by Judith Curry
The MSM and blogosphere are still roiling over David Rose’s article last Sunday, here is the latest, including a new article by David Rose.
Carbon Brief
The Carbon Brief has an article: This weeks top six rebuttals of David Rose’s warming has stopped claims. One of these is of interest:
Number 5. An article yesterday by Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, dug deeper into the Met Office’s Hadcrut4 dataset and suggests Rose manipulated it to create a false graph. The article also describes Rose’s track record for producing similar pieces for the Mail on Sunday.
The key excerpt from Ward’s article is this:
These data define a warming trend of 0.047°C per decade. Applying simple linear regression using ordinary least squares to the data shows that this trend is statistically significant at the 95 per cent level. It should be noted simple linear regression using ordinary least squares is not really the best method for assessing these data as it depends on assumptions which are violated by global temperature measurements. Nevertheless, it can be used to show that Rose’s claim that “from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures” is entirely false.
It is also worth noting that this plot differs from the fake graph that accompanied the article by Rose – for instance, in the HadCRUT4 dataset, January 2007 is the warmest month ever recorded, whereas Rose’s graph suggests that it was much cooler.
Now this is worth investigating/discussing — auditors, have at it.
The Guardian
The Guardian’s latest response to Rose: Climate change: journalism’s never ending fight for facts. Subtitle: An Australian DJ must undergo ‘accuracy’ training after saying falsehoods about climate change. But will this improve journalism? Excerpts:
What, for example, can realistically be done about David Rose and his periodic articles in the Mail on Sunday purporting to cast doubt on climate science? The Press Complaints Commission has confirmed to me that it has received complaints about the latest article’s accuracy. But it adds that it takes, on average, 35 working days for it to investigate and adjudicate on such cases. How could that ever correct the fact that the story was picked up and repeated all around the world within hours? Will all those outlets publish any adjudication if, indeed, it rules against the Mail on Sunday? I think we already know the answer.
Perhaps the scientists interviewed for the article should have smelt a rat,given Rose’s form? After all, Professor Judith Curry complained that she had been misattributed not just for this week’s article (she claims she never said climate models were “deeply flawed” despite the article attributing this comment to her), but for the Mail on Sunday article last year where he also quoted her. Why would she trust him second time round? Warning bells must have been sounding inside her head, surely? The result was that she spent the rest of the week posting ever-longer articles on her blog trying to clarify and better explaining the “facts” within the original article.
But, ignoring for a moment that she had already been stung by Rose once before, what measures could she realistically have taken to ensure the article printed was an accurate portrayal of the basic facts, as well as her own views? This is a dilemma that faces all climate scientists when they are approached by journalists. The last thing we want is for scientists to retreat back up into their ivory towers.
One of the best forms of rapid rebuttal we now have to counter misinformation is the fact that an increasing number of scientists are taking to Twitter meaning they can react instantly if they spot mistakes in the media. And they can also directly and publicly field questions via Twitter, not just from journalists but from the wider interested public. Sure, a very small section of society actually use Twitter, but it is closely followed by most journalists so you would hope comments posted by scientists crying foul would be picked up, absorbed and disseminated.
What about “punishing” the journalists who persistently mislead on climate change? Is exposing their mistakes and wilful misinformation enough? Or do they need to face some kind of tougher sanction? If so, who would act as the judge, jury and prosecutor? Are ombudsmen a powerful enough deterrent?
I certainly have mixed views about the training course that Alan Jones has been ordered to undergo. On the one hand, it has the benefit of shaming him – and his associates – very publicly. But, equally, is it really likely to make much of a difference to his “journalism”? As a professional controversialist, he knows the prejudices of his audience intimately and he plays up to them relentlessly. His “martyrdom” might even improve his standing with his supporters, such is their logic.
Sunday Mail
David Rose’s response to the controversy is published today in the Sunday Mail, entitled The really inconvenient truths about global warming. The subtitle of the article is “Last week we explosively revealed a 16-year ‘pause’ in rising temperatures – triggering a bitter debate. You decide what the real facts are…”
The excerpts surrounding my quotes are appended below:
Another critic said that climate expert Professor Judith Curry had protested at the way she was represented in our report. However, Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers, responded: ‘A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement . . . effectively refutes Mr Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.
‘Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’
The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’
The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: ‘For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade is projected for a range of emission scenarios’ – a prediction it said was solid because this rate of increase was already being observed.
But while CO2 levels have continued to rise since 1997, warming has paused. This leads Prof Curry to say the IPCC’s models are ‘incomplete’, because they do not adequately account for natural factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and a decline in solar output, which have suppressed the warming effects of CO2.
Other experts point out one of the biggest natural factors behind the plateau is the fact that in 2008 the temperature cycle in the Pacific flipped from ‘warm mode’, in which it had been locked for the previous 40 years, to ‘cold mode’, meaning surface water temperatures fell. A cold Pacific cycle causes fewer and weaker El Ninos, and more, stronger La Ninas.
Prof Curry said that stripping out these phenomena made ‘no physical sense’. She added that natural phenomena and the CO2 greenhouse effect interact with each other, and cannot meaningfully be separated. It’s not just that the ‘cold mode’ has partly caused the plateau.
According to Prof Curry and others, the previous warm Pacific cycle and other natural factors, such as a high solar output, accounted for some of the warming seen before 1997 – some say at least half of it.
When will the warming start again?
The truth is no one knows. It is likely that in the 2020s, the Atlantic cycle – currently in warm mode – will also flip to cold, so that for some years both the Pacific and Atlantic cycles will be cold at the same time. When this happens, world temperatures may decline, as they did in the Forties.
Prof Curry said: ‘If we are currently in a plateau and possibly headed for cooling, then sometime in the middle of the century we would likely see another period with a large warming trend.’
She added: ‘Because of natural variability, it is impossible to pinpoint what 2100 would look like. The climate sensitivity to greenhouse warming is still pretty uncertain, and it is not clear whether or to what extent man-made factors will dominate the climate of this period.’
For the world to be two degrees warmer in 2100 than it is now – as the IPCC has predicted – warming would not only have to restart but also proceed much faster than it has before.
Since 1880, temperatures have risen by around 0.75 degrees.
JC comments: I think that David Rose’s 2nd article is well done. He lays out the arguments that the other ‘side’ is making, and provides his response. It is a reasonable portrayal of the debate surrounding this issue. (no gripes about my picture this time :) )
This whole situation is a very interesting example of the interplay betweeen the MSM, the blogosphere and twitter. The MSM goes with a provocative headline. There is more detailed analysis and broader discussion in the blogs. And there is a cacophony of barking tweets from both sides.
The ‘facts’, such as they exist, are the data; in this case the latest release of HADCRUT4. This is new data, so people haven’t yet had much time to analyze and interpret it. However these data end up being analyzed, the trend since 1997 is very small, much smaller than the decadal trend of 0.2C that we have been led to expect by the IPCC for the early part of the 21st century. The whole issue of cherry picking start and end dates is a red herring, as I’ve argued in my previous post Trends, change points and hypotheses. It depends on what hypothesis you are trying to test. If you are using data to evaluate the IPCC’s projection of 0.2C/decade warming in the first two decades of the 21st century, with plateaus or pauses at most of 15-17 yrs duration, well then you can pick whatever start date you want. It will be very interesting to see what Press Complaints Commission comes up with regarding Rose’s article.
The Guardian makes the point that they don’t want scientists to go back into the ivory tower if their views are misrepresented. In fact, that is exactly what I did after the infamous brain fossilization incident. Which scientists do reporters choose to talk to, and why? The answers to this are probably all over the map, varying with the story and with the reporter. For better or worse, I’ve put myself out there as being willing to talk to reporters (after brain fossilization and heretic, I now have the hide of an armadillo). I’m prepared to work with reporters on their articles. This time, David Rose sent me my quotes in advance, along with the content surrounding them; I made a few minor changes to make the message more clear and more accurate and he incorporated these changes verbatim in the article.
The bottom line for me is that David Rose’s article has stimulated an interesting debate on an important and controversial topic. These exchanges in the MSM, blogosphere and twitosphere have hopefully enlightened and provoked critical thinking amongst the group that pays most attention to these things. Of course both sides are using this exchange in the MSM to ‘keep score’ in the climate wars, where the casualty tends to be honest debate.
“Honest debate”? I’m not familiar with that term. Please elaborate.
If honest debate is one where everyone says what they believe then the climate debate is as honest as it gets. If it is something else I do not know what that might be.
+10
Well, the problem is that we get a consensus, and not what individual scientists believe. And talking about uncertainty is viewed as a political statement
If David Rose had published, for example, articles asserting vaccinations caused autism, would anyone be defending his stance?
He’s lying, and he’s doing harm. What more need we know or say, except why isn’t he in public office?
I would defend his right to publish such articles.
Edim | October 21, 2012 at 10:26 am |
You can defend a right to free speech without defending the content of the speech itself; further, you can’t defend unfettered right to publish lies as a right of free speech. David Rose omits that he’s taking his marching orders from the GWPF, obscuring their involvement in his campaign as part of their overall strategy. That’s hardly free speech. He’s waging a mass media manipulation that uses every possible subterfuge without identifying the interests involved. That’s hardly free speech. He’s been caught time and again lying and mischaracterising and misquoting, which we don’t defend as free speech when it does real harm. He implicitly promotes hatred of a specific class of people — scientists — in his articles. How is that defensible free speech?
I don’t care where he’s simply wrong on facts because he’s mathematically incompetent, or ill-read, or finds logic a challenge. That’s the human condition, and entirely defensible. I object to abuses of the priviledge publishers enjoy dressed up as free speech when they’re anything but.
Absolutely, some of the precepts David Rose pays lip-service to — such as vigorous public debate and not leaving matters to politicians — are true; however just dressing up a turd in the flag doesn’t turn it into a patriot. The first principle of the defense of free speech is eternal vigilance is the price of freedom: readers who accept David Rose’s false misuses of the press as protected speech demonstrate insufficient skepticism.
He’s lying. He’s doing harm. He’s acting on behalf of unidentified other parties. Normally, you’d see that in someone standing for election.
Easy tiger. You make it appear that you are emotionally invested in this AGW nonsense
Bart, I don’t know much about him and I don’t care. I think the consensus is doing harm, especially to science. The convinced scientists are not honest and only want to protect the paradigm. The paradigm was unscientific from the beginning, IMO.
Your comments are entirely predictable and tedious. The only issue is whether the graph is correct. I have heard no scientist taking exception to the graph. It is a pretty simple picture. Gnaw at the edges if you will but a 5 year old can get the message from simply looking at the graph. It is nearly flat. End of story.
Bart R,
1. Never say “lie”. Say “misrepresentation”. For instance:
> David Rose is a serial misrepresenter.
would be easier to substantiate, and it makes you sound like an auditor.
2. Never assert any network analysis. Dogwhistle is your friend here. For instance:
> David Rose’s misrepresentations always seem to align themselves with those of Nigel Lawson’s GWPF. Wonder why?
The weaponry that provides the auditing sciences are made for the kind of discussion you’re trying to have right now. Use them. For more examples, cf.
http://climateaudit.org
God I miss bender.
***
I guess you were wrong the other day about the coherence of my presence here… A shame, really. I wish you were right.
where does he promote hatred of scientists,.. this is just your own activist rhetoric. he may criticise scientists, which is not the same thing, or are all scientists above criticism.. He quotes Judith’s scientific opinion favourably (or is she not a ‘proper scientist’ anymore?)
Bart R: He’s lying.
I think you’d be more effective if you would quote, exactly, one such “identified lie”, and tell us how you know it is a “lie”.
The one dubious asserting is that the starting date was not “cherry picked”. In fact, dates near there have been identified as change points in change-point algorithms, though such change-point algorithms are not without their own problems. So, …, dubious though the assertion may be, it can not be shown to be a “lie”.
Barry Woods,
You’re right: criticizing scientists is not the same thing as promoting hatred. But you have to admit that there are ways to criticize scientists that can promote hatred. In other words, your distinction cuts no ice.
We should also distinguish attacking scientists and attacking science:
> Since the Iraq debacle, Rose has latterly been writing articles attacking climate science for the Daily Mail. [David Rose] has distinguished himself by the same uncritical reliance on dodgy sources that caused his catastrophic mistakes about Iraq.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-rose-climate-science
We could then say that David Rose does seem to promote dodgy sources.
***
I’m not sure if David Rose promotes hatred. The claim would deserve due diligence. We would need to read his articles. Just by reading this quote, we might surmise that his fumble (?) on the Irak Occupation does seem to show that he promotes something.
What exactly? It tough to know. Take for instance:
> British intelligence has long used clandestine “deniable briefings” to release information real and false to tame hacks including David Rose… “It is my honest belief that the way Britain’s spooks deal with the media has simply become untenable, gravely damaging journalists and spies alike.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Rose
Since you seem to be a reader of the Daily Sunday Mail (DSM), would you tell me what you think it promotes?
Many thanks!
Bart R
Your outrage is misdirected.
Instead of fuming about what one journalist in the Daily Mail wrote, direct your (feigned) outrage at Al Gore, whose film, “An Inconvenient Truth” was full of lies, scientific misrepresentations, exaggerations, etc. YET received an Oscar (a Nobel Peace Prize?) and was even selected for brainwashing school children, before the UK Court stopped this.
Max
> Instead of fuming about what one journalist in the Daily Mail wrote, direct your (feigned) outrage at Al Gore, […]
Look! A fat squirrel!
The court didn’t stop AIT being shown in British schools.
who’s parsing.
Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change alarmists such as Michael Mann, James Hansen, Bill McGibben and more have been caught lying repeatedly. Erasing empirical temperature records, attributing extreme weather events to global warming without any data,yet you probably find their actions to be fine, regardless of the harm they have done. We have the data to support that vaccines don’t cause autism. We don’t have the data to support cataclysmic events as a result of some mild warming.
Whether or not Rose is taking “marching orders,” and what person or organization he gets those supposed orders from, is irrelevant. He presented data. He made a case for the data. The case is sound.
I reject your claim that he’s “doing harm”. His article is a benefit and a service to the citizens of the world and to the standing of science.
Great harm has already been done to the scientific enterprise in the AGW debate, largely by a small cadre of horribly misguided scientists. Because they massively and zealously overstated claims of AGW, the careers of these scientists – most notably Hansen, Mann and Trenberth – are now irrevocably staked on a single outcome in the debate, whether that outcome is right or wrong.
Science – all science – should be challenged. It should be challenged relentlessly. It is the failure or success of the challenges to theories and hypotheses, not the theories or hypotheses themselves, that convince us of the truth.
Dolphinlegs | October 21, 2012 at 10:59 am |
Where in my reply did I refer to AGW at all?
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
Screwing with the free press is an attack on basic liberty; subverting the media to run a covert campaign is just such an attack. When CRU did the same thing denying access to information, I said as much about them.
This isn’t about a bad actor in AGW. This is about a bad actor.
“Screwing with the free press is an attack on basic liberty” Well, no in point of fact. The “free press” has been “screwed with” by governments, editors, owners, movie stars and yea verily, even scientists.
For example, Q: Why does Lady Gaga don a meat dress? A: To “screw” with the press in such a way that they will ask her why and she will get to tell them. They will report. Internet eyeballs will flick to the headline. Some percentage will subsequently buy the detergent advertised there. All the while, the world turns…while presumably displaying a surface temp that falls far short of dire prediction.
You project on to free press a lofty ideal that it neither seeks nor achieves.
dennis adams | October 21, 2012 at 11:31 am |
Gnosiophobia is hardly an argument. What you claim you haven’t heard of is hardly persuasive, given the substantial body you ought have heard of by this point.
The graph is ‘nearly flat’ is a trick of the eye, exploited by Rose in his article to make false claims and mislead readers.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:191/mean:193/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:79/mean:85/from:1996.67/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:79/mean:85/offset:-0.07/from:1996.67/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:79/mean:85/offset:0.07/from:1996.67/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:79/mean:85/to:1865.92/offset:-0.07/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:79/mean:85/to:1865.92/offset:0.07/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:79/mean:85/to:1865.92/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:11/mean:13/offset:-0.27/from:2005.83/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:11/mean:13/offset:0.27/from:2005.83/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:11/mean:13/from:2005.83/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:11/mean:13/to:1856.75/offset:-0.27/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:11/mean:13/to:1856.75/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:11/mean:13/to:1856.75/offset:0.27
Up to 2006, global warming without pause is unequivocal on the strongest available evidence using 32 year smoothing and parameterizing on 17 year smoothing. Asserting on weaker data a pause is a fundamental error. This error has been pointed out to David Rose, in writing, and he is a professional so is held to a higher standard of truth than an ordinary speaker. Therefore we are correct in identifying what David Rose does as lying, not mere misrepresentation; we can call him a professional liar, without fear of overstating the case.
Also, David Rose’s relationship with Nigel Lawson’s GWPF is well-known and well-established from public statements David Rose himself has made; either we can call this relationship established, or he’s an even bigger liar.
There _might_ be a pause in the rise of GMT. However, that pause is, given the state of all available observations less than 1/6th likely to exist at all. Not David Rose’s “stopped” global warming, which is so unlikely as to be utterly invalid to assert, but any pause on a decadal or longer scale at all. Those are mathematical truths. Allowing a known liar like David Rose to attempt to frame the debate is ludicrous, so any point in his transparently bloviating follow-up is automatically deprecated.
Let someone who isn’t an established liar frame the terms of the debate. One recommends the Black Hat Marketer, Mosher as superbly qualified. He knows far more about liars than most; his familiarity with climate issues is pretty fair, too.
The Met Office itself has confirmed what I am saying. That is all I need to know.
Bart R,
Perhaps you might be interested to remind your critics of this inconvenient fact:
> The Daily Mail has given more than five times as much space to the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s views in its recent coverage of climate change and ‘green taxes’ than to any other source.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/07/daily-mail-and-the-global-warming-policy-foundation
An infographic:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/62281/sheet1.png.jpg
Perhaps Judy should appear on this graphic, if we consider her as a source.
Lying with data is the most pernicious form of falsehood.
because people can just look and see.. hey the data shows no slope.. the math required to unseat this frame is beyond the ken of those fooled by their eye.
lying with data is also effective because you dont have to say anything. just show the image..every bit of that image is true..but you know the cropping creates a lie.
once you find a journalist who will carry your sand you never pay them. that is not how it works. never pay them.
Nice charts Bart.
The other thing people should realize is that CRUTEMP, is biased cold for periods when the arctic is warming faster than the rest of globe.
A diligent data analyst would check his result ( no warming) against all known data sets. I suspect Rose didnt do that. why ask yourself the tough questions?
When the warming resumes, as it must, this pause will be dropped from the playbook. Other pauses await. There will always be pauses.. there will always be bits and pieces of the science that dont look how we expect them to look.
Currently the team is relying on employing rapid reaction forces. However, the bell is never un rung. They need to get ahead of the game.
Must say I’m lost here. ” … 32 year smoothing and parameterizing on 17 year smoothing … ” rather means you are assuming that this series has an underlying structure that a prion sets limits on the any detectable pause.
You might be squabbling over the model that’s been assumed, but it doesn’t make either of you liars for doing so.
moshe, ‘when the warming returns, as it must’, gives you hopelessly away as a man of faith rather than of science.
===========
HADCRUT4 is definitely biased.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/hadcrut4-the-scammers-are-getting-shameless/
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/hadcrut4-hates-1998/
> [T]he bell is never un rung. They need to get ahead of the game.
+1
Dear kim
“kim | October 22, 2012 at 1:22 am |
moshe, ‘when the warming returns, as it must’, gives you hopelessly away as a man of faith rather than of science.”
I admit you are correct. I am a man of faith.
I put my faith in the best explanation we have.
We reason properly when we reason to the best evidence.
So, yes I put my faith in science.
diabolically yours,
moshpit
will,
I have, which is why I suggested it over sour pies.
I’ve been contemplating buying a still and experimenting with brandy making. Oregon and Washington are great fruit producers.
dennis adams | October 21, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
You’re saying you believe every word out of the Met Office?
Or only the ones you cherry-pick?
Those that are germane to the issue.
I thought german cherry pies were sour.
willard,
stick to the cherry brandy and forget their pies.
Try both, timg56. If you like kirsch, you won’t regret it.
MattStat/MatthewRMarler | October 21, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
As referenced by Dr. Curry above, we see a record of David Rose’s previous published articles on virtually the identical claim.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2012/october/myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-mid-1990s.aspx
The mere furor of any one of these prior articles ought have advantaged Mr. Rose with clear understanding of the manifest errors in his claims.
‘Published’ is not the same as ‘wrote’. It’s a generally professional, traditional level of access to the public via the press that enjoys many privileges and has the support of press lawyers and professional editors and institutions. Anyone who publishes is held to a higher duty, or standard, of truth, than a layman.
For example, a blogger who opines on someone else’s blogs in comments is just a layman. While he might take advantage — as I try to — of every opportunity to assure the truth of his remarks, he’s not under the same burdens to be truthful as a published writer with his own byline.
Every time David Rose publishes the same error and is publicly corrected in responses to his articles, he benefits from and is obliged by these corrections. If he fails to acknowledge them when he repeats false statements knowingly, he’s lying. Period.
Barry Woods | October 21, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
A sustained campaign of intolerance, falsehood, and calumny targetting a specific identifiable group is, to my understanding, hate speech. Do you have a different understsanding of David Rose’s actions?
Bart R: publicly corrected in responses to his articles
Surely you are aware that some published corrections are themselves in error. Without your providing specific, accurately quoted lies, and how you infer them to be lies, you are just wasting time.
I point to the end of the first sentence:
> [S]ome published corrections are themselves in error.
I also point to the beginning of the second one:
> Without your providing specific, […]
That is all.
jbmckim | October 21, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
So, you see no difference between being screwed with by Lady Gaga and being screwed with by Nigel Lawson and a secretive group of cronies?
So much for your eternal vigilence.
willard (@nevaudit) | October 21, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
I greatly prefer what is called here “German Black Forest Cake”.
http://www.europeancuisines.com/German-Schwarzwalder-Kirschtorte-Recipe-Black-Forest-Cake-Cherry-Kirsch
I prefer the Schwarzwaldtårta.
Speaking of German cuisine, I once made a Christstollen. Die Warheit ist, es war perfeckt.
manacker | October 21, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
To be precise, the UK Courts found no lies, three unsubstantiated (at the time, since substantiated) claims, and six apparent or ambiguous misrepresentations or exaggerations. It required a statement of clarification on these points prior to showing the video, and even endorsed the use of the video for education in the UK.
As I haven’t seen the piece of work in question, I can’t really comment much on whether the court might have had a different decision if it were up to me.
However, I’m told over 300 claims were made, of which the courts were asked by plaintiffs (funded by Nigel Lawson?) to examine only 42 (which would be a moderate 14% error rate — pretty good by Hollywood standards); the courts rejected 33 of the assertions of error, and we (even those who like me have never seen it) that the maximum error rate of AIT is 2%. Which is like the logical compliment of your error rate here.
MattStat/MatthewRMarler | October 21, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
One notes your post fails to adhere to its own standards.
Which corrections err? Cite? Explanation?
Also, you appear to be gnosiophobic: we’re in a topic at Climate Etc. (one of four) where the misrepresentations of David Rose have been made plentifully clear (some of them) by Dr. Curry and many diligent commenters; I merely point out that, as a sophisticated party the writer has transgressed so far that the deceptions he puts out are lies, due his greater duty of care as a published journalist in press.
See, you’re going after the wrong party. If you feel Dr. Curry and all commenters who have demonstrated misrepresentations by David Rose are wrong, you have to take them on, not me.
If you feel David Rose is not a sophisticated party with a heightened duty of care due the privileges the press enjoy, by all means speak to that.
HAS | October 22, 2012 at 1:14 am |
Must say I’m lost here. ” … 32 year smoothing and parameterizing on 17 year smoothing … ” rather means you are assuming that this series has an underlying structure that a prion[sic] sets limits on the any detectable pause.
You make a good point, but a (very slightly) incorrect surmise.
I use 32 year smoothing as the standard because on 32 year spans we produce a curve that we can actually call a graph of climate; it is reliable to well over 99% confidence, and is good enough to compare tangents as meaningful climate trends with the only priors the beliefs that there is such a thing as global climate, and that the GMT of climates are comparable on this span of time. We achieve over 99% confidence of those priors, too, on the observations, and can by comparing the results to results from disjoint data arrive at consilience.
From there, we can use 17 year smoothing and bounds to produce a 95% reliable predictor of climate, again on the prior belief that we are able to compare the present to the past in this way. Here, we’re aided by the above consilience.
Can we go further? Yes, but only tentatively and only on the belief that what applied before still applies now. (This, by the way, is argued by Newton in Principia, as the principle of universality. It is the default position of Science absent new evidence showing it does not apply.)
We can, in going further, use consilient sources of information to dismiss claims relying on the current year to be significantly colder than 2005. Which, considering we know 2005 was part of a rise we cannot meaningfully distinguish from the trend up to 1997, means we cannot accept a claim of a flat or zero climate change to the current date, and we can estimate the odds that the rate of rise in GMT has slowed to be less than 1/6th.
I did this using graphical methods. You can do it with statistics and Bayes’ Theorem as well.
So cutting to the quick and putting aside any questions of the validity of the model you are assuming, you really don’t understand that the model you are using means you can’t detect within it a flattening off of temp since c. 1997?
The spell checker here isn’t very good at Latin.
HAS | October 22, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
“So cutting to the quick and putting aside any questions of the validity of the model you are assuming, you really don’t understand that the model you are using means you can’t detect within it a flattening off of temp since c. 1997?
See, that’s an example of begging the question right there, isn’t it?
A) Not assuming. ab initio logic proceeds from first principles. I can start with cogito ergo sum, and get to my position with no assumptions (unless you refer to the Peano Postulates as assumptions, which is barely arguable). No assumptions intrude between the start of the logic and this logical conclusion. Period.
B) All models are wrong; merely, some are also useful. As the construction of this logic is ab initio (from first principles), it is accurate or very nearly true to conclude this model is valid. As this model (among a full half dozen other independent demonstrations that do likewise) destroys the credibility of David Rose’s fictitious model, it is useful.
C) We can clearly detect the trend of GMT from 1997 to 2005 to 95% confidence; using graphical methods, we can demonstrate bounds that expand slightly the range of the GMT curve while increasing the confidence to above 99.95% (or any sigma level you wish). At such levels, we see the likelihood of a flattening off of GMT in the climate is vanishingly small.
D) Notice that 2005 is significantly warmer than 1997 in climate terms, as part of an accumulation of temperatures that form part of the climate curve. For the period since 2005 to be part of a flat or falling GMT trend would require at least most years since 2005 to be substantially cooler than the trend from 1997 to 2005, which we know from multiple independent sources to not be so (or, 2012 must be very cold compared to 2005).
E) Is there a flattening off of temperatures?
Sure. Absolutely. But every small child and their dog understands a rising tide no matter the differences of the crests and troughs of the waves in the surf. How bad would we have to be at understanding trends to do worse than a small child’s dog?
F) We don’t know what 2013 will bring. We can’t speak to what trend line we might be in, very much, for the period strictly since 2005. But we can reject as vanishingly unlikely David Rose’s claims, and even Dr. Curry’s claims of slowing of GMT warming trend is only 1/6th likely.
In other words I am right, you don’t understand why your model will find it difficult to detect a pause since 1997.
@bart r
I have discussed the matter with my small dog and he denies any knowledge of the rising tide phenomenon you describe. He says that he just likes splashing about and barking. And a bit of icecream afterwards.
But its worth pointing out that a rising tide eventually comes to high water when the waves are there but there is no underlying motion…and thence to a falling tide. where the ups and downs of the waves are superimposed on a falling sea level.
You chose an unfortunate analogy.
jimmy | October 23, 2012 at 12:28 am |
An ironic defense.
So what if he’s hiding data; he’s also presenting data.
So what if he’s doing harm, there’s good that could be gotten out of it.
You can reject all the reality you want and substitute your own fantasy world for it.. doesn’t mean the rest of us will join you in it.
tonyb,
Here’s what’s on the table:
> No pause can be at this time detected on a valid model.
Put up or shut up.
Willard
Your comment has suddenly gone to the top of the thread.Here is my reply to your comment at the other end
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-259215
Surely if the models can’t see what our eyes can see its time to change the models?
tonyb
tonyb,
Sometimes, you do have to modify the models, no doubt about that. You always do, really. That’s one reason to have models: scrapping them costs less than throwing out theories. But you need to come up with better models.
On the other hand, eyeballing is never enough. If what you see is not what you get, you can’t decide that what you get is always wrong. More so when it’s the only valid way to talk about what you see. Statistical reasoning is the bane of scientific communication.
There are many things we can say about plateaux. We could say delicious things about them, for instance if we think knowledge in biblical terms. We could build an whole industry based on plateaux. Just think how these debates could interest the most important half of the Internet readership. We should put some black hat marketers on that project.
More seriously, there are many things we should not say about plateaux in good conscience. I believe that some of them are being told, retold, recycled, and retold some more by David Rose and the right-wing populist outlets. I’m not sure this matters less than your “YesButData” argument.
And even more generally, holism wins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_holism
There are no such thing as an experimentum crucis.
HAS | October 23, 2012 at 4:51 am |
A valid climate model won’t find a pause there because there isn’t one there, at least not yet.
A string of powerful volcanoes, shifting of the Earth’s orbit, outlandish changes in solar output, increases in aerosol emission to the point of triggering death fogs, or other actions impossible to predict could well cause a sudden drop that means the 30 years since 1997 (which won’t end until 2026 — 14 years from now) might have a pause.
But as we have no way of predicting these yet-to-be events, no. No pause can be at this time detected on a valid model.
@bart r
‘No pause can be at this time detected on a valid model’
Yep. It’s only when you look at the pesky data you see that the temperature today is pretty much the same as it was in 1997. And the last time there was any detectable nett warming was in the last century.
But I guess that if the models don’t show it, then it doesn’t really exist…what use are bloody thermometers anyway? And no doubt somebody will be having very stern words with the CRU for their abysmal failure to correctly ‘adjust’ the observations to give the right answer. Can’t see Phil Jones getting the Nobel for this appalling cockup.
> It’s only when you look at the pesky data […]
To look at data, you need a model, Latimer.
Even a graphic is a model, Latimer.
Latimer
Both BartR and Willard seem to be playing semantics. Here are the three Hadley global records from 1850 to 2011. All appear to show a cooling or at least a pause this century. Rose would have seen these
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
In the real world of individual data sets, many of these also show distinct recent cooling according to BEST-albeit their statistical significance varies. These are best exemplified by CET, also kept by the Met office, which appear also to have some relevance as a proxy for global temperatures. There has been a noticeable fall throughout this century (albeit they remain at a high level)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
It would be nice to either get a straightforward agreement or a rebuttal of these Met office figures from Willard or BartR. They appear to be showing a cooling or stasis as Rose asserted. If they do NOT show that-despite the apparent evidence of our eyes-I would like to know -in straightforward language-exactly what it does show.
Where it goes from here as regards cooling warming or a neutral state I don’t know.
tonyb
@willard
‘Even a graphic is a model, Latimer’
Whatever.
tonyb,
First, I already conceded:
> They appear to be showing a cooling or stasis […]
If David Rose only wanted to convey this appearance, I would mind even less than I do right now. That’s not the point, and your misdirections about the MET data provides me evidence that you’re aware of this.
David Rose’s serial misrepresentations (which for Bart R are lies) go a bit beyond that.
***
Second, I need to get this one off my chest once and for all:
I never really understood that “playing semantics” reflex as soon as we take care of what people mean.
Semantics is studied by a kernel of disciplines that are formal, or at the very least quite sturdy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
The notion of model has its own theory:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/
***
To return to a recent caricature by our Can’t Get No Satisfaction engine (i.e. Latimer Adler, Soclates’ denizens) a diagram is a representation device that has a formal specification:
> A diagram is a two-dimensional geometric symbolic representation of information according to some visualization technique. Sometimes, the technique uses a three-dimensional visualization which is then projected onto the two-dimensional surface. The word graph is sometimes used as a synonym for diagram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagram
Diagrams can be formalized even furthermore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagram_(category_theory)
@climatereason
You are right. I too detected just a tiny hintette of semantic game playing in recent contributions from the esteemed Bart R and his faithful Tonto – Willard.
And I was shocked – shocked to the core – to see such things
sarc/
But you ask a very good question.
‘If they do NOT show that-despite the apparent evidence of our eyes-I would like to know -in straightforward language-exactly what it does show? ‘
For me it shows that anyone who tries to claim that (C)AGW is an urgent and important problem which needs to have lots of resources thrown at it right now is completely away with the fairies. And is likely to end up in the nearest midden if he tries to preach his nonsense in The Dog and Duck.
Willard said
“If David Rose only wanted to convey this appearance, I would mind even less than I do right now. That’s not the point, and your misdirections about the MET data provides me evidence that you’re aware of this.”
Please clarify my ‘misdirection. ‘ I posted graphs from the Met office, I wasn’t aware I had done anythng else,.
tonyb
Tony
careful he’s hunting squirrels
Mosh
When I was a child I was told there was a bounty for every grey squirrel hunted if you gave the police the tail. Dont know if that was ever true.
Tonyb
tonyb,
Your misdirection is there:
> It would be nice to either get a straightforward agreement or a rebuttal of these Met office figures […]
I’ll let Bart R, but I don’t believe that you have any ground to believe that I have anything to say about the Met office figures. In other words: Look! A numerical squirrel!
The Met office figures is not responsible for David Rose serial misrepresentations.
PS: Nice video, Mosphit!
Willard quoted me
“It would be nice to either get a straightforward agreement or a rebuttal of these Met office figures […]”
In what universe is that a misdirection Willard? Its simply asking people to tell us what they believe -in simple terms- what the figures show,
I believe the figures tell us a certain thing and we need to acknowledge this . I have no idea as to whether the globe will continue to warm or cool or bump around at the current temperatures
tonyb
tonyb,
I don’t care about the Met data.
I am quite agnostic regarding climate science.
I care about the silly games being played down here.
I care about proper reading.
Does that answer your question?
@willard
I’m sure that if Judith feels that a Nitpicker in Chief and Witchfinder-General is needed to help her run her blog, she will be perfectly capable of appointing a competent practitioner.
Until then there doesn’t seem to be much demand for your services…unless there is an unheeded public clamour for them that has gone as undetected as the post 1997 ‘warming’.
Latimer Adler,
Your compliment and your lack of due diligence to your escalation of claims are duly noted.
@willard
Please rest assured that, following your revelation that you don’t care about the subject of this blog I am treating your remarks about my ‘due dilgence’ with exactly the seriousness and urgency they deserve.
Don’t wait up.
Latimer Adler,
Thank you again for your illuminating comment.
I see that you are talking about the subject of this blog.
Could you tell us what this is in your own words and in sentences of the kind “David Rose lies on the mat”?
Many thanks!
@willard
I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-259250
You can assume that they equally apply to any other remarks you wish
to direct to me
Carry on Don’t Wait Upping.
Bart R way back at October 23, 2012 at 10:49 am
“A valid climate model won’t find a pause there because there isn’t one there, at least not yet.”
I assume this is a definition of “a valid climate model” i.e. if it can detect a pause it isn’t valid?
On a housekeeping note, are some of the links broken? Particularly http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/10/this-weeks-top-six-rebuttals-of-david-roses-warming-has-stopped-claims ?
Please provide evidence of
a. where he is ‘lying’
and
b. if you believe a particular statement or statements is ‘lying’, what harm is being done…to whom or what? How do you propose to demonstrate that harm?
Latimer Alder | October 21, 2012 at 10:51 am |
I believe our hostess had provided sufficient testimony of and links to evidence of lying.
Harms re patent in this case. The reasonable person test suffices.
Bart R: The reasonable person test suffices.
I am a reasonable person (I know this because I was chosen for jury duty, and to referee articles for publication), and I assert that you have not made a case.
@bart r
I didn’t see those. Please guide me directly and specifically to at least three of those links and for each explain concisely and clearly why you consider them to be evidence of lying.
‘Harms re patent in this case. The reasonable person test suffices.’
I have no idea what these two sentences mean. Please translate into English.
Example
The cat sat on the mat.
V.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-258400
MattStat/MatthewRMarler | October 21, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
Yeah, and you’re unbiased, too. Don’t forget to assert that.
Latimer Alder | October 21, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-258076
There are, I believe, the explanation and in excess of the three cites you epistemophobically demand if you drill down and look around.
Sorry, I dropped a letter when typing earlier.
‘Harms are patent in this case. The reasonable person test suffices.’
Hope that clears it up for you. If not, http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Reasonable+Person+Test
@bart r
Sorry Bart
Not going to just follow an endless stream of links.
You accuse him to be lying. You need to explain why.
You could take the format below as a template.
Mr Rose says abc
the truth is def (and we know this because……)
We know that Mr Rose knew his remarks were untrue because….
Therefore he was lying..
@bart r
The reasonable person reading the Daily Mail would be struggling to find exactly what ‘harms’ Mr Rose’s article might bring about. So am I.
Please explain.
@bart r
Gotta say that for one so ready to exclaim that Rose is ‘lying’ and ‘doing harm’ right up front. you’ve suddenly become remarkably coy and indefinite when asked to present the evidence to support your allegations.
They seem about as substantial as the ‘global warming induced’ fog that is enveloping SW London right now
You’re not usually so bashful……..
Bart R Yeah, and you’re unbiased, too
You didn’t mention unbiased, you only mentioned reasonable. I would not assert that I am unbiased, but I won’t deny being unbiased.
Meanwhile, you have not identified even one lie and made a case that it is actually a lie.
Latimer Adler,
Here’s BartR’s link, in about the same form than “The cat is on the mat”.
***
On the 2010-12-05, David Rose told his readers that AGW has stopped in the 1990s.
On the 2011-10-30, David Rose told his readers that “there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties”.
Three months later, David Rose recycled the same story.
On 2012-10-14, David Rose told his readers that “there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties”.
In these articles, David Rose omitted the fact that 12 of the 13 warmest years on record have all occurred since the end of 2000.
David Rose admitted to cherrypicking the end points of his graph.
Even by granting him this cherry-pick, David Rose’s claim is false.
With his last article, David Rose used a fake graph.
***
Considering these facts, do you think that David Rose is honest?
Many thanks!
Hey, Willard
Let’s go through your points with a simple “lie detector test”.
The HadCRUT3 record confirms that the period 1998 to 2005 shows a very slight (but statistically insignificant) warming trend, so Rose’s statement was technically not correct.
The same HadCRUT3 record shows that from 1998 through 2011 there was indeed a very slight (but statistically insignificant) cooling trend, so Rose’s statement was technically correct.
manacker,
Your comment is unreadable. Please retry with the proper coding.
And fon’t forget: sentences like
> David Rose lies on the mat.
Many thanks!
OK. Re-posted as requested
Hey, Willard
Let’s go through your points with a simple “lie detector test”.
The HadCRUT3 record confirms that the period 1998 to 2005 shows a very slight (but statistically insignificant) warming trend, so Rose’s statement was technically not correct.
The same HadCRUT3 record shows that from 1998 through 2011 there was indeed a very slight (but statistically insignificant) cooling trend, so
Rose’s statement was technically correct.
Still correct, according to HadCRUT3
Still correct, according to HadCRUT3
This has NOTHING to do with the trend since 1998, which continued to be one of slight (if statistically insignificant) cooling, or “lack of warming” in Trenberth/Willis parlance.
“Cherry picking” data series is what ALL scientists do. One has to limit the time scope of any study for practical reasons. Important is that the end point is always today, so the data represent the latest trend. This changes, of course, with each later report. (IPCC does exactly this in its reports.)
So Rose got 3 out of 4 correct. That’s pretty good (in baseball, reporting or “climate science”).
Let’s see.
I believe IPCC’s “hit rate” is lower than that.
Don’t you?
Max
Latimer Alder | October 21, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
This is the internet.
Literacy here includes ability to follow links.
If you’re going to assert a right to ignorance, there’s really no point to anyone attempting to elevate you above that.
@bart r
So no actual evidence you’d like to present then?
Bart R – Latimer loves playing Whack-a-Mole when he plays the role of the mole.
@bart r
Despite knowing that I should know better I followed your link
But lo! Your ‘evidence’ of ‘lying and doing harm’ comes down to no more than paid eco-warrior Bob Ward disagreeing with him. It is my experience that if Bob Ward disagrees with you it is a sure sign that you are on the right track.
‘Hardly substantial charges m’lud’
‘Case dismissed. The accuser must do a great deal better next time if he is not to waste our time again. Actual evidence is needed not an opinion piece’
@Bart R:
You are a liar when you refer to Mr. Rose as a lying. I reference your own posts as my proof.
There you go:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-258400
You own the claim so you own the proof of your claim. The buck stops with you. Where is it?
WisconsinitesForGlobalWarming | October 21, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
Did you spend all morning coming up with that?
Well, at least you tried.
Latimer Alder | October 21, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
MattStat/MatthewRMarler | October 21, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
A reasonable person test no more relies only on a person being reasonable than a blood test relies only on a person having blood.
Let’s start with the lie Dr. Curry called out David Rose on. He claimed Dr. Curry, “..told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.”
Dr. Curry said this was untrue. That’s good enough for me.
If it’s he-said/she-said, David Rose loses every time.
> The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed […]
It would be nice to have the word “predict” corrected.
Perhaps journalists for large media outfits should be required by law to be licensed and those licenses can be revoked by the press complaints commission if the journalist is found to repeatedly make inaccurate statements.
Thats the end of the BBC then!
We can but hope.
lolwot: Perhaps journalists for large media outfits should be required by law to be licensed and those licenses can be revoked by the press complaints commission if the journalist is found to repeatedly make inaccurate statements.
This produces the “who guards the Guardians?” problem: such commissions always protect the incumbents in power. There is no better judge than the unfettered public, imperfect though we are.
sure but we accept licensing with professions like medicine and finance
Bye bye Monbiot. Bye bye Bob Ward, Bye bye Geoffrey Lean and Louise Gray. Bye bye Guardian (oops – its going anyway!)
Bye bye alarmist journos everywhere…..
Yes, just what we need. The government determining who can and can’t publish in “large media outfits.” Licenses, after all.\, depend on government enforcement to stop and punish those who engage in the activity without a license.
Their fondness for totalitarianism is never far below the surface when progressives are not getting their way in the free market of ideas.
The ‘facts’, such as they exist, are the data;
The one he altered in his first graph?
This is new data, so people haven’t yet had much time to analyze and interpret it. However these data end up being analyzed, the trend since 1997
I’m sure the “heretic” fantasy is comforting in terms of self-image, but this kind of egregious cherry-pick is the real reason why numerate people tend to shun you. That’s something you would expect from Watts, but not from someone with a PhD in a quantitative field.
When the first outburst of similar nonsense erupted (“no significant warming since 1995!”) , I wondered how long it would take for the Neo-Galilei to move the starting point to the 1998 peak. Looks like they (including, apparently, you) were right on time.
> The one he altered in his first graph?
Altered state crickets.
Absolutely no evidence has ever been provided data was altered. The x-axis is wrong in the graph, and it begins 15 years ago, not at the start of 1997, but those are mistakes in describing the data. They are not alterations to the data itself.
The only “evidence” data was altered is the unsubstantiated claim of one person who, when confronted with evidence contradicting his claim, had no answer.
In other words, you are mindlessly repeating a baseless accusation of dishonesty while accusing others of dishonesty.
> The x-axis is wrong in the graph.
I’m sure there are ways to minimize this error even more.
But let’s focus on toto’s metonymy instead.
Look! A metonymic squirrel!
vaccinations? stay on topic. I know it’s hard for your type.
MrE | October 21, 2012 at 11:45 am |
My ‘type’?
You don’t know me.
Lies about vacinations is quite relevant to the topic at hand.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html
The Daily Mail was — and to this day remains — in the eyes of many one of the chief proponents of the scandalous vaccine-autism fraud and related attacks on vaccination.
Or do you think vaccination causes autism?
Your type is the type that uses straw men.
Of course I know you, your’e Bart R. …Duh!
MrE | October 22, 2012 at 12:04 am |
Perhaps you’re unaware, but David Rose wrote a group of articles on Andrew Wakefield’s vaccination-autism scandal, where Wakefield was caught lying about science.
Perhaps also, you might look up the definition of ‘straw man’.
No, I didn’t know. Your explanation is still incomplete though. You still need to show how this is relevant.
MrE | October 22, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
I also don’t fetch your pipe and slippers.
I’ve already brought you your newspaper; you’ll have to fill in the crossword puzzle for yourself.
Bart R -“and he’s doing harm” Anyone who uses such a phrase obviously is not a scientist and obviously does not understand the scientific method.
dennis adams | October 21, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
Where have I ever claimed to be any sort of scientist?
It doesn’t take the scientific method to apply the reasonable person test.
Not applying irrelevant methods shows greater, not lesser, understanding.
How much application of the scientific method do you use for example while being beaten about the head and having your lunch money stolen by your schoolmates on the playground, dennis?
Bart R: How much application of the scientific method do you use for example while being beaten about the head and having your lunch money stolen by your schoolmates on the playground,
Is this an analogy for the taxing power of government, say the proposed taxing power of the UN?
MattStat/MatthewRMarler | October 21, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
There’s a proposal to give the UN the power to tax? Fiendish. Cite, please?
That’s something that has to be nipped in the bud.
This isn’t another one of your made-up things, is it?
Bart R: This isn’t another one of your made-up things, is it?
Were you but competent to use the internet, a requirement that you invoke for someone else, you’d already know the answer. There is a proposal that the UN be permitted to tax international financial transactions.
“another” presupposes a first. To my knowledge I have not made anything up. Is this another of your charges that we can all verify for ourselves by surfing the web?
MattStat/MatthewRMarler | October 21, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
Yeah. But that was in the context of internet literacy, having provided the link. You’re asking me to find something on the search term “UN tax”.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=un+tax
About 352,000,000 results: which one do you mean? Which one are you standing up and defending as accurate or very nearly true? One from Foxnews? This one from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_taxation_system) that talks about proposals coming out of the 2009 bank collapse? The ones that claim the USA is so far behind on its payments to the UN that they started to talk about directly taxing US business to recover the difference in the 1990’s?
It’s a huge topic full of whackadoodles that’s been around for decades. Or didn’t you know that? You could’ve used the internet to look it up.
Or to go to Mosher’s and comment on his work on UHI.
Bart R: This one from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_taxation_system) that talks about proposals coming out of the 2009 bank collapse?
See? There are lots of such proposals.
Bart R,
you answered your own question in the affirmative, the question being There’s a proposal to give the UN the power to tax?
And you answered in the disconfirmative your question as to whether it was one of the things that I had made up.
MattStat/MatthewRMarler | October 21, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
Whew.
So, just more alarmism about the power of the UN boogeyman.
For a minute you had me worried you meant something serious or real.
Bart R: For a minute you had me worried you meant something serious or real.
Not at all. I was mocking your playground bully analogy.
MattStat/MatthewRMarler | October 21, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
Oh. You still think I meant it as an analogy?
Bart R: You still think I meant it as an analogy?
In review, I don’t think your writing has any meaning.
Bart R , you’re really good at intellectual Twister. It’s pointless, but it’s a skill nonetheless.
James Evans | October 21, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
One could scarcely be a Denizen here absent a fascination with the pointless. I’ve discussed this lately with willard. He believes I err.
Bart R,
So I just disagree about the pointlessness. It always depends upon what you want to convey. Just imagine you were to promote your services with these comments.
In other words, do you want to suggest that Judy’s is pointless to Judy?
Not that I want to temp you to trade your intellectual freedom in exchange for a business card, mind you. I only want to make a point.
Bart R: One could scarcely be a Denizen here absent a fascination with the pointless.
I think you are wrong about that. It is possible, in my opinion, to be a denizen here because of interest in climate, and to learn to skip the pointless. I have not made this judgment in haste, but there are certain writers whose posts I always skip. I expect that there are readers who always skip mine.
I think lying about January 2007 is pretty bad. There is no reason why HADCRUT4 has it .2C warmer than HADCRUT3.
HAD4 = 0.818
HAD3 = 0.610
Bart,
To paraphrase Robert Duvall “Them’s bold words for a one-eyed fat man.”
If you are going to call someone a liar, you better back it up.
As for the “doing harm”, perhaps so. To the cause. Any other harm he may be doing would require that you provide evidence. Got any?
timg56 | October 22, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
I refer you again to Dr. Curry’s own assertion that David Rose misquoted her. See, there’s four full topics here at Climate Etc. that furnish plentiful examples of David Rose’s whoopsies.
What I do it point out that David Rose is in such a position that his whoopsies are not mere misrepresentation, cannot be casually dismissed as error, are not protected speech, and in sum and in total qualify by virtue of his profession, his being published, his prior bad acts and plentiful opportunities to correct errors that David Rose must be considered to be lying.
There’s no way around that.
It’s a pity, too, because David Rose is a capable journalist and other than this particular string of unfortunate events gives every appearance of being of better character than to carry on such a campaign.
The harm he does — beside what I believe now goes so far as to constitute hate speech against the identifiable group known as scientists — is to the public’s comprehension of issues; therefore he harms democracy.
You remember the idea of the defense of democracy, right?
Or do you believe Dr. Curry to have lied about being misquoted? The MET Office to have lied about correcting David Rose’s misinterpretations? Is everyone involved in this except him the liar?
Bart,
I could pick out any number of journalists who arguably the same would apply to. As I’m sure you could as well. I was standing in line at the supermarket a few weeks back and there was a special issue by Time Magazine of climate change. I picked it up and started flipping through the pages. It made claims in the form of statements of fact for all sorts of disasters that climate change will bring about. It was mind blowing what they were representing. Did I get upset? No, because for one I don’t get upset over stuff I can’t control and two, I don’t have very high expectations for media and journalism today.
As for the harm to democracy, I recommend you take under consideration the old adage of believing only half of what you see and none of what you hear or read. When it comes to threats to democracy, David Rose doesn’t even make the top 1000. I’d be more concerned with the never ending increase in the reach of government into our lives than I would any single journalist.
timg56,
I have some sympathies with errare humanum est that underlies your claim:
> I could pick out any number of journalists who arguably the same would apply to.
It reminds what Dan0 was saying the other day to the Auditor:
> There are plenty of opportunities to find errors in, say, medicine. We could have a, say, “Vioxx audit” website where we analyze the results of tests to the lil’ bunnies and the human subjects, and then the tests the FDA saw and didn’t act on. Or you could look at, oh, chemistry. Or crash test results. Or the percentage of times economists are right yet we act on their output anyway.
http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/23/more-on-mbh98-cross-validation-r2/#comment-36216
Note that this comment was made in August 2005.
Would you agree with Dan0?
NB. To be clear, this is not a rhetorical question.
willard,
I tried the link and it put me into the middle of a thread. I could not figure out who Dano is, let alone see his comment(s). So I am a bit at a loss to reply. Sorry.
tim,
I think that Dan0’s point is quite obvious.
In fact, it’s the same as yours.
You should take the time to read the thread.
It’s a good one, and if you don’t read it,
I might be tempted to read it for you.
The auditing sciences are waiting for you to step up your game.
timg56 | October 22, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
The other 1,000 didn’t use a photo of our host that upset her.
Bart,
Pardon me, but this seems a bit inane as a point of argument. While I do not follow this piece of advice my mom gave me often enough, it is still an extremely good one. “Don’t sweat the small stuff.” Granted I may be getting an errorenious picture, but you seem to be getting worked up over something fairly minor.
At least you do not have to worry about sticking out from the crowd. Lots of people here do the same.
Since it is blindingly obvious that Rose is telling the truth, Bart R’s claim that Rose is lying, is itself an obvious lie.
No surprise really, it’s the basic modus operandi of his politically-motivated alarmism.
Tomcat | October 23, 2012 at 1:07 am |
So.. you’re saying Dr. Curry lied about being misquoted? How is that blindingly obvious again?
@bart r
From JC’s intro to this thread:
‘David Rose sent me my quotes in advance, along with the content surrounding them; I made a few minor changes to make the message more clear and more accurate and he incorporated these changes verbatim in the article’
Doesn’t look like she says she was misquoted here. Quite the opposite.
Latimer Alder, Bart R is referring to something Judith Curry said in another post. In it, she said:
Curry does not make any claim of dishonesty. She thinks he was wrong to quote her as saying that, not that she didn’t say it. In other words, it could have been a matter of context. Or, it could have been a careless mistake (those happen all the time in articles). Either way, there is nothing to indicate Rose did anything dishonest with regard to that quote.
As for what you refer to, that does speak to Rose’s credibility. After seeing Curry take issue with how he quoted her, he chose to put forth the effort to ensure she was satisfied with how she was quoted for his next article. That’s a good thing.
> Curry does not make any claim of dishonesty.
How to introduce a strawwoman in one sentence.
Bart, In your defining dishonest style, you again duck the central point here, which is that Rose’s comments about the temperature were on the money, contrary to your conscious lies suggesting otherwise.
He has made errors, but these seem to be in hand now.
> Rose’s comments about the temperature were on the money […]
How to beg the question in one simple step.
@willard
Which question do you imagine is being ‘begged’ and why do you think that it is important?
Latimer Adler,
The question begged does seem to belong to what has been described by Judy “an important and controversial topic”. To presume that the question is “settled” in any way does beg the question. More so considering that your only defense so far of David Rose’s claim rests on a analysis that is far from clear.
My turn to ask a question. Would you consider perpetuating a misrepresentation over and over again after being proven wrong over and over again evidence enough of a pattern of lying?
Many thanks!
PS: I note that you forgot to tell me if you think that water is wet by itself. I’ve asked many times.
@willard
Baffled me, pal.
Which f….g question are you ‘talking’ about?
‘Riddlespeak – Nein Danke!’
Latimer,
The question is in the quote I underlined:
> Rose’s comments about the temperature were on the money.
The question is thus:
> Are Rose’s comments about the temperature on the money?
I recalled Judy’s position on this: David Rose’s comments are on a “controversial” topic. Acting as if the question has been settled is begging it.
Do you have any other questions?
In any case, please take time to answer mine.
Many thanks!
@willard
I looked at Rose’s graph, It pretty much showed what he said it did. Good enough for me.
Lots of others have tried lots of ways to wriggle and twist and push water uphill and every other diversionary technique they can manage.
But none of it changes the simple truth…the global temperature today is much the same as it was fifteen years ago. It is not hotter now than it was then. There is no detectable nett ‘warming’ since 1997. The warming that could be seen in the second half of the last century has stopped.
And whatever you may or may not think of Rose as a journalist or his connections does nothing to change the above….and your tactic of pretending that somehow it does sheds an unflattering light upon your methods.
The real villain of the piece from the alarmist PoV is Mother Nature who is not cooperating with your predictions. And even if Rose were never to have been born, that won’t change.
It’s the message, not the messenger that is your problem.
I’ll answer your riddle about water if and when you can show it to be directly relevant to this discussion. Parlour games have never really appealed to me.
willard the waffler
Water itself is “wet” between 0C and 100C normally.
Max
Fergit the temp trend, the Earth’s climate is flat and there’s an edge around here somewhere over which to fall, and fall.
========
manacker’s answer might help understand Latimer’s trick over there, which rests on the possibility to talk about CO2 by itself:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-253375
Being thick as a brick does seem to serve its “ecological function”, as might say Shub.
The central point of Rose’s article was the 16-year temperature plateau, and this was indeed on the money. No amount of smokescreen waffling by Willard, Joshua & co changes that, Rose’s erroneous comment on the side-issue of Judith’s view on models notwithstanding.
Latimer Adler,
You forgot to acknowledge my answer to your question. It was a pleasure for me to turn an assertion into a question. The difficulty you were having deciphering this question made you sweared. I’m glad this is settled.
You’re welcome.
***
I note this escalation of claims you just made:
> [T]he global temperature today is much the same as it was fifteen years ago. It is not hotter now than it was then. There is no detectable nett ‘warming’ since 1997. The warming that could be seen in the second half of the last century has stopped.
The first sentence contains a weasel expression, emphasized.
The second one extrapolates to something that sounds way more general than the global temperature: something called it. What’s that?
The third sentence does not mention the reason what “being detectable” means or entails, which helps confuse issues related to the features of the detectors with what is to be detected.
The fourt sentence also contains a weasel expression, emphasized.
All this is in stark contrast with the categorical:
> The warming has stopped.
Not that we know exactly what this means.
You were using an equation with T1 and T2 the other day. Would you mind restate what you meant in a way that even Joe Sixpack and Stirling English can understand?
Many thanks!
***
Speaking of Joe and Stirling, please note that they may resent what you just said:
> Parlour games have never really appealed to me.
They might feel victimized by this claim.
> The central point of Rose’s article was the 16-year temperature plateau […]
A point is a claim.
The emphasized bit is not.
@willard
Look children..a squirrel a long long way away with Latimer. Run over there and don’t look here again. I Don’t want you to have to see ‘grown-up’ alarmists cry as they realise their position is suffering continuous severe damage and they have no defences.
But lo! here’s a morale boosting speech from Mr Gore
Rose’s main point is the 16-year temperature plateau, denied only by the crankiest of the alarmist cranks here.
(Though heaven knows why. Do these nuts actually want/need to deny there are factors other than man acting on temperatures?).
@willard
I’m sure that Mr Gore won’t be best pleased with you calling him a ‘Fat Nazi’. You’re supposed to be his friend. &deity. knows he needs some.
And his remarks are well worth reviewing in the light of recent events…….
@willard
Wiggle, wriggle, squeak, squeal…………
And all your nitpicking ain’t gonna make any difference. The dirty secret is out there in the public’s consciousness. And you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
Latimer Adler,
You seemed to wonder about what was right-wing populism the other day. Consider what you mean by “dirty secret”, this would be a good example of it:
> The dirty secret is out there in the public’s consciousness.
Usually, the Bandwagon technique is not far from this:
> Bandwagon is an appeal to the subject to follow the crowd, to join in because others are doing so as well. Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it. The subject is meant to believe that since so many people have joined, that victory is inevitable and defeat impossible. Since the average person always wants to be on the winning side, he or she is compelled to join in.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm
Your numbers about the DSM and your prophecies about media outlets you do not appreciate much show this technique in action.
Please do continue.
Many thanks!
Latimer Adler,
I note that you have not defended my criticism of your escalation of claims.
Must we presume that you have no more cards in your hand?
Many thanks!
Bart R,
Please note this sentence:
> I note that you have not defended my criticism of your escalation of claims.
The mistake it contains might inspire Soclates to return with something else than “Whatever”.
What color would you give to this pseudo-lapsus?
(Or would it be a Poe?)
Many thanks!
PS: I personnally believe it fits a green hat.
@willard
1. It has been widely publicised that the Grauniad is considering closing its print edition. It is only kept afloat at al y a massive subsidy from its owners whose main business is in motor (auto) trading magazines. It is quite reasonable to expect that there will be big job cuts soon.
2. No ‘bandwagon’ here. No need for one, since the case is self-evident..
But the fact that you bring up the subject suggests that – like Mr Gore in the video you realise that ‘der Krieg ist verloren’
3. Nit picking
Still whatever.
If you can come up with sensible substantive points to discuss, I’m happy to. But if its a childish semantic game you’re after then you’re on your own. Go and play with yourself….
Erica,
Do you have a quote for what you claim is David Rose’s point?
Many thanks!
Latimer Adler,
Here’s a nice example of Bandwagon:
Do you recall who wrote this and in what context?
Many thanks!
PS: I observe you still have nothing to show for your weasily worded claims. Please think about Professor Unwin.
> Since it is blindingly obvious that Rose is telling the truth […]
I thought it DSM’s readers decided upon the facts.
A smile rose in the East. Or did it come in the Mail?
=============
Such articles and responses are healthy and should have been happening all along. If scientists are not skeptics, they are not scientists. If the climate establishment wants more trust from the public, they should be more forthcoming about all the things they dont know rather than continually trying to overwhelm us with their certitude.
I think what we’re seeing is an extremely healthy move past and away from the “denier” template and onto the much more rational debate. The debate is now where it should be. How much warming is happening? Not much. How much is it caused by human activity? Not sure. How dire is our future going to be? Not nearly as bad as anyone predicted/scared us; except if it gets really cold. Well done everyone!
patrioticduo, you write “How much warming is happening? Not much”
With all due respect, this is the wrong question. The evidence is that the earth has been warming ever since the LIA. This waming trend of around 0.06 C per decade does not appear to have anything to do with adding CO2 to the atmosphere. See http://bit.ly/V19Im8. There is no resason to believe that this warming trend has stopped…..yet.
The correct question is “How much additional warming has the increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere caused?” And the answer to this question is not much, and probably nothing at all.
Good post.
The quality of the debate certainly has improved. Less personal attacks and more focus on the issue. The last few threads have therefore been most interesting and informative.
Warmists are abandoning the global temperature anomaly flagship. It’s sinking and they need a new ship. Ocean heat content? Arctic sea ice? Maybe they can ride it for a while.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/?mobile=nc
strange. First you say we are abandoning global temperature anomalies then you post a link to “10 charts that make clear the planet just keeps warming” that shows global temperature anomalies for its first 5 charts.
Yes, that first graph is stupid (a plateau will of course have the highest temperatures, hell even a cooing weaker than the cooling before the plateau will have highest temperatures), the rest is decadal averages (another lifeboat), highest La Nina (lifeboat and stupid too ) and 10-year moving average of the BEST land temperature. They hope the lifeboats will save them before warming starts again.
I would like to see warmer ocean heat content.
It would be very nice to be able to swim off Scotland in the summer without dying of hypothermia. And to have the warm waters of the Mediterranean in Bournemouth.
And I do not believe that the planet will collapse if one day it gets to be as warm in Torquay as it currently is in Biarritz.
Latimer
In the 30’s people went swimming in the sea at Torquay during the winter…
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/britain-is-staying-at-home/query/torquay+winter+swimming
tonyb
Do you think ARGO popped out of the blue in the 2000s? Climate scientists wanted a more reliable way to measure OHC. The literature goes way back.
They had a way to measure the surface air temperature. It had been in place for a long time. They did not have as good of way to measure OHC. So they built one. When it went online, they started using it.
Edim said:
“Warmists are abandoning the global temperature anomaly flagship. It’s sinking and they need a new ship. Ocean heat content? Arctic sea ice? Maybe they can ride it for a while.”
——-
What a very odd perspective. Anthropogenic warming has always been thought of in terms of an imbalance in Earth’s energy systems, which has been known to include the full atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere. In this regard there have always been multiple ways in which the energy imbalance would be seen (according to models and theory). These include everything from reduction in sea ice (with the Arctic preceding the Antarctic by several decades), rising ocean heat content, melting permafrost, species migration, cooling stratosphere, weather pattern shifts, etc. Warming near surface temperatures were thus only one of a whole group of corroborating evidence. To suggest that because near surface temperatures have flattened at or near the highest on record requires “abandoning” a sinking ship is to be grossly underinformed about the full scope and scale of the multiple changes going on and the confidence that anthropogenic climate continues unabated as it will so long as humans continue to increase greenhouse gas concentrations.
This is a curious comment.
The earth’s energy system is always in “imbalance” in this sense – otherwise it would be static (and we’d be dead). Being a complex system gives ample opportunity to find corroborating evidence, but its existence doesn’t get you to you last sentence. Particularly when the best attempts to codify this complex system (in climate models) suggest we shouldn’t be seeing what we are.
Jury’s still out on my score (at least in terms of your last phrase).
R. Gates,
I said flagship. Without the rising global temperature indices, no story.
Energy imbalances have not been measured/calculated with sufficient accuracy. The heat transfer at the interface between surface (land/ocean and freshwaters) and atmosphere/space is very complex and dominated by latent heat transfer surface->atmosphere.
Now we are at ~15 years without significant warming. I expect this:
http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p623/Oefinell/30yrLR.jpg
to continue, more or less. The 30-year trend will drop very fast IMO.
Bart R | October 21, 2012 at 10:23 am |
“He’s lying, and he’s doing harm. What more need we know or say, except why isn’t he in public office?”
You seem confused about truth, lies and conjecture.
Here is a test to check your understanding. Please answer whether the following statements are truth, lies or conjecture.
a: The 21st Century will experience an accelerated global temperature rise at least three to four times that of the 20th Century.
b: The Global temperature is rising much slower in the 21st Century than the 20th Century.
c: There has not been any statistical significant global warning in the 21st Century.
d: The IPCC models will be falsified at the 95% level if there is not a new unambiguous yearly Global temperature record set by 2016.
e: You are an idiot.
Alan
Alan Millar | October 21, 2012 at 10:43 am |
Y’know, no matter how someone says please, the line “You ae an idiot” comes off as impolite. Please answer what could possibly convince me to take up an exchange with on obviously manipulative boor?
Conjecture: a & b
Lie: c, d & e.
The probability that conjecture (b) is untrue exceeds 5/6ths.
The statement (d) is technically inaccurate as the IPCC models are not hypotheses, so the term ‘falsified’ is simply inapplicable to them. All models are wrong.
Since I’ve posted about these topics lately, I feel no special need to demonstrate the details in this comment.
Conjecture: a, d, and e (though e could also be shown to be a lie)
Truth: b & c
Alan,
you could have left e off the list. Why be insulting?
To be a bit fair to Alan, his insult was so mild that it still elevates a discussion with me.
Still, too much name calling. There are times I think you’ve stepped off the deep end, but so what. I don’t have to agree with you to show at least a modicum of civility and respect.
That said, there are a few here who have surrendered any respect, or never desired it in the first place.
The total warming from 1970 to 2012 is higher than the total warming from 1970 to 1997. The extra warming must have occurred since 1997. Therefore the answer to the question “has there been warming from 1997 to 2012″ must be yes.
In any case the real question being asked is “has warming stopped since 1997?”.
When people plot an OLS trend from 1997 to 2012 they might imagine they are answering that question, but they are not. Inherent in the question is that it’s a test of whether a pre-1997 warming trend has continued past 1997. A proper test therefore must include the pre-1997 warming as part of the test. An OLS trend from 1997 to 2012 ignores the prior warming and so cannot get the right answer.
The simplest method would be to define the warming up to the end of 1997 and then define the test in context of that. The test being:
Does the data since 1997 follow an extrapolation of the 1970-1997 trend.
With the result being It appears to. Indeed the longterm trend remains a good match
Contrast this with the common and I argue flawed test of simply drawing an OLS line from 1997 to 2012. The OLS slope since 1997 is taken as being low so a conclusion is made that there has been a pause in warming since 1997. Yet how can that be when the data since 1997 is compatible with a continuation of the 1970-1997 trend?
Furthermore lets examine what the data would have to look like to pass the 1997-2012 OLS test. I have trended up the hadcrut4 data since 1997 so it has a trend of 0.14C/decade. Is that really the goal being demanded for a “continuation of warming since 1997″?
The test demands far more than a continuation of warming since 1997, it demands average temperatures since 1997 to be on average 0.1C higher still. The test demands the overall trend from 1970-2012 to be higher than the trend from 1970-1997. how can that be right? It can’t. The 1997-2012 OLS test is flawed.
As a newbie, can you please explain something to me? I looked at the graph you linked to when you said “With the result being It appears to.” What I don’t understand is:
a) Why you are using 1998 in that plot, instead of 1997 which is the date the discussion appears to be about, and
b) Why you apply a detrend and offset amount the plot line from 1998?
Here is the graph without the detrend and offset, and it seems to illustrate the point that the trend from 1998 (as you’ve selected) is lower than the trend before 1998.
I can see a reason to apply an offset so the lines can be ‘joined’ up, but I don’t understand the logic for the detrend. I’m sure there is one and I’d like to understand it.
There’s no real difference when changing the 1998 to 1997 so that’s not really that important, though I tend to raise my eyebrows when people invoke 1998 as a starting or ending point in these sort of discussions, because it was an exceptional year.
Thanks in anticipation :)
I think the logic of the detrend is simple. Without the detrend the slopes wouldn’t line up. Since the truth is that the warming has continued the data must be tortured until it tells the truth.
Judith Curry and David Rose – heroes of the counter-establishment. Who’d a thunk it.
Keep up the good work JC
Because Nigel Lawson & the British Conservative Party are counter-establishment?
In a way, yes.
How they succeed in playing the populist card escapes me. We should ask Latimer. He might have had contacts with the Tatcherite intelligentsia when he was busy outsourcing IT jobs.
Perhaps this has something to do with being unsatisfied.
@willard
Nope. Not me. Never did much business with central government. Nearest I got was a couple of district level projects with the NHS. Fine technical projects but dreadful internal politics. A couple of mates used to work on technical stuff in No 10. but they were far more emollient than me.
Don’t think I ever outsourced any IT jobs either. Outsourcing has typically been for help desk and grunt-programming work. Not really my end of the business, which was more operations, project management and infrastructure. I didn’t have much to do with program development and any time I ran a help desk I wanted it up close and personal so that I knew what was going on with my systems day by day. Outsourcing for that function might have been penny wise in some cases but IMO it was always pound foolish. So I didn’t do it.
@willard
I’ll confess that I once saw the back of Nigel Lawson’s head at an excellent lecture Steve McIntyre gave in London. Mrs Thatcher once came to our Cricket Club to watch a charity game (but I was at work at the time so did not see her). I have been in the same room as George Monbiot and Bob Watson. Jimmy Savile once gave me a tip for filling up his Roller. And I once went to a Buckingham Palace Garden Party where I met Chuck and Camilla and was surprisingly impressed by both of them.
That’s about the limit of my political depravities. If you were hoping for more, you’ll be disappointed.
I’m not sure that they are succeeding in playing the populist card these days. It was always a bit of a stretch ;-)
Latimer Adler,
I stand corrected. Glad also to learn that IT excludes desk work and programming. I should also confide that I had in mind the outsourcing job you did yourself, i.e. the Government hiring cheaper labor from outside the gov.
I had something like this in mind:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/16/thatcher-outsourcing-fantasy-fails-reality
Please note that this surmise was related to the populist card, which
> Hayek told Fisher to set up what he called a “scholarly institute” that would operate as a dealer in second-hand ideas. It’s sole aim should be to persuade journalists and opinion-formers that state planning was leading to a totalitarian nightmare, and that the only way to rescue Britain was by bringing back the free market. If they did this successfully – that would put pressure on the politicians, and Fisher would change the course of history.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/09/the_curse_of_tina.html
So my question relates to the secret ingredient that binds populism to these theorical ideas developed by the Thatcherite intelligentsia.
Since you are one of the masters I know of the populist gambit, and considering your possibilities that your background might have had offered you, I still think you are the best placed to tell us how the magic trick works.
Many (think) tanks!
Latimer Adler,
I stand corrected. Glad also to learn that IT excludes desk work and programming. I should also confide that I had in mind the outsourcing job you did yourself, i.e. the Government hiring cheaper labor from outside the gov.
I had something like this in mind:
> The outsourcing of individual council services to large private corporate companies such as Capita, Serco and BT has been common practice across local government for four decades. But the past two years have seen the emergence of a series of grandiose mega-schemes which aim to privatise most, if not all, of a council’s services at a stroke.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/16/thatcher-outsourcing-fantasy-fails-reality
Please note that this surmise was related to the populist card, which is a bit strange considering the origins of think tanks:
> Hayek told Fisher to set up what he called a “scholarly institute” that would operate as a dealer in second-hand ideas. It’s sole aim should be to persuade journalists and opinion-formers that state planning was leading to a totalitarian nightmare, and that the only way to rescue Britain was by bringing back the free market. If they did this successfully – that would put pressure on the politicians, and Fisher would change the course of history.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/09/the_curse_of_tina.html
So my question relates to the secret ingredient that binds populism to these theorical ideas developed by the Thatcherite intelligentsia.
Since you are one of the masters I know of the populist gambit, and considering your possibilities that your background might have had offered you, I still think you are the best placed to tell us how the magic trick works.
Many (think) tanks!
@willard
I don’t think that ‘IT excludes desk work and programming’. Its a big big area employing millions around the world. And it is just not possible for any one individual to be master of all of it. Doesn’t mean programming isn’t important. Way back when I began with a strong programming background but (unlike views sometimes presented here) it is not all there is to professional IT. There’s a huge amount of other stuff as well. Nor is being a defence attorney is all there is in the whole field of lawyerdom. Or being a tree ring diviner the only possible career in climatology.
From an IT perspective, since all UK local councils are so tightly regulated by central government that they must run all their services in just about identical ways, then joining together in some way makes a lot of sense. Not much point in having 400 IT separate IT departments all doing the same automated things and re-inventing the wheels..any more than a UK retail bank has a separate IT staff for each of its 3000 High Street branches. But whether this is politically acceptable is not an IT question.
As to ‘the populist card’…it strikes me as a strange from of abuse. Doing what ‘the people’ want, rather than some self-selecting bunch of ‘elite thinkers’ would like them to do always strikes me as rather a good idea in a democracy. (from demos – people, kratos – power). Perhaps you disagree?
Dear Latimer,
By the populist gambit, I was referring to this:
> Right-wing populism is a political ideology that rejects existing political consensus and usually combines laissez-faire liberalism and anti-elitism. It is considered populism because of its appeal to the “common man” as opposed to the elites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism
I’m not sure this is the same thing as democracy. If that were, we’d have to consider that we, the people, decide what the facts are.
Wait. That’s exactly what David Rose (or his editors) told the DSM readers! I never thought a right-wing populist outlet could be so post-modern.
Do you believe that facts are settled in a democratic manner?
***
Another way to see that it is only a gambit is to see this other comment you made:
> From an IT perspective, since all UK local councils are so tightly regulated by central government that they must run all their services in just about identical ways, then joining together in some way makes a lot of sense. […] But whether this is politically acceptable is not an IT question.
I’m not sure what you mean by “politically acceptable”, but this argument does sount a bit elitist to me, which is surprising since it’s the paragraph just before the one where you do seem to say that it is the people that decides what makes sense. I’m not sure who’s right on this issue: Joe and Stirling, or those like you who have a perspicuous “IT perspective” like yourself?
Finally, you must admit that this IT perspective might not run against the professional interests of private IT companies. Incidentally, I note that you have you offered no comments on the way I meant my remark about “outsourcing”. Let me repeat it:
> I should also confide that I had in mind the outsourcing job you did yourself, i.e. the Government hiring cheaper labor from outside.
Does the UK Government ever outsourced its IT jobs to you, Latimer?
Many thanks!
@willard
I’ll try to unpick the bits of your remarks that I understood.
1. Did the UK government ever outsource it’s IT to me (or my employers)
Nope. And from the few long ago times we tendered for some government business (not outsourcing) we learnt that the best strategy is to let our competitors take the hassle and the pain. Dealing with governments is a personal and professional nightmare and there are much easier ways to earn a crust without those pressures.
2. ‘ But whether this is politically acceptable is not an IT question.’
Any decision that alters the relationships with or between government agencies…central or local will always be just about completely ‘political’. Parties of the first part will be trying to shaft the parties of the second part and vice versa. Individual politicians and ‘public servants’ will be trying to make or break their careers. Departments will jostle with other departments (see remarks under 1. above). The technical aspect of ‘does this make sense from an IT perspective’ will be so far low down the list of things for the participants to worry about as to be immaterial. The internal politics will always be the overriding force – hence ‘politically acceptable’. If this ain’t apparent to you in spades, you’ve never dealt with government.
3, re ‘Populism’
You seem to be ‘crediting?’ me with a far greater knowledge of political theory than I claim. Still no idea what you’re really on about by ‘right-wing populism’. Not sure you do either, nor even the authors of the wikepedia article you link to since they are obliged to write
‘Classification of right-wing populism into a single political family has proved difficult, and it is not certain whether a meaningful category exists, or merely a cluster of categories, since the parties differ in ideology, organization, and leadership rhetoric. Also, unlike traditional parties, they do not belong to international organizations of like-minded parties, and they do not use similar terms to describe themselves’
Sounds like a pretty meaningless term to me and about as substantial as Scotch mist. which may be why I haven’t heard it before. But I guess it sounds good when pontificating over the port in the SCR or in the letters page of the graunaid. One don’t expect there to be much real content in either of those environments……
@willard
A final thought on IT and government.
IT projects nowadays rarely go wrong because of technical problems. We know enough about what the technology can do and how to do it that we can usually get that bit right (analogy…commercial airliners don’t often ‘just fall out of the sky’ any more – we know how to build them).
The hard and difficult bit is introducing those systems into pre-existing environments. Inevitably they will require people to change the way they do things (wouldn’t need a new system if that wasn’t the case), and my anecdotal experience is that – in UK at least – government employees are the most resistant to any change of any group I know of.
The contrast with retail where ‘new and exciting’ is a way of life and a selling point is quite marked. Once convinced of the benefits retailers embrace change with urgency, while government workers are positively hostile to it and will delay anything as long as they can. A culture of sham democracy and sham ‘consultations’ doesn’t help either. Rarely do they change anything and they certainly don’t speed things up.
Much much better business to get on with doing three good projects in a year with congenial clients and a culture of success than struggle with one awful government one for three years and an inevitable years long legal case at the end. Life’s too short.
Latimer Adler,
Thank you for your thoughts.
You tell us that you stay away from IT outsourcing from the government because of this:
> Dealing with governments is a personal and professional nightmare and there are much easier ways to earn a crust without those pressures.
But then you say that IT outsourcing makes sense:
> From an IT perspective, since all UK local councils are so tightly regulated by central government that they must run all their services in just about identical ways, then joining together in some way makes a lot of sense.
It does seem to entail that it makes sense to create a personal and professional nightmare for IT companies who would profit from this outsourcing.
From your own perspective, I can understand that: just imagine if all your IT competitors were busy living personal and professional nightmares dealing with government outsourcing contracts…
But as a general principle, I must admit it escapes me. For instance, I’m not sure how you can reconcile your belief that a centralized corporation is nightmarish with the idea that joining together services makes lots of sense. The government seems to have a magical property that a private corporation does not seem to have. I never understood how the right-wing populist rhetoric could solve this tension. Perhaps it simply does not, and is being ignored, like you just ignored the characterization of right-wing populism.
If you do not recognize that this looks a lot to what you’re selling here day in day out, perhaps it’s because you fell into the cauldron of dissatisfaction when you were young, like Obélix and the magic potion. Would you like me to tell you when what you say echoes reactionary talking points? It would be my honor to do so.
Many thanks!
@willard
I replied at length earlier, but my contribution seems to have disappeared.
To summarise.
1. Does centralisation for local authority services make IT sense? .Yes.
2. Would such a project be one I’d be interested in undertaking? No
3. Why not? History of large government projects show that they generally end in tears and lawsuits. Government has very limited continuity of leadership (elections and politics) and a pretty ‘conservative’ mindset. Difficult and frustrating environment to work in. Not for me. I can do other things with less hassle and more fun. Life’s too short.
BTW You can call me any names you like. WHT has already called me ‘Repellently Vulgar’, Neo – lots of things – none of them meant to be complimentary, and a ‘severe impediment to progress’. That’s just today.
I’m confident in my own skin. Insult away……but you may find that I take them as compliments.
Warmists of IPCC 2007 claimed/continue claiming a 0.2 C increase per
decade…. Now Warmist Bob Ward voluntarily reduced it to a miniscule 0.047 C per 16 years, about 0.03 C per decade…..Multiplying this value
with 10 decades to 2100 makes 0.3 C of global warming for 100 years.
….Warmists will claim in the year 2100: Thanks to OUR good work,
temperatures have kept below our 2.0 C aim at only 0.3 C…JS
This is great. Now some of the public know that the whole AGW has at the very least been over egged and at worst it was deceitful activism. The activism has as its objective the reduction in economic growth and industrial output but not all alarmists are activists are they?
Better picture of you, too. Looks like you just slammed a shot of Cuervo and looked straight into the camera.
Data since 1997 have increased the warming trend since 1970, not decreased it.. The data is compatible with a continuation of linear warming since 1970 plus (largely ENSO) residuals.
The only reason people imagine there’s been a slowdown or plateau in warming since 1997 is because they are applying an invalid test. They think plotting a trend from 1997 answers the question. It doesn’t.
Plotting a trend from a time of positive residual (above trend, 1997-2005) to a time of negative residual (below trend 2008-2012) only tells you about the trend of the residuals. It doesn’t tell you if the longterm warming has continued.
According to the longterm trend warming from 1970 is running at 0.16C/decade. That is indeed close to the IPCC prediction of 0.2C/decade.
lolwot highlights the fact the calculated trend from 1970 to current times is higher than the calculated trend from 1970 to 1998. That’s true. However, it is not true that this point proves anything. This issue is related to something I discussed on another page, and you can see the silliness of the argument in this graph.
That graph shows when you have a period that is warmer than previous ones, you can get increasing temperature trends even if temperatures don’t continue increasing. If your results show increased warming while temperatures remain constant, your approach doesn’t work.
Amusingly, lolwot promotes this method that is demonstrably faulty while condemning the simple and effective approach of just calculating the trends of the period we’re interested in. The position displayed seems to be if a method gives answers we don’t like, it shouldn’t be used.
Yes Brandon has successfully shown my 1-2-3-4 method is faulty and I won’t be using it any more.
However I still argue the technique of using OLS since 1997 to conclude the warming has stopped is faulty, based on:
1) The trend from 1970-2012 is greater than the trend from 1970-1997
2) the overlap in trend uncertainty
lolwot, nothing I just said dealt with the stupid and bizarre approach you now acknowledge is unusable. Everything I said had to do with what you just labeled as your 1. That’s why I explicitly stated:
In other words, both approaches are shown to be faulty by that graph.
As for your 2, you should first not use GISS data when that isn’t the data in question. Also, despite what you say, increased uncertainty does not falsify claims that warming has stopped. More uncertainty does not make us more certain!
That said, it is wrong to conclude warming has stopped by using OLS. It’d be just as wrong to use it to conclude warming hasn’t stopped. That didn’t stop Bob Ward from doing so.
What isn’t wrong is saying we haven’t seen warming in the last ~15 years. The reason we haven’t seen warming may not be because the warming has stopped, but there is no doubt we haven’t seen any.
There is an admission by all (including Rose) that the world warmed up to 1997. We can only conclude that warming has ended, or slowed down, if that can be established with statistical significance.
It doesn’t matter that warming since 1997 isn’t statistically significant. That could just be because it’s too short a time period to get a statistically significant trend.
After-all as I pointed out elsewhere, back in 1997 someone could have argued warming had stopped since 1987.
——
As for my 1) argument I disagree. If we accept the trend from 0 to 31 represents a “warming trend”, and we are asking whether the warming stops after 31, we should be asking whether the data after 31 is compatible with a continuation of the 0-31 trend. If the 0-31+N trend is equal or greater to the 0-31 trend then I think it’s always going to be the case that the warming trend cannot be said to have ended. Only if the 0-31+N trend was lower than the 0-31 trend would it be possible that the warming trend has stopped.
The only error I acknowledge was in my use of multiplying the period by the trend to get “total warming” (which was part of what I describe as my now debunked 1-2-3-4 method). Comparing and testing the trends themselves still seems valid.
lolwot, I demonstrated the method you’re using is faulty as it can show an increase in warming trends even when there is no increase in temperature. Your response is to… say you disagree. I provided a graph that demonstrates a clear problem with your approach, and rather than address it or even attempt to show its results are wrong, you ignored it.
Go Team?
No I promise I didn’t ignore it, I learned from it. I understand what you are saying and you are right: a trend can remain steady (or increase) even if the temperature doesn’t increase anymore.
But then I realized the consequence of that: A continued warming trend doesn’t require the temperature to keep increasing.
When we ask whether 1970-1997 warming has continued past 1997 we should be asking whether the 1970-1997 trend has continued, not whether temperature has increased since 1997.
After-all as you have pointed out, the trend can continue even if temperature doesn’t increase at all. So I started thinking about why that happens and realized it happens when the temperature data gets ahead of the trend. Being ahead of the trend means the temperature data can stop increasing and yet the warming trend continues until it “catches up” with the data. It’s not until the temperature data falls below the trend that the trend starts to substantially drop that AGW has a problem.
In 1997 temperature rose far ahead of trend thanks to the 1997-1998 El Nino. Temperature has not needed to increase any higher in order to remain “ahead of trend”.
Another way to look at it is that there are multiple ways of achieving 0.16C/decade from 1970-2012 given 0.16C/decade from 1970-1997. One way would be for temperature to gradually increase from a low level in 1997 to a high level in 2012. Under this scenario 1997-2012 OLS would show 0.16C/decade trend.
The method that actually took place was that temperature jumped up high 1997 and remained high, such that an OLS trend from 1997-2012 shows little trend. The effect is the same though. The trend from 1970-2012 comes out at 0.16C/decade.
In terms of expectations of global warming it doesn’t matter which happened. Certainly it’s not a part of AGW to claim to understand climate well enough to be able to predict the exact trajectory of temperatures from 1997-2012. The best that can be done is to expect a roughly continued warming trend (in this case 0.16C/decade).
So the 1997-2012 OLS being flat doesn’t mean warming stopped, it means warming took an odd path. Why did continued warming manifest as a step change is the question, rather than a conclusion that warming didn’t continue.
To amuse myself, I decided to implement lolwot’s proposed method for deciding if global warming has stopped. When I did, I found trends don’t drop below the first line in my graph’s trend until N = 90. That’s right. His approach can’t find a lack of warming in that data until 60 points after it stops.
But I decided to take it a step further. I took the temperature record in question, then I modified it so it was completely flat all the way to 2020. I then calculated the trends from 1970 to every month to see when they’d fall below the 1970-1998 trend. The result? 2018.
That’s right. The method lolwot now promotes says if we had measured completely flat temperatures for the last ~15 years, we still couldn’t say global warming has stopped. We would still need another five years of completely flat temperatures to do so.
It’s a wonderful method if you want to ensure you never find global warming has stopped.
I’ve decided not to bother explaining why the approach lolwot now promotes is bizarre and stupid. Instead, I’m going to just show what happens when we implement it.
That’s the temperature series with the data examined in the Daily Mail article replaced with a linear trend of approximately -.01 degrees per decade. The vertical line shows when lolwot’s approach would decide global warming has stopped. That’s at about 2011.
In other words, we could have measured decreasing temperatures from 1998 to last year, and lolwot’s approach would just barely conclude global warming had stopped.
Lolwot is right. Something can “warm up” in the sense of absorbing tremendous amounts of heat without measurably changing temperature. All it takes is a high thermal conductivity material placed along a conductive path. The issue is that this does not spontaneously appear unless it is something as simple as cooler upwelling ocean flows providing a steeper concentration gradient for excess heat to flow down.
If that path disappears, then the excess heat will continue on with its fluctuating random walk, hopping into and out of thermally conductive sites. That is what the classical heat equation describes, a purely diffusive system.
What is interesting about this description is how it aligns with basic time-series analysis. The simplest analysis of any time series is to assume a random walk. However, this does not have a reversion-to-the-mean (RTTM) property, so you pick a random-walk model that does, such as a Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. As with any RTTM random-walk, if the fluctuations get to far away from the actual mean, it will takes it’s time in reverting back to that mean.
Lo and behold, we look at what Kyle Swanson says, as quoted by lolwot further down in this thread:
The terms “overshoot” and “radiatively dissipating” is used to describe that a particular year of excess heat was just that, excess thermal energy that is above the mean energy trajectory.
This fluctuating behavior, when placed in the hands of goofs like Chief Hydrologist, is made to look like some astounding “climate paradigm shift”. Sadly not, as this is most parsimoniously explained (as with many other aleatory natural phenomena ) by RTTM statistics, which is also known as red noise. Take an elevation profile along an average terrain path and it will show up as red noise with characteristic Gauss-Markov properties. This noise model is used by engineers as input to sophisticated Kalman filtering applications. No remarkable paradigm shifts to see for miles within that particular discipline, just the application of stochastic analysis approaches as described in textbooks by authors such as C.W. Gardiner.
What I find odd is how the skeptics use entropy and randomness as a convenience crutch, whereby they will invoke it when it serves their agenda, but dismiss it and gravitate toward some esoteric path when it doesn’t.
I don’t engage in the trendology unless I can work with an adequate data set because I understand the nature of noise and know where it can trip you up.
WebHubTelescope the problem is that if you do fit one of those fancy ARIMA models to the data the trend (aka warming) gets to be marginal.
Brandon you write: “His approach can’t find a lack of warming in that data until 60 points after it stops.”
Of course that data is completely artificial so “60 year” pause in that data could be no more significant for a lack of warming than a 1 year pause in hadcrut4 would be.
Your method also produces seeming silly results. For example taken literally your method wrongly concludes temperature has stopped rising whenever a pause occurs in the data of any length.
Take a staircase plot for example: your method would wrong conclude the staircase had ended at the end of each step. That’s *every* step your method would tell you the wrong answer. My method would only conclude the staircase had ended once the trend substantially lowered, which it wouldn’t do until after a sufficient amount of data after the top of the staircase had actually been reached. You argue that the method doesn’t catch the end of the staircase right away (ie “His approach can’t find a lack of warming in that data until 60 points after it stops.”) but that’s only because the method is rightly cautious! Sufficient data to establish the warming has stopped is required before concluding it.
To see why take actual temperature data like this, every time a blue flat line is encountered your method concludes warming has stopped. I count 5 times your method would have led to the wrong conclusion that warming had stopped since 1970. If it’s already been wrong several times why should we accept it this time when it claims warming has stopped since 1997?
The point is you can’t assume warming has stopped just because the OLS goes flat since N. As you yourself have pointed out the longterm warming trend can continue, or even increase, despite a flat OLS for some period. Therefore doesn’t it make sense to require the longterm warming trend to substantially change?
In the case of the data you’ve drawn here I really don’t think you can conclude the warming has stopped. It could be the warming has stopped, OR it could be that the jump upwards and slope down is merely variation around the longterm trend. If the 1970-1997 trend is the same as the 1970-2012 trend (which I assume it is in that data) I disagree you can conclude the warming has ended. Surely it’s the longterm trend that defines whether warming continues, not the specific path temperature took.
to lolwot ….”. Surely it’s the longterm trend that defines whether warming continues, not the specific path temperature took.” Exactly…now we are making progress. Best thing you have said all day.
And now, unable to dispute what I say, lolwot resorts to making things up about me:
I’ve never promoted any approach as being right. I’ve simply pointed out lolwot uses stupid and bizarre approaches. Even if that weren’t true, it is not a defense of a methodology to say other methodologies suck too. And even if it were, nothing about looking at the OLS trend of a period does what lolwot claims unless the data has no variance at all, something which could never happen in temperatures.
Put bluntly, lolwot isn’t responding to anything I’ve said, he’s making things up about what I have said, he’s making things up about simple calculations, and he’s not even being amusing anymore. As such, it isn’t worth spending my time responding to him. Anyone who is interested in an honest examination of the data would quickly see lolwot’s approaches are stupid, bizarre, and deceptive. They’d also quickly see his conclusions are insane (such as claiming increased uncertainty falsifies the idea of global warming having stopped).
I hope the reason most people don’t call him out on it is they are just ignoring him. Anything else would be depressing.
@web hub telescope
You state:
‘Something can “warm up” in the sense of absorbing tremendous amounts of heat without measurably changing temperature’
Please give a concrete physical example where I can see this phenomenon occurring.
The experimental apparatus will be a quantity of ‘something’, a heat source applied to that something (eg a bunsen burner) and a sensitive means of measuring the temperature of the something.
Please describe your method , especially the nature and design of ‘something’ and the results you expect to see that will justify your claim..Diagrams will be very helpful.
We will then (if it seems sensible) do our best to procure the experimental equipment and conduct the test in reality. .
Brandon you wrote: “His approach can’t find a lack of warming in that data until 60 points after it stops.”
My point is that if by “lack of warming” you mean the longterm trend has ended then NO method can establish that from the data.
Yes running OLS from 31-60 can show a “lack of warming” in the sense of a flat OLS over that period.
But that isn’t the same as a “lack of warming” in terms of the longterm warming stopping. The longterm warming can continue despite flat OLS from 31-60 (and from 91-120, etc) if the warming pattern is a staircase.
Therefore complaining that my method doesn’t find the lack of warming is beside the point. No method can as you have defined “lack of warming”.
Note that I am not the one claiming a lack of warming since 1997. David Rose and the 1997 OLSers are the ones claiming it. I am claiming their method doesn’t support that idea. There’s no indication that the longterm 1970-1997 warming has stopped. It seems you agree with me.
lolwot, never letting anything get in the way of a stupid comment, misrepresents what I’ve said, creating a random and nonsensical definition of his own then attributing it to me. He then claims I agree with a position despite having accused me of holding the opposite position just a little while prior.
Question. Aside from Pekka Pirilä, is there anyone on his side who acknowledges lolwot’s comments range from wrong to nonsensical to stupid to insane?
Well this is certainly not lol’s finest hour. This temperature plateau that just can’t be spin-doctored away does seem to have got under the skins of those like lol wanting a CAGW conclusion no matter what the facts.
‘Lolwot is right. Something can “warm up” in the sense of absorbing tremendous amounts of heat without measurably changing temperature. All it takes is a high thermal conductivity material placed along a conductive path. The issue is that this does not spontaneously appear unless it is something as simple as cooler upwelling ocean flows providing a steeper concentration gradient for excess heat to flow down.
If that path disappears, then the excess heat will continue on with its fluctuating random walk, hopping into and out of thermally conductive sites. That is what the classical heat equation describes, a purely diffusive system.
What is interesting about this description is how it aligns with basic time-series analysis. The simplest analysis of any time series is to assume a random walk. However, this does not have a reversion-to-the-mean (RTTM) property, so you pick a random-walk model that does, such as a Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. As with any RTTM random-walk, if the fluctuations get to far away from the actual mean, it will takes it’s time in reverting back to that mean.
Someone might be able to make some physical sense of this not me.
‘Lo and behold, we look at what Kyle Swanson says, as quoted by lolwot further down in this thread:
“… that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. “
The terms “overshoot” and “radiatively dissipating” is used to describe that a particular year of excess heat was just that, excess thermal energy that is above the mean energy trajectory.’
What he actually said ‘We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020. Of course, this contrasts sharply with other forecasts of the climate system; the purple line roughly indicates the model-based forecast of Smith et al. (2007) , suggesting with a warming of roughly 0.3 deg C over the 2005-2015 period.
Why would anyone in their right mind believe what I’ve just outlined? Everything hinges on the idea that something extraordinary happened to the climate system in response to the 1997/98 super-El Niño event (an idea that has its roots in the wavelet analysis by Park and Mann (2000)). ‘
‘This fluctuating behavior, when placed in the hands of goofs like Chief Hydrologist, is made to look like some astounding “climate paradigm shift”. Sadly not, as this is most parsimoniously explained (as with many other aleatory natural phenomena ) by RTTM statistics, which is also known as red noise. Take an elevation profile along an average terrain path and it will show up as red noise with characteristic Gauss-Markov properties. This noise model is used by engineers as input to sophisticated Kalman filtering applications. No remarkable paradigm shifts to see for miles within that particular discipline, just the application of stochastic analysis approaches as described in textbooks by authors such as C.W. Gardiner.’
Noise and ‘aleatory’ uncertainty have no place in climate – everything has a cause – everything is determinant in principle. When we have a graph such as this – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=CERES_MODIS-1.gif – the two things are related and are the result of coherent variability in ocean/atmosphere couplings.
To quote from the paper that is the actual subject of the post. “Has the climate recently shifted?’
‘This paper provides an update to an earlier work that showed a foreshadowing of such climate shifts in the time evolution of major Northern Hemispheric atmospheric and oceanic modes of variability [Tsonis et al., 2007]. In that paper, it was hypothesized that certain aspects of the climate system behave in a manner analogous to that of synchronized chaotic dynamical systems [Boccaletti et al., 2002]. Specifically, it was shown that when these modes of climate variability are synchronized, and the coupling between those modes simultaneously increases, the climate system becomes unstable and appears to be thrown into a new state. This chain of events is identical to that found in regime transitions in synchronized chaotic dynamical systems [Pecora et al., 1997]. This new state is marked by a break in the global mean temperature trend and in the character of ENSO variability.
It follows on from Tsonis et al 2007 “A new dynamical mechanisms for major climate shifts.’
The term climate shift comes directly from these papers. They provide quantitative analysis of chaos – in the sense of theoretical physics – in contemporary climate. The paradigm shift was first applied to this new idea of how climate works by the NAS – ‘Abrupt climate change: inevitable surprises’.
Webby the wanker has taken a sentence from a post on papers that say something the reverse of what he stupidly infers from almost total ignorance. The guy is a moron.
‘What I find odd is how the skeptics use entropy and randomness as a convenience crutch, whereby they will invoke it when it serves their agenda, but dismiss it and gravitate toward some esoteric path when it doesn’t.’
Given what has preceded this – I fail to give a rat’s arse about what webnutcolonoscope thinks is an esoteric path.
‘I don’t engage in the trendology unless I can work with an adequate data set because I understand the nature of noise and know where it can trip you up.’
What he engages in is ignorant moronicity.
Give it up Chief. You take an unattributed graph from one of James Hansen’s colleagues at LaRC and you make up stuff. What a surprise.
The graph comes from a Norman Loeb presentation – as you are well aware of becuase I linked to the source recently. The data is of course avaiable id you care to look. The graph shows the link between cloud and SW at TOA. Duh.
You want to distract from your idiocy above in quoting a sentance from on a paper showing dynamical chaos in climate to show that dynamical chaos doesn’t happen? One that you obviously haven’t read – let alone the underlying papers. You have shown yourself to be a liar and a fraud on numerous occasions – you are also a moron.
Brandon, simple question: do you think the warming from 1970-1997 has stopped since 1997?
ARIMA is a purely statistical technique but Ornstein-Uhlenbeck has more of a grounded foundation based on physics.
WebHubTelescope I don’t there is much to choose between in their relationship to some form of physical behaviour (apart from one being discrete and the other continuous). But you miss my point. If you fit a model more appropriate to the characteristics of the data (which in this case is discrete and therefore ARIMA is more appropriate) you find all the trends with time become more less significant.
Sorry poor hand eye co-ordination ” ….. much less significant.”
lolly, your missing the point. We have been told that the rise in temperature in the 20th century is ” very likely” due to human emissions. We’ve had an IPCC period (1995 – 2012) of no warming with CO2 emissions increasing, while the climate science community have continued to tell us that warming is due to CO2. I think that any rational human being would take the observations and question the theory. But not you eh?
Judith, love the photograph this time round, it’s you.
“We’ve had an IPCC period (1995 – 2012) of no warming ”
not true. There’s been warming over that period.
“‘According to the longterm trend warming from 1970 is”
The century long trend is warming followed by a substantial pause(cooling) then warming again according to HADCRUT4 for a trend of 0.08C per decade.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html
Calculating the trend from the end of the last substantial pause is cherry picking. It ignores the 30 year pause.
The IPCC says it’s likely the late 20th century warming is mostly human caused. So I am focusing on late 20th century warming. I could start the trend from 1950 but I think people would complain I had avoided the more obvious 1970 or 1980 start points so I had a smaller pre-1997 rate of warming.
@lolwot
If I want to see if it has warmed from 1997 to now, I really do think that plotting a trend from 1997 to now answers the question extremely satisfactorily.
Trying to torture the data another few times until you find some hidden secret ain’t going to change anything. And just makes you look desperate to hold on to your magic power charm as it falls from your grasp.
Bye bye power, bye bye influence, bye bye alarmism, and bye bye f***g windmills.
Latimer Alder is repellently vulgar in his hatred of people working toward solutions. To join a term from the political front where you have neo-liberals and neo-cons, he appears as a neo-Malthusian. Not exactly spouting a Malthusian tag-line but egging on failure whenever he can. Something has always bothered me about this type and now I understand it. Just like the war-mongering neo-cons, the neo-Malthusians, neo-Luddites, and neo-Cornucopians are completely agenda driven.
@web hub telescope
Just another bunch of content-free neo-incomprehensible crap from you.
If you choose to put it into understandable English I might comment further, but I need only read the first sentence ‘hatred of those working toward solutions’ – which has zero content…(what solutions? to what problem(s)? how do you measure ‘towards’?) to know that it would be futile.
And the last sentence
‘Just like the war-mongering neo-cons, the neo-Malthusians, neo-Luddites, and neo-Cornucopians are completely agenda driven.’
seems just to be a nonsensical stringing together of words?
Do you make them up with some form of random word-generator?
I once wrote (buried deep in a sales proposal something like ‘you new computer will be grey in colour, washable with the patented OMO feature wearable at even the most sophisticated evening events, accessorisable with a range of glamorous baubles and will provide total technical flexibility within a unified and comprehensive overall business and commercial strategy’..on the basis that I wasn’t sure anybody was really interested in what we said on p 242 wasn’t going to be read at all.
I was right. And we won the business. But mine was meant to be near-gibberish. Do you have the same excuse?.
Latie,
Your hatred of renewable energy technologies is obvious.
Is that clear enough for you?
You believe that the cessation of global warming signals the end of the need for wind turbines.
Is that also clear?
You also have said in the past that the British have long known that their own fossil fuel supply won’t last.
Is it now clear that you do not care for the UK’s future?
I have no problem with you criticizing my writing style. It gives me a chance to lay out the argument more clearly.
@web hub telescope
1. ‘You believe that the cessation of global warming signals the end of the need for wind turbines’
There has never been a ‘need’ for windmills. The original ones fell out of favour very soon after the invention of a reliable steam engine because of their fundamental technical deficiencies. Just renaming them ‘wind turbines’ and hoping that some credulous fools will think them to be somehow ‘different’ doesn’t actually change anything.
The only need for windmills was for the pollies to demonstrate how ‘green’ they were And these are simply monuments to the cult of Gaia. Since they are entirely uneconomic (at least in UK), the operators need enormous bribes (aka ‘subsidies’) to build and run them. So we end up not with ‘wind farms’ but with ‘subsidy farms’.
Like the Cargo Cultists recreation of old ATC towers, believers in this myth hope that by constructing these edifices they will somehow bring back some fantasy land ‘good time’ . But like the Cargo Cultists their beliefs are completely wrong.
2. ‘You also have said in the past that the British have long known that their own fossil fuel supply won’t last.
Is it now clear that you do not care for the UK’s future?’
Wow. That’s a huge non sequitur How TF do you equate noticing that North Sea Oil is finite with ‘not caring about the UK’s future?.’
But in terms of strictest accuracy, you kept droning on about North Sea Oil as if you were the very first to note that it wasn’t going to last forever. I merely pointed out that the guys in the Treasury (our Finance Ministry) had noticed this undeniable truth about thirty years ago.
And North Sea Oil is not our only source of fossil fuels. Your comment makes little sense.
BTW the lead time for putting up a windmill is a matter of months. If and when they ever became economic, sensible and necessary, we could construct them very quickly. But there is no need to stick them up now when none of those conditions have been met.
As to your writing style today I find it much easier to follow your remarks when laid out clearly as I recommended. +1! Keep it up.
So Latimer is a neo-Luddite because he reflexively says that wind technology will never work. You can’t prove that, so the neo-Luddite tag sticks.
Latimer is a neo-Cornucopian because he thinks magic beans will replace North Sea oil. That tag sticks because he hasn’t described a replacement.
Latimer is a neo-Malthusian because he hates the fact that greens are concerned about the future of the world. This is a transitively logical construct. If green technology were to succeed and the earth’s population retained a comfortable carrying capacity, Latimer would become very unhappy. That makes him a neo-Malthusian.
OTOH, classify me as a neo-realist and a neo-optimist.
I make these classifications because I am disgusted with your kind and believe that you are severe impediments to progress. That’s my opinion.
See the next post on the Myth of Affordable Energy for ways in which these jerks go further down the rabbit hole.
@web hub telescope
Webbie webbie…no need to get so upset.Dry your eyes little one… the big Green Warming Bogeyman really isn’t coming for you!
But to lull you to sleep. here;s the answer to the load of bollocks you wrote just now.
1. ‘So Latimer is a neo-Luddite because he reflexively says that wind technology will never work. You can’t prove that, so the neo-Luddite tag sticks’.
Until you can make the wind blow reliably and consistently and/or provide low cost economic ways of storing bulk quantities (TWh s) of electricity easily and retrievably, then wind power is pretty useless beyond a few very localised applications. you might wish it to be otherwise, but since neither condition looks to be on the horizon I’ll not say ‘never’ but ‘in the reasonably forseeable future’. If a miracle occurs the lead time is short to build more windmills.
2. ‘Latimer is a neo-Cornucopian because he thinks magic beans will replace North Sea oil. That tag sticks because he hasn’t described a replacement’.
The replacement is what it has always been. Money. Because of it’s constituents most NSO was not used locally but traded on world markets You may have head about a price for ‘Brent Crude’. We sold NSO and bought what we needed. This will continue just as before.
North Sea Gas is still widely used for domestic consumption, but that’s a different thing.
3.’Latimer is a neo-Malthusian because he hates the fact that greens are concerned about the future of the world. This is a transitively logical construct. If green technology were to succeed and the earth’s population retained a comfortable carrying capacity, Latimer would become very unhappy. That makes him a neo-Malthusian’
The key to your rant is the little but highly important phrase ‘if green techology were to succeed’.
If it were to do so, I’d be delighted. But I;d be delighted if my fairy Godmother came down and offered me Three Wishes as well. Despite zillions of dollars and pounds ‘invested’ in ‘green’ technologies, none (that is a big fat zero) are even approaching the level of cost and efficiency we get from conventional energy. And the reason is simple thrmodynamics – energy density. You need a lot of wind to generate a few watts of electricity – hence a big windmill. You need a big solar panel to do the same (at least in Northern Europe). The former doesn’t work when the wind don’t blow (like today in SW London) and the latter don’t work at all when it’s dark or poorly when its cloudy (like today). AFAIK we can’t store wind for later and we can only effectively store sunbeams in one way.
And that is fossil fuel. Stored sunbeams from a long tine ago. Coal, oil gas are all very nice fuels…they are energy dense..you don’t need a lot of them to get a decent amount of energy. You can store them and use them when you want and/or need. They are controllable and transportable. All these reasons remain good ones and won’t go away because you’d like them to..
If you want to go even further into energy density you can use the stored energy of the Big Bang in nuclear fission or the simple conversion of mass to energy in nuclear fusion. None of these are perfect, they all have advantages and disadvantages, but the oil, coal and gas is there in the Earth. And make no mistake, it will be used, whatever you may think…unless your green technologies become so much better that they are made obsolete. Given that at the moment no green technology can survive without huge subsidies, there is an awful long way to go and an awful lot of new technology that needs to be invented from scratch to make this happen. (bulk electricity storage to start with)
Your silly remark about ‘greens are concerned about the future of the planet’ is just about on a par with ‘will nobody think of the children/’ as the last appeal to emotion when you know that you are losing the rational case.
4. ‘I make these classifications because I am disgusted with your kind and believe that you are severe impediments to progress.’
Sorry that you’re so upset. But David Rose’s article has clearly upset a lot of you alarmist types…..a bit too lose to home and you know that you have no counter to the unhappy fact that the temperature ain’t been rising for a long long time….
And if you think that pointing out that real energy systems and real economies and health services and agriculture and all the things needed to live a reasonably happy life don’t come from windmills and sunbeams then I am delighted that I am ‘a severe impediment to progress’. Coz pouring good public money after bad in a wishful dream search for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or the Coup de Ville hiding at the bottom of a Crackerjack box is not what I call ‘progress’ at all. Just straightforward stupidity.
When I write my next book I will already have two of my back cover quotes from you.just from your remarks today.
‘A severe impediment to progress’ ‘Latimer Alder is repellently vulgar’
With such great free advertising it’ll be a smash best seller I’m sure.
But to be serious for a moment. Apart from calling me names in terms of ever-increasing obscurity, I don’t think that you have come up with a single sensible argument during our recent exchanges. Can you identify a single one?
Latie has lost the argument big time. Any time someone has to write lengthy paragraphs to defend himself indicates that the initial description cuts too close for comfort.
It also indicates that you do understand my writing, contrary to what you first indicated.
A neo-Malthusian, neo-Luddite, neo-Cornucopian fits you to a T.
WEB,
There is nothing vulgar or an indication of hating people in Latimer’s comment above. Considering some of the comments you’ve posted, this is a case of the kettle (cast iron variety) calling the pitcher (clear glass variety) black.
@web hub telescope
Whatever.
@web hub,telescope
On further reflection:
Neo-whatever.
@web hub telescope
I don’t think the use of common sense is an entirely new concept even if it is unfamiliar to you.
Latimer Alder writes: “If I want to see if it has warmed from 1997 to now, I really do think that plotting a trend from 1997 to now answers the question extremely satisfactorily.”
But what if you want to see if warming since 1970 has stopped?
I argue plotting a trend since 1997 doesn’t answer that question and the claim “warming stopped 16 years ago” is unsupported.
After-all back in 1998 if you had plotted the trend since 1987 you would have found the trend was flat. Did that mean warming since 1970 stopped in 1987? No, obviously not.
@lolwot
‘But what if you want to see if warming since 1970 has stopped?’
I don’t.
Why should I be bothered with the old stuff? if it has hasn’t warmed up since 1997, I don’t really give a toss what happened 42 years ago…or 420 years ago.
Yesterday don’t matter if it’s gone.
“if it has hasn’t warmed up since 1997, I don’t really give a toss what happened 42 years ago”
Would you have said the same back in 1997 when the past 10 year trend had been flat?
@lolwot
I think you must be using some different meaning for ‘warming’ than the rest of the human race.
To be clear. For something to be ‘warming’ it requires its temperature to be increasing. If the temperature is not increasing it is not warming.
If the temperature was going up fifteen years ago then it was warming. It isn’t going up now. It is not warming. Maybe the temperature will start going up again at some future time. Then it will be warming. But right now it is not warming. Warming has stopped.
what lol et all are desperate do, it keep everyone’s eyes off the damn thermometers, and take on faith (from the guys who brought us Climategate) that CO2 is causing the same amount of warming they joyously ascribed to it when the thermometers were doing the politically correct thing prior to 1997.
Has warming stopped 1997?
Yes, if the sentence is taken to refer to statistically significant change in surface temperature up to present.
Impossible to tell, if the sentence is taken to refer to the heat content of oceans, atmosphere and top soil. (Some data indicates warming in that, but I don’t think that it’s reliable enough. We just have too little data on oceans at depths below 750m, where the signal is claimed to be.)
Does the apparent stop over 15 years give strong evidence concerning continuation of the AGW-type warming trend?
No. It does not. The fit in Foster – Rahmstorf paper proves that the evidence is not strong. Their fit is not necessarily correct, but it proves that the evidence for more persistent stopping is very weak.
@pekka pirila
‘Has warming stopped 1997?
Yes, if the sentence is taken to refer to statistically significant change in surface temperature up to present.’
Good enough for me and 99% of the rest of the population. That’s where we live, that;s where we grow things, that where the sealevel is.
We really don’t give a toss about the deep ocean heat content. It is not of relevance to us in any meaningful way.
Arguing about that is just a desperate attempt to hide the Inconvenient Truth.
Pekka, you write “Has warming stopped 1997?”
Let me say it again, this is the wrong question to ask. http://bit.ly/V19Im8 shows that warming has been going on at a rate of around 0.06 C per decade ever since proper records began; and the CET suggests this warming has been going on ever since the 17th century. There is no evidence that this warming has ceased.
What happened was that in the latter part of the 20th century, there was a period when the rate of warming was above 0.06 C per decade. IMHO, this was wrongly claimed to be proof that CAGW is real. All we are now seeing is a pause in the warming, so that the rate of 0.06 C per decade is being restored. Presumably, this pause will continue until such time as another rise comes back to restore the trend that has been going on for centuries.
What counts is not the rise in temperature, but the rate at which temperatures are rising. It will only be when this rate of rise continues for a significant period of time at a rate in excess of 0.06 C per decade that we will be able to conclude that CAGW is real.
We really don’t give a toss about the deep ocean heat content. It is not of relevance to us in any meaningful way.
It is relevant, unless your thinking is both figuratively and literally shallow :)
Bart R | October 21, 2012 at 11:05 am |
“Reply Conjecture: a & b
Lie: c, d & e”
You are pretty hopeless aren’t you.
a; Conjecture.
b: Lie, in its exact sense. Temperatures have actually fallen in the 21st Century.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/to:2013/plot/wti/from:2001/to:2013/trend
c: Truth.
d: Truth. See What Gavin Schmidt says on the subject.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/
e: Conjecture. However a few more posts like those above will be convincing people it is actually the truth.
Alan
Alan:
????
Here?:
Alan Millar | October 21, 2012 at 11:13 am |
I’m quite hopeful, contrary to what you claim.
You are incorrect when you say b is a lie.
There is no meaningful logical connection between, “Temperatures have actually fallen in the 21st Century,” and, “The Global temperature is rising much slower in the 21st Century than the 20th Century.”
“Global temperature” doesn’t meaningfully exist on timescales under 17 years, and strong significance requires about 32 years. “Temperatures” is just a collection of thermometer readings. You can collect them in groups so little as two, but you can’t call them global, or make relevant comparisons to global warming, in groups on so short a timespan as we have since the start of the 21st Century. You’re comparing apples to appleseeds.
All your evidence is thereby conjecture; you cannot use it to indict claims that themselves are conjecture.
However, we can get more and better evidence than you did cherry-pickingly resort to. On 17-year trends, we can achieve 95% confidence reaching to the end of 2005 of strong ongoing statistically significant global warming. Further, by using disjoint datasets (GRACE, Argo, RSS, UAH, sea levels, Arctic Sea Ice extent, ocean circulations, aerosols) to arrive at parameters, we know to over 95% confidence that 2012 is not significantly colder than 2005, so can dismiss all claims of no significant global warming in the 21st Century to date. Hence, (c) is a lie.
d) Even as a small child I knew the model airplanes I built wouldn’t fly me across the country. If you can’t tell the difference between a model and the thing it represents, there’s no help for you here.
e) Argumentum ad populam, however phrased, remains a fallacy. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=idiot
All persons are born into a natural state of idiocy; psychologists no longer use the word as a technical description of a person with a mental age of three or less, however the implication remains. Perhaps you mean, “You are a fool,” or perhaps, “You are mendacious?”
“truth” and “gavin schmidt” in the same sentence. Phew.
“The first casualty of war is the truth” or so I have been told, and the climate wars should be no different. Of course that assumes that there is a truth, just that this truth is being stretched and torn every which way.
I don’t see that there is “a” truth in climate science. What truth we can derive from the Tyndall gas in a bottle experiments may not be directly applicable in a mixture of gases, where the concentrations and capabilities of each gas is different; where one gas is part of one cycle and another gas is part of another cycle. Where assumptions are implicit in the outcome; where there is an assumption of equilibrium where there is no equilibrium; where experiments are run “all other things being equal” where we know that all things do not remain constant while we look at one piece of the puzzle and trying to make sense of the whole.
To me the biggest assumption is that we understand natural variability. The “pause” highlights the fact that we don’t know “natural variability” so the “pause” becomes the bone of contention rather than the awareness that: no, we don’t know natural variability and it is possible that the effects/truth/reality of natural variability will put Tyndall back into the bottle.
I doubt natural variability will put anything back into the bottle. The only thing we really know about natural variability is that it is variable. That is the initial conditions problem, the impact of any variability, forcing or feedback changes. It is like needing to replace the shocks on your car, you never know what any particular bump will do, exactly because you can’t see the next bump.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/10/old-shocks-in-climate.html
Capt’nDallas
I was hopin’ that we could leave 19th Century science to age/mellow, to sample now and again instead of making it the main ingredient of our GCMs stew (simulations). Also, I’m seem to be a bit confused by Navier-Stokes equations to account for turbulence and mixing at the edges.
I would like to see an assault on natural variability understanding with a new set of assumptions and a new math which I think such understanding will take. It seems to me, we keep trying to fit CO2 and N-S into this circular hole and because it doesn’t fit, we need more forcings.
I think we need a re-think. I’ll have a think on it.
I think that is happening. Just because there is no “solution” doesn’t mean you can’t learn from the attempt to solve the problem. lolwot is actually a good example. By attempting to prove a point by using 3 significant digits when the accuracy of the data at best is to one significant digit, he is illustrating the problem. Go lolwot and Kevin Trenberth!
Here ya go HiR008, a new Assault on natural variability, sans N-S, this is just the variability in sensitivity and time constants.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/10/playing-with-enso-and-solar.html
The recurrent patterns in climate are clues, but not guides to future performance. Everything is changing, but you can pick out a clue here and there like Tsonis with the network analysis. Most of the clues indicate that climate is a tad complex and hard to predict :)
Capt’nDallas
Just as a crazy reach, and I know that Tomas Milanovic said that “Never twice the same space” so we aren’t going to see what has happened in the past necessarily in the future, I am intrigued by your graph of solar output superimposed upon the global and tropical temperatures. As the sun’s output diminishes, are we going to see the tropics, and following that, global temperatures decline? Natural variability, as I infer that the sun in our solar system is natural, will mostly trump the gas mixture we have in the atmosphere? That the oceans and their currents hold onto and redistribute those energies at high sun output, only to off’-load that energy at a convenient low sun output period down the line? Hmmm. The sun is important to climate change.
The part that the sun looses its impact at times reminds me of heating a pot of water. Once it begins to boil, the temperature of the water does not rise further until all the water is boiled away. Now, if our earth has a thermostat and does not allow all the water to boil away, i.e. a shield, like clouds, then we have an oscillatory system: the water cycle creates more clouds at high solar output and diminished clouds at low solar output. With the appropriate lags, this crazy idea should be testable, eh?
HiR008, there are so many interactions and decay times I have no idea what would be testable. That could change in a few decades with better data, but right now, FIIK is the correct answer. It is still a fun puzzle though.
For a more comprehensive argument than mine I recommend this post by Tamino who goes into far better detail than I did and also accounts for uncertainties.
It’s clear that any claim the warming has stopped or slowed down is not supported by the data itself and the analyses Rose et al are performing are insufficient to even answer the question.
“After the natural influences are removed, the adjusted data look like this:…”
LOL!
Oops, that’s not the post. Sorry.
That’s a reverse escalator graph!
Going up the escalator (flat) landing platform?
Tamino quotes Foster & Rahmstorf that has the basic methodological flaw of fitting every possible lagged model and than claiming significance for the best fit.
Better said Tamino quotes himself.
BartR, you really are a piece of work. You complain about Alan Millar thus:
“Y’know, no matter how someone says please, the line “You are an idiot” comes off as impolite. Please answer what could possibly convince me to take up an exchange with on obviously manipulative boor?”
Impolite? And yet you feel to accuse me of being a liar, deliberately deceitful, and in the pay of the GPWF. This quote alone is, without question, defamatory and legally actionable:
“He’s lying. He’s doing harm. He’s acting on behalf of unidentified other parties.”
You poor, sensitive lamb. If you’re going to dish it out, you going to have to be able take a little heat as well. Your claims that I am deliberately lying and acting on behalf of some hidden manipulator are as false as they are vile.
Why not undertake some real journalism – investigate the source of GWPF funding?
Instead of shooting the messenger, why dont you address the graph. What a tired and transparent tactic you continue to use. Debate the science, not someone’s funding sources. Your reaction to the science is what has turned off those who have done some homework. Sorry, but the score is getting out of hand and you are on the losing team.
graph addressed below in a question to David Rose. Do you think he will answer? I don’t.
Louise is waving the flag of surrender by trying to shoot the messenger.
I always know when the skeptics have hit an especially sensitive point and have them down for the count- it is when they bring out these kinds of tactics. You would think they would learn after a while
No she’s not.
She just trying to get the messenger to run off in another direction so the message gets lost.
@louise
Suggest that you make that suggestion at the Grauniad . There seem to be quite a few ‘environmental journalists’ there who would no doubt be eager to do so prior to their imminent redundancies. But since my own few dealings with that body suggest it is little more than Benny Peiser, Nigel Lawson (when not at home in France), and a couple of office staff to do the excellent daily press cuttings service, I hardly think the GWPF will be found to be the enormous bogeyman of your imagination.
Press cuttings here:
http://www.thegwpf.org/
And Mr Rose is, no doubt, fully occupied in bringing the ‘global not doing very much at all whichever way you look at’ truth about ‘climate’s staying pretty much as it was before’ to the many readers of the Mail.
And though followers of Climate Etc may be misled into thinking that the Gauradin is the only UK newspaper, it is in fact a small and declining (both in readership and influence) paper with a circulation of c. 200,000. The Daily Mail, by comparison has c. 2,000,000. The Guardian’s Sunday editin is The Observer c. 250,000, while the Mail on Sunday manages c.1,800,000.
By any standard the Mail group reaches between seven and ten times more readers than the Grauniad. And it is not unreasonable to assume that while Guradian readers will be well-tuned in to ‘environment’ issues, Mail readers – massively from ‘Middle England’ – will not be so familiar. And so Rose’s article will have an even bigger impact than the 8;1 circulation ratio would suggest.
And as a sideline. the WSJ circulation is c.1,500,000 and the NYT c. 750,000 . Both smaller than the Daily Mail.
> I hardly think the GWPF will be found to be the enormous bogeyman of your imagination.
Latimer Adler not only has a perspicuous access to IT perspectives, but he does seem to have an intimate grasp of Louise’s imagination.
Who funds Nigel Lawson’s hobby horse is not public.
Nigel Lawson’s hobby horse gets five times more words printed into David Rose’s OP than any other sources, discounting Judy as a source for the moment.
Considering the readership numbers about which Latimer Adler just bragged, considering (at least for argument’s sake) that newspapers have some kind of intellectual impact, and considering that David Rose did misrepresent climate science results in a manner that may make readers doubt of his honesty, even Stirling English will have to admit that the claim of harm BartR was alluding to earlier might have some merit.
***
Right-wing populism does have an impact:
> During the 1990s, the working class has become the core clientele of right-wing populist parties in Western Europe. This article empirically examines the motives of workers for supporting a right-wing populist party. Based on data from the European Social Survey for Austria, Belgium, France, Norway, and Switzerland, three different sets of explanations are tested: (1) hypotheses stressing economic determinants, that is, the fear of wage pressure and competition over welfare benefits; (2) hypotheses emphasizing cultural determinants, that is, the perception of immigration as a threat to national identity; and (3) hypotheses focusing on social alienation, that is, dissatisfaction with the way the country’s democracy works and the nonintegration into intermediary networks (trade unions). We find questions of community and identity to be clearly more important than economic grievances. Hence, in Austria and Switzerland, the electoral success of right-wing populist parties among workers seems primarily due to cultural protectionism: the defense of national identity against outsiders. In Belgium, France, and Norway, cultural protectionism is complemented by deep-seated discontent with the way the countries’ democracies work.
http://ips.sagepub.com/content/29/3/349.short
We emphasize the word “dissatisfaction” and remind readers of the Can’t Get No Satisfaction algorithm:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/33362796798
Seeing who funds the GWFP should reveal who’s interested in promoting such intellectual framework. A question of justice, and of fairness, not size.
@willard
‘Nigel Lawson’s hobby horse gets five times more words printed into David Rose’s OP than any other sources, discounting Judy as a source for the moment’
Not at all sure what you are trying to prove here, since Judith is by far the biggest contributor. Her remarks are the main topic in paras: 5, 6, 20 21, 25 and 26. There are 30 paras, so she contributes about 20% of the total content.
Phil Jones is quoted in one para. The Grauniad is quoted in another. There are no quotes from the GWPF..
Can you substantiate your claim with specific examples of the GWPF having five times more words than anybody else?
But more interestingly – even if your claim were substantiable, why would you care? You’d need to show that they were not only from teh GWPF but also that they were wrong. So far you have conspicuously failed to do so.
Attacking the messenger doesn’t change the message.
Latimer,
You’re right: I forgot to provide context to help readers who like Joe Sixpack do not have the attention span or the interest to pay due diligence to the GWPF dossier on this page. Here’s a quote I already provided elsewhere:
> The Daily Mail has given more than five times as much space to the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s views in its recent coverage of climate change and ‘green taxes’ than to any other source.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/07/daily-mail-and-the-global-warming-policy-foundation
Or, in a sentence like “David Rose is on the mat”:
> The DSM promotes GWPF talking points.
Would Stirling English find this sentence a fair characterization of the DSM relationship with Nigel Lawson hobby horse?
In any case, I should have written “OPs” in plural. From now on, I’ll write “op-ed” and “op-eds”.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The Daily Mail has given more than five times as much space to the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s views in its recent coverage of climate change and ‘green taxes’ than to any other source.
In its recent coverage. So the Daily Mail would consider the opposition view more interesting than the consensus view. Is that a sign of media “bias” or a changing tide?
What tide are you speaking of, and do you have any evidence of a change?
Joshua, I would rather find hints of the future than dwell in the past. There are signs of the changing tide, in the media and in the physics. This thread is a heated discussion over few hundredths of a degree “cherry pick” in data with a margin of error of 2 tenths of a degree or more. Someone would be grasping at straws.
Cap’n –
When you say that the tide is changing, you are describing an overall phenomenon. I don’t see that. I see individual skirmishes but not much movement in the war, and certainly not long term. Is Rose’s article, or his connections with dubious combatants, somehow reflective of a significant trend? I don’t see it.
For example, look at the most recent data on American opinions on global warming. Despite the confident predictions I’ve read over and over and over and over from “skeptics” for quite a while now, it doesn’t seem to be significantly influenced by climategate, by predictions about snow in England, etc., etc. It seems to be mostly influenced by economics, weather, and partisan politics.
I think that you are using a selective reasoning here.
@willard
Your link purports to about a set of articles written last May about ‘green taxes’. Their relevance to today’s discussion has escaped me.
Joshua, yes, the Tsonis et al climate shifts are real phenomena with real climate impacts.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vWiC80TweKg/UIVQljNNVsI/AAAAAAAAFGY/XWAWwaeVaB0/s800/hemisphers%2520versus%2520tropics.png
There is a real oscillation between the two hemispheres, the northern hemisphere amplifies that change while the southern does not. About half of the warming from 1950 appears to be a natural variability caused by a long term oscillation amplifying a poorly conceived metric for measuring climate “sensitivity”. Funny huh?..
@willard
If you wanted my best guess, I think that the main contributor to GWPF is probably Nigel Lawson himself. It is not a big organisation… I doubt if it has more than four fulltime employees and its total expenditure for y/e Jun 2011 was just £205,000 (c. $300,000) according to its filed accounts.
Compare this with Heartland (c. $4,600,000) – fifteen times bigger or Greenpeace (c. 160,000,000 euros, $210,000,000) – seven hundred times bigger, and I think your hopes of finding an enormous financial scandal buried by ‘dark forces’ or of a modern day Protocols of the Elders of Zion are vanishingly small.
It will be difficult to paint a picture of a vast worldwide organisation with tentacles spreading everywhere based on an annual expenditure that would not buy a small semi in an unpopular London suburb.
High finance it ain’t.
willard,
if you want to discuss press coverage, go pick up the Time special issue on global warming and climate change. I could just as easily said Scientific American, or Huffington Post or any in a long list of media publications.
> You poor, sensitive lamb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
> Your claims that I am deliberately lying and acting on behalf of some hidden manipulator are as false as they are vile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
David I think we are going to see a lot (in fact a lolwot) of this frothing at the mouth as the alarmists start to realise the CO2 thingy has been over egged. I wish you well.
Assuming you are the real David Rose perhaps finally you will address why the chart of HadCRUT4 you display in both your Daily Mail articles have modified the HadCRUT4 data?
Aside from an incorrect X-axis, the graph plots September 1997 and August 2012 as being exactly 0.5C.
Yet the actual HadCRUT4 data shows September 1997 to be 0.475C and August 2012 to be 0.526C.
Did you author the graph or did someone else? Can you explain why those two data values were modified?
lolwot, ever heard of significant digits or splitting hairs? 0.5 can be from 0.451 to 0.549.
None of the other datapoints on the graph were altered. They were all plotted to at least a hundredth of a degree.
Only the first datapoint and last were altered to be exactly 0.5C.
Why?
Why? Journalistic license. There is no significant difference and the object was to show there has been no significant change in temperature since 1997. Why do you select regressions to “prove” your points? There is nothing particularly deceptive about having a thicker trend line on a plot.
capt dallas has just won himself an position on the hide the decline team.
Steven, “capt dallas has just won himself an position on the hide the decline team.” More a member of the remember the uncertainty team. The data has a margin of error of +/- 0.1 C, a trend line 0.05C thick is not particularly deceptive. Making a thinner line to imply accuracy that does not exist, that would be deceptive, kinda like smoothing out the handle, doncha know.
lolwot claims the Daily Mail figure had doctored values as it “plots September 1997 and August 2012 as being exactly 0.5C.” I decided to do a quick check of this. Personally, I don’t see it. Both lines go past the .5 line (which I overlayed to make things clearer). He also says:
April and May had values of .514 and .516. When I look at the Daily Mail graph, both extend above the .5 line (this isn’t shown, but it’s easy to verify) by the same amount as the September point. If we accept those points were plotted accurately, the Sepetmber 2012 point could not have been plotted at “exactly 0.5C.”
Did you take into account that the data is 9 months out of sync with the X-axis? The first point plotted is September 2012 even though according to the x-axis it is supposed to be January 2012.
If you look at the image I posted, you can see I was examining the endpoints of the graph.
lolwot, there are 100 ensemble members attached to the HAD4 data.
“deliberately lying” is as redundant as “past history.” A lie is a falsehood that intends to deceive, so you can’t have a non-intentional or non-deliberate lie.
David, keep up the good work.
David –
You said in your first article that Jones “admitted” that the models are imperfect.
I’m wondering how you could justify such wording/ It seems highly misleading to me, and deliberately so; did Jones ever indicate that the models are “perfect?” If not, then why would you say that he “admitted” that they are imperfect?
Joshua, what about this guy?
“As noted in the “Datasets” section, the TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models and Fasullo and Trenberth (2008a) reduced the imbalance to be 0.9 W m−2, where the error bars are ±0.15 W m−2.” +/- 0.15 Wm-2 is an unbelievable margin of error and that is published in a peer reviewed paper than does not have a page three.
The start of the next paragraph:
“For the surface we initially made estimates of the various terms, but encountered an imbalance of order 20 W m−2, which led us to reexamine the assumptions.”
The follow up paper for that peer reviewed paper has a “minor adjustment”, they found that there was 18Wm-2 unaccounted for. 18/0.15=120, a tad over the error bar estimates.
Since you attempt to be unbiased pointing out when individuals over step boundaries in media, what are you thoughts of “peer reviewed” communications?
Too technical for me to comment, Cap’n.
But Rose’s misleading wording is so obvious even I can see it clearly.
The debate is better off when people aren’t demogogic like that. We’re all prone to such behavior – but the standard should be higher when a journalist is writing an article. And further – when a journalist becomes demagogic they should acknowledge the problem. And further, when a journalist becomes demagogic, and fails to acknowledge the problem, they should not be defended by other participants in the debate – whether it be directly or by crying that “Mommy, mommy, they do it toooouuuu” or “Mommy, mommy, they did it firrrrssstttt.”
As for the comparison of impact between a scientist or a journallist being demagogic – I think that both are harmful. I think that playing games of moral equivalence are no more constructive than Mommymommyism.
Joshua, not that technical, they assign much more accuracy to models than the models deserved. The “minor adjustment” was a major F’up.
How about this one, ““Polar amplification” usually refers to greater climate change near the pole compared to the rest of the hemisphere or globe in response to a change in global climate forcing, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) or solar output (see e.g. Moritz et al 2002). Polar amplification is thought to result primarily from positive feedbacks from the retreat of ice and snow. There are a host of other lesser reasons that are associated with the atmospheric temperature profile at the poles, temperature dependence of global feedbacks, moisture transport, etc. Observations and models indicate that the equilibrium temperature change poleward of 70N or 70S can be a factor of two or more greater than the global average.”
That is from realclimate 2006, There is not Polar amplification, there is northern higher latitude or land amplification, but since the Antarctic is thermally isolated from the ROW, GHG forcign is not “amplified” in the southern pole.
That is probably too technical as well, but the basic jist is that the “too technical” communicators have been blowing smoke up yer butt and you are picking on the people trying to communicate that to you.
And Cap’n –
Really? Don’t you think that Rose might be taking himself just a tad seriously? Can we even begin to count the number of times that participants in this debate have been accused of lying? That people are acting on behalf of a hidden agenda or hidden manipulators? These types of accusations are commonplace in the “skept-o-sphere.” They happen at this site, thread after thread, post after post, day after day. Rose knowingly contributes to this atmosphere. He could write about the very same “skeptical” questions without disregard for the impact of his work, but he clearly chooses not to. He’s caught up in the “outrage machine.”
Not to say that he wouldn’t be attacked no matter how he approached “skeptical” content. That’s a given. But his approach shows an ignorance for contributing to the unproductive nature of the debate at best, and I don’t find that plausible. The next worst possibility is that he has a disregard for contributing to the unproductive engagement – which may be more likely but I think also not very probable. What seems most likely to me is that for one reason or another, he has the specific intent of encouraging the unproductive engagement.
To go back to my first comment here – he or anyone else is welcome to explain why he worded his characterization of Jones’ position in the way that he did. Step up to the plate and explain why his wording wasn’t deliberately misleading. Mosher tried and failed. Maybe you could be more successful.
Cap’n –
Unless you can accurately characterize what my opinion is, then you can’t possible determine whether anyone’s blowing smoke up my butt. So that would need to be the starting point if you’re going to make determinations about whether I have or haven’t been snookered.
Methinks that you are drawing conclusions based on insufficient evidence; decidedly unskeptical behavior, I might add.
My point about the technicality is that I understand your take on the attribution of accuracy of the models. The determination of how to interpret their accountability in that regard absolutely requires a sophisticated technical understanding – of the sort I don’t have.
Joshua, replace Rose with Mann. BartR called Rose a lair and claimed that Rose was doing global harm. Did you jump BartR or Mike Mann? Rose’s job is to sell papers, he is doing a damn fine job today.
captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4 | October 21, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
Just harm. Not ‘global harm’.
Also, you appear unfamiliar with the long diatribes against scientists who horde and hide data I’ve posted at Climate Etc. in past topics. I am not the friend of abuse of data regardless of who practices it.
BartR, by comparing Rose’s post to vaccine etc., there was an implication of “global” harm. I am aware of many of your various stances, but the “pause” is not something that should be making much in the way of headlines if it wasn’t due the “pause” denial. It is an inconvenient truth. The uproar in the climate science community is pretty telling, doncha know.
David Rose
Can you tell readers here more about the Daily Mail’s disproportionate use of the GWPF as a source? Many – perhaps most – won’t know that the Daily Mail gives so very much more space to the Global Warming Policy Foundation than to any other source on climate/clean energy cost stories. Why is this?
Can you tell readers here more about the relationship between Lord Lawson and your editor, Paul Dacre? Some find the close alignment between the GWPF and the editorial position of your extremely influential newspaper on both climate science and the cost of clean energy development in the UK disturbing. What is your view on this?
What can you tell readers here about the Daily Mail’s repeated misrepresentation of the cost of ‘green energy’? Again, the chief source of *frequently erroneous* information appears to be the GWPF. As a conscientious journalist, do you not find this apparent reliance on an apparently unreliable source troubling?
Sorry but changing the subject has been outed hundreds of times by this crowd and it will get you nowhere. How about you telling us why there is a plateau and when you think it will end. Show me the data.
Do your own research; it’s not my job to fill in the gaps in your knowledge.
The causes of the recent warming hiatus are some or all of the following. I’ve included a few references to help you with your reading:
1/ A change in the rate and depth of energy accumulation within the oceans (Trenberth et al. 2011)
2/ Increased sulphate aerosol loading from both anthropogenic (Hansen & Sato 2011 Earth’s energy imbalance and its implications) and volcanic sources (Vernier et al 2011)
3/ SC23/24
4/ Predominantly La Nina conditions; negative phase PDO
5/ An increase in stratospheric water vapour (Solomon et al, 2011)
6/ A climate shift (Swanson & Tsonis 2009)
I point at:
> [C]hanging the subject has been outed hundreds of times by this crowd and it will get you nowhere.
I also point at:
> How about you telling us why there is a plateau and when you think it will end.
That is almost all.
I will observe that the topic’s blog post is David Rose’s response to the critics of his latest op-ed, and that the topic of David Rose’s comment, beside the character of BartR, is David Rose’s disingenious defense of corporate interests by using a right-wing populist rhetoric, or something to that effect.
Is David Rose honest?
David Rose | October 21, 2012 at 11:18 am |
You have a byline in print. You are held to a higher standard of truth by virtue of this privilege.
All I need do to establish you are a liar is that you ought know better and yet proceed to put out a falsehood.
Well, you’ve been told you’re putting out falsehoods of exactly the same sort on several past occasions. Dr. Curry’s citations of Bob Ward clearly establish this pattern of knowing falsity in press. QED
As for actionable? Really? Are you attempting to quell the free and open discourse you so loudly promote by threats? Illegitimate threats? Threats that are themselves based on patent falsehood?
This constant resorting to scare tactics of yours, is it due to a natural tendency to bully, or is there something else to it?
And as has been pointed out, I certainly did not assert that you are on the payroll of anyone. How could I, when the funding and finances of the GWPF are secret?
Also, you appear to have a real problem with the definition of the word “quote”. I recommend, as you’re published in print, you familiarize yourself with it better. You ‘quote’ Judith Curry to say things she never said. You interpret my quotes in senses that clearly are not intended.
Your lies are patent. The harms of your lies are manifest to the reasonable person. You’re caught. Show some grace, and admit it.
David Rose,
Maybe you are not lying. Maybe you think the stuff you write is true. That doesn’t reflect well on you either.
Your defense of your reputation is justified, and any of us would do the same. Still, it would be nice to see you place near surface temperature data over the past 15 years in its true perspective related to the full Earth energy system and the long term perspective of Earth’s energy imbalance. Specifically:
1) Flattening of near surface temperatures does not mean the Earth had not continued to warm, only that models did poor job of accounting for the natural variability that affects near surface temperatures.
2) The flattened temperatures occurred at and remain at or near the highest on instrument record, despite the triple negative forcing of the cool phase of the PDO, increased aerosols, and a rather quiet sun. None of these three points of natural variability could be reasonably put into global climate models and can only be factored in after the fact. When doing so we see the actual anthropogenic greenhouse forcing on the temperatures of the lower troposphere continues at somewhere around .14 to .17 w/m^2 during the last decade.
3) Other metrics measuring Earth’s energy imbalance show continued warming as well.
Correction to last comment. The end of point 2 should have read:
When doing so we see the actual anthropogenic greenhouse warming of the lower troposphere continues at somewhere around .14C to .17C during the past decade.
Where did those numbers for the AGH forcing come from?
Andrew
Thank you. It will be fascinating to see how the temperature record evolves over the next few years and whether this current period will be seen as merely a ‘pause’ or something more signficant.
In the CET record back to 1660 I can see only one 20 year pause. Generally there is an up or down movement every decade so it wont be long before we see the significance of what we are observing.
tonyb
R gates,
I think andrew, Bart and BBD could take a lesson from you in how to respond.
timg56 | October 22, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
I won’t speak for others (recalling Groucho Marx and clubs that wouldn’t have him); I take lessons from R. Gates quite often and quite seriously. You should have seen me before.
timg56,
When Rose has written misleading articles in the past I have responded by writing detailed blog posts criticising his arguments, by writing to the Mail (they did publish my letter) and writing to the mail’s ombudsman (no response). In a previous thread here I have made a fairly detailed argument why I think his original piece was nonsense. I’m not going to apologise for losing patience with his constant misrepresentations and calling it how I see it.
Andrew Adams
Here is the the information directly from the Met office showing the three Hadley global records from 1850 to 2011 that Rose would have seen. All appear to show a cooling -or at least a pause- for at least this century. Do you disagree?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
In the real world of individual data sets, many of these also show distinct recent cooling according to BEST, albeit at varying levels of statistical significance. These are best exemplified by CET, also kept by the Met office, which appear also to have some relevance as a proxy for global temperatures;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Where it goes from here I don’t know. Its been warming for 350 years so the chances are it will continue.
What issue do you have with the Met office regarding these figures and the apparent trend they show?
tonyb
Yep, T, warming for a third of a millenia, and maybe time to turn again.
It’s a long shot, but there are the fading sunspots. We’re near the level of the recent climate optimae, the regularity of whose appearance strongly suggest cycles. Most likely source of cycles is the sun, and/or some kind of Tsonic Dosey-Do with the oceans. And then I think of Tomas and the Kouts, and wonder how long it will take us to figure it out.
=====================
The problem with this particular fantasy kim is that the physics of radiative transfer mean that increasing the fraction of atmospheric CO2 will cause energy to accumulate in the climate system (mainly the global ocean) – exactly as observed.
In your fantasy universe, the entire matter of CO2 is magically disappeared. Phut! Gone!
That’s very silly.
BBD, this is a particularly ignorant comment. You apparently don’t know my beliefs about the physics of CO2 because you’ve badly characterized them here. And you are completely unresponsive to my post, which is obvious and blatant speculation, not fantasy.
==============
Seems what Andrew Adams is actually “losing patience with”, is the refusal of the globe continue warming of late.
BBD
Another textbook strawman from BBD.
It’s magical discourse. He does have his fantasies.
=============
> [T]he refusal of the globe continue warming of late.
Emphasis added.
tonyb,
The GAT chart appears to show temps rising until around the middle of the last decade and a slight decline since then. I have no particular issue with that, I actually made a similar point in a comment on one of the earlier threads. We have had 3 la Nina events in recent years and a pronounced solar minimum so I see no great mystery about it. But Rose’s claim was that there has been warming since 1997, which is not the same thing at all.
I would dispute your claim that it has been warming for 350 years. As I said elsewhere in this thread the trend was pretty flat or slightly downward over the second half of the 19C and from around 1940 to 1975. Either side of and inbetween those periods we have had warming trends but there is no particular reason to believe the causes were the same.
Andrew
Thank you for your reply. Both CET and BEST show this extended warming period albeit with advances and retreats
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/
To get back to the main point-which at least you are addressing unlike some on this blog who are dancing on the head of a pin- if temperatures are showing a decline over the last decade or more-as was demonstrated in the Met office links-surely that demonstrates that there has been ‘no warming’. (you said there had been warming in your post, but I assume that was a mistake?) Its repeated below for clarity
“But Rose’s claim was that there has been warming since 1997, which is not the same thing at all. ”
tonyb
tonyb,
Yes that was a typo, sorry.
I don’t really disagree with what other critics of Rose are arguing, I’m just making a sightly different point.
As I see it there are two separate but related question here – what has happened to the average surface temperature over the last 16 years or so, and what can we conclude from that.
Rose sees that you can plot a linear trend starting in 1997 and get only a small warming trend, and concludes “global warming stopped in 1997”. My view, which seems to be supported by the chart you linked to, is that the surface temperature record actually continued to rise after 1997 and has only really declined since the middle of the last decade, so instead of “no warming since 1997”, or as you put it, “a decline over the last decade or more” we have seen a slight decline over the last 7 or 8 years, or arguably a “plateau” over the last decade. It certainly seems to me to be nonsense to say “warming stopped in 1997” when every one of the last 11 years bar one has been warmer than that, and this year almost certainly will be as well.
So my answer to the first question is that yes, we have seen a plateau or even a decline in the surface temperature recent years, I don’t think anyone is actually disputing this, but that Rose cherry picked his start date to make it look as if it has lasted longer than is actually the case. As to what it actually means, well my answer is not much because these kind of short term variations are expected to occur and we have a good enough explanation for a large part of what has happened in recent years. But there is a further argument that there are other indications of warming other than the surface temperature record and these have continued to show that the earth is warming. I agree with that, although I don’t think that means we can disregard what is happening to surface temperatures.
How have I ‘badly characterised’ your views on the physics of CO2? You do *deny* that the increasing atmospheric fraction of CO2 is emerging as the dominant climate driver, do you not? You seem to take the view that very small fluctuations in TSI are in charge. But the forcing from CO2 is much greater than the fluctuation in TSI, and only increases with time. So I have to conclude that you live in a fantasy parallel universe where CO2 forcing has mysteriously vanished. Furthermore, instead of defending this position, you retreat into huffiness. You appear to be caught in a rather large inconsistency.
Ooh Matron!
Bart & andrew,
I meant that primarily as recognition of RG’s well crafted response. I certainly am not looking for any sort of apology. You both are free to comment in any manner you like.
> I certainly am not looking for any sort of apology.
I thought you abided by the pot and kettle rule, tim.
lolwot | October 21, 2012 at 11:14 am | Reply
“For a more comprehensive argument than mine I recommend this post by Tamino who goes into far better detail than I did and also accounts for uncertainties.”
Ahh the oldest trick in the book for the gullible.
Lets consider a mountaineer climbing Everest. He starts in the foothills and has substantial rest periods along the way to acclimatise. He has a man in basecamp monitoring his progress and climbing trend. He finally reaches the summit stays a while to take pictures and then starts to climb back down slowly.
He calls in to his monitoring man and tells hm he is on the way down.
‘No you are not’ says the man. ‘You are still trending upwards on all the long and medium term trends. Only the shortest period shows any decline and it is not statistically significant. I fully expect you to be a couple of thousand feet higher in the not too distant future based on the trend.’
“I am just below the summit, you idiot’ says the climber.
‘Stats and trends don’t lie’ says the man.
The climber says ‘If you keep on wittering on about how I am still climbing higher I will give you a big slap when I see you’
The man then continues to report to the climber that he is still going up though there has been a little reduction in the rate lately.
Some time later in the basecamp. Monitoring Man…….. “Ohh hel……” SLAP!!!
Alan
Alan you admit: “Only the shortest period shows any decline and it is not statistically significant”
So you know full well the decline isn’t statistically significant, yet you think you can ignore that and claim there is a decline anyway?
lolwot: So you know full well the decline isn’t statistically significant, yet you think you can ignore that and claim there is a decline anyway?
The point of the analogy is that the lack of statistically significant decline is not by itself evidence that there has been no decline. Another example is in the stock market, where a “plateau” or “correction” may or may not signal a long-term decline. And there have been lots of “turning points” in the climate time series themselves. The only thing we can tell with confidence is that, from the LIA until now, there has been a halting trend upward. Trends always continue until they end, and we can’t have a lot of confidence that the upward trend has or has not ended.
Another trend, that we have observed since model-based forecasts were made (hence, we don’t have to “cherry pick” the starting point, we can choose the date of the forecast), is for an increasing disparity between forecast (“model”, “scenario”, etc) and measurements. We can’t tell whether that trend is continuing or ending. Related to that trend is the trend of an increasingly large number of explanations for the apparent inaccuracies of the forecasts. The two trends together cast doubt on the reliability of the forecasts, and if the two trends continue as they have since their starting points, eventually nobody will believe the forecasts.
“The point of the analogy is that the lack of statistically significant decline is not by itself evidence that there has been no decline.”
I agree with that, but given there will always be a period in which there may have been a decline it becomes pointless focusing on it.
For example back in 1997 it could have been claimed that temperatures may have declined since 1987.
“Trends always continue until they end”
Exactly exactly, and given the question is whether the warming trend has ended we must wait until the data show with it has with significance before concluding that. Otherwise we’d have to conclude it’s ended all the time because the last 3 or so year trend is never going to be statistically significant.
Stock market = manipulated by human psychology and responsive to mass hysteria and fast feedback control systems.
Natural phenomenon = guided by random aleatory processes that respond to physical laws
As a word of warning, bringing up the stock market as anything more than a metaphor in watching trends is a bit misguided, and puzzling for a statistician to do .
lolwot: I agree with that, but given there will always be a period in which there may have been a decline it becomes pointless focusing on it.
I disagree with that. Every potential turning point is worth some study. The current apparent plateau is especially worth study because it has lasted longer than the warming had lasted when the climate catastrophists had started to cite it in their warnings.
Web Hub Telescope: bringing up the stock market as anything more than a metaphor
I brought it up as a metaphor in watching trends. The study of investment portfolios was one of the origins of statistics. The problem of appraising the conditional probabilities of errors of measurement and judgment arises in many contexts.
A lot of good research on what one can learn from time series has been done on market data. Particularly valuable is perhaps research related to difficulties in avoiding confirmatory bias in testing models through hindcasting, when the model builders have some, perhaps only qualitative, knowledge on the data to be used for testing already when they develop the model.
So where is this “good research”? You should try applying it.
I believe the path forward is to model Ornstein-Uhlenbeck reversion-to-the-mean statistics, incorporating first-order physical values. Most of the quants steal the ideas from mathematical physicists anyways, so might as well go to the source.
WebHubTelescope pray tell why would you choose that particular model?
WHT,
Quants use certainly sophisticated tools but I don’t know about “good research” related to that.
What I had in mind is research on testing models using history data and figuring out how to avoid false conclusions due to unintentional tuning. Such questions are very relevant in the estimation of predictive skill of climate models. As the basic dynamics is different it’s not possible to take directly any results but there’s a lot to learn in the scientific literature on that subject. Similar questions have certainly been studied in other fields as well and the research I refer to has used work from these other fields. Even so, some of the papers on testing models for financial markets do provide valuable content also for climate modelers.
MattStat,
The only thing we can tell with confidence is that, from the LIA until now, there has been a halting trend upward. Trends always continue until they end, and we can’t have a lot of confidence that the upward trend has or has not ended.
I don’t think it’s true to say there has been a warming trend from the LIA until now. There was no warming or even a slight cooling over the second half of the 19C and between (roughly) 1940 and 1975, those would seem to me to be long enough periods to say that the previous upward tends had come to an end. If they are not then presumable we won’t be able to say the warming trend has come to an end until we have another thirty odd years of no warming, which doesn’t seem right to me.
OU statistics is Gaussian and Markovian and generates the fewest number of adjustable parameters of any model than I am aware of save for a pure random walk.
lolwot
You are making progress.
No longer do you deny the current lack of warming.
You now simply say this trend is statistically insignificant.
You have not yet said how many years it would have to continue, in order to become statistically significant.
[Hint: Ben Santer has written that this is 17 years. Does this sound about right to you?]
Max
Once HadCrappy is either fixed or chitcanned, you will be left with what is happening on the earth: the globe, and the current 17-year trend is strongly upward.
The first non-positive trend is at 11 years back.
The problem for you hadcrappy clowns is the second strongest La Nina in the instrument record had no staying power.
@jch
You sound almost gleeful that your figures supposedly show that 7 billion people are on the way to a dreadful future of a warmed planet. Seems a strange reaction to be so triumphant about such a serious subject.
Just sayin’
JCH
Frankly, I don’t give a fiddler’s f*** whether there was a La Nina last year or several big El Ninos during the late 1980s and 1990s, culminating with a real big one in 1997/1998, and followed by another one in 2005. Whatever ENSO throws at us, we’ll handle.
I just see that the climate models are unable to make any realistic projections.
– Hansen’s 1988 forecast was off by 2:1.
– IPCC forecasts were off both in magnitude and sign!
When will these modelers finally realize that, in their myopic fixation on human GHGs (especially CO2), they have programmed in a climate sensitivity that is exaggerated by a factor of at least 2?
Once they clear that up their projections may start to be less goofy.
And once they learn how ENSO, PDO AO and all the others plus natural (solar) forcing are all tied together, they might even start to be able to make some realistic projections for the short-term future.
But the longer the projection time period, the more likely a “black swan” will render the projection useless.
Max
David, keep up the good work, we need a more open discussion in the British press.
Bart R: “David Rose omits that he’s taking his marching orders from the GWPF”
David Rose: “And yet you feel to accuse me of being….in the pay of the GPWF”
Interesting. Not quite what Bart R claimed. Which makes me wonder.
David Rose, in the process of producing and writing your article did you had any communication with or input from anyone in the GWPF?
good parsing.
I am enjoying the spittle coming from the deranged warmists as they show all they have left is hate.
you will be interested in what Ar5 has to say about sunshine.
I’m fascinated by the few papers allowed to be pubished that talk about 15 Watts/sq m caused by cleaner air and more sunshine.
Will AR5 use that paper?
… “brain fossilization,” how ‘Brute’…
I’m waiting for Bart R to identify the lies.
Phillip Bratby | October 21, 2012 at 11:54 am |
You’re exhibiting gnosophobia. Read harder.
I think that is gnosiophobia, so perhaps not the perfect sledge.
The lie you identify is that you and he think different models apply in analyzing this data. It is a relative matter, so I’m afraid you are lying as much as he is.
HAS | October 22, 2012 at 3:09 am |
So you think it’s gnosiophobia too? Though I think it’s a bit far to compare Phillip to a hammer.
However, you may be right that is a relative matter, so he could be compared thus if one were of a mind.
Speaking of; David Rose asserts an incorrect model he’s been informed many times is incorrect.
Mathematics is not a matter of religious faith.
Belief doesn’t play a role in whether or not 2+2=4.
David Rose has been dulyand repeatedly informed of his mathematical error (and his habit of getting quotes wrong); he’s ignored information from people with better qualifications than himself, substituted what he claims is his own judgement (wink, wink), suppressed the corrections he’s been offered and gone to press with a knowing misrepresentation.
David Rose reported on the Andew Wakefield scandal only two years ago, so he must know how serious this sort of falsification is.
So, no. It’s not all relative.
So you’ve moved from Rose lying to him just asserting an incorrect model, and even then this is just other people’s opinion.
So some progress at least in lowering the level of abuse.
I should add there is a difference between a formal system incl. the theorems able to be derived within it (2+2=4), and empirical models that attempt to describe the observed world.
We’re talking about the latter and you clearly believe in your particular model here i.e. you believe it is better at describing the climate than a whole raft of competing models.
It is a belief because you don’t use language that recognises the contingency in models of the real world, rather you are so absolutely sure of your particular model that non-believers become liars.
You shoudl get out more – there are a lot of models of the same phenomena that happily co-exist, we use different ones every day because some are more useful than others when dealing with a particular problem.
HAS | October 23, 2012 at 12:27 am |
Now you’re just misrepresenting what I said.
Sophistry? What’s up with that?
Also, I use language the way Isaac Newton did.
You seem to want to frame the discourse in an unscientific pragma.
Well, it’s about climate science, not climate opinion or climate belief. I get to use the language of science, and am not constrained to the terms of mere belief or opinion.
Don’t believe in ab initio reasoning about science? That simply excludes you from the discourse.
“The graph is ‘nearly flat’ is a trick of the eye, exploited by Rose in his article to make false claims and mislead readers. …….
“Therefore we are correct in identifying what David Rose does as lying, not mere misrepresentation; we can call him a professional liar, without fear of overstating the case.” Bart R much earlier
“David Rose asserts an incorrect model he’s been informed many times is incorrect. ” Bart R more recently
“So you’ve moved from Rose lying to him just asserting an incorrect model, and even then this is just other people’s opinion.” HAS
“Now you’re just misrepresenting what I said.” Bart R
:) HAS
As to the balance I’d simply encourage your scholarship in this area. I found it pretty rewarding.
Earlier, Bart R said:
I offer this as evidence Bart R has no ground to stand on in criticizing David Rose’s piece.
It being patently obvious that contrary to earlier decades, the earth temperatures have flattened out these last 16 years, the silly attempts to deny beggar belief. Rose doesn’t claim the *process* of global warming is any different to before – however large or small it is – and doesn’t claim it will remain level. The hysterical polemicists like Bart do the alarmist cause no favors at all.
Bart R,
Sometimes, I believe that econometry is the contemporary sophistry:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/27/scenarios-2010-2030-part-ii-2/#comment-26260
If you follow the discussion over there, you’ll find an interesting discussion between HAS and Vaughan Pratt.
HADCRUT3. Sounds decades ago.
HAS,
That you could find one sentence where he says something softer and more appropriate for the auditing sciences is no evidence that Bart R does not maintain that David Rose lied anymore.
Please leave quote mining to Chewbacca and stick to your econometrical tricks.
How’s your Granger causality analysis going, by the way?
Willard, I didn’t say Bart R had changed his mind about Rose lying, I was just discussing one purported lie.
Never been very good at econometrics but now you mention it I recall your difficulties with Granger causality.
HAS,
I point at
> So you’ve moved from Rose lying to him just asserting an incorrect model, and even then this is just other people’s opinion.
and I point at
> I didn’t say Bart R had changed his mind about Rose lying, I was just discussing one purported lie.
That is all.
Willard, I know it’s tedious but you do need to read these threads in context.
Bart R has a veritable catalog of matters on which he seems to think Rose has lied, I have simply commented on one, which as you say Bart R appears to have softened his stance on. I’m sure Bart R still thinks Rose lied on these other matters.
Now no doubt Bart R could come back here and say that he also still thinks it is lying not to use the Bart R preferred model, but the problem he faces is that it then becomes fair game for anyone to accuse him of lying for not using the accuser’s preferred model.
gnosophobia – fear your mother will insist on you becoming a doctor and you end up as a gynocologist?
Only if knowledge is defined biblically.
Philip Bratby,
State your criteria before asking for evidence, or else you’ll play an ad hoc game.
Would you consider perpetuating a misrepresentation over and over again after being proven wrong over and over again evidence enough of a pattern of lying?
It’s all far too academic, what ‘Mail’ papers need to say at the behalf their readership ‘Cameron stop building all those silly windmills, and cut down our CO2 taxes’.
+1
Category “You can’t make this stuff up!”
;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
LOL … In other words, “Yes The Mail cherry-picks shamelessly!” ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
On the plus side … at least The Mail found a better picture of Judith! ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
As for publishing sound scientific journalism, not so much, eh?
The Mail persistently fails too, in denying its egregious errors, eh?
Is The Mail’s strikingly persistent denialism a socially institutionalized manifestation of cognitive anosognosia? :shock: :eek: :oops:
That’s becoming a credible scientific hypothesis, eh? ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
Fan
Do you think the 350 year warming trend-in which Giss and Hadley are merely stagng posts not starting posts-has merely paused its upward trend or is set to decline? I confess I don’t know
tonyb
Fan:
What’s wrong with picking the low-hanging fruit. The pause in temperature is obvious to everybody. No statistics required.
Of course this does not mean that global warming has stopped. We know that CO2 marches upward. Unfortunately, the OHC data is too short and too buggy at this point to draw any conclusions. My guess is that CO2 warming is preventing a cooling trend, thereby creating a pause.
The fact that you, lol, BartR BBD and others protest so loudly over something that cannot be spun hard enough to fool the public is circumstantial evidence that you fellas are the sales and marketing pushing an agenda.
The *pause* is a real problem for the marketing campaign because you have been banking on fear, terror and destruction. Now that children can look at the HADCRUT 4 plot and see the pause, you choose to double-down on the take-no-prisoners strategy.
This is empirical evidence that your views are subjective, unscientific and a little delusional. Your intellect is on par with the pseudo-science curve-matching denizens of WUWT. No one except true believers and bitter clingers are buying the sophisticated tales you and your friends keep spewing.
Pretty depressing for you, eh? eh? eh? eh? eh?
(sorry, I needed to clear my throat)
Howard | October 21, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
Would be valid points .. except:
a) Argumentum ad populam is a fallacy. It’s obvious to everybody that a stage magician has sawn the lady in half. We know he hasn’t really, but we want proof.. which Statistics or Graphical Analyses provide in the case of David Rose’s illusory graph. I’ve used both to disprove his claims; why do you tritely disparage statistics so tendentiously, and ignore the graphical analytics? They’re ‘obvious to everybody’ too; only they aren’t fake.
b) I openly acknowledge the four decade pause from the 1940’s to about 1980, and I don’t know anyone who denies there are and can be pauses in GMT under AGW.
c) The more parsimonious explanation is that I’m just a geek about technical precision.
d) If I were marketing or selling, one expects I’d have selected a more influential and relevant forum.
e) Fear and terror are terrible techniques of sales and marketing. Perhaps you’re thinking of propaganda? And if I were propagandizing, why would I be the one who has taken the most pains of any here to educate the denizenry on identifying techniques of propaganda? (http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm)
f) You’re not very good at validating and verifying what you call empirical evidence, on the empirical evidence. Perhaps you should look into Dr. Curry’s post on BS-detectors, and self-evaluate.
Howard | October 21, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
I’m “pedantic”?
You know, it never occured to me that this might be so.
I am extremely surprised.
Would you be good enough to provide some examples supporting this claim? My recollection is that my recent statements here either point to the various mechanisms which may explain the hiatus, or to the rather awkward question about where all that energy in the global ocean came from. The other questions I ask are about why the Daily Mail allows itself to be used as a megaphone for a contrarian pressure group which feeds it inaccurate and/or biased information.
Perhaps I have missed something. Alternatively, you may be misrepresenting me. Let’s sort out which it is.
I have to say, Bob Ward confuses me when he says:
He acknowledges the method he used cannot be justified for the data he’s examining, yet he claims it can show something “is entirely false.” Does that make sense to anyone? He doesn’t do anything to show the problem with using his methodology is irrelevant to his conclusions so how can he say it shows anything is entirely false?
Brandon, Bob Ward is a master of testiculation or as we say round here – talking bollox.
A question is asked, “When will warming start again?” and there is musing about some ideas like, “Other scientists say that [the missing] heat has somehow been absorbed by the waters deep in the oceans [and is hiding],” and yet nowhere in the article do we see anything about the only truly independent variable is nominally responsible for global warming AND global cooling: nominally, it’s the Sun, stupid.
I think I have a solution for the “missing heat”- it has been absorbed and is responsible for the earth’s core being 1 million degrees per Al Gore.
The ‘quiet’ SC23/24 could well be a factor in the current hiatus. But not in the warming from the 1970s. Look.
Look, Solar Squirrel!
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/10/playing-with-enso-and-solar.html
Look! The squirrel added a 0.8C centennial trend to the TSI reconstruction and posted it on the internet. Well I’ll be damned. Thought that was just dogs. Mind you, squirrels are inventive and persistent.
But the unaltered data looks squirrel-proof to me ;-)
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
The Daily Mail’s “REALLY Inconvenient Truth about AGW” falls into the same category as Al Gore’s Oscar-awarded (and Nobel Prize winning?) “documentary” film with the similar title, ”An Inconvenient Truth”.
Why get so excited about it?
Where were all the “howls of outrage” when Gore released his film, which has many more exaggerations and untruths than Rose’s article?
Double standard?
Now to the misquoting of our hostess, which was supposed to be a “big deal”.
She, herself, has been quoted as saying:
“A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement . . . effectively refutes Mr Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.”
Get over it folks.
Journalists (and ex-politicians turned “savior of the planet”) exaggerate and sometimes stretch the truth to get their point across.
It’s part of the game, so get used to it.
Worry more about the correctness and objectivity of all the real scientific studies out there or the supposed “gold standard” IPCC summaries of climate knowledge, folks.
Max
+10
+ 10 as well.
Bob Ward has made a boneheaded newbie error when doing the statistical calculations. He has not adjusted for autocorrelation, which makes his mathematics meaningless.
Adjusted for autocorrelation, even the HadCRUT4 data (which comes with its own problems) shows no statistically significant warming for the period described by David Rose.
Once again, bogus “science” in the service of a bogus theory.
w.
PS: Ward also says:
This is either an error or a lie, as the graph from the Rose article verifies …
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/30/article-2055191-0E974B4300000578-6_634x639.jpg
The Rose article clearly shows January 2007 as the warmest month. Ward is just peddling pre-digested puerile pap …
Willis has switched the graph! That isn’t the graph from the Daily Mail that Ward is talking about!
How did you manage to do that Willis?
lolwot | October 21, 2012 at 1:15 pm
I wave my hands and say “These are not the graphs you are looking for …”
Hmmm … so perhaps David Rose keenly appreciates which “cherries” the corporation he works for likes best? ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
Scientists know that in the long run, “Nature cannot be fooled” … yet ideology-driven institutions like the GWPF … the Heartland Institute … LaRouchePAC … etc) … all keenly appreciate that in the short run, via unscientific tricks of journalistic cherry-picking, the The Mail’s readers *CAN* be fooled! ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
This blog attracts
A certain twit
Whose specialty
Is gibes half-wit
With grinning discs
That weirdly sprout
Growth-like upon
His taunts creep-out
In other words
A troll effete
At best good for
A “barking tweet”
+ 1000
Thank you timg56!
You have exquisite tastes in poetry might I add.
How many of you have access to the second order draft of AR5 WG1?
There from you can learn about the prejudices of IPCC to maintain the AGW scare.
Look!
A shrieking squirrel!
leave a PO box and I’ll send you a recipe book on serving squirrels.
There’s an email on my tumblog.
dont facilitate cannibalism
I thought black hat marketers liked it.
yep. eat ur own.
excellent comeback.
witty. true.
Dr. Curry, you are happier with this photo than the last?
The trend since 1986 is not statistically different (with alpha = 0.05) from 0, and the trend since 1986 is not statistically different (with alpha = 0.05) from what was predicted at that time. The trend is closer to 0 than it is to what was predicted. What’s a statistician to do? All the calculable conditional error rates are greater than the usual values invoked for decision-making. Looks to me like a situation for hedging our bets: invest some funds in the idea that the global warming is continuing, and invest some funds in the idea that it is not continuing.
The statistical tests to date have been post-hoc: when the trend was cooling, the claim was that there was a persistent cooling (based on selected data), and when the trend was warming the claim was that there was persistent warming (based on selected data). Perhaps with all that is known now, someone will propose a well-defined multivariate test entailing all relevant global data (including Antarctic ice extent and total Antarctic ice mass, mean and extremal rainfall everywhere, mean and extremal cyclonic storms everywhere.) Surely this business of citing the occasional heat waves post hoc while ignoring the equally extreme and equally common cold waves, post hoc, can be improved upon.
A few years ago, beguiled by the predictions of permanent drought, the leaders in Queensland Australia decided not to enhance their flood control system. At the same time, China enhanced its flood control system substantially, independent of the claims of modern climate science (but recalling their long recorded history.) These should be cautionary tales for people who recommend the investments, (or non-investments) of hundreds of billions of dollars based on claims made by climate experts. It might be worth something to shut down all the coal-fired power plants, but it is certainly a higher priority to enhance all of the flood control systems and irrigation systems over the next two decades.
With the comprehensive multivariate test as I have proposed above, appropriate to all the possible measures world-wide and including the complete (correctly calibrated and managed) record of each kind, we can then test the hypothesis that human CO2-induced climate change poses a greater long-term risk than the variable natural disasters that befall Queensland and China.
oh, nuts! I meant the trend since 1996.
MattStat, since you got your stats hat on, I was trying to dig out the longer term solar signal in the HADCRUT4 data using a lag 3 cheat (non standard is my middle name).and found the signal I was looking for. Unfortunately, it was the signal I was looking for, so I am not sure if it is valid or not.
If you could take a look I would appreciate it,
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/10/weird-autocorrelation.html
Met office/Hadley seem to be trying to forget their previous hubris in declaring that their model had separated out the manmade contribution to warming and that it was now dominating over natural variation. Perhaps they hope the rest of us have short memories. In fact they didn’t expect a pause at all, never mind one for 17 years. The only noise is their denial of that fact.
If they don’t know why the pause occured then they obviously don’t know what caused the warming before it nor the cooling before that. Their model is not fit for purpose. They should swallow some pride and just admit they were overly optimistic about their models abilities and overly pessimistic about the warming if they are to win back any respect.
Those who don’t yet even admit there is a pause are just fooling themselves, not the rest of us. Quite why they want to believe in thermageddon is still a mystery to me.
There hasn’t been a pause for 17 years. That’s simply wrong.
If there had been a pause since 1995 the warming trend since 1995 should have reduced.
?
Don’t worry about it. Lolwot lost the plot long ago.
lolwot
Should have?
Would have?
The “warming trend” after 1997 WAS flattened out and after 2000 it WAS reversed
Brandon Shollenberger has already pointed out why your analysis is bogus, yet you keep coming back with the same rubbish (apparently following Lenin’s advice that “repeating a lie often enough” makes it true.)
Get used to it lolwot. There has been a “pause” in the warming. Everybody knows it (except you, apparently).
Max
The warming trend from 1970-2012 is higher than the warming trend from 1970-1997. That’s entirely consistent with continued warming since 1997.
Calculating a trend since 1997 is a flawed method for determining if the 1970-1997 warming has continued.
As I said, you are only fooling yourself.
I clicked on the link to the daily mail article and found that the Guardian have said that “we have 50 months to save the World”.
They may have made a potentially embarrassing mistake as by then temperatures may well be steadily declining.
Wow. Bob Ward also says:
I’d love to hear how the graph is fake. The x-axis is labeled wrong, but how does that (or anything else) make the graph fake?
Armadillo hide is not prominent in the latest photo, I was glad to see. One of the best follow-ups to a MSM article that I can remember. Well done David Rose. And many thanks for engaging, with integrity and spirit, Dr Curry.
Will the global energy imbalance continue to increase in coming decades? At rates that reasonably portend planetary-scale super-CAGW extinction events? :shock: :oops: :shock: :!: :shock: :oops: :shock:
That is (obviously) a key question ClimateReason!
For the foreseeable future, CO2 levels will increase linearly.
Then Hansen-style thermodynamic theory predicts accelerating accumulation of global heat energy.
That is the scientific foundation for the prediction by Hansen and colleagues of acceleration of the rate of seal-level rise this decade.
It is regrettable that the Colorado folks are unaccountably late with the latest tranche of JASON sea-level data … for the next decade the satellite sea-level altimetry data, the ice-mass gravimetry data, and the ARGO ocean-temperature, all will (quite rightly) be a key focus of scientific attention.
Rose-style cherry-picked quibbles, not so much eh? :roll: :roll: :roll:
For the simple reason that “Nature cannot be fooled!” :!: :!: :!:
And therefore, we should respect what *NATURE* tells us about the *GLOBAL* biome … not what cherry-picking Mail editors and resporters choose to tell us! ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
Agreed, Rose et al are only setting themselves up for look mighty foolish with a heavy dose of explaining themselves in the coming decade.
lolwot said:
“Rose et al are only setting themselves up for look mighty foolish with a heavy dose of explaining themselves in the coming decade”
_____
This doesn’t matter. The goal is not to be correct overall but to alter perceptions about the urgency of doing something about anthropogenic climate change so as to reverse or forestall various policies seen as harmful to certain economic interests. Mr. Rose really doesn’t care if he were to look foolish in 2025. Changing the course of public perception and policy in 2012 is the goal.
R Gates “The goal is not to be correct overall but to alter perceptions about the urgency of doing something about anthropogenic climate change so as to reverse or forestall various policies seen as harmful to certain economic interests.”
This exactly explains the behavior of the state’s lackey climate scientists, certainly no stranger to sabotaging the science process in pursuit of political correctness, whose relentless cagw propaganda is primarily designed to further the state’s economic interests.
Fan, here is an interesting WUWT graphic from back in 2009 promoting a certain FLAT PLATEAU in sea level:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/pielke_slr.gif
It’s interesting to see whether it indeed was a sign of sea level flattening by looking at the data since then:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2012_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
Well a straight line from start to finish is never going to show any levelling is it? Replace that straight line with a curve and tell us what you see – something like a recent deceleration I’d expect. Mostly natural too.
If you want to shift emphasis to another failed metric then be prepared to be shot down over that too.
Why are you guys so pessimistic? Do you have shares in wind energy companies? I’m as hopeful as anyone that renewable fill the energy gap work but I’m also prepared to accept that they likely won’t.
“Replace that straight line with a curve and tell us what you see – something like a recent deceleration I’d expect.”
You expect wrong
And here’s WUWT trying the same short-termism exploit on sea level rise just over a year ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/nasa-notes-sea-level-is-falling-in-press-release-but-calls-it-a-pothole-on-road-to-higher-seas/
Notice the derision for the scientists who ultimately ended up correct.
I notice the third commenter is our very own Edim who writes:
It’s getting harder and harder to be warmist these days. One have to explain away:
– cooling
– decreasing sea level
– increasing global sea ice (coming soon)
– decreasing atmospheric CO2 (coming soon)
Increasing global sea ice! lol do you remember when the skeptics were claiming the ice was growing? Id almost forgotten. But is only just over a year ago!
Your examples are striking lolwot!
One wonders, do denialists like Edim, Watts, Rose, Monckton, LaRouche, Eschenbach, Tisdale (et al.) retain any personal memory of past cherry-picked blunders?
Or do they live in a kind of eternal present, in which old cherries are utterly forgotten, and new cherries continually sought?
The world wonders, eh? ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
You might not believe this but from our point of view the cherry-picking is mostly on the alarmist side. This is a fight you won’t win.
I still stand by those predictions. Only for the decreasing CO2 we will have to wait longer but, but the CO2 annual growth already plateaued and the trend is negative since 1997 and it’s basically flat since 1994. I predict again that this trend will only get more negative in this decade. Sea level lags a bit, but it’s also plateauing. Global sea ice the same.
lolwot, I will repeat again, have some patience – by 2020 we will know.
I especially love Edim’s (coming soon) in brackets. Global climate models have a hard time getting natural variability correct…but Edim knows!
But what this really shows is the utter foolishness and willful ignorance at looking at short term trends and trying to extrapolate anything meaningful about long-term climate change. Anthropogenic climate change is a long-term forcing (energy imbalance) to the whole Earth system, and the only way to approach it is as such.
Fake-skeptics and of course outright deniers can’t do this because the long-term whole Earth system data clearly display the forcing.
R.Gates, you first have to show at least some evidence of ‘anthropogenic climate change’. Of course GCMs have hard time, they ‘were told’ that without human CO2/GHG, the trend since ~1960 would have been negative and that human ‘forcing’ caused more than 100% of the GW since AGW started.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/drupal6/files/meteo469/lesson05/IPCCTSNatural.gif
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/global-surface-temperatures.PNG
Edim,
Probably best to have you read the hundreds of excellent scientific papers on the subject referenced in “The Warming Papers”. Oh, but of course, your mind is made up, so why bother. For others, whose minds are not made up, see:
http://www.amazon.com/Warming-Papers-Scientific-Foundation-Forecast/dp/1405196165
This interesting, but rather “look…squirrel” focus on near surface temperatures flattening over a short period is quite telling about certain mindsets. If Arctic Sea ice recovers, ocean heat content declines, and near surface temperatures decline over a 10 year period…why then we might actually have something really worth getting excited about.
R Gates
Was that a trick to see if we would follow your link to ‘The Warming papers?’
Do I pass, as unfortunately it seems pages 9 to 416 are not included in the preview. Perhaps you werre going to buy it for me for Christmas?
Tonyb
In terms of what is happening on a planet called earth, the best series appears to be GISS.
So it stopped on HadCrappy4. Big deal. On GISS it does not stop until the 11-year trend, which is meaningless. And that makes sense because the arctic is hotter, and we’ve had back-to-back La Nina events.
Three hottest Nov-Dec periods after 2003.
try again.
How hot is it?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:11/mean:13/from:1940/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:11/mean:13/from:1940
The coldest year since 1997 is hotter than the hottest year before 1989. That includes triple points of La Nina, volcano-influences, peak soot-influences and the lowest points in ocean cycles.
And as a result we have seen the following harmful effects:
Ok, give me a little more time. I’m sure there has to be at least one out there.
timg56 | October 22, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
If it’s the interesting question, why aren’t you spending any time looking for the answer yourself instead of pretending you’re too incompetent to find it?
Here’s a couple of places to start:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/17/reinsurance-climate-idUSL5E8LHMK120121017
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20121022/NEWS08/310220038/A-neighborhood-heading-underwater?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CHome&nclick_check=1
Bart,
Neither link is evidence. The first assumes a link between climate and increasing severe weather events and intensities. It also mention Katrina. Problem is no link has been identified as yet and the whole Katrina as an example of global warming impacts has been shown to be bunk.
The second link is an assumption of what could happen several years in the future, based on a prediction based on models not historical data.
You can’t make the claim that storm related economic loss is increasing due to global warming based on either link. Which is exactly why I keep asking for evidence. Future predictions of harm and evidence requiring unsupported assumptions do not count.
I am not trying to claim no harmful effects will occur. But I would think that based on what we are being told, at least some impacts should already be making themselves felt. It has been 24 years since James Hansen started making his dire predictions.
using terms of methodology GISS is superior to HADCRUT. If you take synthetic data representing temperatures and average it using three different methods: hadcrut, giss and Berkeley, you can show rather definitively that CRU has the highest error rate.
The interesting question from my perspective is why does the community persist in using a method that is known to be inferior?
Mosher, if you think you can justify that GISS is superior to Hadcrut then you should present an article to that effect on WUWT. Unless by superior you mean more fraudulent.
J Martin | October 21, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
Or people could visit stevemosher.wordpress.com/ .. as if the definition of superior is less fraudulent, we’d have to accept that as superior to WUWT.
I don’t think I can justify that the GISS method is superior I know that it is superior. I know this from experiment.
Experiment:
Take a full globe of synthetic temperature data. Data for every place and time. Since you have full data for every place and time you can construct the true average of this field.
Sample: use GHCN as a filter for sampling. This means you sample the field at the places GHCN does and at the times it does. So, if GHCN samples New york city from 1898 to present, your sample of the synthetic field will also only have data for 1898 to present.
Construct an average from this sample using;
1. CRU method
2. Giss method
3. Berkeley method
compare the average as calculated by the various methods to the true average.
When you do this you will have a measure that shows the error enduced by the averaging method. we are talking about the METHOD.
The CRU method.
A. Only use stations that have enough data in the 1961-1990 period.
B. average stations within a grid
C. normalize by area.
D average.
The GISS method.
A) Build reference stations, using temperal constraints
B) create equal area grids
C) average within grids
D) average.
The Berkeley method. ( otherwise known as the optimal method )
A) construct a temperature field from all data solving both the time and space problem simultaneously.
B) average the field.
###########
the differences arise from two issues
1. using all available data.
2. gridding / weighting.
If you look at synthetic perfect data where you know the true average
and then you apply the 3 methods to a sample of the data, you can test the ability of the method to capture the true average. This is known as a test of method. Sadly, it has not been done before. Part of the reason is that the code for the methods wasnt available. But now the code is available and you can test it for yourself.
My goal in life in not to do your damn work for you. My goal is to fight to free the data and free the code that will make it easier for you to do your own damn science and move out of the realm of rank speculation and into the realm of informed judgement.
The test is easy. It is one proposed long long ago by those of us on climate audit. The result.. well you tell me what do you expect?
and will your mind be changed by actual results?
Because it gives them what they want to believe. They’re believers.
In some ways it is more reliable and goes back further. It’s apples to apples.
You were a fan of IPCC’s climate science which used HADRCRUT as long as it showed warming. Now that it is showing a different result you are letting your faith get ahead of the facts, just because it shows a a result that you don’t like. What a hypocrite!
I’m an American. I’m a lifetime fan of NASA and NOAA. As for the IPCC, I think it’s always behind the times, and I don’t have much use for it. Google Scholar is better.
Rosenthal’s flag and NOAA’s device – you can tell by features of the battlefield that the photograph was taken within days of the capture of Mt. Suribachi. Marines were still mopping up on and around the volcano. It was a very dangerous place. Lucky members of the 28th, like my father, got to spend a night on the top. None I’ve met remember the NOAA device.
It’s global warming, so it’s kind of idiotic to look at regional series like HadCrappy, but have a good time with it.
In terms of what is happening on a small portion of a planet call Earth, the best series to see the flattening of global temperatures at the highest levels on instrument record appears to be GISS.
R Gates
Here are the three Hadley global records from 1850 to 2011. All appear to show a cooling or at least a pause. Do you disagree
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
As someone who uses the Met office library and archives on a regular basis I think public access (for me) ought ot be a major criteria as to which is the best database
tonyb
Tony,
Undoubtedly the Hadley records show a “pause” or “flattening” or “plateau” in the near-surface temperature anomalies over the last decade to or so. It would seem obvious to all but the brain-dead that temperatures have leveled off at or near the highest levels on instrument record. Much the same thing is shown in the GISS records, but with less flattening. The answer as to why the difference of course is well known to all of us here– Hadley does not extrapolate to the polar regions whereas GISS does. With a great deal of polar warming going on (more so than lower latitudes) it would be the opinion of many that GISS is more accurate overall if you want to look at the whole surface of the planet. It has been argued by some that GISS extrapolations are too generous and are exaggerating the polar warming. Record low sea ice this summer and other mathematical arguments lead me to believe that GISS is closer overall to a global near-surface snapshot than Hadley. Either way, temperatures have not been climbing these past 10 or so years as steeply as they were the previous 10, but neither have they been falling, and thus, the past 10 year average is higher than the previous 10 year on both Hadley and GISS and we had our warmest La Nina year ever in 2011. All these facts, combined with the fact that the actual measurement of near-surface temperature anomalies is only one small metric of Earth’s overall energy imbalance, and so to focus on it at the exclusion of others which may be equally as important is a bit of a “look…squirrel!” distraction to the core issue of Anthropogenic climate change. Anthropogenic climate change certainly seems to be occurring at a steady rate if you look at all the various spheres (cryosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, full-atmosphere).
R Gates
But we are not talking about GISS, whose methodology is a thread in itself. We are talking about the Met office and the claim by David Rose that the temperatures have at the least paused. Arguably they are cooling.
In the real world of individual data sets, around a third of those also show cooling according to BEST. These are best exemplified by CET, also kept by the Met office, which appear also to have some relevance as a proxy for global temperatures
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
There is a pause that has lasted this century. Where it goes from here I don’t know. Its been warming for 350 years so the chances are it will continue
tonyb
Tony,
What is your estimate for CET warming between 1780 and 1900? You said the warming had been going on for 350 years, yet I don’ see much warming in that time frame.
Of course, as a side issue here, the close parallel between land surface and sea surface temperatures, with both rising and falling together, sort of blows a hole in Anthony Watts notion that the land surface temperatures have been grossly overestimated doesn’t it? Don’t think there’s much chance of UHI effects out in the middle of the Pacific. Time to tilt at some other windmills Anthony Don Quixote Watts…
R gates
Disappointed at you playing the bait and switch game. No one was talking about a random cherry picked period from the middle of the series. We are talking about a long term trend from one end of the chart to the other with all the advances and retreats that it shows.
However if you want to play that game around a 0.4C increase since 1780 to the present.
Now tell me what has been the decrease using the same chart over the last 12/15 years or so? It matches fairly well the Met office and Rose figures albeit it one data set (that allows for UHI) isnt the same as numerous averaged ones that don’t.
tonyb
R Gates
Further to my 3.16am post.
Here is BEST also showing a very long term warming trend. Its not confined to CET although the parallels between the two datasets reinforces the notion that CET has some merit as a global proxy
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/
tonyb
Rgates:
“Either way, temperatures have not been climbing these past 10 or so years as steeply as they were the previous 10, but neither have they been falling, and thus, the past 10 year average is higher than the previous 10 year on both Hadley and GISS and we had our warmest La Nina year ever in 2011. All these facts,…”
That isn’t ‘facts’. That is one fact restated five different ways. And that one fact is: temps have plateaued. One of the drawbacks of the ‘stack of facts’ fallacy, is that it encourages people to gin up “extra facts”, as you have done here.
It is another thing entirely to come up with a cogent, testable theory of climate … and then test it. Insofar as that could be done, it would be done via model predictions. Insofar as that has been done, it has failed.
If they only made records that warmed public you’d sing a different tune.
the simple mathematical fact is that the CRU result is a combination of two things.
A. CRU DATA
B. CRU Method.
The CRU method is the worst of the lot in terms of error.
Experiment:
Take a full globe of synthetic temperature data. data for every place and time.
Take a sample using the CRU data as a filter ( place and time)
Construct an average from this sample using;
1. CRU method
2. Giss method
3. Berkely method
compare the average as calculated by the various methods to the true average.
guess where CRU comes in in terms of error.
Tony,
please dont mis use the 1/3 cooling statistic. its not what you think it is.
the POR is not identical for all the stations in that metric.
if you look at the same POR it drops to 1/8.
if you look at complete records… it drops to 1/10th
if you look at statistical significance… opps where did the cooling go
Mosh
Its the figure that Richard hmself gave me.
Whichever way you cut it thats an awful lot more stations than the cooling that is supposedly restricted only to Southern Greenland and some parts of the tropics as quoted by the IPCC. CET is part of that number as testified by my complete failure with outdoor tomatoes in the last few years…Well, not complete failure, we managed to get 5 fruits which had to be ripened indoors. I still havent replaced all the supposedly hardy plants Ive lost in the last few years.
tonyb
Tamino weighs in with his criticism of David Rose’s Daily Mail argument:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/
He points out the same thing fan of more discourse pointed out: Rose admits to cherry picking 1997 without realizing it.
More importantly Tamino reports that the trend using just the data since mid-1997 does not disagree (statistically) with the trend prior to mid-1997
and he explains in length why the data since 1997 is compatible with ongoing warming.
The Pause started at the Super El Nino. At 15-years hence, it becomes a very obvious hing point. That’s not cherry-picking, that’s harvesting the low-hanging fruit. When you deny obvious truth as in this case, no one will listen to your future cry’s of WOLF.
The facts are the facts. The *pause* does not mean global warming stopped, it just means that the climate system is complex and poorly understood. No shame in that, that’s science. However, the desire to “paper over” the inconvenient data is an admission that politics and ego trumps mother nature.
You claim the fetid swamp of denial with your WUWT opposite numbers. Your prize is an eternal nonsensical debate shooting your wad at each other. It’s the only way you all can keep your hideous egos hyper-inflated.
“The facts are the facts. The *pause* does not mean global warming stopped, it just means that the climate system is complex and poorly understood.”
There’s no evidence global warming has stopped. Therefore why are people talking about it?
It’s because they want to pretend it has stopped.
@lolwot
The temperature hasn’t gone up. Good enough definition of ‘warming has stopped’ for me.
When T(t2) =T(t1) that says that it hasn’t warmed between t1 and t2.
Plot all the graphs you like. Squint at them in a darkened room while rotating widdershins and incanting praises of Mother Gaia if you like. Pray seven times in the direction of a small soapstone statuette of Mike Mann embracing James Hansen if that’s what floats your boat. Knock your self out.
It doesn’t change the Inconvenient Truth that it is no warmer now than it was 15 years ago.
Get used to it. Otherwise you’re going to get very lonely and frustrated as your onetime colleagues in alarmism drift away, the magic money tree stops showering climatology with goodies and you just become a sad old eccentric.
> When T(t2) =T(t1) that says that it hasn’t warmed between t1 and t2.
All you need then to prove that AGW is false is to find two such states separated by (say) one nanosecond, then.
Please mind Joe and Stirling when using variables like that.
Well if Tamino was blameless of cherry-picking to support his own strident POV then his comments might be of use. The only useful thing he has ever properly done was accidentally confirm that the Arctic was as warm in the 30’s. Take him to task on why he picks 1975 as a change point when his own assertion is that this period was supposedly artificially cooled by aerosols and you get ignored. Trying to remind him that putting a straight line over an obviously highly non-linear system makes no sense in the first place gets you abused.
Get this everyone; all linear fits are false so all start points are suspect; the best approximation is probably Roy Spencers least squares curve. However we do have the benefit of our own eyes and we can see there was an abrupt shift in the 90’s and we can see the el ninos and la ninas balancing out so that 1997 seems the obvious best place to put a changepoint should you wish to do so. You can put another at 1975, 1950, 1900 if you like but the hypothesis was that the human influence on temperature was supposed to be dominating by now over all other causes of warming and cooling and warming was therefore supposed to accelerate. The plateau is the evidence that it doesn’t. Trying to come up with a range of contradictory excuses as to why nature doesn’t follow the text laid down for it is a mugs game.
What of course Tamino doesn’t reveal is if you do fit a ARIMA model and show the model fits over this period, what the temperature “trend” coefficient reduces to.
Fan, you ought to know you’re in trouble when you’re hitching your wagon to lolwot’s star. I’ve pointed out several times that I’ve never seen lolwot concede a single point…not give up the smallest fraction of an inch on any issue…which is pretty telling when you think about it. Makes a pretty good prima facie case right there that the man is not being honest. Or perhaps that he’s simply delusional…Everybody’s wrong occasionally. Einstein himself made an error here and there.
But lolwotz? NO sir.
What about you fan? Are you ever wrong?
.
Holocaust Denier: I’ve tried for years to prove the holocaust didn’t happen, but you guys never concede a single point! that just shows you are not being honest!
No sir. I repeat, it’s you who are not being honest. It’s one thing to contend that CAGW is on the way. But underlying that basic premise there are, unless you’re a fanatical ideologue, many debatable points. But not for you lolwot. You’re absolutely convinced of everything you say. You’re never, ever wrong, no matter how convincing (to a neutral observer), the counter-argument.
But of course, you can’t even admit this.
Well there’s three possibilities:
1) You are right.
2) You are wrong, I have conceded points before.
3) You are wrong, I haven’t needed to concede points because I am very careful to make points that are robust.
I am going for a combination of 2 and 3.
I don’t expect you to concede this!
Beautiful photo Judith. Much, much better.
Be still my heart :-)
Stalker Alert™
One could do a lot worse, if one were inclined along those lines.
Doubling down on creepy.
It’s just a joke to assert a significant positive trend in the HADCRUT4 data from 01/1997…08/2012 as it did Mr. Ward http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2012/october/myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-mid-1990s.aspx . Of course the monthly data show a significant trend, anyway: Did the “Policy & Communications Director” of the LSE nothing heard about autocorrelation? If not: it’s the wrong man, if yes: it’s a misleading statement. Try to free the record of the years after 1997 of autocorrelation and test it with durbin-watson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin–Watson_statistic and you find, that you MUST create yearly means to get a d near 2 ( no autocorrelation) . The yearly data show no significant trend on 95% confidence- level.
Who do you think we are, Mr. Warp?
“For better or worse, I’ve put myself out there as being willing to talk to reporters (after brain fossilization and heretic, I now have the hide of an armadillo).”
This is both realistic and necessary…and probably represents a fine 1st step in the indicated direction. Nothing screams as loudly or attacks with as much fury as a gored sacred cow.
I agree that, in comparison to the first, the 2nd Rose article is a better article, but let’s take a look at just a few small issues, that in fact big point to bigger issues in the long run. Rose said:
“Other experts point out one of the biggest natural factors behind the plateau is the fact that in 2008 the temperature cycle in the Pacific flipped from ‘warm mode’, in which it had been locked for the previous 40 years, to ‘cold mode’, meaning surface water temperatures fell…”
_____
Mr. Rose really needs to get such an important fact absolutely correct. He gives an incorrect date about the start of the current cool phase of the PDO and then makes a broad generalization about it saying “surface water temperatures fell”. Both of these are incorrect or only partially correct, and by themselves can be misleading for an overall understanding. The current cool phase of the PDO, if by that we mean the running average PDO index crossing from positive into negative territory began right after the mega 1997-1998 El Nino. The ensuing mega-La Nina of 1999-2001 really initiated the current cool phase of the PDO in that the long term PDO average index crossed into negative territory for the first time in several decades and has been mostly negative ever since. Thus, we have been in the current cool phase since late 1998 or early 1999, and are thus in our 13th or 14th year. The other very important point is to be specific about what the cool phase of the PDO actually means in terms of “surface water temperatures” falling. As we all here know (but most in the general public who are reading Mr. Rose’s article probably do not), the “cool phase” is named so because of what it means for sea surface temperatures primarily along the North American west coast. Implied (but not stated explicitly) in Mr. Rose’s generalization is that the entire Pacific “flipped” to a cool mode with surface water temperatures generally cooling across the whole of the Pacific. This of course is not true at all.
So I would say to Mr. Rose– if you want to talk about things scientific, at least be very clear about the details. Current “cool” phase of the PDO began in late 1998/early 1999 (certainly not 2008), and when it flipped it generally meant cooler sea surface temperatures along the west coast of N. America but warmer temperatures on average over other other broad regions of the Pacific.
If Mr. Rose really wants to improve his reporting and do a general service of advancing a true understanding of the issue of anthropogenic climate change, he needs to do a comprehensive article about Earth’s energy budget, and state quite clearly all the different spheres (all layers of the atmosphere, hyrdosphere, crysosphere, and biosphere) in which the signal of anthropogenic warming is both modeled as impacting and then talk about what is data is actually saying in terms of Earth’s energy imbalance in all these spheres. By picking one specific area of only one of the spheres (surface temperatures), while it might be one piece of interesting information and it certainly it is quite true that surface temperatures have been flat at or near record high levels, focusing on this fact alone and the fact that climate models failed to have forecast it, does very little overall good if the goal is to educate the public about the bigger picture, i.e. anthropogenic climate change as an energy imbalance affecting the whole Earth energy system, including all the spheres discussed above.
Why do you author so many useless words of no account? No one of any consequence is reading your posts.
Howard said:
“No one of any consequence is reading your posts.”
____
Self-reflection, Howard?
@r Gates
I don’t think the general British public really gives a tinkers cuss about your long and very rambling wittering about the imbalance of the earth’s energy budget and all that stuff.
What they are very interested in is that they’re being asked to suffer a lot of inconvenience (budgetary and amenity) today to supposedly head off the distant threat of ‘climate change’ tomorrow. And that climate change will manifest itself as getting progressively and relentlessly hotter.
Leaving aside the many who think that a warmer UK climate would overall be a very positive thing, the news that it hasn’t been warming at all for the last fifteen years is deeply troubling. It looks like our Lords and Masters have been taking us for a ride. It looks like the institutions we trusted (science, guys in white coats, ‘charities’ like FoE and Greenpeace) have had us down as mugs.
And these hurt feelings will filter quickly into the ballot box in local, European and national elections. Those who sold us this ‘failed narrative’ will be punished.
And it will be a brave (nay foolhardy) UK pollie who will stand up and argue with a Daily Mail reader that,while surface temperatures haven’t gone up and we’ve just had the two coldest winters for some considerable time the global energy budget shows that if you read lolwot’s special graph while dancing naked around a maypole the earth will warm by 0.3C in 100 years and so not only must you have a 400′ windmill outside your front door, your lekky prices are going up to pay for it too.
Unless of course, you can put your lengthy screed into a format more suitable for an educated – but not specialist – readership. Try it.
R.Gates re; PDO went negative in 1998.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong.
The positive side of the PDO reached a zenith in 1993 and began to decline. It crossed the zero line in 2005.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/PDO-index-since-1900.jpg
Tamino’s analysis further informs the question asked earlier:
The world wonders, eh? ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
And Climate Etc is a terrific forum for gaining insights into this question! For which, thank you Judith Curry! ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
So many Strawmen, so Little Time, eh?
Pointing out that the Great Contrarian River is ever changing and always the same is not a strawman.
Those folks are not contrarians. They are deniers who are cashing in on the tea-bagger denier wet-dream stimulated by the *pause*. They are strawmen that Fan and other hysterical feminine catastrophists like yourself use to tarnish folks like Dr. Curry.
Just like you, Fan BartR, lolwat, etc, etc are strawmen of the true consensus.
Eh, Howard, you do talk rubbish sometimes. The trick to *not* coming across as a complete crank is to say things that are recognisably related to the reality everyone else can see. I’ve taken this up with you elsewhere on this thread because you are starting to make a habit of misrepresenting me, and that will never do ;-)
Next you will be saying noaa, is nothing but a straw-man…
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120524_atlantic_hurricane_season.html
or hugh-man.
I wanted to post this here.
I like this graph where you can see the development of the 15-year linear trend along the 50-year linear trend (not centered, the last 15 and 50 years, HADCRUT3).
http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p623/Oefinell/15yrLR.jpg
Here the 30-year trend:
http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p623/Oefinell/30yrLR.jpg
The 30-year trend is interesting. I predicted ~flat 30-year by 2020 few times on this blog.
Excellent work.
Your result agrees with my result:
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/30YearsGmtTrends.PNG
Girma, it’s not my work. Someone posted it on ‘Open Mind’ blog a while ago.
According to that graph, global warming has stopped since 2004 because the maximum 30-years trend was for the period 1974-2004 and it has been going down since then.
The maximum was about 0.19 deg C per decade and for the latest period of 1981-2011 it is about 0.15 deg C per decade.
“According to that graph, global warming has stopped since 2004 because the maximum 30-years trend was for the period 1974-2004 and it has been going down since then.”
Timescale is everything. The 15-year trend reached zero in ~2011, 30-year is still positive (~ +0.015 K) and it started decreasing in ~2004. The 50-year trend looks very regular (~60 year cycle). I think the 60-year cycle is also variable in length, similar to the 11-year solar cycle. There are longer cycles too. All these cycles are variable in length and hence maybe better called oscillations.
Sorry, that’s 0.015 K/year (0.15 K/decade).
Your result agrees with my result:
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/30YearsGmtTrends.PNG
We always making it harder than it is because we try to apply reason where it dosn’t. We have to base what we know of others on their behavior. And so, all the Left really wants to do is deprive the poor of affordable energy.
Condoleezza Rice opposed that the the hypocrisy of the Left. Rice has been involved in a number of humanitarian pursuits (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and in creating and serving on the board of the Millennium Challenge Corporation — endeavors to increase aid to developing countries and the worlds poorest, most disadvantaged populations — and serving as a member of the board of trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center).
Rice is a strong woman and the Left hates that because they want people to be puny and so they really fear strong–e.g., women like Rice, Rand, Palin, Coulter, Maulkin, Curry…
As society gets weaker, the strong become the victims of an army of weaklings who look to government instead of themselves for their survival. That is what Ayn Rand was writing about: our sins. Howard Roark is Rand’s secular version of Jesus. The Left hates Rand but not because she is a atheist but because she was anti-communist and saw salvation in individual liberty.
+1
And, to the list we should add Krysten Byrnes (“Ponder the Maunder”) who had the courage to stand tall against Leftist hero, Al Gore.
LOL … Wagathon, your strong praise of strong women rationally equates to “Hurrah for Jane Goodall!” ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
But gosh-golly … don’t the *ALL* world’s great apes reside entirely within the climate-change Lethal Zone? :eek: :shock: :cry: :eek: :shock: :cry:
For sure, Jane Goodall ain’t in favor of *THAT*, eh Wagathon? :?: :?: :?:
As for the “army of weaklings who look to government instead of themselves for their survival” … is this political operative-slang for the infamous 47%, eh Wagathon? ;) :?: :!: ;) :?
I think you may have too much lead in your lipstick.
to borrow from Loyd Bengston:
I know Jane Goodall and you are not Jane Goodall.
Perhaps you might try doing even a small iota for science edcuation that she does.
PS – I don’t believe smily faces will cut it, should try.
Wagathon | October 21, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
To your binders of women, might one suggest you add Naomi Oreskes, Claudia Tebaldi, Marie Sanderson, Sallie Baliunas, Inez Fung, Ann Henderson-Sellers, Jean Grove, Vicky Pope, Susan Solomon, Katharine Hayhoe, ..
LOL … Bart R, your list establishes Wagathon’s instant-classic “binders of strong woman” post as a worthy contender for “Dumbest-Ever Climate Etc Comment!” ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
Such was not my intention.
http://royalsociety.org/events/2012/wikipedia-workshop/
I’m not sure some people will ever understand what was wrong with the binders of women remark; the best I hope for is they move forward a bit.
Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, both astrophysicists at Harvard, who were characterized as fringe scientists whose work should be ignored. What did they do to attract such characterizations? They had the audacity to pull back the curtain on the wizard of global warming.
See, Global warming smear targets – Washington Times
@wagathon
Many would suggest that Margaret Thatcher should be included in a list of ‘strong women’. And Angela Merkel. Both were physical chemists by training, I am delighted to say.
And specifically in Climatology you’ve forgotten Donna LaFramboise, Author of the searing expose of the IPCC
‘The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert’
Yep.
Joshua | October 21, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Reply
“Alan:
d: Truth. See What Gavin Schmidt says on the subject.
????
Here?”
As per usual with global warming fanatics you have been deceitful by quoting something that was not related to the question asked.
This was what Gavin Schmidt said in relation to the models.
“A related question that comes up is how often we should expect a global mean temperature record to be broken. This too is a function of the natural variability (the smaller it is, the sooner you expect a new record). We can examine the individual model runs to look at the distribution. There is one wrinkle here though which relates to the uncertainty in the observations. For instance, while the GISTEMP series has 2005 being slightly warmer than 1998, that is not the case in the HadCRU data. So what we are really interested in is the waiting time to the next unambiguous record i.e. a record that is at least 0.1ºC warmer than the previous one (so that it would be clear in all observational datasets). That is obviously going to take a longer time.
This figure shows the cumulative distribution of waiting times for new records in the models starting from 1990 and going to 2030. The curves should be read as the percentage of new records that you would see if you waited X years. The two curves are for a new record of any size (black) and for an unambiguous record (> 0.1ºC above the previous, red). The main result is that 95% of the time, a new record will be seen within 8 years, but that for an unambiguous record, you need to wait for 18 years to have a similar confidence.”
Alan
I have not seen anyone try to put this into the context of what is happening politically in the UK government. I am a Canadian, but I was born and educated in the UK. As I understand it, George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has taken a good look at the books, and concluded that if the UK implements the Climate Change Act, it is headed for economic suicide. He is trying to get away from the various “green” initiatives of the past, and do things which make sense from a financial point of view. In this he is opposed by the Lib. Dems. who are part of the governing coalition.
Now in the usual course of events, if the Chancellor is in one corner, and some other Cabinet Minister in another, it is strictly no contest; the Chancellor wins. But this is different, because of the Climate Change Act.
Now we have the Sunday Mail entering into the fray, and suggesting that maybe, just maybe, CAGW is not true. I wonder how this might play out in the next few weeks of UK politics.
It will be ignored because the Daily Mail largely preaches to the choir. To everyone else it’s taken for entertainment value.
A dozen clicks and you’ll understand the humorous context with which people take Daily Mail stories
Note that by no means has the Daily Mail actually waged war on CAGW. Some might think so, but the daily paper is actually quite indifferent to the subject. Roses stuff appears in the Sunday edition.
@lolwot
Not sure what you mean by
‘the Daily Mail largely preaches to the choir.’
It has a bigger circulation than the house journal of alarmism (the gauardian) by a factor of 10. Bigger than the NYT or the WSJ. The readership is estimated at over 5 million, which is well over 10% of the voting population and easily big enough to swing the next general election. You ignore the DM readership at your peril.
David Rose has done a great service by bringing these Inconvenient Facts to a wider public.
It will have hugely strengthened Osborne’s hand in his battle with Ed Davey. Few will be willing to make sacrifices in favour of a hundred year away threat that may not even exist. And even the Lib Dems will eventually realise that their policy is a millstone around their electoral necks.
At least the Daily Mail doesn’t brownose politics like the choir-preaching totalitarian BBC and Guardian do.
Keep an eye out for Owen Paterson:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9520174/Owen-Paterson-becomes-new-Environment-Secretary.html
GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED IN 1987 REVEALS MET OFFICE REPORT QUIETLY RELEASED…AND HERE IS THE CHART TO PROVE IT
By David Rose (copyright Daily Mail 1998)
Click for chart showing no warming since January 1987.
-The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1987 until December 1997 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1976 to 1986
The world stopped getting warmer over 10 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1987 until December 1997, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1976 to 1986. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 20 years.
Joy, oh Joy!
We are not warming to disaster! I bet that makes all of us relieved.
Why are so many people disappointed, nasty and vitriolic about that? It is surely great news.
Are their beliefs logical and objective or religion based?
Are they so deluded they cannot accept the measured data? (the only truth) – [not that I would regard all climate datasets as truth, since some are heavily massaged, but let that pass].
Science is devalued by those who attack observational data and prefer to cling to belief or worse, and is especially devalued by those who favour the output of models programmed to produce results supporting their own beliefs. That is true self delusion.
“We are not warming to disaster! I bet that makes all of us relieved.
Why are so many people disappointed, nasty and vitriolic about that?”
because it’s…not. true.
Lolwot – Is the data not true? Please explain.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/
There’s one additional point that Tamino didn’t make explicitely. He fitted a trend to the data over preceding 22 years. That trend ended at 0.3C in 1997 while the “plateau” since 1997 is near 0.5C. Thus a step increase of almost 0.2C is needed to join the values, i.e. an increase more than expected for a decade according to IPCC. This is a serious failure in the interpretation of “no warming since 1997” when put in more relevant context. This plot shows the effect (but with a little trend also in the latter period).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.67/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.61/to:2013/trend
lolwot
Who knows whether or not “we are warming to disaster” (=CAGW).
IPCC claims this but this claim is not supported by empirical scientific evidence.
Therefore, it is simply an uncorroborated postulation.
It rests on the model-derived estimate of mean climate sensitivity of 3.2C.
But the actual physical observations do not support this climate sensitivity assumption.
No need to get “nasty and vitriolic”, lolwot. Just accept it – or demonstrate with empirical scientific evidence that this assumption (or estimate) is supported.
Time to “put up or shut up”, lolwot.
Max
The simplest arguments are often the strongest. In case of AGW the two simplest supportive and as a pair strong arguments are:
1) Theoretical understanding led to the prediction of the warming before anything of it was observable. The basic theory couldn’t tell the actual value of climate sensitivity but it leads to the range given by IPCC (perhaps rather to the low than to the high end of that range).
2) The dramatic warming over the period 1970 to 2000 and the fact that the starting level was not at the bottom of a dip and the ending level has been maintained until now.
That the decades before 1970 and after 2000 have been essentially flat indicates that the steepness of the rise has very likely been enhanced but natural variability, but they tell also that the warming is not just a fluctuation.
These factors alone are enough to make a convincing case for significant AGW but not enough to tell much more about its strength or effects. (I think Richard Muller’s recent comments on the anthropogenic contribution are based on similar reasoning.)
Whether the first article in the Mail on Sunday was seriously misleading or only a little incomplete depends on what we expect from its readers. For people as knowledgeable on the issues as most denizens of this site are it was just a bit incomplete and one-sided. Technically it didn’t make seriously wrong claims but it didn’t put issues in full context. For people with little knowledge on the issue the article may have been seriously misleading in emphasizing statements like
There Rose tells that warming stopped and there he puts ‘pause’ in quotes hinting perhaps that it’s not a pause but more permanent end for warming. Nothing in the article tells clearly that this proves little against expectations for further warming in future.
I don’t like specific numbers given for the allowable length of the period with little warming. As long as we don’t know the nature of the variability we cannot present such numbers. On the other hand every year with a temperature below previous expectations does influence the estimate of climate sensitivity. The more we have of such years and the more they deviate from expectations the lower gets the best estimate for transient climate response and climate sensitivity. The Foster and Rahmstorf paper gives now an estimate around 0.16 C/decade. I’m sure that their estimate had been significantly higher 10 years ago. This is the way we see properly the influence of the plateau.
The second Mail of Sunday article is better but to me it’s still strongly one-sided and formulated in many places to give a biased impression.
http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p623/Oefinell/15yrLR.jpg
http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p623/Oefinell/30yrLR.jpg
If what you say is true, why didnt Judith blow all of the premises of the article out of the water? If anyone is qualified to do so, she is and yet I saw no repudiation of the essence of the article by her. There were more than ample opportunities for her to do that and yet if anything she placed the challenge on your position.
There are so many different issues in the whole. She prefers to emphasize some rather that others. I do believe that in most cases her views and my views are not in direct contradiction, but we do certainly have differing emphasis.
She didn’t agree with Muller on presenting that particular point in the BEST paper. I do also feel that the paper was not the right place for presenting such a personal judgment, in particular presenting a judgment presented by so many others before. Realizing the power of the argument may have been new for Muller, but there was not any new science in that.
She does certainly have in mind also the future of this site. Therefore she may feel that it’s better that many arguments are presented by denizens rather than herself. If she would present climate science here in the same way she does in her lectures would make this site very different from the present – and very different from the goals stated in the opening remarks.
Pekka,
There are a couple of problems with your argument:
1) the theoretical basis for the warming is fine, but it was not made when none of it was observable. The late 20C warming is not outside of the range of warming that has been observed before and before anthropogenic emissions were thought to have influenced it.
That the decades before 1970 and after 2000 have been essentially flat
Well that’s not true. If you put two graphs side by side, one depicting the temp anomalies for the period 1910-1952 and 1970-2012, they would look remarkably similar, and I would bet a decent sum that a layperson would not be able to tell which priod was which.
If you want to make a case for anthropogenic warming, it would probably be along the lines of the Swanson argument, that after an anomalously large el niño in 19997-98 the energy is dissipating throughout the system, however I have yet to see any calculations supporting that. I could believe that a combination of natural variability and the re-equilibrium gives us the current flat trend, but their arm waving assertion that warming will start to occur again 2020 smacks of moving goal posts.
Never the less, even if that were true it indicates that the climate is less sensitive, and the overall rate of warming is less alarming, and the urgency for “action” unjustified, even if you hold that there is still a problem to be addressed.
What I can’t get my head around is how people can possibly justify saying that the warming hasn’t stopped. Even the most suspect of the “team” climate scientists accept that but offer rationalisations at least. However some graph nerd wants to pick apart David Roses graph, the essential message is the same; the warming has not continued, this was not predicted, and it calls into question the urgency with which society has been asked to address this problem.
Agnostic,
Your argument is not consistent with history. It was understood very early that the increase in the CO2 concentration could not be significant in the warming that peaked in 1940’s. The expectation was that the influence of CO2 starts to be significant during the last few decades of the 20th century.
The understanding of the atmosphere reached the required level for making properly semiquantitative estimates by the work of Manabe and his coauthors in 1960’s. By middle 1970’s the atmospheric scientists had had enough time to scrutinize and refine that approach to be certain that it’s basically correct (although still incomplete and incapable of producing accurate quantitative results, as it arguably is even now).
The flat period has definitely influenced the best objective estimate for climate sensitivity. The balance of evidence remains, however, strongly on the side of the expectation of further warming in the coming decades. A flat period of 17 years is a minor factor in the balance of evidence in particular when we know that the latest solar minimum was exceptionally strong and prolonged.
The years 2011-12 have a higher solar irradiance and the ENSO as indicated by MEI does not explain lower than normal temperatures either. Thus the relative coolness of the last 20 months or so appears to be somewhat contradictory with expectations from the fit of the Forster and Rahmstorf paper, but the period is still too short for significant conclusions. If this situation prevails or gets even stronger, then the conclusions on the value of climate sensitivity will also get stronger.
Your argument is not consistent with history.
On the contrary, it is entirely consistent with history, which has seen temperatures rise and fall, but mostly rise since the time of Arrhenius which is the point at which I presume you take as the start of the theoretical basis. The rest of your comment doesn’t substantiate temperatures mostly being flat prior to 1970 which is what drew me to comment, but is none the less not unreasonable of itself.
The balance of evidence that the warming may continue to rise is from a theoretical perspective only, and yes I agree entirely that the longer the pause continues the more it says about climate sensitivity. But there is more than one hypotheses in the game, Pekka. Another is that cooling might set in until at least 2030. It seems to me that if that were to happen, and warming restarted after 2030, you would have a much better handle on natural variability versus sensitivity to increasing GHG.
@pekka
‘A flat period of 17 years is a minor factor in the balance of evidence’
H’mm
Maybe.
But its a big big factor in reducing public interest and hence public willingness to fund climatology and listen to or care about its results.
Last time I looked global warming came bottom of the list of things that people were worried about. I don’t see that changing anytime soon. I’ll bet that nobody notices when AR5 is published and it’ll just get filed in a cupboard somewhere and forgotten about
No. The starting point is not Arrhenius, it’s in the 1970’s.
Arrhenius described crudely the very basics. He also concluded correctly that little is to be expected based on the foreseen changes in CO2-concentration.
The two scientific results that changed the scene came in 1960’s and were Keeling’s Mauna Loa measurements of CO2 concentration and the basic understanding of the physics of atmosphere developed by Manabe and others. Putting all this together indicated that a significant warming due to additional CO2 was about be reality in 1970’s, visible a little later and unambiguously observable only in this century. Time was ripe for semiquantitative conclusions in the 1970’s at a time when no recent warming had occurred.
For the last decades of 20th century the expectation was thus that the warming is likely to be observable but not strong enough to allow for unambiguous attribution. That’s what we have seen.
LA,
I’m discussing best understanding based on balance of evidence, not public perception.
Where is the evidence that the warming was predicted before it started? If I remember correctly, another ice age was being predicted. (by some of the same alarmists).
Another point that seriously bothers me is this one: People claim that the warming must be due to anthropogenic CO2 because they cannot identify anything else that could explain the observed warming.
Given that climatology is embryonic and the scientists obviously haven’t got a clue about clouds, solar effects or just about anything else, what a totally unscientific and preposterous basis for policy decisions.
Now that sceptical papers are less rigorously weeded out, there is growing evidence that such levels and rates of warming are not so unusual after all.
The warming hysteria is beginning to become fraudulent in nature.
The evidence is very easy to find and it’s clear. Just try. That should be more convincing that me picking my favorite articles for you.
@Pekka Pirila
‘The evidence is very easy to find and it’s clear. Just try. That should be more convincing that me picking my favorite articles for you’
I love the smell of ‘copout’ in the morning……..
The AIP article on the history of understanding climate change referred to by Fan does contain enough references. Dismissing that (as SC did) just because the link is given by Fan is a ludicrous excuse.
I’ve asked Spencer Weart when he is going to write ‘The Discovery of Global Cooling’.
===========
@pekka pirila
‘The AIP article on the history of understanding climate change referred to by Fan does contain enough references’
So why didn’t you say that the first time around?
Didn’t hurt did it?
I’m sure that I’m not alone in thinking that those who respond to requests for evidence with a throwaway ‘look it up’ or ‘google it’ are only trying to persuade themselves of their own supposed superiority rather than a genuine attempt to persuade.
If you can’t even be bothered to list the sources that you found persuasive, why TF do you imagine that anybody else will be convinced by your argument?
I didn’t remember that particular history paper although I have seen it before.
Cherry picking direct references is one of the most common ways of providing misleading information (second only to misleading graphs). Therefore it’s, indeed, essential that everyone makes his or her own search unless an appropriate overview is available as this AIP history happens to be.
Not that new, warming is always predicted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg
Just think how well off we would be if we were back at 1958 temperatures? and this fellow thought temperature had already been going up due to co2. Remember the catastrophes AGW caused back in 50s and 60s?
It was predicted and debunked before at least twice. But a warming recovery from the little ice age is not unexpected, neither is a certain return to a real ice age. When nature varies so much on it’s own it’s a difficult judgement but you are on safe ground if supposed unquantifiable warming is always cancelled out by a supposed unquantifiable cooling effect and both of these nebulous effects come from ‘evil’ fossil fuels. Then all you do is watch the graph go down and predict it keeps going down and when it goes up again you predict it will keep going up. It’s not in the least clever.
It is very similar to the recent financial crash. The ‘experts’ see a rising GDP, ignore it is based on unsustainable levels of debt and expect it always to rise. During the rise this looks a safe bet and everyone wants to believe it and naysayers are called names. During the crash everyone says a crash was impossible to predict – well except for those damned clever contrarians who knew there was no scientific basis for linear predictions when non-linear was the historically safe bet.
Ice-age alarmism is alive and well here at Climate Etc.
Do you deny that some climatologists were warning of an ice age?
Not on the same time scale.
Checking the publications it’s also totally clear that the weights given to these two issues were not comparable. I learned about AGW in 1980 from traditional energy experts whose judgment was that it’s going to restrict the use of coal for energy production in this century (a major energy study of IIASA named “Energy in a Finite World”).
Pekka
Here are the three principal global records from 1850-2011 produced by Hadley Met Office. Each clearly shows a drop or stasis in the record since at least 2000.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
This is the latest phase in a warming that has continued for some 350 years with various advances and retreats. I have no idea if it marks a major new trend but there is undobtedly something going on that was somewhat uexpected.
tonyb
Look!
A freezing squirrel!
Thank you for your reply.
With respect, I’m not impressed by predictions about global warming, partly due to the debate above and the endless debate that fills this blog every day of every week.
If we assume that the Met Office data published by the Daily Mail is roughly correct, then it is clear that warming is less than predicted, by a long way.
Given that climate scientists claimed that the CO2 driver of warming far exceeded anything that could be explained by natural effects, then what explains the total (or almost total, if you insist) negation of warming for 16 years?
Climate Etc readers are invited to review for themselves the survey of climate-change science that is presented on the American Institute of Physics (AIP) website “Discovery of Global Warming“ ;…
;… and then reflect for themselves whether the denialist comments here on Climate Etc reflect a level of willful ignorance, amounting effectively to cognitive anosonosia, that is sufficient to induce a pronounced Dunning–Kruger effect!
Purely on the evidence, the answer’s “yes”, eh? ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
Purely based on the evidence you are from MSN
I don’t know where the “Fan of More Discourse” comment came from, but I personally find it unhelpful and insulting and I have no inclination to follow it up. It certainly says a great deal about the source, none of it flattering.
Aye Climate Etc lassies and laddies … here we see the mechanism by which the Dunning–Kruger effect is self-sustaining! ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
The Left has a problem with weather and the climate: they’re not in charge of it. And they hide behind a fabricated consensus to avoid accountability for all of their cockamamie ideas about it.
I wish folk like you would leave left and right out of it. The other side of the coin is that we all know the right are opposed to any tax and that is the prime reason they distrust the scientists. The one thing that might change the mind of a right winger is if they benefit from it financially. Do you like being labelled that way? Well don’t do to others!
To my mind it is as simple as saying that the left tend to be pessimistic about man’s effect on the environment and they have good cause. The right by contrast tend to be optimistic about industrial progress and they have good cause too.
If folk would leave their politics at the door then some actual useful discussion might take place.
JamesG,
Some folks are only interested in political advantage. Useful is only useful if political advantage is what is gained. What you think is useful is not useful to them. FYI.
Andrew
It isn’t politics. Then the only thing left is suicide environmentalism of Leftist Stonkernomics.
Why else was Al Gore awarded the Nobel? In the Left’s global warming alternate reality Ragendra Pachauri of the IPCC (the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shares the 2007 Nobel Prize with Al Gore. And, because global warming alarmism is a plank in the Democrat Party platform the Nobel Peace Prize also was awarded to Barack Obama in 2009.
Who would deny that disastrous and deep climate change catastrophism is a Left v right issue and that taxing energy is a plank in the Democrat party platform and Leftists throughout Western civilization?
James,
Most people I know would have no problem with putting me in the “right” and I am not against “any tax”. I’ve voted for tax increases more than once – usually at the local level. Where I have a problem is which who is responsible for the spending of my tax dollars. If you had a spendthrift, alcoholic brother, would you just send him a check every month to spend as he pleases?
Right now my refiancing of my home is held up because of a new Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac guideline. I should be exactly the sort of customer banks want to lend to. I’ve been paying one mortgage for for 20 years and another on our second home for something like 6. Both properties are worth more than the value of the loans. I have a decent job with little risk of losing it. But somebody in the Federal government knows what is “best” practice. Right. I could spend the next several days listing all of the ways the federal government impacts our lives. Want to take out a student loan? Have to ask the federal government. They are the only one’s allowed to issue them.
“Joy, oh Joy!
We are not warming to disaster! I bet that makes all of us relieved.
Why are so many people disappointed, nasty and vitriolic about that? It is surely great news.”
This is a great question and one can only conclude what’s already patently obvious: Many of these people are so deeply invested in the CAGW hypothesis that they can’t bear to even contemplate they might be wrong. They hide behind pieties having to so with “saving the planet” but they’d rather we all go down in flames than be shown to be in error.
Lolwot and warmists like him will not even admit to the *possibility* they might be wrong.
It’s really quite sick. I’m a global warming skeptic and I’m pretty sure my skepticism is valid, but I can certainly bring myself to imagine I might be wrong. If it turns out I am, I’ll admit it and move on. Won’t be so easy for the alarmists.
“Won’t be so easy for the alarmists.”
I don’t think you need worry on their behalf. I am confident they will find something else to be alarmed about, if they haven’t already done so.
Bob Ward’s claim is dubious. It depends on if one considered the text of David Rose’s article (“from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures”) or the graph presented in it. Which is in fact correct, just it does not start at the beginning of 1997, but in September of that year (and the x axis is shifted right by 8 months). Therefore the time span shown in the graph is exactly 15 years (180 months), from September 1997 to August 2012.
A trend of 0.047°C/decade, as claimed by Bob Ward stands for January 1997 – August 2012 (188 months), whereas for the period shown in the graph (15 full years) it is 0.033°C/decade.
However, the whole issue is immaterial, because whether the proposition and graph are consistent or not depends on what is meant by “discernible”.
Seasonally adjusted carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has risen from 362.85 ppmv in January 1997 to 394.06 ppmv in August 2012. That’s 12% of a doubling. If climate sensitivity is about 3°C/doubling indeed, as claimed by the IPCC (and many activists around the world), one would expect a temperature rise of 0.36°C in this time span. That translates to a rate of warming at about 0.23°C/decade. Bob Ward’s number (0.047°C/decade) is barely one fifth (20.4%) of this number.
One can of course say it is indiscernible compared to projections, as it suggests a climate sensitivity of 0.6°C/doubling, much less than the “neutral feedback” case, while all alarmist claims rest on strong positive feedbacks.
But 15 years is too short anyway for climate related issues, is not it? Now, let’s take the much larger trend of 0.07°C/decade during the last 80 years (960 months, since September 1932). During this period some 50% of a doubling was realized in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which implies a climate sensitivity of 1.1°C/doubling, almost exactly the “neutral feedback” case. And the huge reduction of actual pollutants (Sulphur and aerosol emissions), i.e. removal of a strong negative forcing in the last several decades is not even taken into account.
That is, existence of any strong positive feedback in the current climate regime is all but falsified. And that’s what really matters.
Today I tried making some pasta. I put a pan of water on the hotplate and turned it up to maximum radiative forcing. I expected the water to immediately start to boil, but nothing happened, so I went upstairs for a few minutes to get a thermometer, came back down and measured the temperature of the water. Turns the hotplate had only warmed up the water 15C, but the cooker manual written by the IPCC said it should have warmed up to 100C! Realizing there was something wrong with the cooker I immediately turned it off and had a sandwich instead. I guess I’ll have to call out an engineer.
Have a pizza delivered next time. Much tastier.
The IPCC’s pot started to boil right away …. and then the fuse blew and the heating stopped, Their dinner was cold.
You assume a slow climate response. In that case one would expect the heat to go into a hidden reservoir and be stored there for later use without raising surface temperatures fast. The only such reservoir around is the ocean.
But average temperature of the upper 700 m layer of oceans only increased by 0.1°C in the last 57 years (10.5×10²² Joules of heat does exactly that to 2.5×10²⁰ kg water). At this rate (0.018°C/decade) it would take some time to get your pasta ready.
@lolwot
Your cookery skills seem to be no better than your logical ones. Are you allowed out on the busy roads by yourself, or does Mummy still have to be with you?
@lolwot
The lesson you should have drawn was that the IPCC have written a crap manual.
But getting an engineer out to look once more at the inner workings mightn’t be a bad idea once you’ve finally decided not to trust the earlier guys. If they overestimate everything by 6 times, what else have they screwed up? And with what unhappy consequences?
Berényi Péter
Could you show a step by step calculations of your results and the formula used?
Yes, I could
Good analysis.
Max
Well, I’m no fan of the Sunday Mail, but Bob Ward has a bigger problem than the UK tabloids:
As a “Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment”, he stands to lose half of his job title if the environment doesn’t turn-up-trumps for him fairly soon.
> Well, I’m no fan of the Sunday Mail, but Bob Ward […]
Look! A Green squirrel!
look a cryptic gnome!!!! :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
Surely, you’re joking, Chief!
In case you really need to know why I don’t use red herring or ignoratio elenchi:
> Fallacies of relevance, a major category of informal fallacies, include two that could be called pure fallacies of relevance –wrong conclusion (ignoratio elenchi, wrong conclusion, missing the point) and red herring (digression, diversion). The problem is how to classify examples of these fallacies so that they clearly fall into the one category or the other, on some rational system of classification.
http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/04fall_rel.pdf
Micheal get serious, that’s like claiming Mcintyre is an oil shill or that his mining business is somehow related to his views on the HS. good grief, willard has abused mashey and others about this on countless occasions.
Yup, moshe, equally disinterested and objective, those two, McIntyre and Ward. Please stop hiding your light under that barrel you’ve occupied.
===========
The Daily Mail, and Mail on Sunday, can probably get the football results right so why can’t they get their science right too? Don’t they know that the UK’s Royal Society is quite happy to help them out if they have any questions?
If David Rose had gone to the trouble of asking he would have been told that there is no evidence that warming stopped in 1998 (or whatever) for the following reasons:
We can look at a graph and see warming:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kEPHuiKfVFo/UH7DgwddgAI/AAAAAAAAA08/dVzvYO6Cn8A/s1600/RealistsEscal.gif
or we can see cooling
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JvESe5xmmJc/UH7DU68deuI/AAAAAAAAA00/nKKA0_JdOLk/s1600/SkepticsEscal.gif
if we aren’t sure there are lots of other graphs , like this one from NASA
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qG6fBwpIpJM/UH7FXKWOBiI/AAAAAAAAA1M/XCLOQ8ia044/s1600/GlobalTemps1860-.JPG
So is it cooling? Or has it even stopped warming? Obviously not. Anyone with any intelligence can see that.
So why is it so hard for David Rose, the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday?
PS Note to Judith: I think Rose’s newspaper is called the Mail on Sunday. Not the Sunday Mail. It’s always good to check and get all the facts right.
tempterrain
or you can use the actual global records of the met office from 1850 to 2011
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
tonyb
TonyB,
First of all its good that you’ve actually given a reference from a reputable source. Its a big improvement from all those dodgy references you used to give showing how CO2 levels were higher than now in the 19th century.
I’d just draw your attention to the sentence ” The thick blue line shows the annual values after smoothing with a 21 point binomial filter. The dashed portion of the smoothed line indicates where it is influenced by the treatment of the end points. ”
I suspect the bit that you like is the dashed part of the smoothed curve. I’m not an expert in this but I’m suspicious of polynomial curve fitting. They can produce some odd results at the end points as the Met Office acknowledge. Nasa just settle for multi-year averaging and if you do it that way you see a different shape at the curve end.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5020/5419352107_01659a31a4.jpg
I should acknowledge that this is only up to 2010 rather than 2011 but it doesn’t make that much difference.
There is some slight evidence of a pause but it’s nowhere near as significant as the Mail on Sunday are claiming.
Peter Martin (tempterrain),
Still flogging your very false PMA smoothing method I see.
Even if you were to use the accepted CMA (Central Moving Average)method for time-series-data, there is still a problem in that the selection of time-span and filtering method can be contrived to create a message as desired by the author.
Take a look at GISStemp where they use 5-year smoothing and note where their smoothing line ends. On the other hand Hadcrut use 21-year smoothing but cheat judgementally in the final ten years
BFJ,
I’m just using the smoothing tools as provided for in Excel. So if its good enough for Bill Gates….
I’ve never seen you produce a graph of any sort, so until you’ve learned how to do that I’d say you might want to consider yourself an advisee rather than an adviser.
How about a new reality TV show “Desperate Greenhouse Wives”?
Nice one!
I think BartR’s head is about to asplode. :-)
Understanding the AGW belief system is necessary to get the complete picture of what was happening. As a belief system, AGW is not science and like religion it has its own reality outside our physical world. So, unsurprisingly a raft of superstitious beliefs abound although cloaked in assumed environmental instead of supernatural terms.
In this alternate reality Ragendra Pachauri of the IPCC (the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shares the 2007 Nobel Prize with Al Gore; and, because global warming alarmism is a plank in the Democrat Party platform the Nobel Peace Prize also was awarded to Barack Obama in 2009. All of this is the EU and the Left believing it is enjoying the last word while burying President Bush whose only sin was to stand up for America with his whole heart.
‘This paper provides an update to an earlier work that showed specific changes in the aggregate time evolution of major Northern Hemispheric atmospheric and oceanic modes of variability serve as a harbinger of climate shifts. Specifically, when the major modes of Northern
Hemisphere climate variability are synchronized, or resonate, and the coupling between those modes simultaneously increases, the climate system appears to bethrown into a new state, marked by a break in the global mean temperature trend and in the character of El Nino Southern Oscillation variability. Here, a new and improved means to quantify the coupling between climate modes confirms that another synchronization of these modes, followed by an increase in coupling occurred in 2001/02. This suggests that a break in the global mean temperature trend from the consistent warming over the 1976/77–2001/02 period may have occurred.‘
Has the climate recently shifted? (2009) Kyle L. Swanson and Anastasios A. Tsonis
webnutcolonoscope accuses me of cherry picking science for quotes in support of a particular view. Not true – here is the entire abstract in toto. Read the paper for God’s sake.
There is a theory – rather a new climate paradigm. It involves dynamical complexity as the underlying mode of climate variability – and persistent modes of ocean and atmospheric variability including ENSO and the PDO.
In the words of NASA – “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.” – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
So we are – according to the theory – anticipating a decade or three more of no warming at least. The space cadets don’t like them apples at all. They would rather have runaway warming and global doom? Go figure what sort of millennialist psychopathology is at work here.
and of course “If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability”
I think I actually share Swanson and Tsonis’s view on recent warming having read it.
“What’s our perspective on how the climate will behave in the near future? The HadCRUT3 global mean temperature to the right shows the post-1980 warming, along with the “plateau” in global mean temperature post-1998. Also shown is a linear trend using temperatures over the period 1979-1997 (no cherry picking here; pick any trend that doesn’t include the period 1998-2008). We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.”
that contains an interesting graph
That’s pretty much my perspective as well, that the warming overshot trend in 1997/1998 (but also 2002-2005). Current temperatures are actually pretty much back on trend.
http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
It seems they are talking about something like this:
http://www.uwm.edu/~kswanson/rc_fig1.jpg
“We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.”
‘Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly
constant global mean temperature.’ op cit
That seems clear cut. But do you understand it numbnut? The comments suggest not. Try rreeading science instead of RC posts.
The 2007 paper gives a much fuller description. – https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/2007GL030288.pdf
Do you understand why I call myself a climate catastrophist – in the sense of Rene Thom?
Swansons warming trend (1979 – 1997) is about 0.1 degree C/decade and warming is not expected for another decade or three. Do they presume that the 20th century pattern will be repeated? Hopelessly something or other – but with Tsonis’ long term understanding of ENSO I can’t believe that he believes that.
f the expectation was that we would return to modest warming after the pause there would not be an issue. As it is the whole damn thing is totally unpredictable. But it is no prediction at all it is the state of the oceans – we are on a cooling trajectory for a decade or three more.
And here we have the reason why Chief’s analysis can’t be trusted. He undermines his arguments by attaching them to an irrational paranoid conspiracy/fantasy – that those who disagree with him scientifically are pathological and desirous of runaway warming and doom. Reminds me of when “conservatives” argued that anyone critical of Bush’s invasion of Iraq wanted all their friends and family to die in terrorist attacks because it would make Bush look bad.
Despite his use of a question – to imply incredulity and uncertainty, Chief sandwiches his question with statements devoid of any uncertainty. So much for the careful treatment of certainty one would expect from a skeptic, eh?
As phony as when Brandon implausibly argues that he thinks that “alarmists” have reasonable views.
It’s unfortunate when “skeptics” so vehemently assault the principles of skepticism.
On the good side, we are seeing an increasing number of skeptics trusting the natural variability in models now. I think this is a turning point.
For me, the first sign of “skepticsm” is when I read arguments that claim that climate models and climate scientists don’t recognize natural variability. I can certainly understand that some skeptics feel that the variability has been underestimated, but that’s why they aren’t “skeptics.”
As someone not equipped to evaluate the specifics of the science, I have to rely on the basic logic of people’s arguments. When Rose writes that Jones “admitted” that models aren’t perfect, his lack of logical coherence becomes obvious. By extension, anyone who supports Rose’s arguments is obviously being duped by someone who bases his arguments on incoherent logic. Only “skeptics” are so easily duped.
Joshua, this is a bit technical, but it is right to the point.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/pinatubo-climate-sensitivity-and-two-dogs-that-didnt-bark-in-the-night/
No – I am quite honestly convinced that it is a cult of AGW groupthink space cadets.I have said this often enough.
‘The exact origins of a space cadet are unknown but rumor has it that their home planet was destroyed due to pollution caused by poor house keeping. Following this disaster they proceeded to disperse themselves throughout the universe and litter the gene pool. Space cadets are known for their poor skills in common sense areas such as coordination, food preparation, basic cleaning and processing simultaneous coherent thoughts.’ Urban Dictionary
Isn’t that Joshua to a T?
We are in a cool phase – :cool: – NASA says so. Who am I not to believe NASA. I am just such a wide eyed innocent – besides which – I said it way before they did.
This image shows the sea surface temperature anomaly in the Pacific Ocean from April 14–21, 2008. The anomaly compares the recent temperatures measured by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite with an average of data collected by the NOAA Pathfinder satellites from 1985–1997. Places where the Pacific was cooler than normal are blue, places where temperatures were average are white, and places where the ocean was warmer than normal are red.
The cool water anomaly in the center of the image shows the lingering effect of the year-old La Niña. However, the much broader area of cooler-than-average water off the coast of North America from Alaska (top center) to the equator is a classic feature of the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The cool waters wrap in a horseshoe shape around a core of warmer-than-average water. (In the warm phase, the pattern is reversed).
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. #8220;This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
Crazy space monkeys will use any argument argument they can to discount anomalous information. This is not science – this is a millenialist cult justified in moral certitude to use any lies and deceit.
Mr Rose
I saw that you left a comment here on this thread earlier.
Best of luck to you and continue kicking ass!
“If you are using data to evaluate the IPCC’s projection of 0.2C/decade warming in the first two decades of the 21st century, with plateaus or pauses at most of 15-17 yrs duration,”
I just don’t recall any attempt by the IPCC to assert that there would ever be plateaus or pauses of any length. If they did they kept it secret. No, their whole pitch was that climate would increase temperature as the world released more carbon dioxide. It was our irrevicable fate. That was the lowest common denominator view of the delegates.
This is the not surprising view of delegates who had ignored the rapid rise of 0.15C between 1910 and 1940 and who had also ignored the equally rapid fall for years after 1940. Did anyone suggest that the latter fall wae really a pause? No, despite that it was a real fall when CO2 was rapidly rising. As the Rose contraversy shows, you can get what ever answer you want by picking the period. Rose indeed did us a service by exposing the chinks in the IPCC’s armour. What if the present ‘pause’ is permanent !!! See my website above.
In the above: 0.15C should be 0.15C per decade. Sorry.
Don’t worry Alexander, no one cares about those details anyway.
Well done JC and David.
Global warming dispute is summarized: U.S. [Government-Education Complex] vs. the People.
The Guardian asks a good question:
“After all, Professor Judith Curry complained that she had been mis-attributed not just for this week’s article (she claims she never said climate models were “deeply flawed” despite the article attributing this comment to her), but for the Mail on Sunday article last year where he also quoted her. Why would she trust him second time round? Warning bells must have been sounding inside her head, surely?
Well, surely, yes. And, if I remember correctly from last year, Judith made the point that she insists on written correspondence with pond-life, sorry Mail-On-Sunday, journalists like David Rose for exactly the reason that she doesn’t trust them. And that’s perfectly understandable.
But when asked to produce the written correspondence didn’t Judith reply that it was private?
If Judith can show the recent correspondence we can see who’s correct. But is it private this time also?
Call me a cynic, but I’d say Judith knows full well how David Rose operates. She must want to be misquoted, knowing what she says to be deniable, or even worse, she is saying one thing as Ms Judith and denying it as Dr Curry.
Deceleration of global mean temperature (GMST) trend in the 21st century based on three datasets.
1) GissTemp
1990-2005=> 0.21 deg C/decade
1997-2012=> 0.09 deg C/decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1990/plot/gistemp/from:1990/to:2005/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2012/trend
2) Hadcrut3
1990-2005=> 0.24 deg C/decade
1997-2012=> 0.01 deg C/decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2012/trend
3) Hadcrut4
1990-2005 => 0.21 deg C/decade
1997-2012 => 0.06 deg C/decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2012/trend
Conclusion:
From the above observation, for all the datasets the trend has decelerated and for Hadcrut3 global warming has stopped since 1997.
What we see in the post is idle speculation about cool phases and ocean cycles as though they have periodicity, and as though they are competitive with GHG forcing. GHG forcing in the first half of the 21st century will rise as much again as it had up until 2000. During that time, the oceans did little to prevent a 1 degree C rise, and it is not clear how they suggest next time it will be any different for the next degree by 2050. As I say, it is idle speculation, backed up by no papers, or even a quantification of how much forcing needs to be countered. No numbers, just periodicities, trendology and extrapolation. Even if they could find a model that did this, which of course they won’t, it would be useful, because models have to conserve things like energy and reproduce the current climate.
Yeah – I speculate that all of recent warming was in the SW. There is data and there is Jim and the 2 shall never meet.
“During that time, the oceans did little to prevent a 1 degree C rise”
Or maybe the cleaner air from 1980 to 2000 resulted in more sunshine reaching th earth and warmed it.
“At one measurement site [De Bilt], summer sunshine increased from 1985-2010 by 15 Watts per square meter”
“since the mid 1980s a significant increase in
visibility has been noted in western Europe
(e.g. Doyle and Dorling, 2002), and there are
strong indications that a reduction in aerosol
load from anthropogenic emissions (in
other words, air pollution) has been the
dominant contributor to this effect, which
is also referred to as ‘brightening’.”
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~delde102/CleanerAirBetterViewsMoreSunshine.pdf
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/more-sunshine-in-the-netherlands/
15 watts per sq m is pretty damned huge.
No, they were just talking about ocean cycles. Do you prefer your idea and disagree with them? You should tell them what you think of their ocean cycles.
I think pretty much a local effect – like the hot air coming out of Jimbo.
I really like this title by the Guardian: ** Climate change: journalism’s never ending fight for facts**.
Here’s the subtitle of the DSM’s article:
You decide what the real facts are…
Sounds post-modern.
Here’s a claim in David Rose’s article:
> We answer some of the key questions on climate change.
The first question is: Is the world warming or not?
I’m not sure I can find an answer to that one.
So the claim is at the very least misleading.
It misrepresents all the dodging that ends with this:
> The claim that there has been any statistically significant warming for the past 16 years is therefore unsustainable.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html
I would never venture to say that David Rose is lying there, of course. That would be going a bridge too far.
Readers will have to decide what is the real fact behind David Rose’s honesty.
It’s fascinating. I’ve been told over and over that most “skeptics” don’t doubt that the Earth is warming. Judith doesn’t listen to anyone who believes otherwise.
Yet I read that so many “skeptics” don’t trust that any temperature data records are valid, that the concept of “global temperatures” is invalid to begin with, and that those records that they don’t trust that show records of the invalid concept of global temperatures show that the Earth has stopped warming.
I’m not sure that the views of some “skeptics” could be more logically inconsistent even if that were their primary intention.
As opposed to the atmosphere clearly continuing to warm if it is clearly not? Drawing on a straw sceptic argument?
Take it from Takashi Mochizuki – the world is at least not warming as strongly for a decade or three more. ‘A negative tendency of the predicted PDO phase in the coming decade will enhance the rising trend in surface air-temperature (SAT) over east Asia and over the KOE region, and suppress it along the west coasts of North and South America and over the equatorial Pacific. This suppression will contribute to a slowing down of the global-mean SAT rise.’
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
I am calling on a blanket ban on emoticons in comments – but I am sure that Joshua will deem that unconsciously ironic.
Chief –
If you think that the atmosphere isn’t warming, then maybe you can present a logical argument to explain why ACO2 isn’t warming the climate. Many folks offer such arguments. I think some of them are logical – although I can’t speak to their veracity.
My point is different.
If you think that ACO2 warms the climate, and you haven’t identified some anomalous factor that would explain some “pause” or “stop,” when you say that the warming has “paused” or “stopped,” then you are not being logical.
A trend in place due to mechanistic forces doesn’t “pause” unless those mechanistic forces pause. It doesn’t “stop” unless those mechanistic forces “stop.” If you look at a graph of a trend and see a line flattening out you for a short period of time – as we have seen in the past with global temperatures – then you know that you’re looking at the effects of noise in a trend.
Now you might have a scientific argument about the rate of the trend – which might also lead to disagreements about the magnitude of the noise and the signal, respectively. You know, like climate scientists do when they discuss the influence of such things as natural variability or aerosols on the rate of the trend.
Or you might, as some “skeptics” do, argue about whether we can measure temperature accurately or whether there is any such thing as a “global temperature.”
But if you say that the warming has “paused” or “stopped,” and then if you also say that you think that ACO2 warms the climate, then you are being illogical, and you are a “skeptic” not a skeptic.
Language matters. Saying that the influence of ACO2 on the climate has “paused” or “stopped” is illogical.
Look!
An ironic squirrel!
Forgot to provide the link? http://www.pnas.org/content/107/5/1833.full
Can I be bothered debating science with Joshua? Don’t think so. Try reading some Joshua and then ask questions instead of something some all or nothing, black or white narrative.
It was really just another peice of peer reviewed science selectively quoted to demonstrate a predetermined point of view, At last according to the science free zone that is the webster.
Such as this one. “The Earth’s climate system is highly nonlinear: inputs and outputs are not proportional, change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual, and multiple equilibria are the norm. While this is widely accepted, there is a relatively poor understanding of the different types of nonlinearities, how they manifest under various conditions, and whether they reflect a climate system driven by astronomical forcings, by internal feedbacks, or by a combination of both.’
http://www.unige.ch/climate/Publications/Beniston/CC2004.pdf
Everything he doesn’t – which let’s face it is a lot – is noise and doesn’t matter. Seriously – the guy is total moron.
Understand… that is…
what..a cognitive squirrel?
Chief,
I believe you’re right: the bad hominem you’re using looks a lot like a cognitive squirrel.
yes Joshua there is that inconsistency. I believe one skeptic had the wisdom to argue point thusly.
Granting you the evidence I do not trust, I can show you your position is flawed.
when they try to use the record they dont trust to establish something they believe in ( the sun dunnit ) then your inconsistency applies.
your bias shows in that you are incapable of constructing your opponents best argument. you needed more philosophy classes or rhetoric from moshpit.. the same thing really,
moshe, I suspect he can, but won’t. What keeps me from figuring out that question is his general lack of knowledge about the science.
============
In analogy to sks, capable enough to understand the strongest argument, clever enough to erect a simulacrum strawman. But I can’t be sure; he is certainly sophistical to understand strong arguments, but does his technical ignorance mask deliberate avoidance of the strong argument?
Usually, I try to ignore him, because his intent is camouflaged by ignorance, and it’s not worth the effort to pierce the ghillie.
===========
I think I was that guy. At least I tried to educate Joshua on this point, but his steadfast pretense of not understanding the simple logic made discussion fruitless.
cAGW clearly states globul warming should be accelerating and it clearly is NOT. So it’s simple logic that AWG is incorrect and the theory of AGW is bogus.
> So it’s simple logic that AWG is incorrect and the theory of AGW is bogus.
Look!
An Aristotelian squirrel!
NB. The historical waste baskets are replete of dysfunctional logics of probability.
Look! A post-normal squirrel. It all depends on your point of view and if you say ‘squirrel’ enough it will all work out for the AGW space cadets.
Chief,
Sharp eye! You rightly see that I extended my use to a non sequitur. Please excuse me from getting carried away. It’s tough to know when to stop, since all fallacies can be seen as fallacies or relevance, hence squirrels.
On the other hand, your analysis is unwarranted. Relativism does not follow from a post-normal conception of science. I’ve stated many times my dislike for this kind of epistemology, if only because the name “post-normal” is the opposite of sexy.
My standpoint is absolutely not relativistic anyway. Take for instance the concept of “about”, which should stand at the core of topicality and relevance. I prefer something like this review by Nicolas Rescher of Nelson Goodman’s analysis of “about” than your favorite post-normal author:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2251699
I’m not sure you see many relativist squirrels running around these pages.
Judith – please note: here you have someone else you aren’t listening to.
In fact, I’d say that you shouldn’t be listening to almost all the “skeptics” on this thread.
This thread is full of folks who think that the temperature data (that they think invalid except when they don’t) disproved the theory that ACO2 warms the climate. They are arguing that there has been a trend of no warming sufficient to place us beyond the 95% confidence interval of the theory. In fact, they argue that the warming has “stopped” or “paused” – which is an impossibility if you think that adding ACO2 necessarily warms the climate. If you think that ACO2 necessarily warms the climate, the the warming can’t “stop” or “pause” if you keep adding ACO2 to the climate. Th only possibilities consistent with the theory are: (1) if you don’t see warming in a particular metric, it is the result of the lack of good metrics or because it is out there somewhere or, (2) if you don’t see warming and you think the metrics valid, then what you are looking at is an insignificant trend – just noise amidst the signal.
Judith – I fear that if you remain logically consistent, you won’t have very many people left to talk to!
> If you think that ACO2 necessarily warms the climate […]
I get what you’re saying, Joshua, but “necessarily” might be misleading here. It looks a bit odd in an empirical claim, besides letting yourself open to the baking soda squirrel.
Dumping CO2 the way we do warms the climate. No need for adverbs.
Yes, willard. There is another logical flaw also, but I’m not giving it away. They’ll need to earn it to prove that they’re skeptics and not “skeptics.”
So in the jaundiced eyes of CAGW truebelievers like yourself, Joshua, what does a “skeptic” need to do to be a plain skeptic? How exactly does he need to demonstrate his lack of trust in the lying climategaters and the climatocracy generally ?
(oh, forgot to ask earlier – are you a true truebeliever or just a “truebeliever” ?)
Bated –
You don’t know what I do and don’t believe, and your characterization – whether you use quotation marks or not – is inaccurate. Your labeling of me is obvious evidence of “skepticsm” and not skepticism.
and
To be a skeptic as opposed to a “skeptic” you have to be open to looking for bias and illogic in your own arguments as well as those in others. And you can’t just selectively look for bias and illogic in the arguments of some others and not other others.
Aha. Anyone who sees the obvious blinkered belief in Joshua’s writings, is a “skeptic”. Only those who are blind to it are skeptics. Glad you unsettled that.
Bated –
You have made statements that presume knowledge of my beliefs about global warming. Tell me, briefly, what are my beliefs about global warming?
Having never seen from you the tiniest swerve from the official gospel and politics-speak, I’d say you buy the basic standard CAGW package like temp and the other wackos.
Or is there some corner of skepticsm hiding out there in your head, as yet too timid to speak its name?
Bated –
Twice asked, twice ducked.
I’ll ask one more time. What are my beliefs about global warming? Do you know or not? If you know, state briefly what they are.
My beliefs change every day with changing information. What do yours do?
===============
Joshua, your “ducking” allegation itself ducked my post immediately before it. I’d give you the benefit of the the timing if it wasn’t for full 12-minute time difference.
Noting that warming has paused, Joshua says a pause is impossible. Pure genius. Seems he has only himself to talk to.
Bated –
No, I’m not saying that a pause is impossible. And I am not noting that warming has paused. You are wrong on both counts.
What I am saying is that the argument that the warming has “paused” (or stopped) is inconsistent with the Watts’ description of “skeptics”: that they don’t doubt that ACO2 warms the climate.
If you have no doubt that ACO2 warms the climate, then warming will not pause if you keep pumping ACO2 into the atmosphere. If you believe as Watts says, then you have to say that the warming has continued but what some call a “pause” is just noise, or your methodology for measuring is insufficient.
Judith has stated that she doesn’t listen to anyone who doesn’t think that ACO2 warms the climate. Please be advised that she won’t be reading your comments.
Not that I agree with Watts that C02 just warms the planet but with non linear functions, natural variability and logarithmic limitations of C02 proposed, well, it would conceivable that skeptics with this line of thinking would believe C02 can warm a little but it is limited by many factors and does not warm indefinitely.
Joshua
Excellent obfuscation and disguised backpedal. Can’t say I blame you though, that temperature plateau is just too damn obvious to deny. Even for a religious truebeliever like yourself.
One day – any decade now I hope – we’ll get a reliable fix on just how much warming actually CO2 causes, and how this stacks up against all the other forcings.
Down the rabbit hole with Joshua once more? He tried so very hard to frame a logical thought. The failure is complete.
@joshua
Wow
Did I read aright?
You seem to be using the old ‘appeal to authority’ trick. But I’m extremely surprised that you use Anthony Watts as your authority!
Strange old world……
Latimer –
It is certainly not only Watts who describes the beliefs of “skeptics” in that manner. I read all that time in these threads that “skeptics” don’t doubt that ACO2 warms the climate, they only question how much. And don’t forget, Judith says that no one “in the room” questions whether ACO2 warms the climate.
Yes – that would be a logical way out. But then “skeptics” should say that they don’t doubt that ACO2 warms the climate, they only doubt how much and that the effect will not occur beyond a certain point. And then, of course, they’d have to provide an explanation for what would make it stop. Willis argues something along those lines with is kooky homeostasis theory.
Much like religious fundamantalists, credulous CAGW truebelievers like Joshua comfort themselves by idly accepting Team/IPCC dogma, book, line and sinker, and challenging skeptics to come up with different numbers. This cunningly paints skeptics as a type of deniers – ie the equally credulous cousins of truebelievers.
Clever he is, ducking the real issue which is that skepticism is really about the claimed level of certainty, and the (appallingly low) trustworthiness of people who see nothing untoward with hiding data etc.
And skepticism obviously implies no need for denying that agw will continue indefinitely. (So much for his ‘trap’ then).
Fei-hua?
From the Sunday Mail:
“But while CO2 levels have continued to rise since 1997, warming has paused. This leads Prof Curry to say the IPCC’s models are ‘incomplete’, because they do not adequately account for natural factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and a decline in solar output, which have suppressed the warming effects of CO2.”
This Sunday Mail is representative of a kind of discussion or exchange that I find frustrating. First, a nutshell qualitative background history:
Carbon dioxide causes global warming in a serious way!… no wait, ice cores show that carbon dioxide lags (global) temperature by several hundred years!… no wait, you folks jumped the gun (Shakun) carbon dioxide preceded!… no wait Shakun, you used a sawed off weapon (Eschenbach)! show me all of the data. oh lookee, lookee!… [abridged dissolve to current scene] ho, ho it’s been 15 years of flatline now, and the official waiting period is up, the alarmists’ theories are wrong!… no, no, there has been a small increase, we really didn’t mean 15 years, and besides it depends on where you start the analysis, and…! … yep, 15 years, 95%, that’s what your statistics said… … .
OK.
Because the comparison in the first quoted sentence considers the same time period for both the carbon dioxide observations and the ‘temperature’ observations, it (the comparison) is necessarily predicated on an ‘instant’ causality*—at least relative to the length of the period, between carbon dioxide and temperature (either before the other depending on tastes). Dr. Curry in the second sentence addresses inadequate accounting for natural factors but does not in any way challenge the instant nature of the relation. Instead she emphasizes the role of natural factors and later in the article warns against ignoring the interactions between factors (natural and manmade). And things go from there. Fine, science-wise that is probably what interests her, and besides I have neither the inclination nor the expertise to criticize that line of response.
So what’s the problem? The quoted text at the top is similar to any number of such exchanges that crop in blogs and elsewhere—call it the generic ‘why, hell! CO2’s increasin’ and the temperature’s been flat as can be’ so/but …[fill according to preference…] argument/explanation. The thing that really puzzles me is an apparent acceptance or passing over of the immediate causality evoked in such discussions, by everyone involved. Are memories that short? A lot of people have different positions in the AGW debate, and with so many people and so much uncertainty particularly about the mechanisms and rate constants of all of the kinetic processes involved, I find it implausible that people would waste time on the simple comparisons, making much sound and fury, when it starts out with a short term comparison of CO2 and temperature over the same last few years. I don’t care about any details, this sort of development in a discussion just seems like a non-starter.
* Remember ‘instant’ is important concept here; that is, as formulated there is no lag—neither T after CO2 nor CO2 after T.
Good summary mwgrant. The points that you have raised have also given me reasons to pause …. causality between Temp and CO2 is very much moot.
Co-relation does not necessarily imply any direct link between two data series because there well may be something else that is affecting them both.
HI Peter Davies
Thanks for the reminder on that aspect of the co-variation of two variables. I was very occupied with implication of the same period of observation, and indeed in my comment I tried to de-emphasize causality–there is the footnote but perhaps that effort was still too clumsy. So a little clarification for my sake…
As practical matter plausible mechanisms exist for the thermalization and capture of a portion of incoming (solar) radiation by CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere. I do believe in scattering cross sections ;o). While co-variation of two variables does not by itself prove causality, co-variation in combination with plausible mechanism(s) is a commonly accepted but not fail-proof basis for causality. Thus using CO2 and temp co-variation to test for causality is not an unreasonable stretch. As always, with the failure of a test a concept is rewarded with the dustbin and with passing of a test it is rewarded with more testing and maybe eventual acceptance.
The one point is that I am focusing on in my comment is an assertion that variations of the statement “… while CO2 levels have continued to rise since 1997, warming has paused,” are not a good starting point for discussion or at best are extremely restricted starting points and hence, not very useful. The instantaneous aspects in ALL mechanisms required by the comparison are locked in and seem implausible on a global scale. What possible good is a discussion on a ill-poised question/comment?
Hi mwgrant
You must be a relative newcomer to this blog. I don’t read CE as much as I should but still regularly enough to know that you name hasn’t been seen before. Welcome anyway!
Your point is indeed valid as the original post seems to accept that the data series of temp and CO2 is affecting and is affected by each other intantaneously, which is a a no no as far as I am concerned..
First they came for the statistically manufactured hockey stick..and the CAGWers replied…the hockey stick is not necessary to justify decarbonizing the world.
Then they came for the tree bark proxies that infected paleo-climate reconstructions throughout the church of CAGW, and the CAGW acolytes replied…paleo-climate is not necessary to justify decarbonizing the world.
Then they came for the unverified, unvalidated climate models…and the CAGWers replied…the climate models are not necessary to justify decarbonizing the world.
Then they came for the politically manufactured consensus..and the CAGWers replied…the overt politicization of the IPCC and the “climate consensus” is irrelevant to the need to decarbonize the world.
Then they came for the temperature records which failed to support the predictions of the unverified, unvalidated climate models… and the CAGWers replied…it is warming even when recorded temperatures are not increasing, so the temperature records are not necessary to justify decarbonizing the world.
Then they voted in the U.S. elections in November, 2012, and they came for the budgets of the Church of the Most Holy CAGW…and lo and behold, the CAGWers had to go out and find real jobs.
And there was peace and quiet throughout the blogoshpere.
I’ll drink to that.
Look!
A squirrel that pays less taxes and gets rich by brankrupting companies!
R Gates,
Way up above somewhere you stated:
”Of course, as a side issue here, the close parallel between land surface and sea surface temperatures, with both rising and falling together, sort of blows a hole in Anthony Watts notion that the land surface temperatures have been grossly overestimated doesn’t it? Don’t think there’s much chance of UHI effects out in the middle of the Pacific. Time to tilt at some other windmills Anthony Don Quixote Watts…”
I think that is a rather unfair, but I may have been guilty in misleading you on an earlier “pause” thread here when I pointed out that whilst the last decade of global T’s was indeed the highest on the instrumental record, so too were the SST’s also the hottest decade according to the published data. (and both demonstrated a plateau).
Here is a plot from WoodForTrees (WFT) comparing Crutem3 land global with HadSST2 global. There are several reasons for comparing those two levels of data; the first is that WFT does not at the moment offer data for HadSST3. Another reason I’ll elaborate prior to the second link below.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1900/to:2012/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1900/to:2012
From the plot above according to HadCru you should be able to see that there was a close conformity between SST and Land-Air T’s up until the recent warming phase say starting at ~1980, but then followed a major deviation during that noted warming, whilst both elements more recently show distinct plateaus.
In the absence of WFT easily accessible plots for HadSST3, it seems appropriate to align Crutem3 with HadSST2. Additionally, here follows a comparison according to WFT between Hadcrut4 and Hadcrut3, in which I find the recent changes to be inexplicable.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2012
I can think of several possible explanations but do you R. Gates have any comments?
Two observations:
To me the most natural explanation for the effects seen in the comparison between Crutem3 and HadSST2 is that the main source of natural variability is in the oceans and that the average land area temperatures did follow that until the present warming started. Then the two curves deviate because Crutem3 reacts much more rapidly to the additional warming by CO2 while the thermal inertia slows down the warming of the oceans.
Looking at 12-month averages in the comparison of HADCRUT3 and HADCRUT4 we see that the latter has been a little (typically 0.05C) warmer most of the time. Only over periods 1935-45, 1970-90 and 1997-1999 have the time series been very close to each other. Thus the recent deviation is not at all exceptional.
Pekka, the deviation was unusual enough to cause an email about it and the subsequent removal of a graph from the GISS web site.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/curious-case-of-disappeared-nasa-graph.html
Actually, the recent deviation is somewhat exceptional. Just comparing global land and ocean doesn’t show much, you need to compare regions then you see a land amplification that “highlights” ocean oscillations. One of the more interesting changes is the recent (80s) change in the slope of the diurnal temperature trend. That is a pretty major clue that doesn’t get mentioned much.
Pekka, since you are in Scandinavia, you should have noticed the 1989 to 1990 climate shift.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vWiC80TweKg/UIVQljNNVsI/AAAAAAAAFGY/XWAWwaeVaB0/s800/hemisphers%2520versus%2520tropics.png
By comparing the hemispheres to the tropical temperatures, you can see the shift of heat content from neutral, to north or south and the different amplification due to the land/ocean ratio of the hemispheres. Kinda looks like the two hemispheres have different sensitivities to forcings.
The hemispheres are very different. Southern hemisphere has much smaller continental areas than the Northern hemisphere and excluding Antarctic they are at lower latitudes. For these reasons it is to be expected that the Southern hemisphere continents follow more closely the SST development.
All this is strong support for the dominant role of CO2 in the recent warming.
Pekka, “All this is strong support for the dominant role of CO2 in the recent warming.” CO2 does part of the amplification, land use change also has a role. Picking out what did what is the challenge. Since the CO2 amplification should not change the sign of the diurnal temperature trend, that is a pretty good indication that land heat capacity changes are pretty strong.
Virgin land would have an average heat capacity of roughly 2 kJ/liter which can decrease to ~0.8 kJ/liter with land use or “drying”. That is a long term amplification I have not seen properly considered. Plus you have the snow line recession and general “drying” of the warming environment.
A lot easier to see the relevent data with a 24-month mean on the plot:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1900/to:2012/mean:24/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1900/to:2012/mean:24
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:2012/mean:24/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2012/mean:24
David
Alternatively we can use the information directly from the Met office.
Here are the three Hadley global records from 1850 to 2011. All appear to show a cooling or at least a pause this century.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
In the real world of individual data sets, many of these also show distinct recent cooling according to BEST. These are best exemplified by CET, also kept by the Met office, which appear also to have some relevance as a proxy for global temperatures
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Where it goes from here I don’t know. Its been warming for 350 years so the chances are it will continue.
tonyb
Tony B
Your Met Office graphs clearly show the current “pause” (or downward trend) in global temperature, which the DM article by David Rose reported.
This recorded fact seems to be so painful for some posters here that they attack the messenger (DM or Rose) or (worse yet) even deny its existence.
I agree with you that we do not know “where it goes from here”. And I also agree that it is likely that the long-time average warming trend of 0.05C per decade will resume.
Your approach of looking at really long-term regional trends (CET) as a proxy for global trends seems to make sense (unfortunately, the Met Office graph you cited only goes back to 1772).
We know from several different locations that it was much cooler than today 200+ years ago, despite recurrent cycles of warming interspersed with cycles of cooling (such as we had 1940-1970 and may be starting to have now).
And we also know that the correlation between global average temperature and atmospheric CO2 is statistically not very robust, so that something else must also “be at work” to cause the gradual warming (or “slow thaw”, as you’ve dubbed it).
Max
Max
The Met office data clearly show the cooling/pause. Why are all the wamists here denying it and creating their own charts when the work has already been done for them by the originators of the data?
I’ve been reading an interesting book -published pre 1970-that confirms how good CET is as a proxy for global temperatures. It cited a study by our friend GS Callendar no less.
1772 is the start date of the Parker work on CET. 1659 is the Manley work. The Met office tend to use the former as its a daily reading rather than a monthly composite.
I think the really interesting question to be asked is why its been warming (with numerous advances and retreats) for so long thereby illustrating that \Giss and Hadley are merely staging posts and not the starting post for warming.
However no one seems to be bothered to answer this question even though many studies, mine, BEST,Loehle the two shown on WUWT last week,.all seem to point to this reality
tonyb
There appear to be cyclic millenial forces raising and lowering temperature. Whether these are truly cyclic, or the accidental path of random walking is a large question.
===========
Kim
Something is happenng with a long term warming typfied by cooling/warming periods/cycles agains a rising trend. No one appears to be looking at this long term trend perhaps because-like-the hockey stick-the giss and hadley charts are so beguiling in apparently showing the start of the warming. It appears however that they are merely marks along a much longer route.
tonyb
Very interesting graphs Bob, and to answer your questions I’ll need to do a bit of investigation into these specific data sets.
A few things in general though, and I know I’ve droned on about this before, so I’ll be brief:
A more accurate comparison of global ocean/land energy imbalances would be GISS (since they use Arctic data), and ocean heat content down to 2000 meters. If you can, it would be worthwhile to plot these on the same graph. Now of course I well understand the issues with ocean heat content measurements, especially prior to 2003 or so, but I think there is enough reliability to give you a good picture of the overall energy imbalance effects rippling down to the atmosphere and oceans as reflected by the 1 w/m^2 TOA imbalance induced by the rising levels of greenhouse gases.
“A more accurate comparison of global ocean/land energy imbalances would be GISS (since they use Arctic data), and ocean heat content down to 2000 meters.” Provided you have considered the proper lag times of the energy transfer.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vWiC80TweKg/UIVQljNNVsI/AAAAAAAAFGY/XWAWwaeVaB0/s800/hemisphers%2520versus%2520tropics.png
I just made that chart for Pekka. There is roughly a 27 year lag in OH uptake and atmospheric impact. That would be an oscillation. The NH surface air temperatures are amplified by that roughly 27 year lag.
Now what would be nice, is if the different data products were regionally focused instead of Globally, then it would be easy to illustrate how distribution of heat capacity impacts “climate” without requiring an increase in overall heat capacity.
The January 2007 issue is not a problem .It is just the way the X Axis is laid out .The “07” marker is actually mid year! Therefore the Jan 2007 spike appears to be in 2006!!
Check out my graph which makes this clear.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/more-met-office-propaganda/
Good to see everyone getting along so well here.
My concern is that the “renewable/green energy companies” will be considered too big to fail. We know that an inordinate amount of taxpayer and consumer money has been poured into these industries and it would be quite sad if more grants, subsidies, cheap loans or bail outs were given to them. I say this because they are all, with a few small niche exceptions, going to go out of business without further subsidisation and we taxpayers know too much now to let this squandering of our cash carry on.
Good to see the alarmist trolls have been even more in evidence than usual on this thread. Shows that the DM article has really got up their noses. Deep joy in the fundamold:
Stanley Unwin’s remarks makes a lot more sense than many of the alarmist posters here…Fan, Webbie, Willard, Joshua etc should all watch and learn.
Perhaps they too think that they trace their writing styles back to Lewis Carroll’s Jabberwocky, but the trick is to retain just enough of the sense in among the nonsense, guys!
re: “writing styles”
Latie is obviously about style over substance.
The substance of his argument over climate change is to say he is not satisfied. For example, Latimer claims that climate change has not occurred because the pH of the ocean has not changed to his satisfaction. He has not found research reports to his satisfaction. Etc.
Since the substance is not there, Latimer tends to use multiple sock-puppets, invent imaginary characters to spout fictional dialog, and otherwise drop witticisms.
Is that clear?
@web hub telescope
I fear that you have not being paying attention to my remarks with the concentration they deserve.
I do not claim that ‘climate change’ has not occurred because the pH of the ocean has not changed to my satisfaction’.
But I do point out that there is minimal c. 100 data points only – and only from one observation point that even suggest that the pH of the ocean is changing at all. And since ‘ocean neutralisation’ (often incorrectly called ‘ocean acidification’) is supposedly one of the catastrophic consequences of an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, it is very surprising that nobody has bothered to actually go and check that it’s really happening by measuring it.
It took somewhere between 10 and 100 million temperature observations from several thousand widely dispersed observation points to really ‘prove’ that ‘global warming’ was occurring at all twenty years ago. We have less than one hundred thousandth as many real measurements for ocean pH change.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my research into the ‘evidence’ for ocean pH change.
Sometimes I feel that my point can best be made with a little playlet and so I write one. If you are shocked to discover that in such a piece the characters may not always be entirely based on complete fact, then you need to watch more soap operas on TV. Satire, skits and irony have been an established part of UK culture for several hundred years (see for example John Wilkes, Jonathan Swift, Hogarth, Monty Python)…far more so than in the States. Live with it.
Latimer Alder
The data would indicate that you’ve got it right (on the purported ocean “acidification”) and Webby is wrong.
There may be a tiny number of spot measurements, which point to an almost imperceptible reduction of ocean pH, but the data are too spotty to be conclusive to date.
One thing is apparent from the Mauna Loa CO2 data and CDIAC estimates of human CO2 missions.
Around half of the CO2 emitted by humans is measured as increase in the atmosphere and the rest is “disappearing” somewhere.
The “consensus” assumption is that “somewhere” is the ocean (but, as indicated, there are no data to support this assumption).
It is generally known that plants absorb more CO2 (and grow faster) at higher CO2 levels.
The same is theoretically true of the oceans: they should absorb more CO2 at higher atmospheric concentrations.
But it has also gotten slightly warmer over time.
A slight global warming should have the effect of increasing average total plant growth.
But a higher ocean temperature should decrease average CO2 absorption by the oceans.
So intuitively one would guess that a larger proportion of the “missing CO2” should be going into added plant growth rather than increased ocean pH.
The percentage of the CO2 emitted by humans that is “missing” has increased over time.
From 1959 (when Mauna Loa started) to today there has been a linear decrease of around 1% per decade in the %-age of CO2 “remaining” in the atmosphere. A comparison of the long-term emission rates and increase in atmospheric CO2 shows:
From 1959 to 1990 285 GtCO2 were emitted, while atmospheric concentration increased by 38.3 ppmv.
(Using a net total atmospheric mass of 4,900,000 Gt, this equals 55.0% “remaining” in atmosphere.
From 1990 to 2010 266 GtCO2 were emitted, while atmospheric concentration increased by 35.8 ppmv.
(Using a net total atmospheric mass of 4,900,000 Gt, this equals 50.6% “remaining” in atmosphere.
So the percentage of the CO2 emitted by humans, which “remains” in the atmosphere, is shrinking as atmospheric concentrations as well as global temperatures are rising.
Based on the observations of increased plant growth at higher CO2 levels plus the observed slightly higher ocean temperature, it is reasonable to conclude that most of the additional “missing CO2” has gone into enhanced plant growth rather than “ocean acidification”.
It always helps to look at the data.
Max
Missing carbon, missing heat. In the garden, by a pea plant, with its chlorophyll.
============
typo: paragraph 11 should say:
“…added plant growth rather than
increaseddecreased ocean pH.”Max
“And since ‘ocean neutralisation’ (often incorrectly called ‘ocean acidification’)”
No, it’s ocean acidification. A drop in pH can be legitimately referred to as acidification.
Acidosis is said to occur when arterial pH falls below 7.35 (except in the fetus- see below), while its counterpart (alkalosis) occurs at a pH over 7.45.
There
“It took somewhere between 10 and 100 million temperature observations from several thousand widely dispersed observation points to really ‘prove’ that ‘global warming’ was occurring at all twenty years ago. We have less than one hundred thousandth as many real measurements for ocean pH change.”
I seem to recall the atmospheric CO2 trend was established initially from just one location (mauna loa).
Isn’t that the more obvious parallel for pH decline rather than temperature?
Unless of course you are just looking to deny it.
Ocean pH drop is well founded both in measurements and from expectations based on chemistry. The fact is ocean pH is dropping and it’s dropping at a rate that may be unprecedented for millions of years (or even forever).
@lolwot
‘Ocean pH drop is well founded both in measurements…’
Please show the measurements which you are citing. A link to where they can be downloaded would be even better.
‘A drop in pH can be legitimately referred to as acidification.
Acidosis is said to occur when arterial pH falls below 7.35 (except in the fetus- see below), while its counterpart (alkalosis) occurs at a pH over 7.45.’
Non sequitur. You write of ‘acidification’ (a process). Your reference discusses acidosis (a medical condition). Different things, different applications. Irrelevant.
@lolwot
And btw, the ocean pH is hovering around 8.1-8.2. if it were relevant, it would be firmly suffering from alkalosis, not from acidosis. Just thought you’d like to know.
@lolwot
‘Isn’t that the more obvious parallel for pH decline rather than temperature?’
Nope.
pH is known to vary greatly with many factors around the world. Seawater is not a well-mixed fluid like the atmosphere. To show a true global pH change, you need to analyse samples from all around the world over a lengthy period of time…just as was done with temperature. A single point to analyse pH is not very helpful in isolation it tells you just about the very local conditions….no more does the max/min thermometer in my back garden tell the whole story of ‘global warming’
And as a one time chemist myself I am familiar with ‘having expectations’, only to discover that Mother Nature still had some interesting tricks in store. ‘Expectations’ are not the same as observations. Observations are evidence. Expectations are hopes. Different things,
The ocran is supersaturated in aragonite. That and calcium compensation will ensure that oceans pH doesn’t for at least a century and only then in the southern oceans. Although this one says 450ppm – http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18860.full
Simple carbonate chemistry. If limestone is dissolving – or the oceans are becoming less saturated in carbonate – then pH can’t decrease.
I should do more editing…oh well…
“Since 1990, surface ocean pH has directly been measured or calculated at several locations, with the average recent decrease estimated as 0.0019 pH units per year at the Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT; close to the site of long-term atmospheric CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa) [12]; 0.0017 per year based on transects in the North Pacific [13]; 0.0012 per year at the Bermuda Atlantic Time-Series (BATS) [14] and 0.0017 per year at the European Station for Time-Series in the Ocean at the Canary Islands (ESTOC) [15]. There can, however, be relatively large interannual variability, likely to be caused by variability in CO2 flux rates [16].”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3405667/
“Non sequitur. You write of ‘acidification’ (a process). Your reference discusses acidosis (a medical condition). Different things, different applications. Irrelevant.”
Good point. Ocean Acidification is the name for a drop in pH of the oceans. Even if acidification is used differently in some other field, remember: different things, different applications, irrelevant.
“pH is known to vary greatly with many factors around the world. Seawater is not a well-mixed fluid like the atmosphere.”
Looks like even within a month it’s within a range of 7.9 to 8.2.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/oceanph.jpg
CO2 is within 365 to 380.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Nasa_AIRS_CO2_July03.jpg
Which one is well mixed?
“To show a true global pH change, you need to analyse samples from all around the world over a lengthy period of time…just as was done with temperature.”
No, not necessarily.
@lolwot
You compare pH (modelled as having a range of 7.9–> 8.2) with co2 concentration (measured as 365 to 380) to suggest that they are both ‘well-mixed’. Your comparison is false as you are not comparing equivalent things.
For while CO2 concentration is measured on a linear scale, pH is a logarithmic one. So the true comparison is between the underlying ratios which are 1.00 to 1,04 and 1.00 to 1.38 respectively. The seawater is much less well mixed than CO2 in the atmosphere.
That such a wide variation (much the same ratio as global temperature extremes 230K–>320K) exists is a powerful reason not to rely on just a few observations taken over just a few years.
And that ‘There can, however, be relatively large interannual variability’ – as mentioned in the quotation you gave, gives yet further reason to investigate this are thoroughly rather than rely on just a few measurements from just a few places over a short period.
Your assertion that it is not necessary:
‘To show a true global pH change, you need to analyse samples from all around the world over a lengthy period of time…just as was done with temperature’
is not true.
NOAA
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/faq/faq_fig2.php
Wu et al:
http://bit.ly/PvS3Ot
Secular GMST Trend = 0.08 deg C per decade
IPCC’s GMST Trend = 0.2 deg C Per decade
IPCC’s trend and therefore forcing multiplication factor = 0.2/0.08 = 2.5
True Climate Sensitivity = IPCC’s Climate Sensitivity/2.5
= 3/2.5 = 1.2 deg C for doubling of CO2.
Correction for the second URL
http://bit.ly/QN0rqq
In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain.
Folks, we still have “freedom of the press” and “freedom of speech” in most democratic societies.
Are we going to change this by adding the phrase “as long as it’s politically correct”?
And are we going to let our governments tell us what is and what isn’t “politically correct”?
We already have this in limiting “hate speech or racial comments” (and I guess that’s OK, since such comments are repulsive.
But to expand it to include expressing any views on climate change, which “conflict with the consensus view” is going a step too far.
The idiots that support such a thing need to be removed from political office, no matter what country they are in.
Max
Look!
A Millian squirrel!
NB. Chief, for more background, v. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#HarPriFreSpe
Free speech without the right to offend is a contradiction in terms.
“It should be noted simple linear regression using ordinary least squares is not really the best method for assessing these data as it depends on assumptions which are violated by global temperature measurements. Nevertheless, it can be used to show that Rose’s claim that “from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures” is entirely false.”
A self-refuting statistical argument. Kind of like jumping on the toilet handle and diving into the bowl.
Pardon me, Dr. Curry, for being a bit off topic but, I agree, that is a much nicer picture of you in the new article! ;)
On Skepticalscience, there is an article written by dana1981 and Tamino that argues that Judith Curry is a denier, citing articles written by dana1981, Nuccitelli (aka dana1981), Tamino, Foster (aka Tamino) and linking to other articles written by Skepticalscience (aka themselves).
Scooter likes playing in his own sandbox. Someday he might grow up.
timg56,
Let’s hope so, for otherwise, it might look like this:
> You can’t fool me Mr. Feynmann. It’s Pielke’s all the way down.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/438519809
See also a sequel:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.ca/2011/01/pielkes-all-way-down-revisited.html
Shub,
Is this the article you have in mind?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/rose-curry-double-down-denial.html
This article looks a lot like the one that appeared on the Guadian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong
I’m not sure, because it does not seem to be “written by dana1981 and Tamino”.
If you are not referring to this op-ed, would you mind providing a link?
Many thanks!
A link? From Shub? That’s not the way Shub does business at all ;-)
Yes, I’m both dana1981 and Dana Nuccitelli. Your SkS link is a follow-up to the Guardian piece, which was picked up from SkS. They look similar since Rose and Curry repeated a lot of the same nonsense in both of their articles.
Sixteen years scatter
Sand as through a glass darkly.
Icicles bounce out.
==========
lolwot
Global warming has stopped since the beginning of this century as shown =>
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
The longterm trend continued past the beginning of this century.
The warming continues. Uninterrupted.
Your credibility decline continues unabated.
+1
I keep on looking to see how it is warmer today than it was in 1997. And it isn’t. It has not warmed.
Example
Since 1965 I have grown about 18 inches taller. But none of that growth has been since about 1971. I grew a lot while I was a teenager then stopped. I could still draw a straight line with a non-zero gradient between 1965 and today, but it would not tell us anything useful about my height.
Lolwot seems to be completely incapable of grasping this point. At fist I thought he genuinely didn’t understand. But now I being to wonder….
Whistling in the dark to keep his spirits up?
I bet you received a gold star from your kindergarten teacher for being persistent. But probably none for ever being right.
You must be referring to Girma, right?
He of the kindergarten level of intellect.
If not, why not?
Why don’t you skeptics go after your fellow skeptics who practice such shoddy research and make claims with the most threadbare of evidence?
All people like lolwot and myself are trying to do is put a throttle on The Stupid.
Sounds like a lot of self throttling must be happening.
@dennis adams
+1
sadly no skeptic has yet been able to back up their claim the warming since 1970 has stopped with evidence.
Note that plotting an OLS trend since 1997 is a flawed method that reports warming stops even when it doesn’t
Noting that warming has stopped since 1997, lolwot says this does not show warming has stopped. Pure genius.
@lolwot
‘The warming continues uninterrupted’
How do you know, since it is undetectable by any technical mechanism known to man? The temperature is the same now as it was 15 years ago. Where is the warming? Why is not affecting the temperature? What experiment would you make to show that it was there? Why have you not done so?
Or is it a faith-based thingy for you?
Dear Latimer
Have a look at Cohen et al. (2012) Asymmetric seasonal temperature trends. You will discover several very interesting things.
First, as I have already mentioned, *land* surface temperatures have not stopped rising. Very far from it, in fact. Second – and I have a feeling you didn’t know this – NH extratropical land surface temperatures are the main determinant of global average temperature estimates. Third, and I bet you didn’t know this either – it’s *only* the boreal winters that are trending flat. T for the rest of the year is trending up at an impressive rate well in excess of 0.2C/decade. About double that, in fact.
From Asymmetric seasonal temperature trends:
Cohen and co-workers set out their hypothesis as to what might be causing this flat trend in boreal DJF temperatures in a separate study, also published this year, entitled Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling:
Unfortunately, the last time I drew these studies to your attention we had a minor falling out about what constitutes actually reading something. Let’s try again. Look at them now – especially the first paper – and especially at its Fig. 3 (a) which you will find at the end of the main text.
Fig 3 shows a regional and seasonal analysis of CRUTEM3. Panel (a) shows CRUTEM3 poleward of 20°N from 1988 – 2010 for the four seasons: winter (DJF), spring (MAM), summer (JJA), and autumn (SON). The decadal trends (degrees C) for that period are:
DJF – 0.07
MAM – 0.39
JJA – 0.38
SON – 0.49
Well isn’t that interesting? Warming has not stopped. Not even close.
@bbd
OK – so it gets a bit warmer in some places and bit cooler in others and it all averages out to the same answer = zero.
Big deal.
It is still nett zero. The globe is not warming.
Why is this simple point, capable of being understood by a class of 7 year olds, so difficult for supposedly ‘clever’ academic types to accept?
Wrong! And worse, facile. You *still* haven’t looked at Asymmetrical seasonal heating trends and in particular Fig 3 (a) have you? The globe is getting warmer. It’s our metric for global average temperature that the problem. It is misleading (some of) us.
There are three further points to consider. First, this is a transient ‘offsetting’ phase – as forcing continues and temperatures continue to rise, even the DJF NH winter flat trend will be overprinted.
Second, this is *unexpected*. It doesn’t emerge from modelling. Nobody saw this coming. If you find that comforting, you aren’t thinking.
Third, you are ignoring what is happening now in the summer. Remember Hansen, Sato & Ruedy (2012)?
HSR12 contains many interesting figures, but this one is particular relevant here. Note the comparison between global June-July-August (top row) and NH land JJA (bottom row). Goodness me. It’s global warming.
Perhaps the ‘academic types’ you seem to think are so thick are actually seeing further and more clearly than you do. Certainly they are not afflicted by a faith-based conviction that there’s no problem and nothing to worry about. That would be because they are credentialled experts, and understand what is happening and its implications better than the rest of us.
BBD, ” It’s our metric for global average temperature that the problem. It is misleading (some of) us.”
More like “most”
BBD and LA,
From Fig. 3 of the Cohen et al paper we can see that the effect you mention is strongest ain Scandinavia and Finland. Therefore I checked the pages of the Finnish meteorological institute. The most relevant pages are unfortunately available only in Finnish, but the graphs speak for themselves. The time series for the three winter months are in the middle of this page
http://ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/talvitilastot
The most obvious observation from those graphs is that the winter temperatures vary hugely from year to year (13 C for a three-month average is huge). Such a variability makes all trends also highly variable. Therefore the outcome is highly dependent on the choice of periods. It’s not possible to conclude much from data that’s dominated by this kind of behavior. The cold spells cover large enough areas to influence significantly also averages taken over wider areas like the extratropical NH land areas.
In contrast the variability is much less during the other seasons, spring, summer, and autumn.
What is a good indicator for global warming and what is not, is a complex issue. The winter temperatures of cold areas is one of the strongest sources of noisy and potentially misleading data as the surface temperatures vary so strongly based on weather related phenomena.
If it’s, indeed, true that the apparent pause in warming is mostly due to these least significant temperature observations then we have a good reason to say that the warming has not stopped at all, not even temporarily.
Jump downthread to where Lattie has relocated this discussion.
@bbd
Not me. WordPress does strange things occasionally – as has been frequently commented on here and on other wordpress blogs.
I am absolutely content that my remarks are seen in their correct context. There is no point n making a comment that is not going to be read. If I see that a comment has been misplaced , I try to put a link there so that the story can be continued.
Since I also try to always start them with a correct header (e,g ‘@bbd’, see above) you can use the handy find feature of your browser (CTRL +F) to quickly locate them in case of misplacement.
But the more you try to find nits to pick in the mechanics of the discussion, the more it seems that you are avoiding the substance.
Oh don’t be so hard on lolwot, Latimer, he’s hardly the only cagw-ite running on blind faith. The entire ‘consensus’ is the same.
In simple terms for lolwot and other Guardian/BBC types motivated primarily by a desire for more excuses for taxes : the globe ceased warming 16 years go. That’s it. Try and absorb that first.
Now, it may resume one day, or it may go into decline, but that is another point.
In 1997 you were claiming warming ceased in 1987.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:1997/trend
You were wrong to do so then. You are wrong to do so now.
What are you smoking lolwot?? In 1997 I don’t think I’d even heard of global warming. And all I’ve done now, is observe the blatantly obvious fact of flat temperatures of late. So your claims of wrongness on my part, are themselves very obviously wrong. But you already know that, you’re not known for letting mere facts trouble you much.
More importantly, there is an enormous difference between 10 and 15 years of data, and there is no indication 1987 was a change point whereas there is (at least) some indication ~1998 was.
In other words, the more important thing is lolwot is creating a straw man.
The fact is that if you imagine sticking an OLS trend over a period is a good test of whether warming has stopped you’d have wrongly concluded warming had stopped in 1987.
All that matters is whether the longterm trend continues.
It’s called a rhetorical device. I transported you and your argument back to 1998 to show why I disagreed. Your test of “the globe ceased warming” seems to be simply noting a flat trend since X. In which case you would have concluded warming stopped in 1987.
Why not?
lolwot | October 23, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Reply
“It’s called a rhetorical device.”
Indubitably. AGW in general is nothing more than a rhetorical device so you really can’t avoid the use of rhetoric in support of it.
Peter Martin (Tempterrain),
Way-up above somewhere you wrote:
”I’m just using the smoothing tools as provided for in Excel. So if its good enough for Bill Gates….”
Unfortunately, whilst you claim that Prior Moving Average (PMA) computation is good enough for Bill Gates it is not actually a smoothing tool for time-series data. The application that you use in EXCEL whilst good for commerce and industry in analysing prior performance and the like is not OK for smoothing time-series data. You should use the Centre Moving Average (CMA) method as do all scientific authorities as far as I’ve ever seen. For instance, here is a rainfall plot from the Oz BOM onto which I arbitrarily selected and plotted an 11-year smoothing:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=11
Notice how the smoothing line stops five years short of the end of the unsmoothed data. (Year six is the target year, with 5 years before and after). If you might like to learn more, perhaps go to the slider calculator above the graph where you can replot the smoothing time span from between 3 and 15 years.
A TIP FOR YOU PETER:
Why not use the easier WoodForTrees calculator rather than in your devotion to the scientifically incapable EXCEL?
Here I’ve plotted for your careful consideration; http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2012/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2012/mean:60/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1900/to:2012/mean:120/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2012/mean:240
HADCRUT3 monthly (red) and have overlaid four different arbitrary smoothings:
• Green = 12 month averaging
• Blue = 5-year averaging
• Purple = 10-year averaging
• Pale blue = 20 year averaging
Notice how the academics can thus portray a very different picture by selecting a smoothing interval that best fits their purpose whilst appearing to have done so “scientifically”.
Sorry,
Did not close the bold tag in my comment above
Global temperature has continued to fall.
And warming ain’t coming back for another 100,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
My bold.
So, where’s the data and physics to show that carbon dioxide can reverse this pattern?
Which has been going on for a lot longer than the last 350 years, and the temperatures here have been in the continuing downward slide from the Holocene Maximum.
Who’d have thought it, people interested in science with no concept of differences in scale.
The last 100 years of warming has bucked the cooling trend.
Another ice age isn’t due for thousands of years. In the meantime expect an extreme heat super-interglacial caused by human emissions.
lolwot
You do realize I hope that there have always been periods of warming during long term cooling trends. The additional CO2 now may have delayed a return to the cold trend or it could be a natural warming trend combined with additional CO2, or we could return to long term cooling. I doubt any scientist can honestly state they know which of these conditions are actually in effect currently
I am sure a lot of scientists can honestly state they know we have more warming ahead!
To evaluate the alleged honesty of these statements we need to look closely at
l- does the party who is paying them have a vested interest in them saying this ?
– is this opinion reassuringly consistent with their social and political outlook?
– have they by their silence honestly signalled their satisfaction with practices such as exposed in Climategate?
In the meantime expect an extreme heat super-interglacial caused by human emissions.
Based on the word of demonstrably crooked, politically-financed and motivated scientists who see nothing wrong with hiding data, sabotaging peer review etc etc, whose paymaster – the state – stands to gain handsomely from their alarmist propaganda, regardless of whether there turns out to be a any truth in it.
No, based on evidence Erica. Evidence that stands the test of time.
There is precious little evidence as yet lolwot. And the little evidence we do have – the models – has been wrongfooted by the .current temperaure plateau. Perhaps reality will be more respectful of the models in time, who knows? Why are you desperate for cagw to be true though ?
Michael E. Mann@MichaelEMann
David Rose & Judith Curry double down w/ their denial of #globalwarming (http://bit.ly/Rfh6Vx ). Debunked by @Guardian http://bit.ly/RjCNDr
Retweeted by Scott A Mandia
—————
Hopefully the majority of scientists lat some point soon realise by their silence, they endorse Mann.
Hopefully the majority of scientists will at some point also realise that by their silence, they endorse Climategate and the various other alarmist frauds.
Which is why their general credibility is still stuck in the toilet.
you can’t put the [16 years of flat temperatures] genie back in the bottle.
Latimer, Latimer, Latimer … with political correctness and funding in charge , NOTHING is impossible.
Erica
We are up here now. There seems to be plenty of semantics going on in this thread whilst looking at Met office graphs through half closed eyes.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-259162
tonyb
Interesting to reflect that a child who entered the UK school system in 1997 when they were 5 years old is now 21. And in all that time, despite endless ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ propaganda in the educational ‘consensus’, it is a phenomenon that they will never have experienced. Like my Dad telling me stores of WW2 … things I heard about, but didn’t know.
So we have a whole adult generation for whom climate change is no more ‘real’ than the trenches of WW1 or the Apollo Moon Landings or Wimbledon winning the FA Cup. No wonder they don’t seem any more inclined to worry about it than the rest of us.
Latimer
What has bemused me throughout this thread is the ignoring by certain people of the Met office data in favour of creating their own graphs. The Met office graphs show what they show.That includes an apparent drop in temperatures globally (or a stasis if you close your eyes hard) and a distinct drop in CET (albeit it remains at high levels) which represents a substantial number of cooling stations (which vary in their statistical significance)
tonyb
> What has bemused me throughout this thread is the ignoring by certain people of the Met office data in favour of creating their own graphs.
Look! The numerical squirrel reappeared elsewhere in the thread!
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Numerical squirrel!
Is it an Esquirrel?
Willard
Perhaps its time to give the squirrel gag a rest.
People have created their own data and ignored the Met Office data. Its one reason this thread has reached over 650 comments.
Its currently cooling or in stasis. Thats very interesting. At some point, if it continues, that will become statistically very interesting and people will have to take notice. That time is not yet unless the trend drops notably. I’ve no idea whether it will or not.
tonyb
tonyb,
Thank you for your suggestion.
Let me see if I can convey my point by other means:
I believe that this blog post is about David Rose’s op-ed.
This op-ed is an answer to some of his criticisms.
What you call the Met data is barely relevant to this.
In other words, you’re asking us to focus on what you believe should be our main concern.
You’re coatracking your own pet theme on this topic.
Et cetera.
Please tell me which way you prefer me to tell you that you’re misdirecting the discussion.
***
If you’re to mention my name or Bart R’s, perhaps you should put something on the table regarding David Rose’s serial misrepresentations. Here is my summary of the main criticisms:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-258400
Many thanks!
Willard said
“I believe that this blog post is about David Rose’s op-ed.This op-ed is an answer to some of his criticisms.What you call the Met data is barely relevant to this”
Roses piece is entirely about the Met office data. (plus CRU) and was a specific reply to the Met office criticism of his original article. I have the printed article in front of me now.
Rose would have examined the Met office site and come across a variety of data . I posted a link to this data which showed three global graphs. I also linked to CET-another Met office product- as a demonstration as to why it might be cooling. That is to say there are stations within the overall data that show cooling and CET is one of them, this will affect the overall average. Forgive me, but why is this ‘barely relevant.’ and how am i guilty of ‘misdirection’ when the graphs are wholly relevant to the thread?
Since the thread started we have had a variiety of people either endorsing Roses article and his general thrust that there has been no recent warming, or those vehemently denying it. We all know who they are as there is a strong element of tribalism on this blog.
I merely wanted to point to the basic data available on the Met office site (an organisation I visit frequently in order to use their archives) and ask those saying Rose was wrong to explain why, in simple terms, when the Met office graphs seemed to show he was basically correct.
I will read your link about your main criticisms.
tonyb
willard: “On the 2010-12-05, David Rose told his readers that AGW has stopped in the 1990s.”
########## roll tape to see the exact claim
“Actually, with the exception of 1998 – a ‘blip’ year when temperatures spiked because of a strong ‘El Nino’ effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) – the data on the Met Office’s and CRU’s own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.
They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system’s acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.”
When you are tracking down liars it is important to get their false claims stated accurately. . Rose here also had cover fire from Phil jones who had just claimed there was no warming since 1995. Of course Rose cites Jones. Pretty simple, Rose repeats Jones claim. Phil was in error. Rose lied. Simples
willard :”On the 2011-10-30, David Rose told his readers that “there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties”.”
############# Roll tape.
Reading the article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html) I cannot find the quote which willard attributes to Rose. It is bad form to mis quote when one is accusing another of lying. Perhaps I missed it. If so I stand corrected.
Perhaps willard was referring to this:
“in fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.”
So Rose did not tell his readers, Rose purports to quote CURRY.
However, what Rose does in this article is basically provide a stage for Muller and Curry to fight it out. That is all that is required of someone with Rose’s agenda. #########
willard: “”Three months later, David Rose recycled the same story.”
technically its not the same story. as time marches on the “pause gets longer and longer. That like arguing somebody who reports an increasing in warming is repeating the same story.
##################
willard” On 2012-10-14, David Rose told his readers that “there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties”.
In these articles, David Rose omitted the fact that 12 of the 13 warmest years on record have all occurred since the end of 2000.”
################
that fact has nothing to do with the trend in the data. Call this willard fooled by his lack of math skills. There are many ways people have tried to SPIN the pause
Skeptic Spin: AGW is falsified
Believer Spin: Look at the ice! Look at the extremes! Look
at ranked data! Squirrels.
The great squirrel hunter wants to fault Rose for failing to pay attention to the 12 of 13 years squirrel, a fact which has nothing whatsover to do with the trend of the last 16 years being flat or non flat. durr basic math.
There is one way to approach the pause: do the math then do the science to figure out why mother nature has given us this gift of data that doesnt quite fit our expectations perfectly. Its a potential gold mine. While we were watching with better observation tools than any time before we get this patch of data that inflames both sides. Bonus for the curious. Some curious scientists have started to look at it. Ar5 has a section on it.
#############
willard: “David Rose admitted to cherrypicking the end points of his graph.”
Guilty as admitted by the suspect
willard” Even by granting him this cherry-pick, David Rose’s claim is false.”
Less clear. I would say his claim is not established. This is a nice quibble which I recently discovered in a conversation with some scientists. I wanted to say say X was wrong, wiser folks suggested that “X’s claim is not established” is more professional. go figure.
willard: “With his last article, David Rose used a fake graph.”
While his chart passes the briffa/jones/mann standard for graphical techniques allowed to maintain clear support for the “message”, his chart does not use best practices.
Question: is david rose a liar? I dunno. My standard is that he would have to say something he knows to be false. Is david Rose trustworthy? Not on your life. If he says X, you better double check it. Kinda like checking on willard. Oh, for the record, you guys should not trust me. check everything I say. I’m often wrong.
Moshpit,
Thank you for your rolled tapes.
I’ll return later, if you don’t mind. Probably tomorrow. No time for now, except for three caveats:
First, I was reformulating Bob Ward’s claims in his article, thus meeting Latimer Adler’s challenge. Meeting this challenge does not commit me to endorse what Bob said. I’ll see for myself tomorrow where I stand on this matter, and on other matters I might discover along the way.
Second, we should bear in mind that it’s possible to tell someone two different things with the same claim. That Jones said something does not imply that Rose says the same thing as Jones. We should remind ourselves that we’re dealing with a serial misrepresenter, and that we’re using sentences as evidence for claims. Claims are conveyed with sentences without being sentences themselves.
Third, we should bear in mind that David Rose has already acquired the taste for misrepresenting. This taste does not rest on this simple rolling of the tape.
That said, I will return as soon as I can.
My name is my honor.
w
Salby also speaks about the divergence (pause, plateau, hiatus etc.):
– – – – – – –
Judith,
Nicely put and thank you for keeping the discussion alive in a front and center venue.
The most important aspect is potential for the continuing education of us all toward a more enlightened scientific perspective. By all I mean to include academia being more educated/ enlightened as well.
I eliminate the possibility of enlightenment of the UN’s IPCC because in my view it was set up to exclude all knowledge except what supports a biased ‘a priori’ belief in the existence of destructive AGW by CO2. The IPCC should be bypassed by a non-governmental voluntary assessment effort at a minimum and at a maximum dissolved with extreme intellectual prejudice.
John
Peter Davies;
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-258370
”Good summary mwgrant. The points that you have raised have also given me reasons to pause …. causality between Temp and CO2 is very much moot.
Co-relation does not necessarily imply any direct link between two data series because there well may be something else that is affecting them both.”
I appreciate the attitude of Peter Davies to the causation of the recent climate warming. As far as I am aware this kind of openness is an evidence of qualifications to understand difficulties of interdisciplinary climate problems.
During recent three decades I myself have experienced all the development from the belief in CO2 as the main cause of temperature changes during glacial and interglacial periods until the present total loss of my belief in the dominating influence CO2 on climate warming or cooling; see my comment http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/17/pause-waving-the-italian-flag/#comment-257649 .
Lauri Heimonen. I missed your previous contributions that you have raised but took the opportunity to read them just now. I agree with your views on scepticism and for many reasons I will not make assertions either way on any particular topic.
Lets just say that I sense that both sides of the debate on climate change have biased POV’s on any evidence that is placed before them and that a lot more work needs to be done before anyone can claim that the science is settled.
FWIW my take on climate change is that such change is an inevitable consequence of the many dynamics inherent in the various Earth systems in play and that the trajectory of Earth’s climate over many millions of years has been remarkably stable.
There have been ice ages in the past and it is highly likely that there will more ice ages to come. The various climate systems in play involve many scientific disciplines and I agree that one needs to employ a more holistic approach to the study of climate change generally and of the AGW hypothesis in particular.
“FWIW my take on climate change is that such change is an inevitable consequence of the many dynamics inherent in the various Earth systems in play and that the trajectory of Earth’s climate over many millions of years has been remarkably stable.”
I meant to say BUT that the trajectory …….
The implication of this statement is that there seems to be negative feedbacks dominating rather than positive feedbacks and that the Earth is still functioning well as a repository for life as we know it.
Dr.l Curry I feel it is unfair the way people like Tamino bash you and accuse you of not understanding statistics, even as they conflate their own expertise. I also see many of your publications deal with thermodynamics, the central science on such issues as heat flow and temp differences.
Its an old meme among the climate blogospheric dittoheads, that Curry doesn’t know what she is talking about. It hasn’t worked very well for them. I am not a statistician. However, I believe that I have made strong arguments in terms of the importance of natural variability in the attribution of late 20th century warming and in projections of 21st century warming, and in documenting that the IPCC models and arguments are inadequate in this regard. This is my main point. And they don’t have an effective counterargument against that.
Dr. Curry thanks for taking the time to reply to my post. I was looking at your CV, your degree programs and even with not being a statistician you need solid fundamental understanding of statistics and the main point for me is your extensive background looking at thermodynamics, which requires plenty of math and stats in its own right. Your main point does not fall on deaf ears: the IPCC models are inadequate as are their arguments. Anyone can draw shapes with math and create scientifically sounding theories. What you do is take reasonable interpretations and remarks based upon solid science and the math you do use is used correctly.
Thread summary so far. What has been established:
1) The global warming trend since 1970 shows no sign of having stopped.
2) Temperature variations since 1997 are indistinguishable from variations around a longterm warming trend.
3) “OLS since 1997” is a flawed method for testing whether warming has stopped. It leads to wrong results.
Actually I’d resisted observing earlier that if OLS is no good for post-1997 [ 3) above] what makes its so good for 1) and 2)?
It’s good for establishing a long term trend (a nice robust number over a long enough period to be little affected by the variation), but not for determining if that longterm trend has ended.
I see, it starts to work somewhere beyond 15 years (1997-2012) and before 26 years (1970- 1976).
Very clever technique that OLS.
To establish a new trend 15 years might be possible.
But we are not trying to establish a new trend, we are trying to test an existing trend. The claim that warming stopped implies that there was a prior warming trend. Can the trend since 1997 be used to test whether the warming trend from 1970-1997 has stopped? I argue not. The trend from 1997 can be flat whether or not the 1970-1997 trend is continuing or has stopped.
Of course global OHC increase is fuelled by magic.
So you are happy to use OLS as the basis for measuring the trend 1970-1996 and the trend from 1997-2012. Clearly the two are different. At what point do you say they are different enough to say they are really different?
BTW as an idle curiosity why not reverse the time axis on the graphs so they run from 2012 to 1970. How do you feel about whether the trend from 2012 – 1997 has continued through to 1970?
I will answer good data was spliced with bad data and then the smoothing techniques were applied in questionable ways and the re-input into the calculating to yield even more bogus results whether by intent or by lack of competency. Are you looking at 4th order or 3rd order polynomials? What is the level of precision you are using? How are such small time scales even meaningful with MWP considered and a recent hockey stick paper retracted? Unlike some I do have a large background inn statistics and data analytical methods. I work and have worked with KNN, K means, Neural Networks, and various other algorithms as well as in: statdisk, SPSS, Excel, Rapidminer (new to Rapidminer though, very interesting) Octave, Matlab, and other programs looking at quantitative and statistical relationships/patterns. I work with t tests, Chi square, Z scores, linear regression, multiple regression, multi level modeling, ANOVA, MANOVA, and other statistical techniques. That trend line and that graph tells us no information. How are these graphs considering features (in ML language) or variables as we call them in statistics. Even more importantly thermodynamically (I was lucky enough to have a friend and personal mentor who is an expert in thermodynamics) how are such alleged changes in the statistical state field (temperature) or as commonly referred to as the average kinetic energy (motions) of molecules (a state function) being raised via a heating process (a path function) justifiable as per the laws of thermodynamics? Don’t you know that when one area rises in temperature due to heat flow occurring from a temp differential that another area cools? Heat though a vibrational mode which transfers energy is strictly speaking not energy itself but rather a process related to work w. The zeroeth law and thermometers:) The first law and energy conservation, the second law and why we see you cannot have back radiation that heats a warmer body from, a colder gas, and a third law of order and disorder I will cover later on:) Sure energy can change form, entropy always increases but you cannot have such an efficient heat engine from greenhouse gases they are not really like a greenhouse or a blanket. Tyndall and Arrhenius made fundamental errors in their interpretations and writings. S =q/t really matters here second law… entropy is a quotient of heat and temperature and we see in localized systems that are open like a human body it can be reduced as entropy rises to the universe.
Thanks for the CV. You’re Hired!
Wrong. There’s definitely some sign of that. The sign is, however, not conclusive.
What does mean “warming has stopped”? That expression may interpreted in many ways. For some interpretations “OLS since 1997” is the right method, for some other interpretations it is not a powerful method. For the latter we don’t really know whether the method of little power gives the right or the wrong answer. For other reason I’m personally pretty sure that the answer is wrong, but that’s only a personal judgement.
What I want to say is that it’s stupid to argue against facts. What one should concentrate on is the significance of the facts. It’s wrong to claim that the 14 or 15 year period of little temperature change is irrelevant. It’s clear that such a period was not expected by climate scientists and an unexpected observation is always of some significance. It’s, however, equally wrong to claim that this period is strong evidence against AGW or against the expectation that in longer term the warming will continue.
Pekka,
lolwot’s summary is fine and accurate in the context of a claim that the last few years of data are evidence that “global warming” has stopped/paused/done something different.
The “global warming trend” since 1970 has, if anything, slightly increased since 1997 – *if* you are happy to agree that “global warming trend” measured over a period of 27 years or more is a useful measure of global warming. That was lolwot’s claim and is not unreasonable given the claim it is countering.
It’s a separate claim to say that the last 15 years of temperatures are evidence of a “stop” to global warming. What lolwot’s argument points out though is that if you accept that the last 15 years is a “pause” then the period from 1970 to 1997 must have shown a higher amount of warming than has been so far claimed by scientists. In other words, implicit in the allegation that global warming has stopped for 15 years is an allegation that global warming was underestimated in the years prior to this period.
It has been suggested that the AGW contributers are trying to ignore this apparent “pause”. I’m not ignoring it. I don’t know if lolwot has. Obviously a number of climate scientists are interested in it.
It’s an interesting feature of the climate and in principle its causes are measurable, so it is therefore interesting to speculate and research the detailed cause. But as yet does not seem interesting enough to make me think differently about the contribution of increased anthropogenic CO2 to the equilibrium climate sensitivity, or even the transient climate sensitivity.
steve m,
so you think it’s no problem that we can’t yet measure the specific impact of co2, and so it’s just fine to radically re-architect the world’s economic and political structures on the mere basis of the cagw speculation ?
Steve,
I posted at the same minute with your comment this comment, which makes in many ways similar points.
The concepts allow for multiple interpretations.
if you accept that the last 15 years is a “pause” then the period from 1970 to 1997 must have shown a higher amount of warming than has been so far claimed by scientists
Why? The 1970-1997 warming was what it was, then the claimed effect of CO2. Now the effect is not so clear.
The 1998-now period is warmer than it would have been if you plotted the 1970-1997 temperature, then plotted a pause. To illustrate:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/offset:-.15/detrend:0.074
The “claimed” effect of CO2 is “most” of the warming since 1960. Putting it simply, this leaves plenty of room for natural variability to have caused (or not) additional warming (to enhance the period prior to 1998) and cooling (to reduce the “CO2” warming) after 1998 – not that I’m saying this is precisely what happened.
Trend lines are not temperatures – don’t confuse the two
The significance of these facts are that Haadley/Met office and all those who participated in the IPSS farce that declared manmade warming to be now predominant were wrong. After the fact, contradictory and unquantifiable excuses for the pause do not excuse the fact that there was and still is far too much hubris in climate science and too much reluctance to shake off the facile notion that CO2 is the major driver of climate. It obviously is no such thing! In fact manmade CO2 warming may easily be negligible.
Iolwot
Instead of creating your own data why not examine the three Hadley global records from 1850 to 2011? All appear to show a cooling or at least a pause this century.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
Why is it so hard to admit that there has been, at the least, a ‘pause’ in warming or perhaps even a drop, albeit it is much too soon to know if that has any significance.
Here is CET to show that in some places there has been a notable fall in temperatures this century
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
tonyb
What lolwot’s “thread summary so far” doggedly ducks :.
* There has been no warming since 1997
There has been warming Erica, there simply has. The world is a warmer place than it was 15 years ago.
lolwot : The world is a warmer place than it was 15 years ago.
Not according to the thermometers.
lolwot that trend line is meaningless. How was it constructed and validated? What data was used to test and validate?
It’s example data showing it only takes a few “blips” deviation from a longterm trend to give the illusion that the longterm warming has stopped if the flawed “OLS since 1997” method is used.
At the very least I require the longterm trend to fall for warming to be considered stopped.
What long term trend? Where is the established causal relationship between GHG and warming? Again how is that trend line validated and verified? How was the data assembled? When I read the HADCRUT info and look at what they provide I see massaged numbers left out data, missing information…How would you perform causal inference and actual empirical observations? UHI is under estimated, the homogenization method is not accepted by statisticians outside of the small club who created the technique–the climate-gate emails showed severe uncertainties and lack of knowledge of proper analytical and statistical techniques, and even suppression of information, even if this is more common practice than people believe… just unacceptable. All models fail at some point a fact that most data modelers admit.
Acceptance of the surface temperature records is surely a necessary condition for the discussion of the Daily Mail “warming has stopped” topic.
lolwot I admit I like your sense of humor:) I also admire your tenacity to respond so much and get your claims across. I do not think I have ever commented so much on this blog:) I usually just read it and occasionally comment… this is the only blog on CS I truly trust. I will admit I visit Watts and Steve too… sometimes post on Tamino. I gave up on RC a long time ago. Anyways how is that trend line validated by empirical data, physics and stats?
I haven’t validated it personally, in fact in this case I am kind of using climate etc to bounce ideas off and validate this complex subject
Acceptance of un-touched, un manipulated surface temp records that provides a consistent reference temperature to begin with. Then we can organize the data and look at uncertainty using the appropriate metrics and statistical tools in a conservative fashion. There was a time when I was all gun ho about the most advanced statistical methods and a time when the latest GCM output had me all in awe and wonder. Now it really is about using the appropriate methods in the proper measure to the right degree and not trying to extrapolate too much from a large range of uncertainty. I notice the same for students and even seasoned researchers–they can get caught up in seeing the patterns they want to and choosing inappropriate methods because they look cool and sound sexy for funding:) Also there are some excellent papers published on the surface temp records showing how a warming bias; these papers, largely (not all of them) were created with much better validated and verified methodology. One small point thermodynamics on macro scales is immutable… but more on that later.
In his Nobel acceptance speech, Harold Pinter said:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html
What follows might be kept in mind when considering David Rose’s relationship with truth.
Yes Pinter is quite right, politicians always put their own power before truth. That is why their lackey scientists produce CAGW.
I have to wonder how the “skeptics” who get upset at the suggestion that there is some correlation between “skepticism” and conspiracy theorists (notice I didn’t say causality, my friends) manage to read these types of posts and never have them register in their consciousness.
You should have waited for the love-in, Joshua.
Joshua,
I for one do not get upset about it. I prefer to point out the foolishness of anyone using Prof Lewandowski’s paper to support any sort of argument, other than poor scholarship.
For example, anyone making the claim there is even a correlation between the two is doing so with zero amount of evidence, other than Lewandowski’s paper. Which is zero evidence.
My personal opinion is that the good professor is going to be remembered as a textbook example of a self-cooked goose.
tim –
No doubt, we can find conspiracy theorists in all walks of like. Take any group randomly and the chances are that the prevalence rates are likely the same as other groups on average.
But when you open up a blog comments section, my guess is that the prevalence rates grow significantly. And then add to that the subject matter – on which many folks found their opinions on a conspiracy between various unrelated branches of governments, various unrelated agencies, tens of thousands of scientists all from and representing a diversity of countries and disciplines.
Consider this as an example. If you found a blog devoted to a discussion of Bush’s policy to invade Iraq, populated by an unrepresentative % of anarchists (as this “skeptic” boards are populated by an unrepresentative % of libertarians), and you opened up the comments section – would you not expect to find an unusually high % of conspiracy theorists?
@Joshua
(as this “skeptic” boards are populated by an unrepresentative % of libertarians),
Only in the eyes of people with a totalitarian outlook.
Yes this too explains state lackey Lewandowki’s fraudulent claim.
And I do wonder why credulous cagw truebelievers see these kind of posts and never have them register in their consciousness.
Petra –
I just looked up “conspiracy” in the dictionary, and they quoted your comment as the example sentence.
Joshua
Then get a dictionary not written by and for cretins. It doesn’t require a conspiracy for those in an organization to work in that organisation’s interests; that is what they were selected for, and do as a matter of course.. It requires a conspiracy for them NOT to.
This meas the only conspiracy theorists here, are those who say the scientists in the pay of the state are in the main seeking to be objective, rather then furthering their paymaster’s interests.
Petra –
Just because someone is paranoid doesn’t mean that people aren’t out to get them.
I hear it is in NASA officials’ interests to not question the moon landing!
Petra,
Have you listened to the speech?
I have reasons to believe you did not.
You should, it’s a good one.
That Rose must be doing something right to get so many warmists up in arms against him. I did not have HadCRUT4 but I do have HadCRUT3 and satellite data. There is no doubt from the satellite data that there has not been any warming in the 21st century. I prefer to start the no-warming period with 2001 because satellite curves that are more accurate than ground based curves used by the Met Office show that the temperature dips to the preceding La Nina level on both sides of the 1998 super El Nino peak. Just after the peak subsided the temperature started to climb again and reached the 21st century high by 2001. That is a step warming of a third of a degree that is quite impossible for the greenhouse warming to imitate. Needless to say, none of the El Nino peaks that exist have anything to do with greenhouse warming but are aspects of the ENSO oscillation in the Pacific. Before the appearance of the super El Nino there were five of these peaks in the eighties and nineties. They were only half as tall as the super El Nino but this distinction gets lost in the ground-based curves that do not have the resolution available in satellite records. The super El Nino itself is an outlier because nothing like it has appeared for more than a century. The eighties and the nineties are composed of a wave train of alternating El Ninos and cool La Nina valleys in between. Global mean temperature stayed constant but that is not what HadCRUT shows – they have an imaginary Hansen warming (remember Hansen 1988?) in that time slot – a steady climb of temperature for twenty years instead of a temperature standstill. As a result the existence of the step warming that followed the super El Nino has been completely wiped out by their so-called “late twentieth century warming.” And as it happens that step warming is actually the only real warming within the satellite era that began in 1997. Not only is the entire twenty-first century a no-warming zone but you will also have to add a no-warming zone in the eighties and nineties to it. That is an additional 18 years, from 1979 to 1997, for a total of either 34 or 30 years of no-warming since 1979. There is still more you should know about the twenty-first century warming. The very warm first decade of the century that established many records is a result of the step warming I described, and has nothing to do with any anthropogenic warming. The warm water brought by the super El Nino suppressed the next La Nina cooling that was due so that we got a twenty-first century high that lasted seven years. This was followed by a La Nina cooling in 2008 that really shook up the CRU experts who had been looking for a follow-up warming to the 1998 super El Nino. Trenberth, in particular, complained: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” The year was 2008, the first full sized La Nina after the step warming had just appeared, and they didn’t have a clue about what it was. I had expected it and saw it as the beginning of a new ENSO oscillation series. What I did not anticipate was that the mean temperature of the new oscillation did not return to the previous level of the eighties and nineties but stayed at the level that the step warming had established. As I expected, it was followed by an El Nino in 2010 which in turn gave way to the confusing La Nina we are experiencing now. If you put a dot on the line connecting the bottom of the 2008 La Nina and the tip of the 2010 El Nino it lines up directly with the level of the twenty-first century high. That is how the mean temperature of the ENSO oscillation is determined. The no-warming period is obviously continuing at the warm temperature level of the twenty-first century high but there is no sign of any further warming ahead. Which brings us back to Rose and the Met Office. At the end of last year Met Office came out with a fanfare that warming just may be starting up again. What they had done is to take their temperature curve up to 2010 and use the peak temperature of that El Nino as global temperature. That is of course cheating and if you do as I explained and take the mean of the 2008 La Nina and 2010 El Nino the mean comes out a third of a degree lower than the peak they had tried to pass off as global temperature. Like I said, I have HadCRUT3 but not HadCRUT4. But Tamino decided to put up a version of HadCRUT4 on his web site and I was able to compare the two. What struck me as most peculiar was that they have raised recent temperatures so as to change the twenty-first century temperature trend line. First of all HadCRUT3 had an upward sloping trend line in the eighties and nineties and a down sloping trend line in the twenty-first century. These trend lines do not exist in UAH satellites, RSS satellites, GISTEMP or NCDC temperature curves. Now suddenly, where HadCRUT3 had a cooling trend in the twenty first century of -0.15 degrees per decade, HadCRUT4 has changed it so the trend is basically horizontal. no warming or cooling. Temperature trend changes of such magnitude must not be introduced secretly without telling anyone. I hope they have a good justification for what they did and can explain why they did it. If not, some disciplinary action should be in order. A further shortcoming of their curve is the existence of sharp upward temperature spikes of approximately 0.2 degrees that are obviously erroneous and should be eliminated. Undoubtedly they have been used in computer processing of temperature data and thereby skewed the output. In this the Met Office is not alone because these exact same spikes are present also in other ground based temperature curves. The worst ones occur in the years 2006, 2002, 1995, 1990, and 1983. Not by coincidence, they are all found at the beginning of the year, either in January or February, as best I can tell. Berkeley’s BEST, who were supposed to correct temperature errors, let them all go through. Actually, I may be unfair in a way because it is obvious that none of these guys have paid any attention to my book “What Warming?” In the book I introduce and explain, among other things, how to apply the magic marker method of outlining temperature trends. That is what they all have to do now. Back to the drawing boards, boys.
Apply PCA and SVM to the data:)
Poor Lolwot seem to have fallen for his own strawman – misrepresenting the obvious observation that warming has stopped for 16 years, into a claim that it has stopped period.
What some people will do to confirm their biases is truly amazing.
Check Wiki for “Proof by assertion”
Lolwot “repeated a lie” often enough to believe it, himself!
Makes sense now.
But I’d call it:
“Proof by self-bamboozlement”
Max
Guardian:
Here is the ocean’s global mean temperature:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2004/to:2012/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2004/to:2012
Make your own conclusions.
Squirrels, rabbit holes, elk-hounds …. have I joined the wrong lecture ?
Yeah buddy, dontcha know – CAGW is Catastrophic Animal Global Warming. And let’s not forget those lethal methane cattle farts either.
IPCC fail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x3abScNvyw&feature=related
How to fool yourself:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fr11_all.gif
Well that solves it! Take out solar, ENSO, and volcanoes and that only leaves one cause of a warming earth and that’s _____________! /sarc/
Contrarians believe that periodic phenomenon such as ocean cycles are not periodic and that they instead trend exclusively upward or downward .
Contrarians believe that transient phenomenon such as volcanic disturbances do not last for finite periods of time but instead last forever.
Contrarians say contrary things for whatever weird reason that is in their mind.
The agenda-driven contrarian says contrary things to increase the level of FUD.
non-sarc
Contrarians look at the anomalies of the longer term trend, a* (e^-Tau)*cos(2pi*Tau) while the consensus ponder their navels, the albedo feedback of 2.3% of the surface of the Earth.
Contrarians notice an e^(-t/rc) response in an a*e^(-Tau)*cos(2pi*Tau) world and notice that “a” over history is approximately 2, while the consensus speculate “a” could be 1.5, 3, 4.5, 6, 10
What a contrarian says, sounds weird to the linear no threshold consensus.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/pinatubo-climate-sensitivity-and-two-dogs-that-didnt-bark-in-the-night/
Wigley in the pillory, wid some ‘splainin’ to do.
============
…and agenda driven warmists produce graphs full of arrogant assumptions without considering the uncertainty of their agenda driven claims.
Wheen does a diffusional response show exponential damping? Only in the mind of crackpots such as captain bonefish.
Webster, “Wheen does a diffusional response show exponential damping? Only in the mind of crackpots such as captain bonefish.”
When the diffusion process is riding on a lightly damped long term oscillation. The mean you talk about reverting to is a non-linear transition between bi-stable points.
Web they just won’t admit there’s no sign the warming since circa 1970 has ended, because they are frantically desperate for the AGW subject to terminate. In that desperation they blind themselves to what the data shows.
lolwot, “Web they just won’t admit there’s no sign the warming since circa 1970 has ended, because they are frantically desperate for the AGW subject to terminate. In that desperation they blind themselves to what the data shows.”
yep, we are totally deceiving ourselves.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-1SYDQ7c3IQs/UIhEJu260lI/AAAAAAAAFOQ/br-tKPHP-54/s999/tierney%2520lst.png
blockquote>”yep, we are totally deceiving ourselves.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-1SYDQ7c3IQs/UIhEJu260lI/AAAAAAAAFOQ/br-tKPHP-54/s999/tierney%2520lst.png“
So he shows a plot with some attribution. Well, anybody can go do a Google Scholar search and dig up this article and see what it says. To make it easy, here is a link to a PDF:
Late-twentieth-century warming in Lake Tanganyika unprecedented since AD 500
First note the title. Then look at Figure 2, where the temperature proxy for Lake Tanganyika clearly has shot up, contrary to his manufactured plot.
So Captain extends a curve way back in time to deliberately hide the recent trends.
Webster, “So Captain extends a curve way back in time to deliberately hide the recent trends.” Actually, if the Webster compares the TWO Tierney et al. reconstructions he will find that is an unfounded, slanderous, accusation. That is a plot of the anomaly of the two reconstructions with no smoothing or any attempt to hide the splice. It was intended to show the lightly damped, decay recurrences, that is the reason that portion of the 60,000 year reconstruction was used.
Catch up sonny.
Pardon me,no excessive smoothing. There is an orange smooth curve to show the approximate fit.
I prefer Web’s plot. You can see what is actually happening in the last 2000 years. Bad cherry for you, cap’n. I wouldn’t use that one in the future.
JimD, I imagine you would. My plot is not about temperature, but about internal decay oscillations,a*e^-t*cos(t). You can’t figure out where you’re going until you know where you are. The Tierney reconstructions were selected because they are tropical land temperature indications, being in lake Tanganyika instead of the oceans.
Since internal variability on longer timescales is a foreign concept to you, Web, BBD and various others, you would be more comfortable with the milquetoast linear non-sense than actually attempting to determine if there is a realistic upper limit to “sensitivity”. You elect parsimony in lieu of curiosity.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/10/simple-radiant-model.html
That would be over your head as well since it requires creative thinking also know as stepping outside of the box. It removes one of the major assumptions of 33C and replaces it with a better approximation of 151 Wm-2. By knowing what “normal” should be and the expected range of “wandering” above and below “normal”, you can fine tune estimates of expected deviations from “normal” in a non-linear bi-stable system with recurrent decay patterns.
cap’n, whenever you mention bistable, I am going to say tri-stable with the iceless, hothouse, Cretaceous conditions being the third, to which we are well on our way.
> Daily Mail and General Trust plc is a British media conglomerate, one of the largest in Europe. In the UK, it has interests in national and regional newspapers, television and radio. The company has extensive activities based outside the UK, through Northcliffe Media, DMG Radio Australia, DMG World Media, DMG Information. Its biggest markets apart from the UK are in the United States, eastern Europe, and Australia. It is listed on the London Stock Exchange. Viscount Rothermere is the chairman and controlling shareholder of the company. The head office is located in the Northcliffe House in Kensington, London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail_and_General_Trust
> There was speculation that the Mail’s owner, Lord Rothermere, who supports Cameron, had let it be known that the paper should shift its position – despite Dacre previously being given total editorial freedom. Rothermere and the Tory leader are the same age and are close politically.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-end-of-the-affair-dacre-moves-towards-cameron-872278.html
Fellow denizens,
Yesterday, Mosphit rolled the tape over my rewording of of Bob Ward’s claims in the form of “David Rose lies on the mat”.
For reference, here’s Bob’s op-ed:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2012/october/myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-mid-1990s.aspx
***
Here’s my rewording of his first claim:
> On the 2010-12-05, David Rose told his readers that AGW has stopped in the 1990s.
Here’s Ward’s original:
> On 5 December 2010, the newspaper published a long article by Rose, under the headline: ‘What happened to the ‘warmest year on record’: The truth is global warming has halted’. Rose’s contribution claimed “for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped”, drawing on an analysis handed to him by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the club for climate change ‘sceptics’ that was set up by Lord Lawson in November 2009 to campaign against policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html
Moshpit comments:
> Rose here also had cover fire from Phil jones who had just claimed there was no warming since 1995.
Rose’s cover fire:
> Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year’s ‘Climategate’ leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a little noticed BBC online interview that there has been ‘no statistically significant warming’ since 1995.
***
Let’s roll the tape (starting with 1 because we’ll separate the claims in many posts):
1.1 Jones has not said that there was no warming since 1995, but no statistically significant warming.
1.2 Jones does not say that global warming has stopped, only that we have no statistical mean to verify it.
1.3 David Rose’s title and quote have been checked: they appeared in that article.
1.4 My rewording of Ward’s claim does not seem unfair.
1.5 David Rose’s quote has been truncated. Here it is as it first appear:
> Read carefully with other official data, they [two Met Office statements 12 months apart] conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.
So not only David Rose tells his readers that warming has stopped, but that some Met Office’s statements “concealed the truth”, an expression we find noteworthy.
1.6 Does conceiling the truth amount to lying?
1.7 The basic argument behind Rose’s claim is announced in this paragraph:
> The maths isn’t complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century’s end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn’t.
1.8 This uncomplicated mathematical formula has not been backed down by any statistical authority.
1.9 That David Rose hid behind Lord Lawson’s hobby horse can be verified:
> Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm months, March and April, when El Nino was at its peak.
1.10 We should also note that David Rose recycled many other memes, including Trenberth’s “travesty” quote. They lie outside our audit. So much to do, so little time.
***
Our own judgement is this:
David Rose mislead his readership with his simplistic math argument and by confusing an absence of a warming trend as a significant statistical signal for a plateau. (We prefer “plateau” to “hiatus” for obvious metaphorical reasons.)
David Rose did not specify what he meant by “warming trend” in his main claim.
David Rose or his editors conflated what can be said about a statistically irrelevant warming trend and global warming in general.
It does appear that David Rose’s article conceals the truth.
***
We let the readers judge if that’s enough to say that David Rose lied in that article.
The short version : Rose correctly stated that there had been no warming for 6 years. In claiming that that obviously true statement was a lie, Willard lied.
> In claiming that that obviously true statement was a lie [.]
Where did I claim that, BatedBreath?
@BB
DFTT
man willard we have you lying and mis quoting all over this thread..
go back to squirrel spotting.
> man willard we have you lying and mis quoting all over this thread
Easier said than shown.
now you understand what annoyed latimer.
Indeed, Moshpit, and I must admit having had many face-palm moments when reading this frustrating conversation. But you have to admit that Latimer’s lack of satisfaction is quite proverbial, with the only counter-example of what people might believe, a belief of which he seems to have an intimate knowledge.
Tell them climate scientists to apply Backpropagation:) No, they are not being honest with their alarmist drumbeat…even with themselves in some cases.
16, of course
Willard,
Correct. I think one way of putting it is that Jones was interpreted as if he were making a statement about global warming when he was actually making a statement about statistics.
Andrew Adams,
You have references about Jones’ statement?
willard,
I’m not sure what references you are looking for – you seem familiar with the furore over Jones’s interview?
In any case, here is a link to the interview – question B is the relevant one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
Deep Climate has a nice summary with some context here
http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/02/round-and-round-we-go-with-lindzen-motl-and-jones/
As an aside, I love the way that in the piece you linked to Rose refers to a “little noticed BBC online interview”.
That “little noticed” interview certainly did come to the attention of one newspaper, which featured a prominent story with the headline
“Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995”
Maybe you can guess which one.
Huh willard you said nothing about re wording ward.
In addition you attributed quotes to Rose that were currys quotes.
In short you suck at pointing out Rose’s lies and you lied in doing so.
Show some integrity. Have some honor.
Rose is a stupid hack. he is not to be trusted for your daily dose of truth or climate science. He and others in the press routinely get the facts wrong either on purpose or thru ignorance.
Mosphit,
Perhaps you have not followed the discussion has it unfolded in your RSS reader. The way it grew renders it impossible to follow by simply reading the page. So I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that once again you have not paid due diligence before jumping in the moshpit.
***
Here’s the instance of the question I was trying to answer:
> Not going to just follow an endless stream of links. You accuse him to be lying. You need to explain why. You could take the format below as a template. [Follows a template.]
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-258125
Here’s another instance of the question:
> Please guide me directly and specifically to at least three of those links and for each explain concisely and clearly why you consider them to be evidence of lying.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-258086
This is why I prefaced my rewording this way:
> Here’s BartR’s link, in about the same form than “The cat is on the mat”.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-258400
I believe that BartR’s link was provided in his comment written on October 21, 2012 at 2:16 pm.
***
As I hope you clearly can see, I have evidence that I was indeed trying to reword Ward’s post. Notwithstanding the fact that my comment provides prima facie evidence that this is what I was trying to do.
I try to write accurate commentary and if there’s anything incorrect in my commentary, I’d be happy to modify the wording. I’m not happy about 1.2, for instance: do you have recommendations?
I would also like to know if you agree about 1.1.
Thanks, Mosh.
You’re right, I did not pay due diligence. This is one of the reason why I do now. It was already too late for me and I was in a “David Rose lies on the mat” mode. Since I can come up with comments that satisfy this formula, Latimer’ dissatisfaction is making him play the “troll!” card. This might be the only card he has left, and means that the Can’t Get No Satisfaction soon will get a complete specification.
***
I also agree with you about the use of “lying”. Like I said on October 21, 2012 at 11:44 am:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-257972
Ah ok . you are correct
I see that now. Thanks.
In trying to reword wards post did you take care to check anything?
So you merely repeat the mistake made of attributing Curry’s quote
to Rose, for example.
It’s a neat trick to avoid the charge of a lie. You get the benefit of exposing Roses lies where true and get the defense of “I was merely rewording what Ward wrote” as a defense if the charges are wrong.
No good deed ( trying to help sort things out ) goes un punished.
Moshpit,
I replied over there:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-259686
I guess I’ll see what you mean by:
> So you merely repeat the mistake made of attributing Curry’s quote
to Rose, for example.
by following up on my reading of Ward’s op-ed.
sorry I should just use RSS, lemme have a look
That’s fair.
I actually thought you were being sarcastic when you used the term “misrepresent” hehe. too cynical I guess..
Walton is neat stuff, at some point I want to pull down Hastings orginal
Phd. I dont think Mr Issue tree would approve, but anything that has the merest of connections to the Topics or to the Tropes is fascinating
( Peter, see below, was friend at NU and we shared an common task master
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/skept.htm
)
And of course at UCLA I was an Lanhamite. Very cool, guy, get his books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Lanham
Thank you for the breadcrumbs. I noted this quote from Suber’s article for my RussellForBloggers serie:
> Scepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/34320608988
I knew Suber because of this page:
> This is an introduction to open access (OA) for those who are new to the concept. I hope it’s short enough to read, long enough to be useful, and organized to let you skip around and dive into detail only where you want detail. It doesn’t cover every nuance or answer every objection. But for those who read it, it should cover enough territory to prevent the misunderstandings that delayed progress in our early days.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
At least one of my few readers will appreciate that I dive into Lanham’s books. Not that this will ever satisfy him, mind me.
Creepy Willard takes himself WAY too seriously. Mosher takes himself way too seriously as well. I’m reminded of Spy vs. Spy comics only in this case it’s Douchebag vs. Douchebag.
David Springer,
Thank you for the Spy vs Spy reference.
I suppose I’m the one who hides the dynamite?
Bart R will like it, no doubt.
Please mind your manners,
Ladies are reading.
willard
Again you have posted a wordy masterpiece in illogic.
To boil it down it’s “Much Ado about Nothing”.
Fuggibaboudit, Willard.
Get used to the fact that journalists are journalists – nothing more.
Max
Thanks for playing.
Can we just step back and look at the big picture? We are undeniably in an interglacial period, during which the planet warms. Until it doesn’t. Therefore, it seems to me (an old chemical engineer and lawyer) that we should not be focussing on the warmest month or year or whatever…we will always have a warmest whatever until the cooling phase sets in.
Once those who mimic the biased alarming basis of the IPCC learned that Mann (with great public IPCC and Gore acclaim) successfully hid in his hockey stick the decline of late 20th paleo proxy temps and also hid the MWP then those same IPCC mimics also started to take advantage of Mann’s precedent. The IPCC mimics used to think, with high degree of confidence, they can ignore non-warming temp observations (+>16 yrs) with full uncritical support of the MSM and the biased alarming leadership of the IPCC. The UK’s Sunday Mail & David Rose shows the IPCC mimics that they cannot be confident any longer of fawning and uncritical support from either the MSM or the climate science community.
NOTE 1: It is interesting that the IPCC mimics also think they can successfully ignore the evolving research showing the threshold estimates of climate sensitivities to 2XCO2 are now at more moderate to low levels.
NOTE 2: The intentional ignoring of something by IPCC mimics just seems like denial but it is not. Their intentional ignoring is a computer modeled ostrich syndrome.
John
> hid the MWP […]
For some background on this ringtone:
The Adoration of the Lamb
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/10/adoration-of-the-lamb/
More use and abuse of IPCC 1990 fig 7.1(c)
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/08/more-use-and-abuse-of-ipcc-1990-fig-7-1c/
We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period?
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/17/1943/
– – – – – – –
willard (@nevaudit),
Thank you for your comment.
I suggest we cut right to the chase on Mann’s hockey stick papers. I suggest instead of quoting back and forth >>5 years of blog discourse between IPCC ‘consensus’ supporting blogs and independent critical skeptical blogs we make discourse on the merits of Mann’s conduct against a high level objective standard.
Let’s continue the Mann’s hockey stick papers in reference to the IAC’s September 2012 report “Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise”
That IAC report is at: http://www.interacademycouncil.net/File.aspx?id=28253
Do Mann’s hockey stick papers taken as a whole make a good case study wrt that IAC report? I think so. Does Mann’s research, which is highly public plus highly scrutinized for a long period plus highly controversial, fare well against the IAC report? Shall we discuss that? If you think so, then let’s proceed on this thread to make that case study.
NOTE: I have done an initial first read of the IAC report. If you haven’t already read the IAC report then I recommend that you do so. I find agreement with the majority of it, although I find problems with what I interpret it implies about openness and transparency of in-process research when publically funded.
John
John Whitman,
I’m glad you read the IAC report.
Do you have access to its review procedure and draft manuscript by any chance?
Many thanks!
– – – – – – – –
willard (@nevaudit),
Although I am not aware of any of the other documents you mentioned, the report itself seems fairly open and self-explanatory about its preparation processes, terms of reference and connections to the world’s well known major national science institutes and academies.
FYI – while reading it, I noted that our gracious host Judith Curry participated as a consultant at the request of the IAC report team.
John
John Whitman,
I believe that the expression “case study” understates the point of your first comment of this subthread:
> The UK’s Sunday Mail & David Rose shows the IPCC mimics that they cannot be confident any longer of fawning and uncritical support from either the MSM or the climate science community.
I’m not sure to whom you are referring to by “they”. I hesitate between “the People” and “the IPCC mimics”. In either case, I am unsure to what entity you are referring exactly.
Instead of a case study, I am tempted to see character assassination, scapegoating, or a process by which led to the practice of pittura infamante:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittura_infamante
David Rose and now yourself might be carrying an old tradition.
***
I’m not sure what you mean by:
> I find problems with what I interpret [the IAC report] implies about openness and transparency of in-process research when publically funded.
Would you expand on that?
Many thanks!
willard
Lots of data out there from all over the globe pointing to a MWP that was slightly warmer than today.
Don’t be a denier.
Makes you look sillier than you are.
Max
Learn about how skeptics fiddle the data to fabricate a warmer MWP than today
manacker,
Thank you for your comment.
I have no opinion on the MWP per se, and am mostly interested in the Deming Affair:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/DemingAffair
More precisely, I’m interested in ways this affair got narrated by contrarian or dissenting outlets, first and foremost into our splendid Bishop’s political hit job. If you have anything on that matter that would add to the karaokes I reported at William’s, that would be appreciated.
Speaking of which, there is this interesting comment by dave s:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/10/adoration-of-the-lamb/
Have you ever noticed that?
Look, Max, breakfast!
===============
lolwot
It’s always best to go back to the original independent studies using different paleo-climate methods from all over the globe, rather than relying on some-one’s rehash of a few cherry-picked reports.
If you do the former (and accept the validity of the methods used), you will see that there is considerable evidence of a MWP that was slightly warmer than today.
Add to this the plethora of historical records from all over the civilized world at that time.
For me, the most convincing actual physical evidence (living in Switzerland) is carbon-dated remains of old trees found under receding glaciers at altitudes far above today’s tree-line. In one rare case the remnants of an old abandoned medieval silver mine were uncovered.
That’s “physical evidence”.
Max
max
are you referring to the hohe tauern mine established in the middle of the fifteenth century and overwhelmed by 20 metres of ice in 1570. this had lrgely melted by 1875 and had gone 10 years later tonyb
manacker
First, just as a general observation, you contradict yourself:
Then:
But the main point here is that if the climate system was sensitive to small changes in forcing in the relatively recent past, then it still is today. Now, with all the fuss about modern CO2 forcing, an MWP warmer than the present ought to make us think.
BBD
You conclude:
Indeed.
It tells me that something else beside human GHGs is driving our climate, since there were none back then.
And it also tells me that this “something else” may be driving the long-term warming we’ve seen since the first real CET records in the 17th century or the current modern global record since around 1850, or the late 20th century warming cycle recorded by both satellites and at the surface, as well.
Max
Tony B
I was referring to the abandoned Alpine silver mine mentioned by the late climate science pioneer, Reid Bryson, in an interview..
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
He does not specify in which Alpine country this was.
I have seen a German language report of old written records of a mine near Gastein, Austria being covered up by advancing snow and then abandoned (but I cannot find the link).
This may be the same mine, but I don’t know.
Sorry.
Max
PS If this interests you and you’d like me to look for the link, let me know.
BBD “But the main point here is that if the climate system was sensitive to small changes in forcing in the relatively recent past, then it still is today. ”
Not necessarily. Snow/glacial field melt is both an albedo and heat capacity feedback. The world we live on is a sphere, The area impacted by retreating snow/glacial field melt decreases rapidly with increasing latitude. Sensitivity, is non-linear.
max
But there is no evidence for this mystery forcing. And plenty pointing to GHGs. GHG forcing is real. It doesn’t just vanish because we are emotionally or ideologically uncomfortable with the fact of its existence. Keep the physics consistent. Stay in this universe. Use parsimonious reasoning.
cap’n
What are you on about now? As far as I can see, you are just trying to muddy the waters.
So the level of ice albedo feedback was radically different from the modern period during the MWP? No, of course it wasn’t. The point here is that the MWP occurred in a world essentially like our own, right down to the nature of its climate system. So if there was a global, synchronous MWP warmer than the present (which seems unlikely), then it stands as evidence the the present climate system is sensitive to small changes in forcing.
It’s… telling that ‘sceptics’ just do not seem to understand what they are arguing for in this case.
Max
Yes please. Coincidentally I will be in Gastein this winter
Tonyb
Here is one link to old mines high up in the Alps
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%200-1000.htm
Pekka
Thanks for that very interesting link. I shall try to follow up some of them when I am in Austria during the winter. We know of the lack of snow in the Alps during Roman times and it is thought that Hanibal had a relatively trouble free voyage across them, with or without Elephants
I am reading a fascinating 40 year old book by a French researcher at present. We can readily follow the continued advances and retreats of glaciers over the milennia and I did some research on this at Zermatt a few years ago. They had largely reached stasis by 1750 according to Manley and were mostly in full retreat by the 1850/70’s.
tonyb.
BBD, “What are you on about now? As far as I can see, you are just trying to muddy the waters.”
You said, “..the main point here is that if the climate system was sensitive to small changes in forcing in the relatively recent past, then it still is today.”
That is not a valid assumption. “Sensitivity” changes because the feedback to forcings change as well as the forcings change. There is about 75 10^6 km^2 of surface between 45N and the pole, 20% of that area is between 45-50, 18% between 50-55, 16% between 55-60, 11% between 60-65 etc. A CO2 doubling is about a 1% increase in forcing and the albedo feedback of that forcing decreases at a faster rate than the forcing increases. That is a natural regulating function of a spherically shape world.with north dominate land distribution. You run out of feedbacks
If you think sea level up, the rate of surface decreases faster with altitude, another natural regulating feedback. There is nothing linear about sensitivity other than ~1% of the impact.
BBD
Speaking of what caused a global MWP, which was slightly warmer than today, you state:
There is also “no evidence against this mystery forcing”.
And, since
a)we do not understand all the possible ways that changes in solar activity can cause climate changes, yet
b) we see that the two are closely correlated over very long periods of time (Svensmark and Friis-Christensen) and
c) have a viable hypothesis for a mechanism (nucleation of clouds through galactic cosmic rays, or GCR), which
d) has been tentatively validated by ongoing work at CERN,
it would be both ignorant and arrogant to rule out something other than human GHGs as a long-term driver of our climate.
As the Bard wrote, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Max
BBD
Now that we have covered climate forcing other that AGW, which may have been responsible for pre-industrial climate cahnges (most of our planet’s history), let’s move on to AGW.
I am not “denying” that
a) there is a GHE which slows down outgoing LW radiation (OLR)
b) that CO2 and H2O are GHGs
c) that human activity generates CO2 (primarily from fossil fuels)
d) that atmospheric CO2 has risen since Mauna Loa measurements started
e) that globally and annually land and sea surface temperature has risen since the modern record started
IOW, there has been some warming of our planet resulting from human GHG emissions.
The problem is, bbd, we do not know based on empirical scientific evidence how much of the warming may have been a result of increased concentrations of human GHGs
And, again to quote the Bard, “There’s the rub.”
IPCC claims to know this (as expressed in its attribution statement regarding “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century…”), but as our hostess and others have pointed out, there is much too much uncertainty regarding natural factors to make such an assessment with any degree of certainty.
BBD, as you certainly know, what is lacking here is empirical scientific evidence to support the notion that human GHGs (principally CO2) have been the primary cause of past warming.
And the more decades we have of no warming despite unabated human GHG emissions and atmospheric GHG concentrations reaching record levels, the more the case for an AGW driven climate unravels (the underlying message of the DM article).
Max
Crackpottery is also non-linear.
Many well-educated scientists follow well-established laws and empirical evidence. This works across a range of scientific abilities, but then curiously drops like a rock when we get to the domain of the crackpot. The wacko crackpot seems to actually run away from established science in favor of his own brand of physics.
Why this non-linearity occurs is not well understood, but it has a lot to do with “Why people believe weird things”.
Webster, “Crackpottery is also non-linear.”
BBD, stated that there was no reason to believe that climate sensitivity that was high during the pre-industrial period should not be just as high now. That is an invalid assumption since there are quite a variety of valid reasons for it to not be the same. You bring up crackpottery.
First, I was promoted to “Fraud and Buffoon” so let’s not move backwards.
Second,part of the debate is over what would be a realistic upper limit or “peak” temperature to expect from a doubling of CO2. You seem to be very adept to determining “peaks” when that is to your advantage, but avoid acknowledging there are other possible “peaks” worth considering. That would be a bit one sided, indicating your logic is skewed toward some desired goal..
Dallas, here you go,one potential non-linear response.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-10-05029.1
max
The problem with the solar-GCR-cloud hypothesis is that there is no supporting evidence that it has climatologically significant effects. To avoid a re-hash of an argument we’ve both doubtless rehearsed many times, we will have to agree to differ on this.
The scientific consensus that increased forcing from GHGs has caused energy to accumulate in the climate system is based on things like:
– robust radiative physics
– ground-based instrumental evidence that CO2 absorbs and therefore emits IR exactly in accordance with the physical theory
– satellite data confirming this
– satellite data apparently indicating a radiative imbalance at TOA
– robust measurements of the fraction of atmospheric CO2
– increasing global OHC since the mid-C20th
There are no unsupported hypotheses and no mystery forcings. What is there is a coherent explanation for the increase in global ocean heat content since the mid-C20th.
If we stick to robust radiative physics and parsimonious reasoning we always end up in the same place.
manacker.
If you think the MWP was warmer than today, then that commits you to several related positions.
1. The concept of a global temperature makes sense. You agree?
2. We have a modern record that is trustworthy enough to use in comparison? You agree?
3. We have evidence from the past that is trustworthy enough to use
in comparison? You agree?
I think the correct skeptical position on the MWP is this.
Considering the uncertainties in the modern record, considering the uncertainties in the historical record, considering the methodological uncertainties in reconstructing the past, considering the lack of global coverage in past proxies, nothing can be concluded with scientifically acceptable levels of confidence about the relative warmth between the MWP and today. There are indications from various sources that period may have been warmer in some places, and indications that it may have been cooler. No statement regarding the relative warmth of these periods even approaches scientific knowledge, with the exception of the statement “we don’t know”
Finally, AGW was true before Manns bogus HS and remains true because the HS says nothing about the effect of C02. It is orthogonal to the debate. It is not used in attribution studies and could never be used in attribution studies.
Frank O’Dwyer has this expedient and witty way to dissolve the MWP question:
> The Black Death in the middle ages is estimated to have killed more of Europe’s population than World War 2. This means that deaths during World War 2 were not unusual, and hence must be due to natural causes, not man-made.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/32753644033
This historian has this related point to make:
> [T]he medieval warm period makes no political difference to thinking people concerned with climate change. It may tell them something about how the Earth behaves climatically over long periods, which would be great (although if you take a long enough view we’re all going to bake or sink anyway), but it certainly doesn’t mean we don’t need to cut emissions, carbon or otherwise, combat overfarming, deforestation and salination, come up with alternative energy sources good and fast and start in on the synthetic food. It really affects none of these necessities. But it did affect my subject population, or so it seems, really quite a lot. So dammit, you kids, get out of my yard.
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/121964.html
Emphasis added.
Over the 20+ years of the official alarmist drumbeat, government propaganda lies outnumber the odd misquote like Rose’s probably by 10000 to 1.
Quite the opposite. For the number of skeptic lies take how many posts WUWT and Steven goddard have combined as a low estimate.
Blogs are not the point here, as the general public do not read them (and anyway WUWT is are more than offset by the nonsense from RealClimate, Deepclimate, Skeptical Science etc ).
Government money in climate science far outstrips all other sources put together, and both government propaganda (including the IPCC) and mainstream media are heavily biased towards alarmism. Articles such as Rose’s are in a miniscule minority.
hmm people who claim global warming stopped are going to look might silly if the past pattern just continues
lolwot,
That chart has the same possibilities as picking the ‘second star on the right and straight on till dawn’ does.
NOTE: Apologies to the fans of Neverland.
John
lolwot
Your doctored curve starts in 1970 (rather than taking the whole record since 1850).
Is there a reason you “cherry-picked” this starting date?
The long term record shows an underlying warming trend, as well – but this is around 0.6C per century, which would mean around 0.5C warming from today until year 2100 (yawn!).
Please answer.
Max
The warming has accelerated since about 1970. This is the recent warming that everyone is talking about! It’s quite a popular period. I dub it the start of the Unceasing Warming Caused By Man Period.
lolwot
Thanks for telling me why you “cherry-picked” 1970, the beginning of an accelerated warming cycle. Makes sense, if that is the “message” you’re trying to get across.
IPCC referred to it as “a widely acknowledged ‘climate shift’ (e.g. Trenberth, 1990)”, and, indeed, it did look like an upward shift (which lasted 30 years, like the earlier warming period, which started in 1910 (before much human GHG). Jones told us the two periods are “statistically indistinguishable” (as is also clear from the HadCRUT3 record).
But, hey, that last 30 year “accelerated” warming cycle ended after 2000 – since then we are seeing a slight cooling cycle (as we did for the 30 years or so before 1970).
All on a long-term “tilted axis” with 0.6C per century warming.
Whether the current slight cooling cycle lasts 30 years (like the last cooling cycle) is anyone’s guess.
Check Girma’s curves – they may give you a clue.
Max
lolwot
I like your “dubbing”
Here’s mine:
Big
Uncertain
Lamentable
Longterm
Super
Hot
Indemonstrable
Tragedy
Max
iolwot
upthread you posted a link to an attempted demolition job by john mashey on co2 science. Seems that alarmists ae still tryig to get rid of the mwp or minimise its impact. Tell me, do you believe the current warming is truly global and synchronous?
tonyb
You of course don’t realize your scribbles are the ~11 year solar cycle.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/scale:400/mean:24/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1970/mean:6
ROFLMAO
Watch what happens to temperature going forward if the sun remains eerily quiet. ;-)
And thanks for your unknowing support of the GCR theory of climate change! :mrgreen:
And when we correct for the Sun, it looks like something else is driving a lot of warming!
In that particular 30 year period a super El Nino came along that more or less cancelled the regularly scheduled temperature decline. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
The thing is. loltwat, that changes in solar magnetic activity have a profound effect on temperature which even you can see.
Now add in the North Atlantic Oscillation. The record from 1970 happens to start on the warming side of that cycle. There’s where your remaining warming trend is coming from. I included the AMO since 1860 so you can see it’s not doing anything unusual since 1970.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/scale:400/mean:24/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1970/mean:6/plot/esrl-amo/every/scale:400/mean:24
So now we have the sun gone eerily quiet which we can see is has a chilling effect on temperature and we can also see that the AMO has gone negative which has a similar chilling effect.
Pretty cool (pun intended) eh?
We are living in interesting times, little buddy.
Each of the following had broad scientific support at one time.
Top ten scientific mistakes:
10. Alchemy
9. Heavier Objects Fall Faster
8. Plogiston
7. The Rain Follows the Plow
6. The Earth is 6000 Years Old
5. The Atom is the Smallest Particle
4. DNA: Not Very Important
3. No Reason to Clean and Disinfect Wounds
2. The Earth is the Center of the Universe
1. Blood is Pumped by the Liver
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming will soon fall into that list. Mark my words.
#1 on the list is Intelligent Design.
It was the best example of bad science because it ostensibly used science whereas many of the others relied on myth.
Unless God hisself makes an appearance ID isn’t going to be settled one way or the other. That’s why I finally gave up on it. CAGW on the other hand can be settled by the cold side of the AMO and a quiet sun asserting themselves. It won’t be long now then you can disappear like the anonymous coward you are with no one the wiser about what a fool you made of yourself. LOL
Unless of course you can show beyond a reasonable doubt that order in the universe is a purposeless accident. To be fair I never asked you in particular to make your case. So I want you to trace the chain of cause & effect back to the big bang and demonstrate that it came from nowhere, poof, like magic only clearly lacking a magician.
Good luck. :-)
Not that the F&R work has any actual validity,* but I find it funny lolwot claims a graph shows what happens “when we correct for the Sun.” What he links to clearly refers to three effects (ENSO, Volcanic and Solar) being removed. It’s as though lolwot didn’t even look at his own source.
*It really doesn’t.
numbnut is looking pretty silly right now with that poor excuse for a graph.
Here’s to remembering that other time global warming “stopped”.
now with added cow bell
I’ll stick with mine.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1988/to:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1988/to:1997/trend
So, the world only warmed from 1997 to 1998.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:1998/trend
Thanks for demolishing your own side!!!!
Own GOAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/IPCC%20-%20an%20opinion%20changes%20results/IPCCMWPopinions.jpg
Thanks. Wow. No warming from 1988 to 1997.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1988/to:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1988/to:1997/trend
@bbd
Looks like you didn’t read your paper very well
From Summary and Conclusions.
‘Analysis of monthly and annual temperatures over the past decade shows that the positive global temperature trend has become insignificant and small’
Good enough for me. Insignificant and small over the last 10 years. Hardly passes the ‘So What’ test .
You can try moving the goalposts a bit about seasons if you like, but it won’t convince many that its anything more than deckchairs on the Titanic.. But Rose’s devastating graph of the Met Office’s official ‘peer-reviewed’ and ‘agreed by consensus’ data will live long in the memory of all who saw it.
You will just have to get used to the idea that the global warming scare has run out of steam. And that will affect in every way. Did you notice that, so far at least, it has not been mentioned at all in the US Presidential Race? In UK it’s not global warming we’re worried about, it’s energy prices. It’s just not a ‘cool’ thing to be in right now…..as public interest plummets so will the funding.
You will really have to do better to rescue it than pulling a last minute dead parrot out of a hat and shouting ‘but see – still it lives!’
LA,
You seem to have missed the point. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially (or statistically significantly) since 1997. That’s a fact and disputing that is stupid. The authors of that paper agree with that. The point is that this observation is not very relevant if the outcome comes from a combination of relevant and persistently warming data from areas where the temperature is strongly correlated with increase in the heat content of oceans, atmosphere and continental topmost layers, and almost totally irrelevant data from areas and seasons where and when exceptionally great natural variability of surface temperatures makes these temperatures essentially irrelevant for the determination of longterm trends.
The well below freezing surface winter temperatures of Northern high latitudes are such wildly variable almost non-correlated data points which tell almost nothing of the real warming (i.e. increase in heat content of the Earth system) but may affect in an unpredictable way the global average surface temperature.
The paper didn’t present strong conclusions on the point, and neither do I, but the point appears very significant and should be studied further. The preliminary conclusion is that even the surface temperatures have continued to increase steadily when the least significant data points are excluded to reduce spurious variability.
Pekka Pirilä
Thanks Pekka.
According to WoodForTrees, the global mean temperature trend for 15-years period has dropped from 0.23 to 0.05 deg C per decade warming, showing deceleration of the warming rate:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1990/plot/wti/from:1990/to:2005/trend/plot/wti/from:1997/to:2012/trend
Deliberately misconstruing my comments is more cheap gamesmanship Latimer. To be added to your cheap trick of jumping away from discussions in which you are floundering and starting again downthread.
Your little tricks are all the more irritating for being so transparent. Goodness knows how you survived professionally.
Executives can emulate the Can’t Get No Satisfaction algorithm quite well, BBD.
Ouch.
@bbd
‘Public opinion doesn’t trump physics. Why has energy been accumulating in the global ocean since the mid-C20th? We need to know.’
Maybe you mean that you’d find it interesting to know in an academic sort of way? Fair enough.
But there are a zillion questions that academic specialists would find ‘interesting’. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the general public(via its political representatives) find them of particular relevance, nor are prepared to pay for their investigation.
Don’t forget that the ‘threat’ of imminent increasing temperatures and the supposed horrible consequences was the only reason that the huge explosion in ‘climate studies’ and its funding took place. No imminenet threat == much less funding. NASa is a good analogy. Huge amounts of effort expended to get a Man on the Moon, but once the goal was achieved, it was wound down quite quickly.
The HADCRUT graph is so simple that even the dumbest pollie can understand it. And recognise that ‘climate studies’ is not an urgent problem, not likely to be within his or her political lifetime. Bar a few true believers who might still be in office, it will slip yet further down their priority (and hence funding) list.
You may feel that you ‘need to know’ what is going on in the deep ocean. I’m not at all sure that I do, nor that I need to fund your investigations.
Even rather obvious sarcasm doesn’t always translate well in blog chatter. Perhaps I should have placed a smiley after ‘we need to know’. Because the combination of robust physics and parsimonious reasoning indicates the answer in ten-foot high neon letters. It is ‘CO2’.
The implications that flow from this are of course more than merely academic. Which no doubt explains why some people put so very much time and effort into online denialism.
It would explain the painfully facile attempt to claim that AGW is a non-issue on the basis of a hiatus that still has the NH land average temperature trending *up* at a whopping ~0.4C/decade. A hiatus which no doubt owes its apparent existence and apparently selective nature to several factors, which I have mentioned previously. Since the message clearly isn’t getting past the door, here they are again:
1/ A change in the rate and depth of energy accumulation within the oceans (Trenberth et al. 2011)
2/ Increased sulphate aerosol loading from both anthropogenic (Hansen & Sato 2011 Earth’s energy imbalance and its implications) and volcanic sources (Vernier et al 2011)
3/ SC23/24
4/ Predominantly La Nina conditions; negative phase PDO
5/ An increase in stratospheric water vapour (Solomon et al, 2011)
6/ A climate shift (Swanson & Tsonis 2009)
7/ Increased SH cloud cover since 2000 (Hatzianastassiou 2011)
Etc.
Only someone motivated by emotion or politics (or impaired by profound stupidity) would attempt to spin the current hiatus as ‘the end of the AGW scare’.
You aren’t profoundly stupid, which leaves politics and/or emotions.
@bbd
But you are still missing the point.
It’s almost worse for you than having an army of heretics and deniers and apostates arguing with you. It is simply that we don’t care any more
Interest in global warming has only ever been a ‘distress purchase’ – like home insurance or lavatory paper….something that has to be done, but one that confers no pleasure or excitement. If there were to be some huge great lurking crisis looming around the corner, then we’d better know about it…but beyond that not much interest at all.
And now the Met Office’s own figures show that there really isn’t much going on, we can all breathe a sigh of relief and get on with much more important things.
The key message from Rose’s article and the underlying data is that they are stirring up great waves of apathy all over the world. The temperatures aren’t going up as predicted. There is not a crisis.
And you can come up with your five or six technical points till you are blue in the face, but the average guy in the Dog and Duck doesn’t care about whether the PDO oscillation over the aerosols (weren’t they banned?) in the Southern Hemisphere is negative, positive or an imaginary number He wants to know if the temperatures are going up and, if not,, whey we are spending all this money on a scare that isn’t there?
Once again..it is very very very simple.
‘Global warming’ means the temperatures are going up. You do not have ‘global warming’ without rising temperatures. The Met Office’s own figures show that the temperatures are not going up. You do not need to be Einstein to see that there is no ‘global warming’
You and your colleagues keep questionning my motivations. Simply put, from the moment I heard ‘The science is settled, and looked for the clever experiments you must have done to prove it…only to discover they were non-existent, and you were practising science by assertion rather than observation or experiment, I have had a very low opinion of the quality of the work that has been done, and – with Climategate in mind – an even lower opinion of the ethics and integrity of many of its practitioners. You guys gave up what I call ‘science’ a long time ago. Maybe its not entirely your fault…using the academic journal-based system to investigate a potentially complex problem is organisationally bonkers, and letting the IPCC to be judge and jury in its own case was insane.
Its been nice to have had so many opportunities over the last few years to have had both my opinions confirmed and the chances to point this out. That’s my motivation. You guys have vastly overstated your case, and it looks like the chickens are coming hone to roost. Like all booms …a bust eventually follows…..and climate science is just about ready for one
Climate apathy rul….oh b..r it I can’t be bothered
BBD, “Only someone motivated by emotion or politics (or impaired by profound stupidity) would attempt to spin the current hiatus as ‘the end of the AGW scare’.” Thanks for the laugh.
https://picasaweb.google.com/118214947668992946731/October242012#5803339345280332242
There are ocean oscillations as many, like Girma, have pointed out. The data indicates that the southern hemisphere drives that oscillation. Only someone motivated by politics or job security would not notice that :)
You list Trenberth 2011. Prior to 2011, Trenberth indicated an imbalance of 0.9 Wm-2 +/1 0.18 W unbelievable accuracy many would think. Trenberth also completely misplaced 18Wm-2 which 2011 required a “minor adjustment” to correct that unbelievably accurate paper.
The MET office responding to Rose stated that there is a trend of 0.034 C +/-0.011 (95% confidence level) in the 1997 to 2010 data, indicating another unbelievable degree of precision.
And you have the balls to say that anyone wishing to dig deeper is politically motivated or stupid. You own me a new keyboard.
I’ve changed my mind. Stupidity plays a more significant role than previously suggested.
:-)
cap’n
I’ve seen sufficient of your ‘methodology’ to stop me reading the detail of your posts. I thought I had made this plain. You are only wasting your own time. Go back to your mess of misunderstood and mangled data and amuse yourself by all means but don’t expect to be taken seriously. That moment has been and gone.
BBD, “I’ve seen sufficient of your ‘methodology’ to stop me reading the detail of your posts. I thought I had made this plain.” It is not me you need to be concern with, it is the company you keep.
@bbd
You can call me ‘stupid’ as often as you wish. I keep such epithets as badges of pride, so another one to add to my collection is always welcome. My current fave is Webster’s description of me as ‘repellently vulgar’. Gets me huge amounts of kudos at the joint Sceptic Central and Big Oil Deniers Gala Evenings and Ladies Nights.
But however many times you insult me won’t change the data one iota. It’s been published by a reputable source and is getting widespread publicity. You will need to come up with a convincing explanation of why it shows no warming since 1997 while the CO2 concentration has increased considerably. Since the heart of the AGW proposition is that CO2 has a direct effect on warming, the observational evidence that shows no warming is not something you can ignore. But so far neither you, Willard or lolwot have got anywhere close to even beginning to explain it qualitatively , let alone quantitatively. Indeed you seem to be further away than ever.
Because rest assured that the lack of any warming since 1997 will be haunting you from now until (if ever) you do have an explanation. And I doubt if many will take you very seriously if your best effort is to to shoot (or even just insult) the messenger.
Sweeping it under the carpet and/or refusing to acknowledge it does you no favours and harms your credibility (what little there was) immensely.
Nobody is ignoring this but some are misrepresenting it. Let’s consider the bare bones for a moment.
Climatologists:
– never predicted monotonic warming
– never predicted that natural variability would cease
– do argue for significant warming by the end of the century
– suggest several possible causes for the current warming hiatus*
– reject claims that the hiatus invalidates any of the above on grounds of robust physics and parsimonious reasoning
‘Sceptics’ say things like this:
But however many times you insult me won’t change the data one iota. It’s been published by a reputable source and is getting widespread publicity. You will need to come up with a convincing explanation** of why it shows no warming since 1997 while the CO2 concentration has increased considerably.
I don’t say stupid lightly. And I could well be wrong. Rejecting evidence and parsimonious reasoning may be emotionally and/or politically driven. But there are only three cups to bet on and you are forcing my hand.
*I can’t get no…
**I can’t get no…
BBD
You overlook that fake climatologists hide data, hide the decline, manipulate peer-review, and try and destroy evidence of what they have done. And that those not guilty of those crimes against science, show themselves to be fake, by not distancing themselves from such activities, to say nothing of not having the perpetrators expelled or punished.
So you end up overlooking the general skeptic point : why should sane laymen believe anything they say? There will lot fewer skeptics if and when the profession comes down like a ton of bricks on Jones, Mann and other frauds of the pre-committed-alarmist IPCC cadre.
@BBD
There can be little doubt that, being politically financed, the prevailing CAGW ‘consensus’ in climate ‘science’ is politically motivated. We live in increasingly totalitarian world, and more taxes and controls fit this bill like a glove. He who pays (and selects) the piper …
But on the topic of what ‘climatologists’ and sceptics say, the latter by and large are not in dispute with what you say ‘climatologists’ say – not in principle. There is though the issue of uncertainty about climate sensitivity to 2xCO2, and the routine exaggeration thereof by IPCC ‘climatologists’ (ie the very opposite of parsimonious reasoning). And the whole question of the relative magnitude of natural vs man-made forcings.
@bbd
Progress at last! It’s taken a while, but you’ve eventually begun to address the definitive issue that the GAT hasn’t risen for fifteen years despite a considerable rise in CO2 levels.
So let’s take your points one by one.
1. ‘Climatologists never predicted monotonic warming’
False. IPCC AR4 Summary for Policymakers. P12
‘For the next two decades, a warming of about
0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES
emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of
all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept
constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of
about 0.1°C per decade would be expected’
About as unequivocal a prediction of monotonic warming as could be imagined. And just to ram the point home for the Camerons, Merkels and Bushes of the world they stuck it in a special highlighted box.
2. ‘Climatologists never predicted that natural variability would cease’
OK. Though its relevance has escaped me.
I doubt that even the most ardent warmist would ever have claimed that all other climatic forces would completely disappear.. But there have been plenty of claims that AGW would by now be overwhelmingly the dominant force on climate change. Are you claiming that the lack of warming is down to 15 years worth of natural variability? Because that’s a significant difference from the earlier understanding that AGW is the only significant game in town.
3.’Climatologists do argue for significant warming by the end of the century’
Fine. But again I fail to see the relevance. You can ‘argue for significant warming’ all you like. But your argument to be able to predict that far out is based on models that did not even foresee the recent temperature hiatus. They really don’t have a lot of credibility as predictive tools. AFAIK they have never made a single quantified prediction that has been shown by subsequent observations to be even approximately right.
And ‘significant warming’ is a delightfully imprecise term. I’m not going to dampen my underwear at the idea of ‘significant warming’ 88 years out.
4. ‘Climatologists suggest several possible causes for the current warming hiatus’
Progress again. You have formulated some hypotheses (though not presented them here). But ‘suggesting causes’ is not the same as constructing a persuasive evidence-rich case that all or any of them are true. There’s a lot, lot of work to do yet.
(Historical observation. Many climatologists, when faced with ‘the divergence problem’ with tree-ring proxies hid behind the standard observation that ‘this has been discussed in the literature’, as if the act of discussing it made the problem somehow go away. It didn’t, and the current state of play remains ‘f..k it, we don’t know’. Not an answer, and not very scientific either)
5. ‘Climatologists reject claims that the hiatus invalidates any of the above on grounds of robust physics and parsimonious reasoning’
OK. Pleased to know what climatologists do. But how you apply those wondrously vague ideas to this case has escaped me. It is just a platitudinous statement (and sounds very much like a content-free composite resolution to the Trades Union Congress moved by the Consensus of Concerned Climatologists. Is your background in politics, not science?).
6. As to my motivation. I explained it earlier. To refresh your memory go towards the end of my remarks here
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-260424
But you have done me an enormous favour by bringing to mind Keef and Mick’s excellent anthem from my youth..with perhaps the most recognisable intro of any bit of pop music evah!
For its true…whenever I look at the quality of evidence and argument
and general disregard for scientific principles advanced by many climatologists, then I really don’t find it at all satisfactory. And relying (as the IPCC does) on self-assessment to attest to its quality is risible.
You guys have to raise your game a long long way
Anecdote. Seems to me that climatology is in roughly the same place as the England football team were in 1953. Smug, self-satisfied, living in their own little bubble, never been exposed to outside influence, convinced of their own superiority over everybody else. Unbeaten at home for 52 years. The classic conditions for self-reinforcing Groupthink.
So they didn’t worry too much about a visit from little Hungary. The rest is history. Hungary won 6-3. ‘A fluke’ claimed the Anglophiles.Next year they repeated the feat in Budapest. Only this time Hungary won 7-1 and it wasn’t a match it was a demolition. England were forced to rethink from the beginning and 12 years later they won the World Cup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wdW5p3jd2Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNTR3-y86Xc&feature=related
Think of the ‘hiatus’ as your Hungarian moments. And start that rethink right now.
@bbd
‘ Goodness knows how you survived professionally.’
Yep.. amazing wasn’t it? 30 years of happy clients who kept on paying my consultancy fees. 30 years when they kept on asking for me to come back and help them some more, 30 years when they trusted my advice and judgement. One guy even asked me to be Best Man at his wedding. And all in a very competitive marketplace when they could have chosen from a large number of alternative candidates.
It can only have been a miracle.
JFI – how does that match up against your extensive experience? Your bio seems to be omitted from the Denizens thread. No doubt an oversight you will be keen to correct.
LA,
On the first point. You cannot find the word “monotonic” in the sentence. You do find a reference to chapter 10.3 to look for further explanation. There you see from Figure 10.5 what’s behind the statement. Each wiggly curve in that presents one possible projection. None of them is smooth and very few monotonous. The average is smooth and monotonous, but the average is not one of the possible projections.
The wording of the SPM leaves space for interpretation, but it’s totally clear, what the scientists really had in mind.
@pekka
If you want to argue semantics, I think you’ll be very hard pushed to find any commentator on the sceptical side that has claimed that the temperature rise would be ‘monotonic’ either.
BBD introduced the term to the debate as a strawman in the hope of knocking it down. Sadly the IPCC did not agree with him.
And in a ‘Summary for Policy Makers’ it is naive in the extreme to think that people reading it will follow up all the references to see exactly what was meant. Life ain’t like that. Time is short and there are many other calls upon these guys time.
You then say
‘The wording of the SPM leaves space for interpretation, but it’s totally clear, what the scientists really had in mind’
If the authors write one thing while meaning another, then that is their own look out. When they are specifically given the job of advising world leaders, they need to be very clear and very precise in what they say. If they fail to communicate their meaning clearly and precisely to their target audience, then they have failed. ‘Space for interpretation’ has no place in a document of such global importance.
They wrote what they wrote.
If they’d meant something else they should have written it differently. Too late now to ask for a second chance to get it right.
LA,
That’s not empty semantics. From my own background my interpretation was immediately different from what you claim as the only right interpretation. To me it has from the first reading meant that there’s a continuing background trend and that variability that can hide the trend for years is part of the picture. I’m sure that a major part of the readers understood it similarly.
You are the one who is nitpicking and claiming that your interpretation is the only one consistent with the text.
@pekka
Nope.
When you write something it is your responsibility to consider the needs of the intended audience. If you write for children, you have to write in a way that they are capable of understanding. If you write an academic paper, you can reasonably assume that your majority audience will be other academics and so you can write in an academic style confident that they will have both the time and inclination to follow up references and mull over cases of possible ambiguity or different interpretations.
But this was neither of those things. It was the Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC 4th report. It was aimed directly at senior decision makers and Heads of State – not at children or academics or you and me
It is only eighteen pages long. We can reasonably assume that a Head of State might find time to give it up to an hour’s close attention among all the other calls upon their time…many far more pressing and of immediate impact than a report about what may happen in 100 years time. We cannot assume that they have any personal interest or background knowledge about the subject. Nor any inclination at all to do further reading. It is not an academic paper.
And we can also assume she will take away only a few key points only. It is clear that the authors recognised this and helpfully highlighted the 12 ‘key messages’ that they thought most relevant for this audience. The prediction of +0.2C per decade is one of those key points.
Here it is again
‘For the next two decades, a warming of about
0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES
emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of
all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept
constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of
about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.’
See
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.UIuxK4ZzWZ0
to download the original if you have forgotten.
If the authors had really meant to write something else *for their intended audience* they had plenty of opportunities to do so. Nobody forced their hand. Nobody told them what to write. But they did not write your interpretation:
‘that there’s a continuing background trend and that variability that can hide the trend for years is part of the picture.’
That you – with a considerable hinterland of background knowledge – can claim to be able to divine a different meaning behind their actual words is really irrelevant. It is not you that the SPM was aimed at.
The clue is in the name. To remind you it is
‘Summary for Policy Makers’.
And so it goes on. I try to explain. You respond with the same ill-conceived claim that a hiatus in warming actually means something significant. Pekka tries to explain. Same denial from you wearing the same blinkers and earplugs.
Tellingly, you do not see how wrongheaded, how unphysical your argument really is. Doggedly asserting that the current hiatus invalidates everything known and about AGW from the physics of radiative transfer to the energetic imbalance demonstrably developing within the climate system is *stupid*. It is a classic example of emphatic hyperfocus for argumentative effect. And it’s wrong.
Once again: nobody predicted monotonic warming and nobody said natural variability would stop. As Pekka observed, you are confusing the multi-model mean with individual runs exhibiting lots of variability (aka natural variability) and a slowly increasing anthropogenic signal. The more you say, the more obvious it is that you really do not understand the science you are attempting to dismiss. This strongly suggests that you are motivated by politics/emotions, since it isn’t coming from an informed perspective on the science.
I have repeatedly provided a partial list of proposed contributions to the warming hiatus. You clearly haven’t bothered even to skim through it, since you are asking questions like this:
Instead, you emit an incessant, opinionated and ill-informed drone while ignoring the majority of what is being said to you. This is not a discussion; it is a monologue. Perhaps you don’t understand what you are doing – and not doing – here. Perhaps you have found this technique useful in other contexts such as boring people in the pub, for example.
Perhaps you understood your business rather better than you understand the basics of climatology. Perhaps you should confine your opinion to your area of expertise. Or learn to *listen*.
BBD
By accusing Latimer Alder of being “unphysical” for referring to the current “pause” in warming as a problem for the CAGW premise of IPCC, you are falling into a logic trap.
A well thought out hypothesis is a wonderful thing and when a “consensus” of like-minded scientists and scientific organizations embrace it, that is marvelous, but the ONLY thing that REALLY counts is empirical evidence (Feynman).
Now I know that the CAGW hypothesis tells us that CO2 is the primary climate “control knob” with a mean 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C. And, using this hypothesis, IPCC climate models have calculated that it should be warming by 0.2C per decade (Hansen’s 1988 forecast even called for 0.32C warming per decade).
Now we come to the pesky empirical evidence.
Hansen’s forecast was off by 2:1 (the actual warming over the late 1980s and 1990s was 0.16C per decade).
The IPCC forecast was not only wrong in magnitude, it was even wrong in sign! (It actually cooled slightly since the turn of the millennium).
So it is very “physical” to look at this empirical evidence and say, “hey, what happened?”.
One could argue that the past 12 years is too short to mean much, or even that the 24 years since Hansen made his exaggerated forecast is still too short.
OK. But then one has to add how long a period of no warming it would take to falsify the CAGW premise of a 3.2C mean climate sensitivity: 25 years? 50 years? Never?
It’s a slippery slope BBD. Care to make a step?
(Didn’t think so. That would be too “physical”.)
Max
The answer to that is Yes. BBD’s reluctance to accept, that speaks volumes of his own bias, ignorance and emotional motivation that he.tries to hard to project onto others.
@bbd
Wow. That’s quite a charge sheet you lay at my door.
But let’s start with the fundamental one…that I am refusing to listen.
Not at all. I read your contributions very carefully. And then I think about the content for a long time before replying. I am ‘listening’ intently.
But what I am not ‘hearing’ is any acknowledgement that the hiatus is a problem that is a major PR disaster for the alarmist cause. And weaseling around with excuses like ‘we never said it would be monotonic’ does nothing at all to change that. The clear public perception has been that GAt will continue to increase. And the IPCC’s premier communication method to world leaders the spM in AR4 reinforced that
‘For the next two decades, a warming of about
0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES
emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of
all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept
constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of
about 0.1°C per decade would be expected’.
So I’d love to see you explaining to the general public that – rather than global warming being a major imminent problem that will make the globe hotter (that’s what ‘warming’ means) the fact that they are stupid enough to think that ‘no temperature increase = no warming’ is because
‘you are confusing the multi-model mean with individual runs exhibiting lots of variability (aka natural variability) and a slowly increasing anthropogenic signal.’
Cue Newsnight: BBD vs Paxman…fight stopped in the first minute as BBD unable to continue. Covered in ridicule – or worse.
The key issue here – as I have been arguing all along – is the public credibility of climatology, climatologists and their predictive abilities.. And you do nothing to improve it by failing to even admit that you have a problem.
We employ climatologists to make useful climate predictions on our behalf. It is clear that in the first real-world substantive test of them they have failed completely. They predicted warming when there was none. Even when it s was happening (or not) right outside their office window. It is hard to imagine a bigger or more embarrassing error in a field that puts the existence and dominance of AGW as its basic credo and speaks directly to their competence (or lack of). It is (at best) a cockup par excellence.
You accuse me of being ‘non-physical’ in my argument. This is a completely bizarre charge. Mine is as physical as you can get….
soundly based in actual temperature observations of the real world…while yours seems to be largely dreamt up as a consequence of untried and unproven models. The charge of being ‘non-physical’ can be laid squarely at your door. As has been repeatedly pointed out on this and many other blogs..but seems still not to be understood by climatologists…models are not observations. You are modelling the real world. The test of correctness is what the real world does, not what the models say they think it should.Observations rule, OK!
As to my long lasting survival in business, one satisfied customer was kind enough to write in a wrap-up sheet:
‘Latimer has a great ability to cut through the myriad of diversions and irrelevancies that a project like ours throws up , and to keep his focus on the big picture. His clear vision helped us to avoid many distractions and to arrive at the right conclusions’
which was good enough for me.
Suggest you read all my remarks one more time. This time thinking ‘how does this appear to the general public’. Because though you might be right that PR does not trump physics, public perception is what leads to money and resources flowing into climatology and to action on emissions and all that stuff.
Prima facie, the temperature data shows that if there is a problem at all it is a very small one and a long way off. Decrying your audience and paymasters as too stupid and/or politically or emotionally motivated to understand really is not the way to their hearts. You just piss them off and dig a deeper hole for yourselves. Once they lose faith in your abilities, then it is almost impossible to get back.
Somebody else either too lazy to read the list of possible causes upthread or too stupid to understand it. Let me help you all out here. *Both* natural variation and anthropogenic tropospheric sulphate aerosols have been suggested as possible causes.
And you spout on about my supposed:
Irony you could cut with a knife.
You are too limited to understand why you are wrong. I have tried numerous times now to explain but it is hopeless. I give up.
When temperatures start to trend up again, as they must (and as you would understand if you grasped the physical reality under discussion), please remember how wrong you were.
@bbd
I assume that your above remark was not directed to me (*), since you’ve not had sufficient time to read and understand my last contribution. let alone formulate a reply.
But I’ll take the liberty of butting in here.
Saying that ‘phenomena xyz and abc’ have been suggested as a reason
for the hiatus is just not a good enough explanation..
‘Suggesting’ something is only the start of a long long process of coming up with some conclusive evidence. Maybe I watch too many editions of ‘Crimewatch’ but everytime there;s a public appeal to nail the perp there will be 20 or more ‘suggestions’ about who it might have been. It’s good to reduce the number to that, but there is still a lot of elimination to do and proof to gather. The CPS do not charge people because they ‘have been suggested as the wrong-doer’, but because there is real solid evidence of their involvement.
And since the ‘pause’ has been going for 15 years, you’ve had about ten to notice what has been going on outside your office window and to come up with something better than ‘suggestions’. Come back when you have something like proof and we’ll look again.
* using the ‘@’ sign to indicate the intended recipient is a useful trick I mentioned to you earlier in your unfounded accusation to me of ‘skipthreading’. Suggest (!) that you pay heed to it.
When prior to 1997 temperatures were rising monotonically, the the climate ‘scientists’ confidently pointed to their correct predictions. Only when questions started being asked about the hiatus did they change their story. Either they were too stupid to know, or they were too dishonest to divulge any cause for doubt or uncertainty.
BBD
When temperatures start to trend up again, as they must
So you (alone?) have a fix on natural variations, and how they won’t dwarf the anthro one ?
Of course the comment was for you Latimer.
Unless you understand (as opposed to deny) the physics of radiative transfer you won’t be able to understand why warming must resume. The increasing fraction of GHGs will cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. It can do nothing else. The effect on surface and tropospheric temperature can be augmented or offset by other factors (see list above; add your own favourites). But the forcing will increase as the atmospheric fraction of GHGs increases. Natural variability and/or anthopogenic aerosols operate within the laws of physics, within the energy balance model of the climate system and within this universe not the parallel one apparently inhabited by you and your fellow ‘sceptics’. Failure to understand this results in failure to understand why I say what I do and failure to grasp why what you argue is daft at a fundamental level.
But feel free to keep on spouting nonsense…
BBD
You write, in rationalizing the dilemma of the current “pause” in warming despite unabated human GHG emissions and GHG concentrations (principally CO2) reaching record levels”
Let’s go back to “Occam’s Razor” and “suggest” a third cause.
Rather that rationalizing all sorts of reasons why the empirical evidence does not support the hypothesis – why not simply admit that the hypothesis was wrong, i.e. that the climate models are working with a (2xCO2) climate sensitivity that is exaggerated by a factor of 2+?
This would also explain why Hansen’s 1988 forecasts were wrong.
Very straightforward.
Fixes the dilemma right away – no need for convoluted rationalizations.
Right?
Max
BBD
Your conceptual model of the earth as a black body dominated everywhere by radiation is simple and wrong. The surface is dominated by latent transport.
Write that down.
BBD
The average temperature of the global ocean is 4C. Resumption of warming is not inevitable in that environment. You will very likely have to learn this the hard way. If I were as arrogant and ignorant as you I’d be anonymous too, by the way. If you were actually confident of your opinions you’d use your real name to voice them. Pffffffffffffffffffff…. I fart in your general direction.
Because a short warming hiatus is not evidence that the ~3C ECS for 2 x CO2 estimate is wrong. Only contrarian hand-wavers make such claims. Others recognise that they are unfounded, even silly.
You do know that sensitivity is not parameterised in the more sophisticated GCMs don’t you? It is an emergent behaviour. You do understand this, don’t you?
Because I wonder. Really I do.
@bbd
Re http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-261313
I see nothing in your post other than an unquantified restatement of the barebones of AGW theory.
But since the discussion has not been about the textbook theory, but about the actual observations. I fail to see the relevance. Unless you are just reciting your mantra to keep your spirits up.
To restate just one more time before I conclude that – since you consistently choose to ignore any sort of observational data – you have no right to call yourself any sort of a ‘scientist’, you need to be able to explain, preferably quantitatively, how
a. in an atmospheric environment that AGW theory says will provide a continuous nett warming, none has been detected for the last 15 years (scientific point)
and
b. Why in such an environment all the predictions and prognostications of all the climatologists – and especially of the ‘premier body’ the IPCC did not foresee this development (credibility point).
Few points will be awarded for vague answers like ‘nobody suggested monotonic temperature increases’ or ‘a number of causes have been suggested’.
You need to to have some definite explanation for both. For the second you will need ot show that whatever systemic errors led to this cockup have been found and the root causes eliminated. For the first something where the sums add up – not just the handwaving waffle you so specialise in.
Failure to do these will just confirm my impression that – beyond playing around with a few theories and bit of number torturing – when it comes to observational work few climatologists actually know their arses from their elbows. Avoiding the issue by a lecture on basic theory does not cut the mustard.
BBD
You write (in defending the mean 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of all the models cited by IPCC of 3.2degC:
This is pure BS and you know it.
It is “an emergent behaviour” of all these GCMs because of input assumptions which have been fed into these GCMs.
“GIGO”, as it’s known.
Change the incorrect input assumptions and a lower 2xCO2 CS will “emerge” from the GCM.
The 3.2degC climate sensitivity has been falsified by the past 15 years of “lack of warming” despite unabated CO2 emissions and concentrations reaching record levels.
The only fall-back position you now have is to tell me that 15 years is too short to falsify the 3.2degC climate sensitivity (an argument you have used and which I accept).
So my question to you is:
How many years of “no warming” despite unabated CO2 emissions would it take to falsify the 3.2degC climate sensitivity (and, hence, the CAGW premise of IPCC)?
– 17 years (as Ben Santer has suggested)?
– 20 years (or by the end of 2017)?
– 30 years (the approx. length of the previous warming period)?
– 50 years (a “safe” date when we’ll all be gone)?
– 100 years (a never-never land date)?
Never?
Try to be specific in answering my question, and please don’t come back with wordy rationalizations but no specific answer.
Max
The model physics is as exact as it can be made. Your claim that ‘garbage’ input ‘assumptions’ have been made in *all* the various and independent GCMs is just silly. Worse, it sounds very much like a conspiracy theory.
And where’s this super-accurate 3.2C ECS value coming from? AR4 WG1 gives the most probable value for ECS as *approximately ~3C*.
If you had understood anything that I and others have said again and again on this thread you would realise that your ‘how many years’ question is stupid. How can a warming *hiatus* ‘invalidate’ a specific or even approximate estimate for ECS? Certainly the longer one lasts, the more interesting it gets, but it’s a *hiatus* – a manifestation of transient natural variability or possibly of anthropogenic aerosol forcing, or both. Once this transient perturbations have passed, warming will resume. If the ECS to 2xCO2 is about 3C, then that’s what we will get at equilibrium with 2xCO2.
Behind all the bluster you’re just as clueless as Latimer and it shows.
This is boring.
Come, come, BBD; you are just as ignorant of the manifold unmanifest cause(s) of the millenial scale temperature change, the optimae and minimae, and you are also ignorant of the varying forces precipitating the Earth in and out of Ice Ages. How soon the end of the Holocene, er the Anthropogenic End of it? It is almost manifestly certain that anthropogenic release of CO2 can only have an extending or ameliorating effect on Earth and its denizens as we slip into the next glacial.
===================
Still with this witter about the next glacial? I linked Archer & Ganopolsky (2005) for you a couple of weeks ago. Read it.
@bbd
Re http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-261352
Thank you for (at last :-) ) concentrating on the point I have been raising, rather than berating and insulting me for things that I haven’t. It is always a good idea to read and understand the question first.
Your answer to the first question: Why has there been no observed increase in temperature for 15 years?
‘Things can interfere with that process – aerosols can reflect more energy back into space; the sun’s output can vary; energy can mix into the deeper ocean at varying rates etc. Any of these things could be responsible for the warming hiatus. In due course the exact cause or causes will be sorted out.’
is astonishingly insouciant. You’ve done no more than give a shopping list of possible causes, and some hand-waving that it will ‘all be sorted out sometime’.
Well, when you have sorted it all out – preferably quantitatively – come back and tell me. Then, perhaps, I’ll believe that you really do have a proper understanding of how the climate system actually works and models that reflect it. Because it is clear that right now – beyond your faith in AGW – you don’t.
Whatever these factors may or may not be they are sufficiently strong to mask a predicted AGW induced warming of 0.3C (15 years at 0.2C per decade (IPCC prediction)). And the total warming we have experienced is only about 0.7C in the last 50 years.
Seems strange to me that you can view such forces with such equanimity. Not only have they wrought destruction to the public perception of ‘climate change’ – stirring up apathy all over the place – they are surely scientifically interesting. Perhaps you are all so fixated on your convictions that AGW must be the dominant contributor to any climate differences that you cannot see what is right under your nose?
You then ask:
‘why do you assume that anybody has the ability to see into the future and determine what natural variability will be doing?’
Because, until this recent unhappy set of observations. ‘natural variability’ was dismissed as having any noticeable effects..all susbsumed by the great AGW gorilla in the bathroom.
Consider once again the IPCC statement
‘For the next two decades, a warming of about
0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES
emission scenarios.’
A confident, quantitative prediction. No sign of any concession to the possibility of ‘natural variability’ there. So the answer to your question ‘why d you assume…?’ is because the IPCC seemed to be pretty certain that they could. If you now concede that they couldn’t, that gels with my feeling too. But reemphasises that ‘natural variability’ is an important part of the climate mechanism and should not be lightly dismissed.
So I guess, if we had to write a report card on your progress over the last week, we could say
‘Shows signs of beginning to grasp the essentials. Much work still to do. Still needs to control his emotions in his writings’
And a tip. If you let your emotions spill into your writings too much (insults, questioning motivations etc) it detracts from your message – and from people’s perception of the messenger. Especially in what is supposed to be a scientific discussion. A bit of emotional language is fine to give a sense of passion and commitment, but when it overwhelms the other content it is totally counter-productive.
BBD “your ‘how many years’ question is stupid. How can a warming *hiatus* ‘invalidate’ a specific or even approximate estimate for ECS?”
No, what is stupid here is BBD’s knee-jerk denialism of the obvious.
16 years not enough? OK, what if temperatures fail to rise for the next 100 years?
Latimer
This dollop of self-serving misrepresentation only emphasises that you haven’t understood what I’ve been saying on this thread.
Only someone who has not read any of the references provided in the list of possible causes could be so mistakenly certain that there is no evidence for the various mechanisms listed.
The problem here is that you don’t know what you are talking about and make mistakes. The above is a fine example.
Being demonstrably ill-informed means you are not in a position to claim that climate science (or BBD) ‘doesn’t understand’ things. Remember that verbose, opinionated wrongness is the defining characteristic of the pub bore.
You should read up on the estimated value for aerosol negative forcing rather than arguing from incredulity. It’s in the Hansen paper.
More evidence that you haven’t understood this discussion. A review of my comments here will trawl up expressions like ‘CO2 is emerging as the dominant forcing’ and ‘nobody said that natural variability would stop’ and ‘nobody predicted monotonic warming’. It would have been useful if you had reflected on *what is meant* by these statements and how they bear on the hiatus and its non-relevance to ECS rather sooner. Try now.
Natural variability is indeed an important part of the climate system, but most prominent in its effects over short periods of a decade or two. Long term trends cannot be explained by natural variability because it does not create energy it simply moves it around the climate system. Long term trends are signs of persistent forcing. Natural variability periodically augments and offsets any long term forced trend, with roughly zero net effects on a centennial scale. Does light begin to dawn yet?
This is rubbish. Let’s see some references supporting the claim that natural variability is dismissed as having no noticeable effects. I am calling you out on this because it is a central part of the nonsense and you are just making it up.
Oh for goodness’ sake Latimer. Dig deep. Delve up some self-awareness before it’s too late. A saint would find your mix of pomposity and ignorance sorely trying and I am not a saint.
I misspoke:
‘Sorely trying’ is pompous. :-)
@bbd
re
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-261858
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-261796
‘A saint would find your mix of misplaced confidence and ignorance hard work and I am not a saint’
Maybe you are not a saint, and neither am I, but look how in just a single short week our discussion has improved your communication skills no end. The snarling instinctive aggression has gone…as have most of the insults. ..and by focussing your attention on the issue, not the person presenting it, you’ve started to put together a semi-coherent case that might get a hearing at the Dog and Duck (*) Good stuff all round!
Family matters mean that I’ll not be able to post here for a few days after this morning, so let’s summarise where we are.
1. We differ on the seriousness of the 15 year lack of warming to the alarmist cause. You, claiming to use your theories to see forward 100 years, seem to view it only as an unimportant minor blip. All is still well and AGW will triumph in the end. By the time we are both long gone it’ll be 2 degrees warmer.
But I, seeing it more as a matter of practical politics and making things happen,view it far more seriously. It is very difficult to persuade people to put up with inconvenience to deal with potential threats that might be nasty five years away…even more so for a hundred years off. And near impossible when the effect itself (if it was ever present at all) seems to have stopped for a generation. ‘Double your energy bills to pay for windmills, because the temperature’s the same as 1997’ is not a saleable political message anywhere except the Green Party.
which is where the next bit comes in
2. Explanation for the lack of warming since 1997.
If you are to have even the slightest hope of persuading people that they need to take any action, you have to have a rock solid case that you fully understand the recent temperature non-events, can explain convincingly why you didn’t foresee and predict it, have taken all the lessons into account in your models and are prepared to be a little more humble and a little less dogmatic about your future predictions. Otherwise nobody will listen.
But you are nowhere near that state. You’ve a long menu of ideas that may or may not be the cause(s). You can even point to an occasional paper that has some vague numbers in it, vaguely relevant to some of the possible causes. But this sort of jellyware is not robust. It might go down very well in the academic bubble, but it is a million miles from being Paxman-proof in the court of public relations. Or from making Joe Sixpack want to sacrifice things now for possible benefits in 100 years.
With the lack of urgency you are quite happy to adopt, I guess that in about fifteen years time some academic will finally be arsed to write the paper that ‘will sort it all out’. But by then it will be far far too late. IPCC AR5 is due out in a couple of years. For it to have any credibility whatsoever, it will need to address the issue head on and very very convincingly (AR4 completely missed the lack of warming, even though it was under its nose…black mark!). It seems from your survey of the field that they have no chance whatsoever of doing that, and it will be ripped apart by the critics for that. Me included.
My overall conclusion is that we see here the eternal tension between the theoretician and the observationalist. You have your theory and are sticking to it come what may. Even if the effects don’t show up for another century (or ever) you’re content with that. Don’t worry BBD with the messy little details, the theory rules OK.
And I’m much closer to home. A nod to the theory but really concerned with practical politics & real observations. When you have a theory that the temperatures ought to be going up..and the thermometers say they ain’t then I want to know whether you actually know your arse from your elbow on this topic and why you didn’t forecast it. So far the answers to both are pretty unconvincing.
Off now …bis gleich!
(*) Doubt if the denizens there would agree with you, but at least they’d listen rather than throw you out sine die as being a misanthropic arrogant loudmouth.
BBD
Underneath all the masturbatory self-aggrandizement in your posts, is not there not even a single coherent argument you can muster ?
Latimer
Wow. So many misrepresentations it’s hard to know what to say or where to start.
Right, from the top, off the top of my head, with translation and commentary:
Just which parallel universe is it you inhabit again? Or are you rather more thin-skinned than the norm for climate blogland? As for the argument, I’ve been repeating the same thing for a week – you have just been agonisingly slow on the uptake.
Trans: F*** the unborn. They don’t count and I’m going to *make sure* that I’m all right Jack by downplaying the seriousness of AGW with every fibre of my being, day in, day out, forevah.
Trans: AGW is a false alarm (see previous point) and *there will be no changes that I do not like*.
Trans: I *still* haven’t followed up a single one of the references provided, and I’m not going to because these hippy scientist jokers haven’t got a clue and I’m a realist, a man of the world, and a champion pub bore.
You simply made this up. It is misrepresentation from start to finish.
The hiatus was all-but invisible in 2005. This is just standard IPCC-bashing in the service of ‘I’m all right Jack and it’s going to stay that way’ – see above.
Misrepresentation from start to finish, again. When lacking a point just make stuff up, eh Latimer?
Ignore the relevant science, smear everyone involved with accusations of incompetence, repeat – again – the *stupid* remark about forecasting – as if anyone can forecast natural variability… But it all sounds convincing to the ignorant. Just not to the well-informed, who recognise non-arguments, misrepresentation and self-serving distortions when they see them, eh Latimer?
Yet more self-serving emotional drivel and falsehoods. Way to go, BBD. For someone who understands as little as you do, you sure do give bangs per buck. What a perfect little alarmist you are. Do/did you have a government job by any chance ?
Please, list the falsehoods.
No.
Pekka
So what you’re saying is that if you selectively ignore the more unpredictable locations, the remaining more predictable ones show some warming?
BBD, the Cohen paper is an interesting paper that presents an observation that is potentially useful in explaining what is going on. I don’t think one should (or needs to) present it as a rebuttal to the global cooling meme when the temperature trend is still as high today as it was in 1997.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1965/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1965/trend
Regarding the predictability of this cause, the current climate models, when extended to the stratosphere are demonstrating that there are detectable physical causes behind some of these outbreaks of cold weather particularly when certain ENSO and AMO phases coincide. I wonder if this is relevant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19584302
Petra,
The global average surface temperature as calculated by the various groups is an indicator of the warming of the system that includes the oceans, the atmosphere and the uppermost layers of ground. These temperature time series are not the only possible indicators and it’s always worthwhile to ponder whether better indicators could be found or the present indicators improved by some methodological choices.
When an average is calculated to cover all year and all parts of the surface where measurements are available, different parts of the whole contribute both to the average (or its trend) and to the variance of the result. If some area is for part of the year exceptionally variable this particular data may add greatly to the variance of the average while it tells little of the actual warming defined by energy flows.
The surface temperature is in Northern winter often excessively dependent on weather conditions and circulation patterns in such a way that the temperature changes many times more in comparison with changes in the heat content of the Earth system than it does under other conditions. Using this kind of data in the calculation of the warming indicator makes the indicator worse, i.e. more noisy and less accurate over short or medium long periods. Only over many (five or more in my judgment) decades do these variations average out well enough to make these temperature values potentially useful for the determination of an indicator for warming.
If we are not looking for an indicator for warming but are really interested in the average surface temperature itself then we must naturally include all data points.
The selection that I propose is not based on the trend these data points show but on the year-to-year variability. Due to this great variability we cannot even tell what the trend really is for these data points for periods of less than 50-100 years. (And for these periods the availability of data is very limited for wide areas like Siberia.)
It’s possible that there are some energy balance based negative correlations between the data dropped and data left. Such a correlation introduces a bias, but my own judgment is that such a bias is not significant.
Steve Milesworthy
Sadly, because Latimer skipped away from the original discussion – as is his wont when he is losing ground – the context gets lost. I brought Cohen up because the regional and seasonal analysis is something Lattie needs to acknowledge.
Unfortunately, despite Pekka Pirilä’s patiently explaining Cohen to him for a second time here at the new home for this ‘conversation’, Lattie still doesn’t get it. This is very evident from his silly quote mining above:
His snippet is in bold, the rest is the full context:
I believe what the Met Office is trying to model is very much what Cohen is proposing. I don’t know about your statement that ENSO and the AMO come into it though. Possibly there is confusion here?
Thanks to Lattie’s tactical thread-skipping the link to the second Cohen study proposing a physical mechanism for the flat boreal winter trend has now ben lost upthread along with much else besides. Have a look at what Lattie didn’t want you to see here.
Andrew Revkin interviewed Cohen a couple of years ago – there is some useful background on his ideas here.
@bbd
No ‘skipping away’ from me, mon brave. But I do have to go out and earn some money occasionally so I am not pinned to my keyboard all day every day.
As to the ‘new information’; that has just come to light that you would wish me to take very seriously as the get out of jail card that invalidates the Met Office’s own official climate change figures, I think I’ll wait until there is a robust consensus from all climatologists that this is good solid stuff.
A part of that, of course, will need to be an admission by those in leadership positions for the last 20 years that they’ve been measuring the wrong things in the wrong places all this time. Some form of ‘why we got it so very wrong’ explanation would be nice as well as a plausible story of how they wasted the $100 billion that has been hosed down the throat of ‘climate science’ in the recent past.
Until then I’ll take leave to treat this with a pinch of salt. I don’t really fall for dramas where a ‘deus ex machina’ implausibly arrives in the last few minutes to save the day. It is a contrived and predictable development and, I’ll stick it in that category until that consensus – and the associated ‘nostra culpas’ are made public.
See response here.
That’s what you do when you misthread, btw. It demonstrates that you are engaging in good faith not playing unpleasant little tactical games. Please take note.
As for Cohen’s seasonal and regional analysis, it is interesting and deserves attention. The way you are treating this whole discussion is not. For you, it’s just an extension of the idiotic meme that the warming hiatus ‘falsifies’ AGW which is a ‘scare’ evolved from a symbiosis of grant-chasers and power-hungry politicians.
For everyone engaged in good faith it is both an opportunity to understand the actual heating patterns that are occurring and to investigate the many possible reasons why there has been a slow-down in the rate of warming. There it is again: engagement in good faith. Please take note.
@bbd
Please grow up.
You are beginning to sound like a hysterical teenager who has just discovered that the Bay City Rollers aren’t quite the clean cut Scottish guys that you thought they were and hate your Dad for pointing it out.
Whichever way you cut it and however much you might wish it to be otherwise, the global temperature has not increased for 15 years. You can draw all the graphs you want, change the goalposts as many times as you can and weep over your David Cassidy memorabilia till your eyes drop out…but illusions shattered will always be painful.
If you guys ever want to be taken seriously you first have to acknowledge this truth. It hasn’t warmed for 15 years.
But instead you;re all stuck somewhere in the five stages of grief:
Denial – Lolwot is still here and looks set to remain…’It didn’t happen’.
Anger -‘It’s all David Rose’s fault ..he’s a bad boy for telling us’ – Willard
Negotiation – You. ‘But look over here at something else and we’ve still got a bit, haven’t we, pretty please? Our lovely theory is still just about OK isn’t it?’
Depression and Acceptance follow.. Seems like you all have a bad few weeks coming up..
Once you get through these stages you’ll then have to come up with a plausible explanation of just how all your models and all your predictions got it wrong. Just pointing to yet another academic paper and hoping it’ll be your ‘Get Out of Jail’ card will not be enough…because there are plenty of other papers that made the failed predictions. Like the IPCC AR4. And the obviosu question to any new data is ‘Why is this one any different from all the previous ones that got it wrong?’ And with your credibility shot to pieces you;ll find that one hard to counter
Instead you;ll have to do some real hard analysis of how you got it so wrong for so long when it was all going on (or not) just outside your office window. Seems to me that you all had so much faith in the ‘statistical significance’ test that you all failed to engage the physics/meteorology/curiosity sides of your brains. But I guess that’s what happens in any field where dissent from the accepted tenets is ,marginalised and expelled. You start to do unthinking belief, as you are never forced to test the arguments.
And then you;ll have to pacify a lot of very disgruntled people who have hitched their careers to your wagon..believing in what you told them for 20+ years. Somebody who started as a young climate change Turk in 1992 will be approaching middle age now ..and as the interest drops away so will their career opportunities and funding. Going to be a lot of very pissed off people around. Nobody likes to feel that their trust has been misplaced. And changing horses at 25 is a lot lot easier than at 45+.
And if you’ve not noticed the change in the worldwide political climate re global warming since Copenhagen then you’ve been living in a
very sheltered world. In 2008 President Obama flew there to discuss climate change, Nowadays I doubt he’d walk across the Oval Office. It has not been mentioned in the Presidential campaigns at all. Germany was all for decarbonisation to save the planet..and instead has ended up building new power plants that burn lignite (dirty brown coal). In UK the political tide is turning away from the Greens. Shale gas will be produced, onshore wind is effectively dying on its feet and the voters are increasingly resistant to extra charges for expensive green energy. . Even the guys at 10:10, who two years ago were making headlines for big-budget commericals and big publicity are now reduced to extolling the virtues of carsharing and woodburning stoves…ideas that wouldn’t have been out of place in the Women’s Institute in the 1970s
Global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it is yesterday’s issue. It is not sexy or exciting or cool any more
So you guys are really in for a rough time, Even if the recent data showed that warming was continuing, you’d be facing an uphill battle. When it shows that since 1997, nothing at all has happened, it just got 20 times harder. Get used to it.
Let’s eschew the ‘you guys’ framing and think. Public opinion doesn’t trump physics. Why has energy been accumulating in the global ocean since the mid-C20th? We need to know.
BBD, “Why has energy been accumulating in the global ocean since the mid-C20th? We need to know.”
Plot GISS loti 44-64S and SST, 44-64S, You will see that longer term natural variability is quite a bit stronger than anticipated. In fact there is near zero trend in 44-64S from 1900 to 1933 and 1976 to present. The slope from 1933 to 1976 is 0.73C per century as is the slope of GISS global from 1900 to present. GISS 44-64S has 68 years of zero trend out of 112 and it leads the global warming of 1976 to present by 45 years. That would be an odd CO2 forcing, doncha know.
See Levitus et al. (2012) for a reference analysis of OHC increase by basin since the mid-C20th. There are even pretty pictures. Fig. S1 and Fig. S2 at the beginning of the auxiliary material are thought-provoking.
BBD, Yes, but you have the 1960 start data which is an issue. The shift in the 44-64S data is 1933, 27 years before 1960. In general the SH data sucks prior to 1960 which is the reason for looking at paleo and surface station Tmin to fill in the gaps. Having the better quality data start in the late 50s and early 60s is an easy way to confuse cause and effect.
Interestingly the mid 40s, bucket/intake issue appears to be a non-issue. That drop and recovery appears to be due to an SH based oscillation. Check Tmins for any SH island or western coastal surface station. In Levitus et al. the southern Pacific, Indian and Atlantic all show a 1976 or very close peak that coincides with the 44-64S shift. with strong NH gains following 1976. That would indicate that warming is greater in Levitus and started earlier than 1960.
@bbd
My response here
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-260318
I don’t know why wordpress does these things either. But they are not deliberate actions on my part.
I *want* you to read my remarks. That’s why I write them.
Pekka,
I did get (and am not querying) your point about WHY to exclude the more variable locations. But what I want to know is, does this excluding change the results, contrary to the current 16-year plateau?
Previously you said “The preliminary conclusion is that even the surface temperatures have continued to increase steadily when the least significant data points are excluded to reduce spurious variability” (emphasis added). A sort of Yes then.
This time though you said “but my own judgment is that such a bias is not significant.”. A No.
So … ?
Based on the Cohen et al paper it’s likely that leaving out the most volatile data series would in the present case result in a time series where warming continues with less plateauing than we see in the existing data on global average surface temperature. The conclusion is not certain until a full analysis is done, but that seems likely.
When we look over long enough periods the warming trend is likely to be weaker when the highly volatile time series are dropped as the most common expectation is that the largest changes in temperature will ultimately bee seen in the high latitude winter temperatures. Putting these two observations together the conclusion would be that the ultimate modification occurs in one direction but the great volatility of those data series has by accident produced the opposite effect over the latest 30 years. It would not be surprising that that the 30 year trend were the opposite of the ultimate effect as the volatility is, indeed, so large that it dominates over any trend even over 30 years.
Of course all the above is speculative and based on looking at the data without any real analysis, but that’s the impression that I get from the data.
lolwot
The Northern Hemisphere, where most folks live (‘scuse me, Beth, Ah ain’t fergot U) is heading into a period of “hemispheric cooling”.
If it is another harsh winter, like the past few, people will be shoveling snow and not worrying about potential global warming, especially since there hasn’t been any since the old millennium ended.
Heating costs are up, and this will be a concern for many people.
The Arctic sea ice will again be recovering (as it has every year) and NSIDC will have a hard time getting people interested in their curves or fretting about the plight of the 25,000 or so polar bears that are munching on seal pups up there.
So it is a bad time for those who want to keep the old CAGW spirit alive, as it was back in the glory days of Nobel Peace Prizes for the “team”, Oscar-winning CAGW “documentaries”, etc.
The times have changed.
And it looks very much like “the global warming scare has run out of steam”, as Latimer Alder writes.
Max
Max said:
“If it is another harsh winter, like the past few…”
____
Very mild winter here in Colorado. And of course, you’ve sufficiently studied the relationship between sudden stratospheric warming events and the fracturing of the Arctic vortex to understand how that warming of the stratosphere over the north pole dramatically affected the severe winter that Europe had last year, right? And you’ve studied the relationship between vertically directed Rossby waves from the troposphere into the stratosphere as precursor events to the sudden stratospheric warming events, and thus realize how heat being direct poleward and upward from the equator toward the pole is the ultimate cause of these sudden stratospheric warming events which fracture or disrupt the polar vortex, and thus is an actual cause of the very cold outbreaks in the European winter, right? I didn’t think so…
R. Gates
The past winters have been harsh across much of the Northern Hemisphere. Winter 2011/2012 was known in the USA as “Snowmageddon” – don’t know how this one will work out in Colorado, for example, but Switzerland expects plenty of snow for skiing this season (as we’ve had the past few years).
All the many erudite rationalizations why these recent harsh winters were caused, in some cases even trying to tie the cold winters to global warming and thus to human GHG emissions, do not really impress me, as they are based on conjecture, rather than empirical evidence.
But thanks for trying.
Max
What a beautiful example of confirmation bias. Over the past couple of years, we’ve had some colder winters yet concern about global warming has increased.
http://ncse.com/news/2012/10/climate-change-american-mind-september-2012-0014609
Apparently “rational skeptic” = “skeptic” not skeptic.
– – – – – – – –
willard (@nevaudit),
I take from your oblique responses that you decline to participate in my suggested case study of Mann hockey stick papers vs IAC’s “Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise” report.
Why do you hesitate? The uses of case studies are common as valuable discussion and educational tools in master degrees in science, business, law and medicine. The case of Mann’s hockey stick papers will be done by someone. Why not us?
You and I are apparently somewhat diametrically opposed on the subject of the Mann hockey stick papers, so we should come to a relatively balanced view collectively, especially with this wonderful open blog of Judith Curry’s watching our every statement in the dialog; so it will be by default an open and transparent matter.
Shall we start?
John
* * *
– – – – – – –
willard (@nevaudit),
Auditability, openness and transparency in public funded research all the way from grant application through post published paper replications requests by independent critical thinkers.
John
John Whitman,
I take it from your comments so far that you are:
– willing to mention the “get rid of MWP” meme without delving into it;
– talking about “IPCC mimics” without identifying to whom you are referring;
– taking David Rose’s article at face value without any diligence due;
– refusing to answer my question about the implications you had in mind;
– using the results of a report whose result contradicts your ideals of auditability, openness and transparency;
– proposing an exercise in righteous hindsight;
– proposing to focus on your favorite whipping boy;
– proposing all this in a thread about David Rose.
I truly enjoy our conversation, but please do not overegg the ad superbiam, for I can respond in kind.
I’ve asked a question in my previous comment. If you answer it, I’ll think about your offer once again. You still have time to remove it from the table.
Best,
w
Two corrections:
First, I should say “using the results of a report whose production” etc.
Second, when I say that I want an answer to my question, i mean that
> Auditability, openness and transparency in public funded research all the way from grant application through post published paper replications requests by independent critical thinkers.
simply repeats the sentence I was asking to be elucidated, viz.:
> I find problems with what I interpret [the IAC report] implies about openness and transparency of in-process research when publically funded.
All that is added is the concept of auditibility.
I fail to see how this answers a request for an explanation.
John Whitman,
After a bit of thinking, just a bit, I decided to accept your proposal.
Though I will be gone for a few days, and there is this article by Bob Ward to which I need to pay due diligence first.
So I’d like to begin next week, if you don’t mind.
I would also like to do this by email, at least at first. You can contact me via my tumblog. There is also an email there, if you go on the FAQ:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/faq
If all goes well, you might be able to have a document of an analysis of the kind you’d like to do which I would have critically reviewed and for which I would provide suggestions.
It’s about time this hand gets played.
So what do you think?
Best,
w
PS: I tried to search for auditibility, and could only find pages about auditory devices. Then I searched for auditability, and found a commonsensical definition on the Investopedia.
– – – – – – –
willard (@nevaudit),
Good. I will contact you at that email.
I also just tweeted you.
John
– – – – – –
willard (@nevaudit),
No problem about your declining to participate in my proposed case study on Mann’s hockey stick papers versus the IAC’s “Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise” report. Your time is not mine to command.
I will find another candidate for doing a case study of Mann’s hockey stick papers versus the IAC’s “Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise” report. It might be enlightening.
John
* * *
willard (@nevaudit),
My response wrt your other points:
Overall, rhetorically, I suggest we agree not play the climate science blog equivalent of ‘rope a dope’ (boxing term).
The ongoing MWP controversial and critical dialog wrt MM hockey stick papers is legend. We can acknowledge openly that am open dialog on it exists. Likewise the ongoing ~>16 non-warming controversial critical dialog wrt AWG/CO2 is legend. We can acknowledge openly, like Rose and Curry and many others that the open dialog exists. Do you have problem with saying the open dialog on it exists? My position is that it is a most excellent thing. Do you agree the open dialog is an excellent thing? Thus the MWP (and hiding late 20th century paleo-data/temps) are relevant on the Dave Rose non-warming thread to show a pattern in the climate science history. : )
The existence of commenters and sites that mimic IPCC assessments in the blogosphere is legend. We can acknowledge openly that they exist as well as acknowledge the existence of more open independent critical commenters and sites, which are also legend. Do you disagree that they exist? My position is that a situation like that is a most excellent thing. Do you agree the existence of both those kinds of commenters and sites may have net benefits in the context of a comprehensive balance dialog on climate science?
I am non-responsive to: “righteous hindsight”; “whipping boy”; “overegg the ad superbiam”; using the name “David Rose” like it is an ‘a priori’ pejorative term; your curious (to me) concern over me adding a word (auditability) to my own original thoughts as they take on an evolving context in a polite (well, up till a little while ago polite) conversation with you; your presumptive omniscient self-serving claim of knowledge of my “due diligence”; implying there is a problem endorsing parts of the IAC report but not others; etc, etc, etc . . .
I do not know why you do not know about the ongoing discussions about the in process auditability, openness and transparency in the: IPCC assessment processes; processes of publically funded climate research; and research processes in public funded universities. The topic is often discussed on IPCC mimic sites, middle of the road sites and sites of more open, independent and critical views. Try Google.
John
John Whitman,
1. I don’t think I need any omniscience to believe that when you claim that:
> The UK’s Sunday Mail & David Rose shows the IPCC mimics that they cannot be confident any longer of fawning and uncritical support from either the MSM or the climate science community.
you have not paid due diligence to David Rose’s articles. This is an editorial comment that is thousands of feet about any auditing concerns. Supporting that claim seems should take quite an endeavour.
2. I’ve asked you two times to what does the expression “IPCC mimics” refer. I still don’t know to what you are referring. Since this is the basic object of the criticism of your first comment, clarifying it should be welcome. Only now do I know this is refers to “sites.” Are these the same sites as the Judy’s referring when she talks about “dittoheads”?
This is not a rhetorical question. I want to know what you are talking about there.
3. I asked you to tell me what you had in mind when you were referring to “problems” with what the IAC report implies about openness and transparency of in-process research when publically funded. What kind of problems do you have in mind? What level of granularity are you willing to push your analysis? What will be the technical framework? What kinds of concerns interest you: legal, political, economic, ethical, metaphysical?
These are not rhetorical questions.
4. You have to admit that “auditability” is quite thin. Worse, it’s a dispositional concept. This kind of concept can lead to philosophical quagmires quite fast.
You’ll have to trust me on that one for now. If not, search for “testability”, “intelligence”, or “Goodman’s paradox”.
5. I have not declined to participate in your discussion. I want to know more about what you want a commitment from my part. In other words, what the hell I am signing?
You must understand that I am preoccupied as you are about what can of worms I am being offered. Perhaps I could offer you some background on this:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/AboutTruism
Once upon a time, I tried to argue about Wegman’s conclusions. I tried to argue that they were quite obvious. It did not turn that well.
So I need to know what kind of discussion you have in mind.
6. I’m not sure I can follow your justification leading to this:
> Thus the MWP (and hiding late 20th century paleo-data/temps) are relevant on the Dave Rose non-warming thread to show a pattern in the climate science history.
I can’t follow your argument: anything can be invoked to show a pattern. Anything is similar to anything else, if you dig enough. In fact, the only pattern I see is the rhetorical pattern of using the usual memes to prevent the discussion of issues that might not turn in our favor.
(You see? I can appeal to your pride too!)
This lack of understanding is not helped by your alternative between legend and dialog:
> [T]he ongoing ~>16 non-warming controversial critical dialog wrt AWG/CO2 is legend. We can acknowledge openly, like Rose and Curry and many others that the open dialog exists.
It does seem to me that you’re saying that a dialog about the ongoing 16 non-warming is both legendary (third sentence of the paragraph) and existent (fourth).
7. Perhaps are you suggesting that only our commitment to discuss will determine if we do start a discussion. If such is the case, we definitely are having a failure to communicate. I propose we stop the escalation of threats before this is settled.
8. I don’t mind talking about the principles of the auditing sciences. In fact, I believe we are less afar than the divide between the commenters at Judy’s suggest. What I do mind is when a discussion is being used to shame, to put on trial, and to castigate.
9. I wanted to make that clear from the start, because you deserve to be forewarned. I would not have extended this courtesy to unworthy interlocutors.
10. For the sake of speed things up a bit, and to admit having tested you with a rhetorical question, I would like you to ponder on this:
> The review procedure and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/IACReportRelease.html
There are three interesting concepts right there: deliberative process, confidentiality, and integrity.
Damn typos:
> This is an editorial comment that is thousands of feet above any auditing concerns.
willard (@nevaudit),
W’s 1 – JW says again I am not responsive to your presumptive omniscient self-serving claim of knowledge of my “due diligence”. When you admit you do not know my QA basis then we can continue to resume a civil dialog.
W’s 2 – JW says I have already responded in full. I politely asked you not to play ‘rope a dope’ in such matters. Such things are legend. If you honestly say you know of no such legend, then just say so.
W’s 3 – JW says, again, Google is your friend. Honestly.
W’s 4 – JW says in the professional world I was in for 40 years, auditability (QA, NRC, financial, legal, environmental, international trade law) was never a thin thing. If auditing is a thin thing in the past/current climate science research world supporting the IPCC then that is a huge red flag.
W’s 5 – JW says your time is yours, and my time is mine. I offered to you sincerely in an absolutely open venue, if not with Judith’s blessing then somewhere else that we mutually agree to. There is no shame is declining; we all have to pick our own intellectual engagements since we all have a very short finite time on earth. For case study basis, we can go to a top tier private site and also a top tier public university site to find two benchmarkable case study formats and best practices to use (and give appropriate required crediting and acknowledgement to the organizations). Case studies are very well developed things. : )
W’s 6 – JW says finding a pattern(s) is what science does. N’est ce pas? Finding patterns in past climate science behavior is the science of the history of science. The science of science is intriguing. (aka philosophy)
W’s 7 – JW says what threats? Sincerely, do I threaten you? I am being direct in asking that question . . . . I would like to know and why. NOTE: you can see what I am by my commenting for past ~ 5 years on various sites. I can’t hide, nor do I want to.
W’s 8 – JW says public science is public. A public case study of a well-known series of publically funded controversial climate science papers (for instance Mann’s hockey stick papers) against an objective (mostly) report by the IAC is public . . . . : ) No fear. We can invite Mann as a commenter equal in stature only, of course, to all other commenters. : ) IF YOU THINK I HAVE THIS IDEA ALL PLANNED OUT, then you are wrong . . . . it needs a lot of planning.
W’s 9 – We are all our own intellectual protectors. I say that in spite of either materialistic or paternalistic societies (or governments or philosophies) to the contrary notwithstanding.
W’s 10 – JW says . . . Ahhh, did I pass the test? Since the public domain is, per se, political we must tread (plod) through the meanings of deliberative process, confidentiality wrt the public funding concept. Integrity is real easy though, comparatively.
In closing, prior to the start of the cocktail hour which is my moratorium period against blogging, I leave you with this. The advice I gave to Judith Curry on the startup of this website was “adversus solem ne loquitor”, it also applies to this spur of the moment proposal of mine to you.
John
John Whitman
Your ”adversus solem ne loquitor” (don’t waste your time arguing the obvious) is pertinent to discussions with “Willard the waffler”.
After the third exchange you realize that Willard is not interested in addressing the real topic, but simply waffles around it ”ad nauseam”.
”Argumentum ad circumvitum?” [Willard]
OR
”Argumentum ad tempum perditum?” [Anyone debating with Willard]
Max
John Whitman,
I’ve accepted your offer, but published it in the wrong place:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-260172
Most of the warming at the end of the 20th century occurred within two years as shown.
This warming was a whopping 0.36 deg C in two years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996.6/to:1998.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996.6/to:1998.1/trend
sorry about 0.72 deg C in two years
The first decade of the 21st century was never as hot as the 1930’s !!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/24/climate-and-state-high-temperature-records-wheres-the-beef/
The 1930s were nothing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Real world climate change affecting this Alaskan village. Don’t bother trying to convince them of a pause in the warming. They experienced the truth every day:
http://www.ktuu.com/news/reporters-notebook-a-preview-of-newtok-village-on-the-edge-102412,0,2150985.story
R Gates
I noted this in the report you linked to;
“It’s true erosion has been an ongoing problem in Alaska, long before the climate change debate started. Our coastlines and riverbanks are made up of soft soils, vulnerable to being eaten away. But scientists say rising temperatures have accelerated this erosion. And since statehood, there has been hundreds of millions of dollars invested in these erosion-prone communities.”
Also it mentionsd that such villages are relatively new as people previously rebuilt every few years.
Erosion is a problem we can document in Europe back before Roman Times and the Egyptians for far longer. Whether the current conditions are because of ‘climate change’ I can’t say, although researching the Arctic for my next article I was startled to see how many substantial ancient villages there were that were subsequently abandoned as climate change forced them to relocate. Ive been iin contact with the University of Fairbanks in Alaska about it and hope to include references to them in my next article. Get the popcorn ready.
Tonyb
@R. Gates
Yep. Building a village beneath sea level in Alaska is a dumb thing to do.
Glad to know that you agree.
New Orleans had the same problem.
Willard’s Wiki past temperature graph goes to 2004, showing the beginning of the current flattening out.
Lots of past ups and downs, like a rollercoaster ride.
But no one (including Willard) knows whether the warming has now peaked and the current slight cooling trend will continue for a while.
Let’s wait and see – hold on to your seat, folks! Whoopie!
Max
Off topic question.
Can someone tell me, when browsing a document on the internet using iPhone, how do I quickly move to the bottom of the document?
Thanks in advance.
Before scientists and commentators waste too much hot air on temperature statistics and graphs should we first check the relevance of the recorded data being analysed?
Today (24-10-12), Derek Brockway, the BBC Wales weatherman, reported Mumbles Head, Swansea, as “one of the warmest place in Britain”. Gower also lights up as a warming hot-spot on the 30 year rolling comparisons published by the Met Office. Now here’s why you shouldn’t believe it.
During the mid-50’s, when I was about 10 years old, I knew one of the officers working at Mumbles Head Coast Guard Station. On his duty Saturdays I would “help” him take temperature readings from the Stevenson screen located outside and just below the old station hut on top of the tor. The instrument box remains at this location. The significant difference today is an enormous dark metal roof on the new coast guard building located just a few meters below the instrument box. By chance, I revisited the site at sunset. I could feel the glow of heat from the roof of the building and also observe the light breeze wafting warm air in the direction of the instrument box. Next week, I plan to revisit the site with an infrared thermometer.
Why not Google the site (51.565495, -3.981757) and see for yourself. Any readings from this site since the late 70’s will have an urban heat island effect completely ignored in HadCRUT data! How many other sites are similarly affected?
The graphs may show warming but they include Mumbles Head data. That is NOT good science!
peterandnen
Thanks for that very interesting historic note. Look forward to your follow up
Mind you I have never been to the Mumbles when there has been ‘a light breeze’ and the idea that -without reflective roofs-the Mumbles is one of the warmest places in Britain would be refuted by anyone who has been able to stand up in the teeth of the constant gales for more than two minutes.
tonyb
R Gates
Indeed the Arctic is the only place real climate change seems to be happening but the temperatures are much the same as in the 1930’s and the villagers then were just as happy about it as their grandchildren are today. Try finding someone up there who prefers it colder! Most folk, like most plants and animals like warm and hate cold as has been the case throughout history.
Your challenge is to tell them why being better off will somehow become harmful in the long run. But why do you feel the need to be pessimistic all the time. It is now proven that the models are not fit for purpose and never have been and since the only scary scenarios are entirely model-driven there is no need for panic. The natural cycle will return to cold up there eventually and people will become more miserable again.
“but the temperatures are much the same as in the 1930′s and the villagers then were just as happy about it as their grandchildren are today.”
You took a poll right?
‘Therefore the winds, piping to us in rain,
As in revenge suck’d up from the sea,
Contagious fogs which falling on the land
Hath every pelting river made so proud
That they have overborne their continents.’
H/t ter The Little Ice Age by The Bard.
Chronicle of another warming ‘pause.’
Hi Tony
Found that link we discussed up-thread.
http://sagen.at/texte/sagen/oesterreich/salzburg/pongau/gastein/schatzsagen.html
It describes a story of “human sin and retribution by a higher power” (like CAGW?) as follows:
So reichlich die Goldadern durch Jahrhunderte geflossen waren, hatte der Erzsegen doch allmählich nachgelassen. Die Stollen waren ausgebeutet und neue nicht mehr gefunden worden, der Bergbau ging zurück und die Gletscher drangen auf den Höhen, wo Menschenhand nicht mehr waltete, immer weiter vor. Der Ertrag des Goldbaues entsprach nicht mehr den aufgewendeten Mühen und Mitteln und wurde schließlich fast ganz aufgegeben. Das Volk konnte nicht glauben, daß das alles auf ganz natürliche Weise vor sich ging, es machte sich seine eigenen Gedanken darüber, sah darin eine Strafe höherer Mächte für das manchmal gottlose Leben, dem sich Herren und Knappen ergeben halten.
(My translation below):
As rich as the gold lodes were over centuries, they did finally begin to diminish. The mines were depleting and new lodes were not being found. Mining activity slowed down and then the glaciers advanced further and further down where people no longer could stay. The gold mine output no longer justified the effort and means and was almost completely stopped. The people could not believe that everything was just happening naturally and reflected about what was going on. They saw in it a punishment by higher powers for the often wicked life, which both the miners and the bosses had followed.
The report then adds the legend, as written down:
An die Gegend des Bockart knüpft sich nun eine solche Sage. In den Tiefen des Bockartsees liegen, so berichtet die Sage, ungeheuere Schätze an Gold und Silber begraben. Einst war aber an Stelle des Sees ein herrlich fruchtbares Hochtal, aus jeder Felsspalte fast traten die edlen Metalle in Hülle und Fülle ans Tageslicht. Aber dieser Segen ward den Leuten zum Verderben; sie konnten ihren Übermut nicht mehr bändigen; besonders die Knappen schlemmten und praßten. Sie warfen mit silbernen Platten nach dem Ziele und tranken den Wein aus goldenen Krügen, waren grausam gegen die Armen und lästerten Gott, daß es aus der Art war.
Da ereilte sie die Strafe des Herrn. Von einem Tage zum anderen verschwand die grüne Landschaft unter Schnee und Eis, das bis zum Tale hinabflutete, und in der Talmulde entstand aus dem abfließenden Schneewasser ein See, der alles verschlang und auch die reichen Schätze an Gold in seiner Tiefe versinken ließ.
(Again, my translation)
From the region of the Bockart [name of a mountain as well as a lake near Gastein] there has come this legend. Buried deep beneath the Bockart Lake there are enormous riches of gold and silver. Once this was a wonderfully fertile valley, precious metals could be found in great quantities in every crevice. But this blessing became the ruin of the people; they could not hold back their wantonness; especially the miners could not control their gluttonous feasting. They threw silver platters around, drank wine out of golden pitchers, were cruel to the poor and blasphemed God, in a most appalling way.
[So much for the “crime” – now comes the “punishment’]
Then came the punishment of the Lord. From one day to another the green landscape disappeared under snow and ice, which flowed down to the valley. A lake formed from melting glacier water at the bottom of the valley, swallowing everything in its depths, including the gold treasures.
[Sic transit gloria. A past story of “human induced climate change”.]
Cheers,
Max
Max
Thanks for the link.
Here are walks in the Gastein area.
http://heh.heh.heh.at/pdf/top10wanderungen_en.pdf
Your mine is walk 8 and mine -Hohe Tauern- is walk 10. So they appear to be separate mines a few miles apart with a distinct Roman connection.
I will try to fimd out more when I am there. In the meantime who can I get funding from?
tonyb
Pesky humans!
He is having a good time…
Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:)
& the more the merrier.
Steven Mosher, Since someone else has noticed,
“The first is measurement uncertainty associated with basic measurement error and uncertain biases in the observations. These are included in the HadCRUT4 ensemble, and when computing linear trends in global temperatures from August 1997 to August 2012 these give a trend of 0.034 ± 0.011 °C per decade (95% confidence interval) for the observed portion of the earth.”
That is supposedly a quote from the MET office now on WUWT. What is wrong with that statement? Now is a thick line more deceptive than +/-0.011C per decade? A thousandth of a degree is pretty impressive for GMT, doncha know.
BBD “Why has energy been accumulating in the global ocean since the mid-C20th?”
This is very far from being an established fact, the data on it being insufficiently clear according to eg Pekka and Judith.
Fellow denizens,
Last week, Mosphit rolled the tape over my rewording of of Bob Ward’s claims in the form of “David Rose lies on the mat”.
Again for reference, here’s Bob Ward’s op-ed:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2012/october/myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-mid-1990s.aspx
Here’s my rewording of Bob Ward’s second claim:
> On the 2011-10-30, David Rose told his readers that “there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties”.
Here’s Ward’s original:
> Rose was at it again on 30 October 2011, with another article for ‘The Mail on Sunday’, based on information passed to him by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which suggested “there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties”.
For reference, here’s David Rose’s target article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
Moshpit comments:
> I cannot find the quote which willard attributes to Rose.
Here’s the quote:
> In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.
I am not sure my rewording suggests that David Rose shares the opinion he tells his readers. All it says is what David Rose told his readers, and he clearly told his reader so. To say that
> So Rose did not tell his readers, Rose purports to quote CURRY.
makes no sense whatsoever. Even to fiercest proponent of parsomatics (e.g. Chewbacca) could not be able to defend the idea that David Rose is quoting Judy saying something without telling so to his readers. I don’t mean by that that he would not try, but he would be ill advised to do so against someone who did study speech acts.
***
If that’s not enough, it’s quite clear what is David Rose’s position on the matter. He told us so in the last op-ed we analyzed. So the “neutral” reading:
> This article is basically provide a stage for Muller and Curry to fight it out.
has very little merit. Just looking at the captions suffices to prove that this might not be the proper way to describe what’s happening in that op-ed:
If that’s not enough, we could also recall that Ross McKitrick gets some ice time in that op-ed.
So much the worse for the “You and Him Fight” transactional game.
***
However, we do note that Bob Ward’s sentence should have been made clearer: the claim that “there has been no increase in world temperature” etc. has only been confirmed by a “new analysis”, presumably by Lord Lawson’s hobby horse, as the emphasized bit shows. But this claim is presented as a quote from Judy’s herself.
This detail has been omitted by Bob Ward.
Considering the topic of this story, and considering Judy’s rubberstamping in the actual blog post, this is noteworthy.
We can is not David Rose’s claim, it is Judy’s.
***
Considering what has been accomplished in that article, we might be more lenient on the choice of photos.
BBD,
As relieved as we are a devout ‘believer’ such as yourself is finally stumbling towards a grasp of the basic principles of radiative physics etc, you need to now start thinking about joining the adult discussions on vastly less clear problems like the *size* of the AGW effect of AGW compared to natural forces, feedbacks etc. Suffice it to say, it is still far from clear there is significant imminent danger.
DDB October 28, 2012 at 10:55 am
Of course the sensitivity *emerging* from GCMs could still be wrong, owing to erroneous and/or incomplete assumptions on which it depends.
Even the faithful say a 17-year hiatus is most unlikely, so my guess is a long-overdue rethink is underway to explain this ‘travesty’.
.
BBD, above
> Yet more self-serving emotional drivel and falsehoods.
BBD> Please, list the falsehoods.
All the laughable “translations”.
Sensibly, no challenge on the “self-serving emotional drivel” I notice.
Seriously, why not take a cup of Calming Tea and start over? Healthy sparring always welcome though.
You haven’t demonstrated any falsehoods. You must be specific.
So BBD, while you’re happy to cop a plea for masturbatory self-aggrandizement and self-serving emotional drivel, you wants to know what his (recent) falsehoods are.
As I said, it’s your laughable “translations” – you know, where you try and shove fickle strawmen in Latimer’s mouth, as it were. In case you’ve forgotten what you said and thought, it’s the bits you marked “Trans”.
Look at all your false “translations”, where you try and attribute your own feeble thoughts to Latimer.
Correction : YOUR recent falsehoods
You have not demonstrated any falsehood. You are calling me a liar but refusing to provide a specific example of a lie. I don’t recall telling any lies here, and I want to see an example.
If you’re still having difficulty grasping your own dishonesty, ask yourself how you might respond I someone “translated” your blogs to mean sexual abuse of children was ok.
I see. You cannot provide an example of me lying because I did not lie. This makes you the dishonest party here, does it not?
I have repeatedly shown you your lies, which you repeatedly just ignore. I’d stop here if I was you.
No. I have repeatedly given you examples of you lying, which you doggedly ignore. That makes you a double liar.
You have not provided an example of me lying. You have demonstrated only that you cannot do so and that your are dishonest. I’d stop now, if I were you.
The stuff by David Rose is faked. His graph has incorrect data so it is fake.
I really don’t think you have to scientifically audit these frauds. The real level of fakery is obvious when you consider the 40+ crackpots that contribute to this blog’s comments section.
Instead of auditing this stuff, you really just have to mark it up with a pass/fail grade.
David Rose may not be perfect, but is right on the basic 16 years of no warming that blinkered alarmists are so keen to obfuscate.
As to the alleged 40+ crackpots here who are they? Well obviously there’s Web and Stefan, but who are the other 38+ ? I guess it’s anyone Web or Stefan disagrees with, but hasn’t got an answer for.
Hafta say, the convenient thing about small focus telescopes
is that they can be closed up and conveniently put in a drawer
when not in use. Another convenience about telescopic comments,
why, they’re anonymous, (impersonal) and can be delivered
risk free.
So if AGW was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that is false,that the Sun and cosmic rays causes global warming and cooling, all you leftists would agree and state, oh yes, that’s correct, we were wrong,we apologise… thanks for correcting us? Really?