as another recent theory presented by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University—she believes cold snaps like the one this past winter are due to melting Arctic ice, leaving less heat reflected back into the atmosphere and thinning the jet stream and at times causing it to wobble.
Others suggest global warming had nothing to do with the chilly winter—it was just climate temperature variability, as happens now and then.”
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-climate-scientist-extremely-cold-winter.html#inlRlv
Phew! That’s settled! Or not …
Jun 15, 2014, phys.org
Arctic warming linked to fewer European and US cold weather extremes, new study shows
Climate change is unlikely to lead to more days of extreme cold, similar to those that gripped the USA in a deep freeze last winter, new research has shown.
“The Arctic amplification phenomenon refers to the faster rate of warming in the Arctic compared to places further south.
It is this phenomenon that has been linked to a spike in the number of severe cold spells experienced in recent years over Europe and North America.
However, new research by University of Exeter expert Dr James Screen has shown that Arctic amplification has actually reduced the risk of cold extremes across large swathes of the Northern Hemisphere.
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-arctic-linked-european-cold-weather.html
. . .
This 97% settled climate science is brought to you by the home of “academic rigour” & “journalistic flair”, the Conversation.
100
P***ing myself! 😛
60
In the NH summer of 2000 I spent several months working with an Australian Astro-meteorologist Jennifer Lawson author of a book “Countdown to Cataclysm, Violent Weather Predictions 2000 – 2001″. ISBN 1-56718-414-6
We looked at the lunar phases and declinational angles in regard to ENSO indices, to see which had the most pronounced effects, what we found was about the same as noted above in levels of el nino activity, mostly neutral at minimum declination angles, more enhanced but shorter spikier, activity associated with drought periods in Australia when the lunar declination was about the same as the apparent solar declination 22 degrees to 24 degrees. With the periods of most active weather, most rapid meridional flow surges, at the time of year when the solar and lunar declination at culmination were acting in tandem.
This was seen in tornado production and hurricane numbers and intensity increases, most enhanced for tornadoes (three days either side, centered) when there was a concurrent outer planetary heliocentric conjunction. And due to ion charging effects of the outer planetary conjunctions a decrease in Hurricane activity intensity the week before a conjunction and a rapid reactivation about 5 to 7 days after the outer planet heliocentric conjunction.
There was seen in the historical data increases in drought conditions in Australia, and longer lived EL Nino effects at lunar maximum declination of around 27 to 28 degrees, the symotainious Heliocentric conjunctions of Neptune with Uranus in the NH summer months in 1993 and the slow passing speeds kept them close together through the lunar declination maximum angle culmination in 2005, before it started to decrease.
I think it was the increased summer NH magnetically driven (as a result of most of the outer planets were being passed by the earth in the NH summers) solar wind ion scavenging of the upper troposphere through the 1982 to 1998 period that let more of the solar output reach the seas to effect the GW that we saw for that period, and the massive hurricane outbreak in 2005 was the result of the lunar declination going past peak, as Neptune and Uranus was shifting into the months of August/September, so the result was an outpouring of the extra heat in the oceans as the ion content of the tropical troposphere was decreasing from its high concentration of cat+ ions into the rest of the atmospheric tidal bulges, with outpouring of the polar air masses (carrying the excess -ions) that made the discharge of the earth’s global circuit through the precipitation of the charge carrying water vapor/clouds.
The great maximum EL NINO in IIRC 1998 was given additional power and duration by the heliocentric conjunction of earth with Mars on the 17th of March 1997, Jupiter with Uranus on the 27th of March, (setting up the spring tornadoes), then Earth with Neptune on the 21st of July, Uranus on the 29th of July, Earth with Jupiter on the 9th of August, then a resumption of hurricane activity until the earth Saturn helio-conjunction 10th of October 1997. Then in 1998 the well started global oscillation in the atmosphere got another boost with the heliocentric conjunctions of earth with Neptune on 23rd of July, Uranus on the 3rd of August, Jupiter on the 16th of September, and Saturn on the 23rd of October 1998.
After these big surges in global circulation it has calmed down consistently, but with the major storms introduced from the outer planetary conjunctions moving into the fall and winter months coinciding with the large snow storms in the NE USA, Europe, China, and Mongolia of late, and are directly responsible for the “global pause” the same as they were responsible for the “global warming” and as they continue to spread throughout the year we will see “normal weather across most of the globe with low levels of tornadoes and Hurricanes, until the lunar declination increases up close to 21-22 degrees at culmination, then the tornado activity will resume.
I had also done some analysis of the production of the famous “Morning Glory Waves” found in Australia in the SH spring, prized by sail plane enthusiasts, for the hundreds of miles they can on the crest of these global circulation lunar/solar tidal waves in the atmosphere. What I found is they form when the lunar and solar declination is close to the same within 2 degrees around NH fall equinox.
By plotting the past episodes of logged good waves for gliding, I found that the best waves occurred when the solar/lunar declination was the closest to the same, with fair days on either side, or fairly good days on either side if none of the dates were nicely centered.
http://dropbears.com/m/morning_glory/articles.htm
http://dropbears.com/m/morning_glory/aerology.htm
30
Richard Holle.
I am humbled that my comment and links attracted a response from you.
Incase anyone missed Richard’s website link: http://www.aerology.com/Home/
Thank you.
Returning this morning to my comment to add this link:
The Massive NH Winters Strengthen as the Landscheidt Minimum Deepens.
Posted Thu, 07/31/2014 – 00:42 by Geoff Sharp
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/331
“We are in a different para dime and can only learn as the affects of the Landscheidt Minimum roll out as we go deeper into the 20-30 year phase of this current Solar Grand Minimum.
We have already seen how the polar vortex can be broken up via planetary waves that are enhanced most likely from solar induced atmospheric changes where ozone is varying above and below the 45km mark, solar reduction in EUV and FUV being the cause.
This is the fifth year of predicting the upcoming Northern Hemisphere winter with a strong track record for accuracy in place.
My further prediction for the coming NH winter is an increase in the occurrence and depth of the low pressure systems that will bring an even more massive winter to the NH, I expect many records to be broken this season.
My prediction for solar cycle 24 to match solar cycle 5 (first cycle of the Dalton Minimum) also on track.”
. . .
By that warmest climate scientist’s own admission @phys.org (1st link), the beginning of 2014 was extremely cold.
The NH summer has seen many cold records broken, and now, as the NH 14/15 winter looms …
They will still claim hottest year ever. Maybe that will be a tipping point for sanity to return.
60
“The Landscheidt Minimum” you mention was proposed due to the interaction of the center of mass of the sun, being close to the solar system barycenter, because the outer planets are now spreading out around the solar system, and most of them are on the side of the sun away from the concentrated magnetic effects of the center of the galaxy, allowing the balancing of the total magnetic flux seen at the sun from all sources. This reduces the leakage of containment internal solar magnetic fields (low sun spot numbers)that regulate the internal dynamo that varies the output power of the sun.
In the NH this shows up as intense winter storms and North Easter type blizzards, the heavy snow cover drops the loss of heat from the soil and lets the night time temperatures to plummet.
In the SH Australia these outer planet conjunctions are occurring in your spring and summer, so naturally they will be some hot windy dry/doughty periods the CAGW peeps can use to balance the cold NH weather. we have seen this in the past couple of years as they grasp at the two to four day long heat waves, that the outer planetary conjunctions are responsible for.
If you look at the dates of the heliocentric conjunctions of the outer planets with the earth, you will be able to predict/forecast when these heat waves will arrive. Be ready to defuse the CAGW propaganda by communicating this information ahead of the heat wave occurrences, their surprise at seeing them happen, will give away their lack of understanding how the climate works.
40
Hot Whopper whining on about Jo and David . http://blog.hotwhopper.com/
Presumably it must be a slow day for Sue , she is now in resurrection mode trolling on about various arguments.
Next she will be advising us that there is no pause stupid!
61
‘He is a greenhouse effect denier stuck on “it’s the sun”.
Indeed, the Denialati firmly believe earth’s climate is effected by the shiny orb. I’ve put all my money on a sharp tipping point in the not too distant future.
52
She has to justify her daily bread somehow. At least her blog isn’t called, Random Thoughts.
51
“Magnitude of the projected asymmetry depends significantly on region, season, land-ocean contrast, and climate model variability as well as whether the extremes of consideration are seasonal minima or maxima events.”
So variability depends on climate model variability. Amazing those models, they can predict anything, even variation from the models.
I wonder when we will hear, ‘it was the model’s will…..’
20
Let’s make this real simple, how many press releases could be summarized by this generic headline “Models support latest alarmist talking point”.
80
After googling Big Data
So apart from far more than the 5 variable parameters needed to make the elephants trunk wiggle, we get emulations of data that have been homogenized and normalized which gets the elephant in the finals of So You Think You Can Dance.
90
Maybe one should rename the show to “The 5th Parameter” 🙂
Royalties for that should go to John von Neumann’s estate.
50
“Strip away the advertising spin and I think this is the nub”
Just prior to AR3, that is pretty much what I started doing for a while with printouts of Climate Assessment Reports. I would take a black marker and first cross off all the IFs, COULDs, MIGHTs, BELIEVEs, LIKELYs, etc statements. Next I would re-read what remained and cross off any of the statements and references that had nothing to do with CAGW. After that, what little remained was nothing to be of concern.
130
If the climate ever achieves the fabled stability it never had, we’ll no doubt hear complaints about its “abnormal sameness” and “eerie monotony”. And all of this will be attributed to…
Oh, you guessed.
120
Was talking to an ex-Dubbo girl who had worked on Mannus Island for many, many years as a nun. When asked what she missed most about Australia, without hesitation she replied “The seasons.” Robert, I bet if Sister read your comment about “abnormal sameness” and “eerie monotony” she would give you a big “Amen to that”.
Having said that, I don’t know what her views on CAGW were because in those days (1990’s) the science wasn’t in yet.
30
Actually Robert, the climate of Earth has been remarkably stable for the whole of the Holocene..
All indications are that as we have climbed from the COLDEST temperatures of the whole Holocene during the LIA, the climate has become more an more stable.
A gradual reductions of all extreme weather events.
Unfortunately, it looks like the gradual climb from those devastating COLD temperatures of the LIA may be over.
More warming and more CO2 would be the ideal situation for the whole Earth, ….
but unfortunately that small amount of sequestered CO2 we have released has NOT HAD ANY EFFECT on global temperatures.
60
Now be kind, it’s a big step for the CAGW community to acknowledge that nature exists, let alone that it might even play a part in our weather system.
100
Morning all.
There is no further need for parody. The warmists do it all themselves!
And remember, sh1t just doesn’t happen. Only that it is unprecidented, catastophic and man-made! 🙂
Cheers,
Speedy
80
The Hockey Schtick keeps an “Updated list of 29 excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming” [http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html]… It would be interesting to see such a list of all the outrageous things scientists attribute to “Climate Change”.
60
Try here.
30
I’m disappointed. They left out tooth decay.
40
Email them with the citation, they’ll be happy to add it, I’m sure all that extra acid water would justify tooth decay as an effect!
50
It’s caused by all that CO2 in Coca Cola. It’s a proven fact that Coca Cola causes tooth decay, so there!
50
Nice retort guys. I walked right into it. 🙂
20
Most tap water is FAR more acidic than sea water will ever be. !
Dangerous stuff !!!!!!
*Note that ADWG says it should be between 6.5 and 9.2, but most authorities aim at around just over 7.
Let’s say 7.2, so that’s something like 800% of the H+ ion concentration of seawater. And still not acid.
Makes the change from a mythical pre-industry level of 8.25, to a current pH of somewhere around 8.1 +/- ? seem pretty insignificant.
10
Perhaps you should ask Philip why all the fresh water yabbies, snails, shell fish etc. have not lost their calcium carbonate skeletons?
20
Actually, how cool would that be.
No more peeling all those prawns . . .
10
“Runestones, tea-leaves, broken models, what’s the difference?”
Funding?
50
Astonishing.
50
michael hart:
Naw, they have a full file drawer of this kind of pap, ready to send out whenever there is a lull in cutting edge papers or waning public support of AGW.
50
SUPER-VINDICATED to AVERT another VOLCANIC GLACIAL!!!*
WASHINGTON POST PROPOSES OUR EARTH SHIELDING!!!
“Extreme solar storms spark a need for innovation”.
As NASA just announced, a massive solar storm similar to the one in 2012 could wipe out GPS, satellite communication, the power grid, the Internet – just about anything that would be affected by a sufficiently large direct electromagnetic blast from the sun [including nuclear plants]. One thing that could be done now is to launch a competition to attract the best ideas from the scientific community, similar to what NASA does with its Innovative Advanced Concepts program. It’s been noticed that, in the event of extreme solar activity, the Earth’s magnetosphere adjusts in response to the CMEs from the sun. Maybe that system could be exploited or augmented by man-made means to create a shield that powers up or powers down anytime NASA’s early-warning system detects unusual activity. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/07/31/extreme-solar-storms-spark-a-need-for-innovation/
*http://www.global-providence.info/
It’s feasible, because both the easy crater shields and the big equatorial one can start immediately and push for international truce, while the big shield will use gravity balance AND celestial electricity to need less energy!
20
Good GOD,
Let us all hope that massive solar storm will happen now, and take out everything, before the politicians can get their greedy hands into it. What modern technology or government, beond the shovel, has ever improved anything?
01
Read an article in Gizmag recently, that claims the the newly discovered graphene lattices, which seem to be good for all kinds of things, will break down when exposed to UV, into (you guessed it) CO2 and H2O.
20
120 comments so far on an abstract and a press release. Not one comment on the actual contents of the paper and barely 10% about the press release and abstract. In the absence of knowledge we get sneer review.
45
Apart from it costs money to down load the paper, models are very hard to critique even if they are simple and complete nonsense. When they are a complex computer code that is merely referenced to, then it is valid to criticise the use of this model that has failed to even get the basics right.
51
well what you just wrote is about all you can say without the paper in front of you or a details of the model. So one sentence from you and 122 comments, including my own, of no consequence whatsoever
26
I know! Isn’t it wonderful?
At last we have dissected them so many times and found no knowledge that there’s nothing left to do but dismiss them the same way they have dismissed us for so long. It feels rather good too!
You only get so many times to cry, “Wolf!” as loud as you can and from then on all you can get back is ridicule.
151
Good point. Once you see someone cry wolf you’re not inclined to spend a lot of brain power pulling the rest to shreds.
60
I look forward to your next book or movie review.
03
Gee Aye,
For a long time I argued the science with anyone who was reasonable enough to not simply come on with an ad hom attack. But the science debate has been won over and over and they have nothing convincing. Does CO2 have the ability to raise the temperature anywhere? The actual evidence says no. But even if it can, its capability has been exaggerated and stretched way beyond credibility and anything it can do is down in the measurement noise and isn’t detectable.
So what is left for any of us to do? We can continue a fruitless argument and of course continue to expose what’s going on as Jo is doing. Or we can call this stuff what it is, and you know as well as I do exactly what it is.
It becomes all the more tempting when the case is presented in a more and more childish and ridiculous manner.
70
Maybe gee aye would prefer the moderating atmosphere of that home of 97% consensus, the Conversation where the academic rigour is a moderation policy that would silence commentators like you if applied @jonova.
Matter of fact, they’re at it again @thecon.
After silencing anyone who dares ask questions, they now demand that the Australian follow their example, citing the censorial moderating rules with LA Times as the standard.
The author questions ‘the pause’, but there are many conversation posts, with Matthew England for example, that attempt to explain the ‘non-existent’ pause.
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-climate-scientist-extremely-cold-winter.html#inlRlv
(quote: “El Niño is due, and it will almost certainly lead to a release of a lot of the heat the ocean has been holding onto, which would mean warmer winters are coming, not colder.)
Warmer winters because of El Niño, colder because of co2?
On topic.
50
No I prefer a discussion where the participants have something to say
23
Which is why you come here instead of SkS.
50
This appears to have slipped under the radar.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/31/australian-tropical-cyclone-activity-measured-to-be-at-the-lowest-levels-in-modern-history/
Imbedded you will discover two dates, 500 AD and 1400 AD, which to my way of thinking should be sounding alarm bells.
30
Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but I feel in my water that Gaia is sending a chilling message.
20
So do we have another 300 years or is it the start of a LIA?
20
Good question, worth debating. On flimsy evidence I see a major Minima beginning soon.
30
I reckon we will see a gradual decline of temperatures for the next couple of decades, even in Giss and Hadcrut. Then a longish cool period.
That is based on solar prediction, Sol being the MAIN driver of temperatures on Earth.
Human existence can probably cope quite well with gradual cooling by opening up new areas for farming in areas that are now not used.
Australia’s top end has plenty of it, and plenty of water regularly each year, if the will was there to start to use it.
I hope that it isn’t a sharp drop in temperatures, that would cause a LOT of suffering throughout the world.
Of course the BEST SCENARIO for sustained life on Earth would be a degree or so extra warming with CO2 levels continuing to increase.
But I suspect we will not be so lucky.
51
‘I hope that it isn’t a sharp drop in temperatures, that would cause a LOT of suffering throughout the world.’
Not necessarily, the multinationals will see a business opportunity and take full advantage. China in particular can see what’s coming and is buying agribusiness outside the Middle Kingdom.
As a general rule any sharp downturn in temperature leads to starvation, disease and war, but on this occasion we should be able to avoid that calamity.
30
A new research paper is about ready for publication. It looks at the whole world of those in the climate change prediction business. It’s not quite complete but here is an abstract suitable for publication.
110
‘Academic Papers’ are the most expensive toilet papers in the World.They would be more usefull printed on soft tissue.
61
On the plus side their work is more humane that slaughtering goats and inspecting their entrails.
On the down side, it is not as scientifically rigorous…
60
I have notoced that the likes of Phill Shehan seem to target and persue contributors on this site.
Maybe Off Topic,
I have a couple of questions for contributors:
1. How many of you persue Phill Shehan or any of the other warmists to other sites?
2. If you did so, do you think your response was regarded as intimidation and harassment?
3. If you did not do so, was it because of the vetting process involved with registering on warmist’s sites which is designed to discourage alternative arguments and make it appear to readers that there is no evidence contrary to the global warming meme?
61
1.. Why bother ! no other response needed.
Jo’s place is quite and peaceful, with sensible discussion, until the likes of them arrive with their repetitive, nauseating, propaganda nonsense.
52
Griss,
Same, same.
20
Speaking for myself…
1 Not me
2 No
3 Yes
Left wing blogs, not involved with the science of climate change, are prepared to discuss the politics of the argument. The green leftoids are a hateful bunch and any deviation from the true path will eventually lead to banishment.
21
gordo,
They do seem to despise and hate a lot – glass half empty bunch of a##holes aren’t they…
You’d think they’d be rejoicing because of the pause, yet they seem to pray for the planet to continue warming.
Alarmists seem to be happy in misery.
20
I hope warming will continue, and atmospheric CO2 increase..
Does that make me an alarmist ! 😉
30
Nooooooooooooooooo, it makes you want to go out to the garage, fire the beast Commy’ up, and go for a long, loud drive.
20
I had a go at hotwhopper.. A bit rushed and blotched. Interesting to see the replies though.
10
Hi vic,
Well look, I get onto SS sometimes (seems more appropriate than SkS because of Cook’s fetish with… well you know – fish nets, high heels and historically significant uniforms) and read a couple of posts then count the comments.
You know I actually believe they troll sceptic sites just to entice comments on their own.
The number of comments for any given post is usually displayed in binary – funny that.
20
I got this reply
My very polite reply was promptly removed. Something along the lines of most people admitted that the maths was too difficult to understand but supported the effort. Honesty. Try it sometimes.
I also added that I liked the saying. A mistake is not an error unless you don’t fix it. M. Mann didn’t fix his mistake when he was told about it and didn’t stop Jones from trying to shoot the messenger. He also combined with Briffa not to include suspicious data or “Hide the decline”. It should have lead to a conclusion that the tree ring data was not reliable instead of deciding not to show it.
Did I get this wrong or was it rude?
50
Right….
but nowhere near rude enough 🙂
40
James FWIW I have never bothered commenting on warmist sites as it’s time and effort I’d never get back, not to mention communicating with people I probably wouldn’t p$ss on if they were on fire.
I’ve only gone lurking there for information or research on whatever crap warmists are spewing out, but visit rarely.
Websites aren’t any different to people, of which I learnt to read a long time ago.
42
Yonnie,
Yeah, me neither, couldn’t be bothered – just thought it interesting the lengths the alarmists go to to force their beliefs on others, then they get bent all out of shape over it.
The thing is, when you know you’re right then you’re right.
You don’t have to go around trying to convince other people merely to self validate.
41
” merely to self validate.”
Ahhh, you have pinned Philip to a tee. !! 🙂
The WC was the same.
And ego that he could never keep up with.
51
via twitter:#hockeyschtick1
Warmists sad: Despite the strong 2014 El Nino hype, “atmosphere failed to respond” to models & little chance in 2014
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Quote BoM: “Despite the tropical Pacific Ocean being primed for an El Niño during much of the first half of 2014, the atmosphere above has largely failed to respond, and hence the ocean and atmosphere have not reinforced each other.”
~ ~ ~
Pierre Gosselin@notrickszone posted:
Today German blog site Die kalte Sonn here brings us up to speed on the “super El Niño” topic.
To sum it up, once again predictions by leading “experts” have turned out to be completely wrong –
Australian Meteorological Institute sees little chance of an El Nino in 2014 By Frank Bosse (Translated, edited by P Gosselin)
Also @notrickszone:
Divergence Between Model Temperature And Reality Reaches Record High…And Is Now Accelerating!
“As the above chart shows, the divergence between modeled temperature and observed is setting new records with every passing month. The divergence for the 36-month moving average is now at about 0.35°C, already an embarrassment for the climate modellers.
So even if the current decade manages to be a little warmer than the last, the model error will still be sticking out more than ever.
Time is truly on the side of the skeptics. For the alarmists, it is running out – fast!”
50
Even if there had been a small ElNino, I suspect it would have been like the 2010 one, a transient effect only.
Unlike the ElNino’s of the latter part of last century, which had plenty of solar energy to drive them,….
.. solar energy is somewhat lacking at the moment.
If you look at the 2010 ElNino, you can see it actually had to suck heat from the atmosphere beforehand to actually happen.
As such, it was just part of the general very slight cooling trend since 2001.
52
In all fairness to the BoM, Griss, we wait to see what El Niño brings.
But, it is a safe bet the 70% of the 97% consensus is over.
It is the squirming and back-tracking of this pathetic, once great meteorological institution that is noted, as another of their co2 induced predictions vanishes before their disappointed eyes.
Soon they will be back-peddling faster than a duck that just landed in a billabong full of crocodiles, as the last of their credibility equals the proportion of carbon(sic) in the atmosphere.
31
Griss,
Thank you for the fine sloppers.
How do I get the cup of warm to my left hand without turning the face of the cup around?:
20
Gees, use a mirror, of course . 🙂
00
You are no fun at all! . 🙂
20
‘If you look at the 2010 ElNino, you can see it actually had to suck heat from the atmosphere beforehand to actually happen.’
That makes sense, so for me its becoming abundantly clear that ENSO is a trigger.
‘Global temperature anomalies are dominated by ENSO events which are viewed to be the most spectacular example of a free internal oscillation of the climate system not subjected to external forcing. It is shown, however, that El Niño, La Niña, and the Southern Oscillation are subjected to strong solar forcing. They are closely connected with special phases in the rise to maximum and the fall to minimum of the 11-year sunspot cycle which coincide with significant accumulations of energetic solar eruptions.’
Theodor Landscheldt
30
And let’s not forget the PDO and AMO switches.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/amo-pdo-cycles/
Natural Variability Rules
20
You left out the latest preferred methodology for forecasting in use by Warmist — rolling knuckle bones.
00
Quote: “Nature (the formerly great science journal)”
Was it ever great?
Or is it that the guts of the articles couldn’t be researched, and the pronouncements couldn’t be verified, unless one was in the field and had inside knowledge of the subject at hand?.
With medical science, climate science, what I’ve read in Mat Ridley’s books, and what I’ve witnessed of government and management and people in general; are that lies are more normal truth any day of the week (including Sundays).
00
More normal ‘than’ truth. And I re-read it several times and still missed it. doh!
I guess I am just so fed up with modern propaganda. I’m over this whole social experiment.
00
Kodra & Ganguly (2014) abstract:
But how “robust” are the model’s simulations? The head of the BBC Complaints Unit, Fraser Steel, thinks robust enough to be “evidence” (Raymond Snoddy, MediaTel):
Raymond Snoddy continues:
So how’s the proof going? Not so good apparently:
‘Implications for climate models of their disagreement with observations’
by Judith Curry, October 30, 2013
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/
Excerpts:
And,
9 months on and these graphs will have to be updated with the continuing “pause”:
Robust? No. Evidence? No.
10
>”9 months on and these graphs will have to be updated with the continuing “pause”:”
This image (Image html disabled?):
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hawkins.png
10
>”9 months on and these graphs will have to be updated with the continuing “pause”:”
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hawkins.png
Updated like this (to 06/2014 by C3 Headlines, H/t handjive #40):
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a3fd3d44b9970b-pi
The “evidence from computer modelling” (BBC), is a mirage in the AGW desert.
10
Robust means something rather strange to these guy.
It seems to mean that they keep getting the same WRONG answer.
11
Was there a model that predicted the Antarctic blast in Adelaide over night? I doubt it as it was the coldest August morning since 1880 odd, in fact it was so cold on the plains that two Kluger (Toyota SUV for you out of towners) batteries gave up the ghost.
Murray Bridge had its coldest morning since records began and the list goes on, now in the past the idiotic GA’s of this world would claim “aw gee shucks” thats just a cold snap but never fear there is nothing that can stand in the way of the unstoppable tide of CAGW.
Obviously this old trick was beginning to wear thin so now they can reach for a new excuse by claiming CO2 can cause everything. What a wonderful alternative reality they have created for themselves.
11
We’ve had three days of -2°C mornings in Mildura. The record low is 2.3°C for August. Lets see if it makes it into the papers. So far the local paper says yesterday’s -2.3°C was only the lowest this year.
I left the sprinklers on overnight and there were icicles hanging off the vegetables. It looks like that stopped the leaves from going lower than 0°C so no damage. Fingers crossed.
10
Correction, -2.3°C was the record equalled.
00
Craker please point me to where I’ve said something like this
I’ll retract or backpedal as the case may be.
Canberra has not had a winter of very cold mornings like the last two but we’ve had a few periods of very low maximum temps including about 2 weeks in June when it seldom got above 8. Inevitably there will have been another year where something similar happened.
04
GA,
I dont recall you ever saying such a thing as it was a joke, TBH i dont recall you ever expressing an opinion on anything which kind of defeats the purpose of you being here i suppose but yet here you remain.
Therefore it makes sense (from the point of view of a joke) to state that you trot out every inept excuse you can find to explain away the holes in the theory.
By the way i might be in Canberra in a little while (not sure yet) but if so maybe we can catch up for a drink, do you still have my email address?
Cheers
20
thank you for acknowledging my mediocrity but I don’t make excuses for it or for anything else.
Not sure about the drink. Do you have references?
02
References? Yeah sure, how many do you want and what do you want then to say?
20
Determine the desired outcome and create the data to suit…
Are you a climate scientist by chance?? 🙂
20
81 Comments from Brian (Philip Shehan PHD blah blah) in this thread.
21% of the comments.
Obviously loves red thumbs too much.
20
And he continues to BACKWARDS at a rate of knots…..
He says he is not wasting his time, though.. roflmao !!!!!
41
Now over the hundred mark, and 25% of the comments.
20
100 posts, with near zero content !!!!
He must be proud at his total waste of time.
His life has become an empty shell.
40
the Griss,
Well I’ve just belatedly browsed through this thread, and I’m amazed that Dr Brian Philip Shehan still retains such an immense ego as to make more than a hundred assertions of great authority.
Given that his sources of authority repeatedly include ‘SkepticalScience’ and ‘Tamino’ and that he has given profoundly naive assertions on statistical techniques etcetera, it hardly seems worthwhile debating him, unless of course you can gain fun in doing so.
30
UPDATE: JunkScience has done a lot of work looking at PM2.5 which is interesting and claims the EPA are wildly exaggerating. (Never! ;-)). be aware PM2.5 is a size, not a chemical, so blanket claims should be treated with some skepticism. Indoor, or woodland PM2.5s will be a different chemical composition. And diesel itself is a lot more than just PM2.5 – there are mixed oxides of nitrogen and sulphur and a range of compounds:
What comes off in the exhaust depends on how hot and efficient the car engine is and a whole lot of other factors.
Many studies show people suffer higher morbidity and mortality for people who live near large roads. These are epidemiological and only associations, so weak, but they might be real. Though problems with living near traffic could be diesel, petrol, road noise, back carbon or all of the above.
40
The worst part about this article and lead-in is this -\
” The modern witchdoctors are at work. Runestones, tea-leaves, broken models, what’s the difference? ”
At least Rune stones and tea leaves have some semblance of validity! What did they ever do to you that prompted this unwarranted attack on them? Don’t blame the runes or tea leaves, blame the reader if you didn’t get the results you wanted!
30