by Judith Curry
I’m not sure what the IPCC expected when they leaked their report to ‘friendly’ journalists, but I suspect that it was not this article by David Rose,
People have been asking me to comment on the leaked IPCC Final Draft Summary for Policy Makers. Apparently someone in the IPCC made the Report available to ‘friendly’ journalists, as part of a strategy to brief them before the formal release of the Report. I have declined to comment until very recently, since I thought it was best to let the IPCC process play out. Now it is clear that the leaked report has made it into the hands of journalists that were not on the IPCC’s ‘friends’ list. I have now seen a copy of the SPM, and I provided comments to David Rose (and also to another journalist, not sure when that will air).
David Rose quotes me in his article (accurately). I provide below the complete text of the email response I sent to David Rose:
—–
What interests me the most about the AR5 report is how the IPCC is changing its positions and statements relative to the previous AR4 report. It is particularly interesting to see how the different drafts of the AR5 Summary for Policy Makers are changing. I am very grateful that these drafts have been leaked, as these drafts provide important insights into the reasoning behind the IPCC conclusions and confidence levels. The IPCC should of course change its conclusions and confidence levels in response to new scientific evidence and analyses. Because of the rapid pace of publication of papers over the past year that challenge aspects of the AR4 conclusions, the slow ponderous assessment process of IPCC has been apparently having difficulty in responding to and assessing all this, as evidenced by the substantial changes in the drafts.
My main point is this. If there are substantial changes in a conclusion in the AR5 relative to a confident conclusion in the AR4, then the confidence level should not increase and should probably drop, since the science clearly is not settled and is in a state of flux. While there has been a reduction in either the magnitude of the change or in a confidence level in some of the supporting findings, these changes do not seem to have influenced the main conclusion on climate change attribution:
It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.
The ‘extremely likely’ represents an increase in confidence from the ‘very likely’ of the AR4. An increase in confidence in the attribution statement, in view of the recent pause and the lower confidence level in some of the supporting findings, is incomprehensible to me. Further, the projections of 21st century changes remain overconfident. These inconsistencies seems to me to reflect a failure in meta-reasoning by the IPCC. I hope that these inconsistencies are pointed out at the forthcoming meeting in Stockholm.
I have previously argued that the consensus seeking process used by the IPCC acts to create and amplify biases in the science. I have recommended that the consensus seeking process be abandoned in favor of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against, discusses the uncertainties, and speculates on the known and unknown unknowns. I think that such a process would better support scientific progress and be more useful for policy makers.
———-
Here is the main relevant text on the SPM from Rose’s article:
What they say: ‘The rate of warming since 1951 [has been] 0.12C per decade.’
What this means: In their last hugely influential report in 2007, the IPCC claimed the world was warming at 0.2C per decade. Here they admit there has been a massive cut in the speed of global warming – although it’s buried in a section on the recent warming ‘pause’. The true figure, it now turns out, is not only just over half what they thought – it’s below their lowest previous estimate.
What they say: ‘Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.’
What this means: As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at any time for at least 1,300 years. Their new inclusion of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ – long before the Industrial Revolution and its associated fossil fuel burning – is a concession that its earlier statement is highly questionable.
What they say: ‘Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 – 15 years.’
What this means: The ‘models’ are computer forecasts, which the IPCC admits failed to ‘see… a reduction in the warming trend’. In fact, there has been no statistically significant warming at all for almost 17 years – as first reported by this newspaper last October, when the Met Office tried to deny this ‘pause’ existed.In its 2012 draft, the IPCC didn’t mention it either. Now it not only accepts it is real, it admits that its climate models totally failed to predict it.
What they say: ‘There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.’
What this means: The IPCC knows the pause is real, but has no idea what is causing it. It could be natural climate variability, the sun, volcanoes – and crucially, that the computers have been allowed to give too much weight to the effect carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) have on temperature change.
What they say: ‘Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models.’
What this means: Its models don’t accurately forecast the impact of fundamental aspects of the atmosphere – clouds, smoke and dust.
What they say: ‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations… There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’
What this means: The models said Antarctic ice would decrease. It’s actually increased, and the IPCC doesn’t know why.
What they say: ‘ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C… The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies.’
What this means: ECS – ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – is an estimate of how much the world will warm every time carbon dioxide levels double. A high value means we’re heading for disaster. Many recent studies say that previous IPCC claims, derived from the computer models, have been way too high. It looks as if they’re starting to take notice, and so are scaling down their estimate for the first time.
Twitter warfare is breaking out, the main issue of contention is Rose’s statement:
What this means: In their last hugely influential report in 2007, the IPCC claimed the world was warming at 0.2C per decade. Here they admit there has been a massive cut in the speed of global warming – although it’s buried in a section on the recent warming ‘pause’. The true figure, it now turns out, is not only just over half what they thought – it’s below their lowest previous estimate.
There is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison issue here, relative to the period for which there has been or is projected to have a 0.2C per decade increase.
Another article on this topic is a post today by Bjorn Lomborg Global Warming Without Fear.
Personally, I think these leaks are a good thing. An even better thing would be to make all formal drafts publicly available so that they can be discussed. Pressure from the MSM has resulted in the pause being mentioned in this draft (but not the previous ones). The best thing, IMO, would be to abandon the entire IPCC process, and have the AR5 be the final report.
With the Consensus steadily crumbling, it makes perfect sense for them to increase confidence levels so as to shore up political support.
Exactly –e.g., I was sure that it was ‘very likely’ that humans were the cause of observed global warming but now that I know humans are not responsible for all of the observed global warming, I am even more confident in my belief that it is ‘extremely likely’ humans are at least responsible for half of it.
However, from the scientific method, a revision that may be scientifically justifiable, would be to change from:
To:
…contributed to the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010, in urban areas called, Urban Heat Islands.
1951-20101980-1998Judith…perhaps you could explain what, exactly, the ‘pause’ is?? Because, when I read NASA’s statement: ” The only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years on record is 1998.” I’m pretty sure that the ‘pause’ is not global warming. Please explain.
Check out lolwot, Walter. Only he can explain the pause to your satisfaction.
==========
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
You’re right. It isn’t a ‘pause’ in global warming.
It is a cessation. ‘Pause’ implies facts not in evidence.
Prof. Michael Kelly of Univ. of Cambridge has an incisive letter published in the Times (UK) about a ‘test’ for the IPCC process, discussed here (his ‘test’ comments appears in the BH comment thread, when he responds to a comment):
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/16/a-response-to-the-csas.html
…. And his reply to another comment:
‘Failure of meta reasoning’. Yup, but I can’t help but think the reasoning has been done, just not accepted. Why not? Your guess is as good as mine. But there is foolish hubris involved, for sure.
=============
They do not report their meta-reasoning. You can bet that they have not documented their meta-reasoning. I would bet that they do not understand the importance of meta-reasoning. For modelers, the truth of any one of my preceding claims would mean that their work has been fatally flawed.
Louise. You said that there are many ways to measure how “increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a reduction in the amount of incident solar energy reflected back into space”. Citations would be appreciated.
The nesting is not working properly. This comment was in response to louise down thread.
I know of only one Peter –
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/321/Harries_Spectrum_2001.pdf
The spectrum is there not because the IR is blocked – but because the photons are scattered in the atmosphere.
Reflected is not the right word for it – but I assume this is what Louise is referring to.
Typical space cadet it seems – understands sfa and calls everyone a denier.
I don’t understand why everyone is referring to the hypothesis of AGW as a theory. It remains an un-proved hypothesis. To elevate it above a hypothesis is to give it more credibility than the hypothesis deserves.
AllenC, it’s not even a hypothesis – it would have to be either right or wrong. The AGW is not even wrong, it’s incoherent and they make it up as they go.
Trying desperately to join science to narrative, but Gaia has her own narrative.
==============
David H…when I think of climate models, I think of algorithms that have been initially written, and updated, and re-written, and updated. And, I think of new data and refined data. I think, and maybe in your advanced wisdom you can correct me if I err, that these climate models will not be considered ‘accurate’ for decades, maybe centuries. Because the world’s climate, taken as a whole, is EXTREMELY complicated and theories about it (such as decadel changes here and there, El Nino, La Nina, Pacific oscillations, and many more) will take decades of refinement to be useful, model results may be better, over time, and we all need to accept this, or continuing fruitless arguing !!
You are getting there, Walter. When will the models become useful for policy? Decades from now?
Now look around at the destructive and expensive policies being enacted in response to the presently inadequate models.
==================
When the model doesn’t match the data,. . .?
Let’s call a spade a spade
Physicist Richard Feynman summarized the Scientific Method saying:
David Rose summarized the IPCC’s draft:
Consequently:
“Below (the IPCC’s) lowest previous estimate = Feynman’s “disagrees with experiment”
= The IPCC’s models are WRONG.
David, I would add that experimental design is a complex skill; it is an act of human imagination to formulate an experimental design that has internal and external controls. The difference between good and great is how good he scientist is at designing an experiment to provide a binary output and prove a binary direction.
“If (the model’s prediction) disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
1. Richard was wrong.
2. There is no “experiment” in the sense that Feynman is discussing.
we cannot run controlled experiments with the climate. The feynman myth applied to climate science is particularly wrong headed because there is no controlled experiement. There is a hypothesis, a model, but the “testing” of that model against experiment never happens. At best you have a model, and then observations whcih may or may not show you a direction for improving your model.
For example, the climate models contain the law of gravity and conservation of energy. If the models dont match observations
… which part of the model is wrong? the whole thing?
Well that can hardly be the case since the models include known laws.
Feynmans mistake was thinking that you could isolate a theory and test it against experiment. The problem is a theory consists of multiple statements joined by logic and known physics. When a theory doesnt match the experiment you know something is wrong– either with the theory or the data, and if you decide the fault is in the theory you still have to isolate which part of the theory is wrong. Those parts, for example, that rely on the laws of math, you will probably keep.. unless you are feynman and doing renormalization..
Steve Mosher,
“Feynmans mistake was thinking that you could isolate a theory and test it against experiment.”
May I suggest that you carefully reconsider that statement? It is probably unwise to so completely discount Feynman’s observations about science. Testing theory against experiment is pretty fundamental, and is done all the time. In the case of complicated models of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, it is true that it is not simple to do controlled experiments, so we must substitute model predictions against reality to judge the model (and by ‘prediction’ I mean what happens in the future, not a data-snooped hind-cast). The GCM’s have not done too well against this kind of test, so yes, they are indeed wrong, But more to the point (with apologies to George Box), they also appear not useful at making accurate predictions.
Steven Mosher
May I recommend you listen to Feynman’s lecture again – he refers to evidence, observation, experiment, data – whatever we call the objective data we compare the models against. While energy and mass conservation and gravity are well and good, models have numerous parameters outruning the available evidence. Running models from 1979 to predict present temperatures currently are far afield from the evidence of global temperatures. Consequently, they are “wrong” and not fit for the purpose of guiding policy.
Steve Mcintyre shows that Guy Callendar’s much simpler model with lower CO2 sensitivity does better on predicting global mean temperatures.
Mosh the theory is that CO2 causes temperatures to rise. We’ve had rising CO2 for 17 years and temperatures have remained stable. This indicates two things, either the theory is wrong, or that CO2 is counteracted by unknown, unknowns. It has nothing to do with the models. The observations don’t match the theory.
Geronimo – actually the theory is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a reduction in the amount of incident solar energy reflected back into space. There are very many ways that this can and is measured and so has been shown to be a theory supported by evidence.
Those that reject this evidence and rely on one indicator only, (e.g. short term surface temperature variation), are rightly called science deniers.
Steve Mosher…about the climate model: it is ‘Mother Nature’s’ result we experience, and try to analyze the ‘planning’ that went into it. The concept of a climate experiment is, for now at least, beyond human’s capabilities. So, climate models, algorithms, are developed, tested, refined, and retested. Only by hind-testing can they be further refined; and again, and again. But, since the world’s climate is so complex, it really cannot predict future climate with any accuracy, of course. But, it seems that any inaccurate prediction is seized upon by the deniosphere as proof that AGW isn’t happening. I can hardly wait until the coal-producers begin to tear apart the upcoming IPCC report. For any scientist without scruples, they could make lots of bucks misinterpreting, misstating, and plain lying about the report. Hmmm, I better check my bank balance.
Louise-
Just to give you a chance to catch up a bit, the Neo-Denialists are those who deny the pause.
Walter Carlson
Re: “AGW isn’t happening”
What definition? Or equivication?
Yes all anthropogenic efforts affect climate.
Is that statistically distinguishable?
or from 5% to 50%?
or > 50%?
or > 90%?
Or are you appealing to the argument from ignorance?
See Bjorn Lomborg Global Warming Without Fear
Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/realism-in-the-latest-ipcc-climate-report-by-bj-rn-lomborg#GDQ1167YORV78cOo.99
Both unquantifiable parameters and predictions outside statistical expactation = fail the scientific method.
Louise,
” …actually the theory is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a reduction in the amount of incident solar energy reflected back into space. There are very many ways that this can and is measured and so has been shown to be a theory supported by evidence.”
You are confusing two things, one is whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. absorbs and retransmits heat, of which there is no doubt. What we are discussing here is that this was the major cause of warming in the late 20th century. The IPCC said it was “very likely” that human emissions caused most of the warming in the late 20th century. This was based on the likely effect of CO2 in the models. But the models aren’t the theory, they are, if you like the, “computation” part of the Feynman method. Now if you can say it is “very likely” that human emissions caused most of the rise in temperature based on twenty years of correlation at the end of the 20th century, and you forecast this to proceed and it doesn’t your theory is wrong, unless you can explain why it hasn’t. And they can’t. Hope that explains it better for you.
What on earth is a “science denier”? Is that a name you give to people you don’t like? Either way personal abuse adds nothing to the discussion. Can’t see the need for it myself.
David, kim, geronimo, et al….I don’t need a computer model to tell me that our world is warming. Updates on annual average temperature, species of animals and plants that are moving northward into areas they’ve not been before, hurricanes and typhoons increasingly severe, worldwide glacier diminution, and several other pieces of the evidence convince me that AGW is happening. My use of computer climate models would be to estimate how rapidly the average world temperature is rising and how rapidly sea level is rising. Some on this blog have no concern of the possible results, however tragic they could be. IMHO, we all need to be concerned because worldwide efforts must be undertaken to reduce this possibility.
Walter
Here is my graphic of glacier change over the last 3000 years together with the apparently stable hockey stick and the real world decadal variability of CET
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image010.jpg
(blue line closed at top means glaciers retreating closed at bottom advancing)
It is thought that most glaciers disappeared around 4000/5000 years ago but were topped up again by the coldest event in the entire Holocene-the LIA
You quote various events. Are you seriously saying we haven’t seen all this before during the Holocene?
tonyb
Failure of meta reasoning maybe but whole lotta metamorphosis
goin’ on.
The best thing, IMO, would be to abandon the entire IPCC process, because the political process was unable to reach closure on what the final report should be and it was never issued.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
And the one eyed man is king in the land of the blind.
“Pressure from the MSM has resulted in the pause being mentioned in this draft (but not the previous ones)”
Would have remained hidden from the public at large, but for skeptics and the blogosphere to audit and awaken the ‘science’ establishment.
Well done, Dr. Curry! Let’s hope the IPCC process will finally implode from its own failings and incoherence.
Just ignore all the angry alarm trolls who will show up here in …. 3…. 2 …. 1 …..
I, personally, hope not. It is only the IPCC that keeps AGW in the MSM and before the public’s representatives (politicians). Unless and until humanity’s CO2 contribution to the global atmosphere can be reduced/eliminated, so that our planet’s atmosphere can operate without intervention (human), WE have to keep monitoring AGW and prepare for the worst because we cannot accurately predict how bad our climate could get. Ask the expert, Dr. Curry, for an accurate prediction.
“I’m not sure what the IPCC expected when they leaked their report to ‘friendly’ journalists…”
One of their biggest problems is the state of ‘friendly’ journalism.
Unfortunately, it’s not just their problem.
“Apparently someone in the IPCC made the Report available to ‘friendly’ journalists, as part of a strategy to brief them before the formal release of the Report.”
This bothers me immensely, why would any science need to be leaked to only friendly reporters?
It’s not Science, it’s political pseudo-science.
Did they leak to “friendly” reporters, or is that something Judith Curry made up? I see no hint of evidence for that accusation.
Judith, you dare challenge the consensus? You’re at Ga. Tech. YOU CAN DO THAT!!!!
“have the AR5 be the final report”.
Amen. The AR process was never a good idea (too political), and it hasn’t aged well. A much simpler process, where recent data and analyses are presented, and uncertainties openly acknowledged, would be a big improvement.
But I expect it will take another 5-10 years of slow warming for reality, physical and political, to force its will on the IPCC; by then ‘the science’ will have changed enough that the fundamental IPCC paradigm (‘We are doomed unless we stop all burning of fossil fuels NOW!’) will not have enough political support (outside of The Team and extreme green/Malthusian wing-nuts) to be sustained. Reality is a harsh teacher, but a good one.
Some of that political will was BRICs hoping for reparations. I think they’ve about given up on that.
=============
I thing the ‘reparations’ idea was mainly supported by the poorest of poor countries, not so much China, Brazil, or Russia. Maybe India.
It was very curious to watch China at Copenhagen, covering their disappointment at the lack of reparations with the charge of neo-colonialism by Obama and others.
======================
The China…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon
it burns.
Kim,
I suspect China’s position was taken mainly to ensure that China would never come under any requirement to control emissions. “Reparations” was a way to be certain the USA would not accept any emissions reduction scheme. The payments to Chinese companies for not emitting halocarbons was welcomed, of course.
The political will and consensus is gone. It was never there. If the intent was to use the IPCC to foment a crisis mentality to force international climate regulation, then the political agenda that has been driving IPCC has failed.
But like many bureaucracies, UN’s IPCC will likely live long past the point of usefulness. The best thing would be to totally revamp the IPCC, open it up so there is public review and input on all drafts, make it about science and not policy, and make it about reporting all that is known rather than making some ‘consensus’ that mean little.
“Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.’”
Huge it seems to me. Poor Michael Mann. Hope we’ll be getting some further ‘dispatches from the front lines” as they should be quite entertaining.
pokerguy,
I don’t see this the same way. The IPCC never denied that “some regions” were as warm as currently in the MWP. Their dodge has always been the MWP was not “global.” Their point being that it is the global mean that has never before been as high as it is now.
I don’t see any retreat here. Just a bit of public relations to appear reasonable while saying the same thing.
Hey Gary, I’m taking my cue from J.C. who writes:
“As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at any time for at least 1,300 years. Their new inclusion of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ – long before the Industrial Revolution and its associated fossil fuel burning – is a concession that its earlier statement is highly questionable.”
I didn’t write this, David Rose did
Gary, I don’t think they were even conceding the MWP existed. MIght be wrong about that. I know it was included in their climate record in earlier reports, then “disappeared it” with the advent if M.M.’s hokey stick.
“I didn’t write this”
I see that now. Thanks for the correction.
pokerguy,
Oh I agree. They are not agreeing that the MWP existed, as a global/climate phenomenon. It’s like the “pause”. They have to incorporate inconvenient data somehow, while minimizing its impact on the political statement that is the AR5.
Yup, good ol’ Mike probably thinks the IPCC has been taken over by a bunch of denialist troglodytes; nothing but merchants of doubt, supported financially by a conspiracy of big energy interests. He is will soon be consigned to the margins…. a richly deserved position.
Mann’s most recent paper has discovered ‘missing’ tree rings as the cause of an underestimation of ECS.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/MRSTF-JGRInPress.pdf
Its amazing how these ‘climate scientists’ are able to find ‘missing’ data which shows were are going to burn in hell on Earth.
Don’t tell anyone, but Mann is miles behind the lines.
Then there is this commentary in Nature Climate Change:
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years
I wrote this as a comment to the Nic Lewis discussion. I dont think it needs changing.
“Let me know when main stream science realizes that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero. Until then this is “All sound and fury, signifying nothing” Macbeth, William Shakespeare.”
As I mentioned to you before, the rise in the ocean heat content over the past few decades is easily distinguishable from zero. If you have another explanation, you need to say it, otherwise it looks like you are ignoring the facts on the ground that need explaining.
Which is exactly how things have always worked, CO2 LAGS temp and causes nothing. Except wealth distribution strategies.
Jim D. you write “As I mentioned to you before, the rise in the ocean heat content over the past few decades is easily distinguishable from zero.”
I wont argue. But climate sensitivity is defined in terms of global temperatures; not ocean heat content. So my statement stands. If you get the IPCC to rewrite all it’s reports, including the soon to be published AR 5, and use ocean heat content as their criteria of damage to the earth, instead of global temperatures, then you suggestion MIGHT be worthwhile discussing. Until then, and we have the equivalent of the Stern report based on ocean heat content, we have no idea what the downside is of a slight increase of ocean tempertatures. My guess is that a slight warming of the oceans, together with CO2 providing us with more plant food, would be highly beneficial. But until we have some proper reports on this issue, speculation is of little use.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’
WG1 AR4 3.4.4.1
JimD, you need to explain previous warming with great certanty too. It’s your deal. Or it looks like you;re ignoring the facts in favour of only one fact.
this..go, the only previous warming in the measurement record is the one from 1910-1940, which is likely at least half solar. It is harder to be certain there because all we have to go on is that sunspots tripled in that period from a relative lull around 1910. We only know that the sun hasn’t done anything like that since 1950, so we rule out that one. The 60-year running temperature trend, the backbone of the warming, is very suggestive of the CO2 curve.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720/mean:120
For the past sixty years only 25% 0f the heat emissions has been accounted for in atmospheric rise. The rest is where? <maybe the Atlantic ocean? From 1948 to 2008 energy use went from 2 TW to 16 TW or an average of 9 TW for 60 years. Temperature rose 1*F during this time (540 terawatt-years can account for a buildup of 1650(16 more zeroes) Additional heat will buildup from geothermal heat flow to maintain the necessary temperature between earth and atmosphere to dissipate the 44 TW of geothermal flow, but it is difficult to calculate the depth and extent affected. It is a function of time as well. As an example during the Paleo period temperature rose 20*F in 10,000 years, but took 70.000 to 120,000 years to return to the base point through cooling.
Whether one believes global warming is caused by heat emissions or by CO2, it should be apparent that the plateau of temperature rise coincides with the rapid melting of the glaciers ( one trillion tons a year absorbs ~ 16 TW years of energy). This cooling comes at the expense of glacial melting and ocean rise.
“As I mentioned to you before, the rise in the ocean heat content over the past few decades is easily distinguishable from zero”
And as I asked you before, hard evidence please
Jason & the Argos put your BS on display, akin to your earlier, silly claim that you knew the prime causes of ENSO. When questioned on this, you did your usual sideways, tw0-boot shuffle
The ARGO data has error bars, which is why I said easily distinguishable from zero. It is inconvenient data for the skeptics who maintain that the cold water somehow stays between all the randomly distributed and moving floats.
Nice sensible thought: “would be to abandon the entire IPCC process.”
Like so many pseudo-scientific organisations that have become politicised and are long past their sell by date, the IPCC has now become only interested in its own self-perpetuation. The true state of the world’s climate and its steadfast refusal to advance one iota towards Thermageddon for the past 16/17 years is a huge embarrassment for the Climate Establishment
Observations trump models every time, no matter how much you try and manipulate the raw data. Two highly embarrassing facts for the average climate scientist.
The IPCC is like the Soviet Union’s politburo, an unaccountable organisation whose principal goal is that of irreparably damaging the western world’s economies through constant scary threats, manipulation of the gullible, and distortions of the truth.
It was hilarious to see that the range of values for climate sensitivity has increased, and they no longer give a most probable value … but despite that they are more certain than ever regarding their conclusions.
w.
Willis,
If you don’t give a most probable value, then nobody can use actual data to show that ‘most probable’ value is not really the most probable. If you then widen your “likely range” to include almost anything, you are untouchable… you can NEVER be proven wrong. When acknowledging that your past statements were factually wrong is politically unacceptable, the best approach is to obfuscate, confuse, and arm wave.
The logic used by the IPCC is at once both impeccable and comical. That odd combination is a direct result of the odd combination of politics and science that defines the IPCC; they should either do science, or do politics, not both… then explicitly acknowledge which it is they are doing. Climate scientists may want to consider doing the same.
pg 12 SPM AR4 –
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Projections of Future Changes in Climate
“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. {10.3,
10.7}
• Since IPCC’s fi rst report in 1990, assessed projections
have suggested global average temperature increases
between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to
2005. This can now be compared with observed values
of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confi dence in
near-term projections. {1.2, 3.2}”
Help, they’re falling, and are pretty sure they can’t get up.
=============
Can’t wait for the NYT’s to essentially run a repeat of their first triumphant piece when the 95 percent” certainty number was leaked a few weeks ago. Only this time they’ll have to turn a determined blind eye to all the other stuff that taken as a whole, is pretty damn devastating for the alarmists.
No worries, the low information religious are very dependent upon their fear and guilt, salved with symbols such as windmills and electric cars. They are on the way to glory, poor fools.
=================
I was one of them, Kim. Long, painful process of waking up. Some friendships ruined along the way as well.
I respect you and Tom Fuller immensely, because you had to change your minds.
=========
Very kind of you. Can’t really take a bow for seeing the obvious, but I appreciate it nonetheless.
Perhaps there will be a cascading effect from all the papers published in the last year that will allow more of a willingness to present papers that are questioning the orthodoxy.
dennis adams,
If what you hope for is “more willingness” to do research and present results that conflict with the CAGW consensus, that is already happening. Just not in the primary pal reviewed journals. But that dam was broken some time ago, by the internet.
If you are waiting for members of the academic consensus to begin doing such research, however, don’t hold your breath. The primary funding source is still the progressive governments who decide what research gets funded, and what its results are supposed to be.
Gary, I shudder to think where we’d be without the Internet. The sum total of damage… whatever that ends up being, would have been much worse.
In some ways I think the current state of affairs mirrors what happened with Prohibition in the U.S. A couple of decades of national madness with the “dry” forces in control, then at last Roosevelt beats the clueless Hoover in a landslide.. And suddenly it’s all in the past. Interestingly, people think of the dries as stodgy conservatives, but Prohibition was enthusiastically supported by many progressives.
It’s clear we need a Republican in the W.H. I just hope they find someone credible this time. Australia seems to be way ahead of us.
pokerguy,
Prohibition wasn’t just “supported by some progressives,” it was a progressive policy form the start. At the beginning ot the 20th century, progressivism was all the rage. Hoover, while a Republican, was a firm believer in using government to “improve” the “efficiency” of the economy. He was a big government, big spending republican. (You know, like both Bushes, John McCain, Mitt Romney….)
Calvin Coolidge was the last conservative president, until Reagan. And there hasn’t been one since.
We don’t need a Republican in the White House. We need a conservative in the White House. There is a huge difference. Australia may be way ahead of the U.S. right now, but I am more than a little worried about how conservative their new PM really is. The first Bush ran as the second coming of Reagan, until he got elected. Then he gave vent to his true progressive principles. Same with his son.
Gary,
Thanks for giving me a better understanding of the role of progressives during Prohibition. And yes, a conservative. Agreed.
– Al Stewart Roads to Moscow
I still have that album.
The process has always been about money. The scientists like the grants their alarming forecasts brought forth, and a large fraction of the world’s countries were looking forward to their slice of carbon taxes on the developed world. I think is safe to say the latter are pretty much dead in the water, while the former will continue for a while longer.
Pingback: Judith Curry: Leaked IPCC Report Discussed In The Mainstream Media | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Someone should plot the peer reviewed value of ESC vs the year of publication. The line shape and direction of slope would be informative.
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html
there is a start
Thanks Steve, so far it has a R2 that only a climate scientist could love, but the trend is -1.1 degrees per century.
The mean is 2.86.
“…but the trend is -1.1 degrees per century.”
So we only have a couple more hundred years to talk about this?
This is especially for Iolwot who refuses to believe the evidence of his own eyes that there is a ‘pause’ even though he posted a recent graph that showed this. This from the Met Office web site dated 13 August 2013;
‘The Met Office Hadley Centre has written three reports that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions’
The reports are available from the link below;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
tonyb
Tony,
Lolwot has slowly descended into outright trollery imho. He takes pleasure in baiting skeptics about the pause, and we accommodate him by showering him with attention. It’s all good as far as I’m concerned. In his way, he does a great deal to further the skeptical POV.
It’s not trolling. A pause in global warming has not been demonstrated statistically to exist. I am only holding skeptics to their own rules. When it comes to warming they demand trends be statistically significant. When it comes to sea level acceleration they demand statistical significance.
Why not when it comes to a claim that global warming trends have stopped (paused) or even slowed down?
In HadCRUT4 the warming since 2000 is about 0.04C/decade. That’s warming right? Not a pause!
No, say the climate skeptics, that trend 0.04C/decade trend “is not statistically significant!” (see how this works?)
Okay so lets bring the uncertainty in.
It’s not statistically significant because the trend is about 0.04 +- 0.15C/decade. But what skeptics DONT point out is that the pause isn’t statistically significant for the same reason. That range covers substantial warming, eg 0.18C/decade warming since 2000.
And that’s the point. You can’t claim there IS a pause if the uncertainty covers the possibility of strong warming! You can’t claim there isn’t one either. The period is too short to narrow the uncertainty.
We can’t even say there’s been a slowdown in warming since 2000. Why?
Because the period 1970-2000 had 0.17 +- 0.06C/decade warming.
That overlaps with 0.04C +- 0.148C/decade since 2000.
The overlap actually means that potentially the rate of warming since 2000 was greater than the rate of warming from 1970-2000. The uncertainty makes it impossible to say either way.
here’s a tamino graph that demonstrates the problem with the “pause” in a different way:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/cru.jpg
The data is consistent, within the range of continued warming. Sure the data has dropped to the lower half of the range in recent years, and that’s really what has been called the “pause”. But until the data goes outside the bounds it cannot be said that the data have deviated from the 1970-2000 warming trend.
Yes lolwot does seem to have completely flipped now. Even though the IPCC, whose entire raison d’ entre and very survival is in selling CAGW no matter what, now concedes the Pause, lolwot keeps up his denier trolling.
Why don’t you write to them lolwot? They’ll kiss your tush if there’s even a glimmer of hope in your message.
Here is where I could agree with lolwot – is the pause statistically significant? But he immediately loses me when he says warming continues in a statistically significant amount.
Well Tamino does like his little visuals doesn’t he.
Here is the same data-set, this time plotted with +/- 1 SD.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/psudoTamHADCRU4wihSD1975-2012_zps6fff8c36.png
11 points below the 1 SD line and only 1 above?
Lets look at the residuals:-
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/psudoTamHADCRU4minusmeanwihSD1975-2012_zps204ba9f1.png
Oh dear. No linear with respect to time, the data has got a droop.
The world warmed into the Roman Warm Period and at some point it topped out.
The world warmed into the Medieval Warm Period and at some point it topped out.
The world warmed into the Modern Warm Period and at some point it topped out or will top out at about this temperature or maybe a little more, but not a lot more.
Herman
You are right of course. Here is my graphic showing glacier movements over the last 3000 years. Closed blue line at top of page shows glacial retreat
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image010.jpg
tonyb
Keep trying guys, one day one of you will define what a pause in the rate of global warming by any of the metrics is and then and only then we can determine if there is a pause or not.
I’ll even give one to give you a head start. A trend of less than 0.05 C per decade with good enough uncertainty that it excludes the 0.2 C per decade trend. For example the trend from 1998 from SS using GISS is 0.065 +/- 0.145 C per decade which does not meet my definition.
The period from 1940 to 1970 does meet such a definition of a pause.
Of course my definition is not the only possible one, and any one else can provide their own definitions.
I dont understand lolwot’s reluctance to even acknowledge a pause when it is being mentioned in so many places. Well, on the other hand I guess I do understand.
Pokerguy and Dennis
We seem to be becoming the mainstream opinion whilst Iolwot is taking on the role of ‘denier.’
Iolwot, do you agree with the Met office that there has been a pause?
tonyb
Tony, While I applaud your efforts, you’ll never get him to agree. He’s an intelligent fellow, and he doesn’t strike me as insane. He knows there’s been a pause. Again, for him it’s about getting a rise out of the “opposition.”
Either that or he really is insane. I have a brother with “delusional disorder.” If you had a conversation with him, he’d seem perfectly normal. Just don’t ask him why the FBI puts microphones in his shoes, or why he’s convinced he’s a well known figure in the big city he lives in.
Perhaps it’s because there has been no thermometric, gravimetric, and altimetric pause.
As for the surface-temperature pause (which is cherry-picked from a noisy-and-disputed record), that particular “pause” is looking to end in 2013 (given this year’s many record-breaking heat waves). What brand(s) of moronic demagoguery will climate-change denialists resort to then, dennis adams?
Lets cut to the chase climate skeptics with a simple question.
Is “the Pause” statistically significant? Yes or no, or even admit you don’t know.
Please provide reasoning (eg how you calculated it, or a link to a source that did).
Hi lw,
Not my area of expertise. I tend to look at things through what I hope is a prisim of common sense, and it seems to me that the central issues is not whether the lack of warming is statistically significant, but that the models on which this whole thing is predicated have proven themselves to be so woefully wrong. If next year we get some super el nino which lifts temps high enough to end the “pause,” and that could certainly happen, it would not negate such a long period of being wrong.
This is a good time to remind you of NOOA’s statement in 2008, one I’m sure they regret now: “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
From that point of view, the pause is I’d guess statistically significant, at least colloquially speaking. But again, I don’t think that’s the central question…
Iolwot
You ask if the pause is statistically significant. It is a fair question, but perhaps need extending as it is incomplete.
‘Is the pause statistically significant…in the light of rapidly increasing co2 concentration over the period.’
In this respect the Met office has troubled to produce three papers that address the pause and have had a number of high level meetings to discuss them
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
So, in the circumstances, both I and the Met office believe it is significant and statistically the pause was unexpected.
Will it continue? Well, the trend has been upwards for over 350 years so we really ought to determine the reasons for that long term trend before we can know if the circumstances that caused it are still applicable.
tonyb
The “pause”, if it exists. is not important for its statistical significance or lack thereof. It is relevant as direct refutation of the overwrought predictions the consensus was making during the consistent rise in reported temperatures up to 1998. Their faith that what was happening would continue was no different from the Dutch thinking in the 1600s that the price of tulips would always go up. Or the same sentiment in the U.S. with respect to real estate up to 2008.
As always, there is nothing new in the climate debate. Not even the underlying psychology of the warmists.
Yes FOMBS. You and lolwot get together and ‘expose’ how the CAGW-at-any-cost IPCC ended up ‘cherry-picking’ data so that it could announce an embarrasing change of heart by abandoning its Pause Denial.
And if you really want to take on deniers, why are you wasting your time on a skeptic website?? Probably only 3-4 lurk here, brothers in barminess with you and your 3-4.
. I mean “prism.” .
lolwot:
“Is “the Pause” statistically significant? Yes or no, or even admit you don’t know.”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:10/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/from:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1993/trend/plot/uah/from:1988/trend/plot/uah/from:1983/trend
I just used 5 year intervals. The shortest time frame shows a steepening. I wanted to throw it out, but that’s up the user so it’s still there.
After years of stability, things started to flatten. You can see at 10 and 15 years, there’s a higher start point. This shows me a step up before any flattening.
I used 7 trendlines. My answer is I don’t know.
I would ask if the pause is climatically significant, so for that we look at the 30-year running mean.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1800/mean:360
I don’t see a pause yet. Now look at mid-century. That was a pause in the climatic sense. The current so-called pause just isn’t.
lolwot:
Good question.
More short term trendlines added:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:10/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/from:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1993/trend/plot/uah/from:1988/trend/plot/uah/from:1983/trend/plot/uah/from:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/trend/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:1995/trend/plot/uah/from:2006/trend/plot/uah/from:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:2011/trend
Call it an estimation of slopes.
The shortest ones seem too variable to use. In the short term, it flashes widely different answers.
“The likelihood that a result or relationship is caused by something other than mere random chance. Statistical hypothesis testing is traditionally employed to determine if a result is statistically significant or not. This provides a “p-value” representing the probability that random chance could explain the result. In general, a 5% or lower p-value is considered to be statistically significant.” – Investopedia.
I don’t know about the 5%? Are we 95% confident we’ve seen a sea change? I am not.
More trend lines showing I don’t know what?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:10/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/to:2008/trend/plot/uah/to:2003/trend/plot/uah/to:1998/trend/plot/uah/to:1993/trend/plot/uah/to:1988/trend/plot/uah/to:1983/trend/plot/uah/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/to:2005/trend/plot/uah/to:2000/trend/plot/uah/to:1995/trend/plot/uah/to:2006/trend/plot/uah/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/to:2011/trend
I know what it shows now. A big step shift between the line ending 1998 and the one ending 2000.
One more attempt at pause or no pause:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:10/from:1983/plot/uah/trend/from:1983/plot/uah/from:1983/trend/plot/uah/from:1985/trend/plot/uah/from:1987/trend/plot/uah/from:1989/trend/plot/uah/from:1991/trend/plot/uah/from:1993/trend/plot/uah/from:1995/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/trend/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/trend/plot/uah/from:2007/trend
Here I centered the longest time period on the dragon king 1998, and walked the trend line forward one year at a time while shortening it 2 years at a time. I was just trying to minimize its impact.
I don’t understand how one can ask if the pause in temperature increase is “statistically significant”. This seems to me to be a fundamental abuse of how statistics is supposed to work. Non-trends can’t be “statistically significant”. Significance is attributed where you detect a trend positive or negative in a noisy data series, upon which you run tests to determine whether the trend is significant or spurious.
If you were flipping coins and you had a run of 9 heads in 10 throws, you might be inclined to think that the coin was ‘fixed’ to favour heads. If you continue to throw up to 100 and the total of heads came closer to 50% then the run of 9 coins looks less significant. It’s just chance. If you get 90 heads, then that is much less likely to be by chance.
The R^2 test is supposed to be one way to determine if the trend you (think you) see in a noisy data set is likely valid or not. It only tests for trends. Looking for a “staistically significant pause” is a bit like looking for a non-hole. The data contains a trend or not, but to test whether or not it is just an artefact of chance you run tests. Even then it is not a guarantee it is not by chance, even if it passes. It just means it is less likely to be by chance.
You can’t have a statistically significant non-trend. You can have a trend which may or may not pass the significance tests.
Either that or I have finally slipped through that rift in space time that has been following about.
Y’all just don’t understand. The Met is now just a lackey of the running dog imperialists.
“In the political life of our people, how should right be distinguished from wrong in one’s words and actions? On the basis of the principles of our Constitution, the will of the overwhelming majority of our people and the common political positions which have been proclaimed on various occasions by our political parties and groups, we consider that, broadly speaking, the criteria should be as follows:
(1) Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people of our various nationalities.
(2) They should be beneficial, and not harmful, to socialist transformation and socialist construction.
(3) They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or weaken, the people’s democratic dictatorship [er, make that progressive leadership].
(4) They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or weaken, democratic centralism.
(5) They should help to strengthen, and not discard or weaken, the leadership of the Communist Party [uh, make that the Consensus].
(6) They should be beneficial, and not harmful, to international socialist unity and the unity of the peace-loving people of the world.
Of these six criteria, the most important are the socialist path and the leadership of the Party [better change this to Consensus too, don’t want to be too obvious].”
Mao Tse Tung, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (February 27, 1957)
Notice how “truth” is irrelevant to distinguishing “right” from “wrong” in communicating to the peasants, for the elite true believers.
Maybe those gnomes at the Met need a nice vacation at a climate re-education camp.
GaryM
I hadn’t realised the Met office were the lackeys you describe.
I was hoping to see them next week with regards to my work on extending CET. I don’t want to become tainted in your eyes, what should I do?
tonyb
tonyb,
“I don’t want to become tainted in your eyes, what should I do?”
Funny, I thought you knew satire when you saw it. I must be losing my touch.
GaryM
We were BOTH using satire but not very well it seems
tonyb
tonyb,
It’s early Sunday morning here, plus I have been reading fan’s posts, so that is my only excuse.
It’s a sad statement about humanity that clear nonsense about human-caused global warming can get any traction at all. Just think about it for a few seconds. 400PPM of CO2 as a heat-blocking, heat-trapping, heat-storage mechanism that increases the Earth’s cyclic surface temperature by an average of almost 10% (33C). Ever heard anyone talk about the overall balance between CO2 “back-radiation” and CO2 cooling via convection? CO2 heating via back-radiation is not even remotely plausible. I love the way it was put by a Russian college student I met on a plane to Penang. Global warming via atmospheric CO2? “There is no mechanism,” she said. Talk about getting to the point, I couldn’t say it any plainer.
Is anyone still surprised why those outside the West look at climatology with the seriousness given to the ancient science of astrology?
I read a comment the other day along the lines of:
‘When you die, you’re not aware you’re dead, just everyone around you is.
Same as when you’re stupid.’
The IPCC is dead; they just don’t know it yet.
Your reasoning is remarkable Judith Curry, because it has the following corollarly:
Judith Curry, this remarkable blind-spot in your scientific cognition is exemplified by your restricted appreciation of “the curious incident of the [climate-change] dog in the night.”
It is a pleasure to augment your appreciation of these matters, Judith Curry!
Fan
To your credit at least YOU acknowledge the ‘pause.’ Perhaps you can nudge your fellow traveller Iolwot that he needs to move on and accept it also.
BTW its great that the two largest emitters of co2 on the planet are signing that mutual cooperation pact you mentioned. Perhaps Dr Hansen might be one of the of the experts who is swapped.
tonyb
Wow, it’s true. FOMBS has actually been out-wingnutted, by lolwot. Will it last though?
Oh, fanny! Where are all of your little fellow traveler Judith hating buddies? Are they having a meeting that you were not invited to attend?
Don, it seems that the angry trolls must be anxiously awaiting marching orders after a new strategy session, for how else could they fail to be already attacking in force??
Don Monfort,
They are all resting up for the “big push” later this afternoon, but they better hurry. Fan is so outnumbered he is revealing the sources of his insights, including the People’s Daily, the propaganda organ of the Chinese Communist Party (on the other thread).
Don
Play Fair. I think we need to just talk amongst ourselves until some warmist reinforcements turn up.
tonyb
Re the temporary absence of the angry faithful:
That we’re actively missing them imo, shows how much they’re needed. No one can demonstrate the essentially ludicrous nature of the alarmist position as well as a true believer.
I’m grateful to them all.
I hear that they were called back to headquarters for reprogramming and re-indoctrination, but fanny didn’t get the memo. Chocolate covered donuts, Prozac, and grape Kool Aid were served to all the little hateful drones.
This just in from my source at consensus headquarters:
Correction on the refreshments-it was Viagra this time, instead of the Prozac.
And here is video of lolly and willy arriving for the meeting:
Wrong, FOMD, it is your cognition that is at fault in mis-representing Judith Curry’s words. In your disingenuous “corollary” you ignore the crucial qualifier in her original statement:
It is clear that she is not discussing any possible “evolution in scientific understanding” (your phrase) but only those changes which render the science less settled rather than more settled, more in flux rather than more fixed.
“Evolution in scientific understanding” may prove to render some claims more, less, or about as certain as before. You commit a fallacy of equivocation by sliding between different implied claims.
Ah, he thought he was being so clever.
=========
He always thinks he is clever.
@Kim
and
@tim56
While it is highly unlikely (by IPCC standards) that I have read as many of FOMD’s inarticulate non-responsive pastings as either of you, those I have read suggest to me that he is profoundly challenged in the thinking/thought department.
This being the case, could either of you provide some examples which would indicate that FOMD has ever succeeded in overcoming this significant barrier to grown-up communication and/or dialogue.
Thanks :-)
Hilary, As to FOMD. Less than a month after he started posting on CE, I decided to ignore him. He reminds me of what happened, over 15 years ago, on a newsgroup called RCTN on Usenet, a predecessor to the Internet. The newsgroup averaged over 200 messages per day. What we believed were young men would study a newsgroup, find out what it was about, and then post highly contentious messages. They then counted the number of replies each message got, and the one with the most replies was the winner. FOMD seems to me to be in the same mould.
“Evolution in scientific understanding”
Evolution works because the best fitted out breed the ill fitted; the opposite appears to be the case here.
A fan of *MORE* discourse: Judith Curry’s Corollary Any evolution in scientific understanding can only decrease our confidence-level in that science.”
Even you do not dispute her characterization that the changes from AR4 to AR5 ought to diminish confidence in the conclusion of AR4, not increase it.
Nothing in her discussion of AR4 and AR5, and nothing you have presented, shows that Prof Curry has enunciated a general principle beyond the scope of these two reports and the research conducted between them.
Fan’s Corrected Corollary: Only those changes in scientific understanding which ought to decrease our confidence-level in that science ought to decrease our confidence-level in that science.
Now conclude your ratiocinations, worthy Climate Etc folks!
The two lessons-learned from “the curious incident of the [climate-change] dog in the night.” are as follows:
Lesson One We should *increase* our confidence-level that “James Hansen’s 1981 climate-change worldview is substantially correct”, on the plain common-sense grounds that “the scientific dog [of thermometric, gravimetric, and altimetric decadal reversal] has not barked.”
Lesson Two We should *decrease* our confidence-level that the early symptoms wet-bulb climate-change catastrophe are not *already* showing, in view of China’s scorching summer of 2013.
These two lessons regarding greater-versus-lesser confidence are neither of them complicated, Climate Etc readers! Indeed, they are both or them plain common sense, because they based solidly upon (what Judith Curry calls) “the best available climate-change science.”
Conclusion Judith Curry’s comments are just plain wrong-headed in (implicitly) considering that adjustments in IPCC5 confidence-levels must occur in just *one* direction.
Fan, are you, in fact, identifying “China’s scorching summer of 2013” as this year’s official “Trenberth Spot [tm]?”
Breaking News: Has “The Pause” Ended (Already)?
Supposing that “The Pause [in surface temperatures]” has ended already (as seems increasingly likely) perhaps we can all resume a unifying adult-level climate-change dialog!
That would be a step forward, eh Climate Etc folks?
Fan
I note the ‘Heat dome’ graphic you linked to is dated 13th August. Could we have the version for this week for comparative purposes?
tonyb
Fan
Hardly ‘Breaking news’ if its a month old is it?
I asked you for a current graphic of the Asian heat dome and then went and looked at the site you grabbed it from
http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/tag/ocean-heat-dome/
It has a by line-‘scribbling for economic, social and environmental justice.’
Do you think this is an objective scientific source? It sounds like the sort of stuff that Steve Goddard would be derided for.
tonyb
It’s a big file!
From a *BIG* database!
Are yah happier now, TonyB?
Fan
That was a big file, unfortunately it had no anomalies marked on it nor a date.
Can we have a like for like graphic showing the same data in the same area as per your link to Robert the scribbler, but one taken over the last few days? Thank you.
tonyb
Anomaly-wise: there’s plenty of orange-to-red, not much green-to-blue
Fan
The two look to have come from different sources and not everyone uses the same colour coding do they?
I assume you can not produce an updated version of Robert the scribblers graphic?
Lots of blue up in the arcic wasn’t there, it looked jolly cold.
tonyb
The ‘hockey stick’ is cracked.
“You gotta love these guys ‘discovering’ what all of us have been saying.” ~Joe Bastardi
Maybe we can finally address the real issue — that the Left hates America — and, what talk about what we can do stop them from destroying the culture and the economy before it is too late. Global warming has never been a real problem but is a symptom of real problem; and, academia has been a big part of the problem from the beginning.
Judith, do you have any comment about the healine of Rose’s article?
“Global warming is just HALF what we said: World’s top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong”
In particular, where does he get the “HALF” from?
No hug for you.
Those silly computers, they FOOLED us.
==============
Probably he got it from someone at the GWPF. In any case the Daily Mail is pretty much a laughing stock in the UK*. If it had been printed in the Times I would have been more concerned.
(*see the various headline generators people have made for the formulaic tabloid headlines: http://charlieharvey.org.uk/daily_mail.pl)
The Mail may be a tabloid in some matters, but is decades ahead of the BBC and MSM in terms of climate, the latter two being the laughing stock.
Unlike the MSM, the Mail dares to speak out, isn’t the pathetic mouther of statist political correctness on which the consensus crucially depends for support.
Second biggest selling paper in the U.K. lollywot. That’s a lot of people getting the message that climate alarmism is dead in the water. Thanks for the easy pitch.
Stick to denying the pause. You do it so well.
There is a very strong possibility that Arctic sea ice will set a new record minimum within the next few years.
At which point the recent Daily Mail reporting on the subject is going to backfire isn’t it.
Again, lolwot, you seem to think the Mail is like the Guardian and the BBC et al , ie working to a tightly predetermined conclusion based on overriding political objectives. It isn’t, it has a wild side and freedom those anal party/ideology apparatchik drones lack.
Gina, it’s worse than that. It’s self-interested style tabloid journalism. See how David Rose coined an “IPCC crisis meeting” for example to sensationalize the story. It’s little different to how tabloids make up stories about celebrities.
Look at the top story on the Daily Mail website for example
“Anna, Kate and Cara and a celebrity-packed show makes Topshop the coolest catwalk at fashion week (despite being High Street)”
People aren’t going to take this seriously, especially young people who see through the conservative oldstream media.
Iolwot
Young people under 12 have never known anything but cooling in the UK so they will be sceptical
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
tonyb
Under lolwot’s definition, the ARs are tabloid publications. Coin terms to sensationalize a story. Famine drought, pestilence, 95% certainty. Yup, fits the ARs to a T.
The IPCC are not scientists. They are poker players!
Stinkin’ poker players…
Praying for an Ace to fill the inside straight.
==============
The IPCC5 draft shows plainly that Naomi Oreskes is entirely correct: scientists-in-committee are overly timid in drawing conclusions regarding climate-change.
Meanwhile, China’s summer of wet-bulb climate-change catastrophe almost certainly killed thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Chinese citizens … the world will learn about excess heat-deaths in Chinese cities right after TEPCO discloses the full sequence of events at Fukushima
When we watch “what governments do, no what governments say” then we see plain evidence that China regards the IPCC5 conclusions as too conservative.
Conclusion The Vatican’s 2014 Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature report is destined to exert a far larger influence than IPCC5.
Particularly as the great cities of the world experience more-and-more hellish, deadly, relentless heat-waves.
These are the sobering realities of 21st century climate-change, eh Climate Etc readers?
fan,
Do you contribute to People’s Daily, the communist Chinese government’s propaganda rag, or just use them as a primary source for your information?
Hansen notes:
One implication is that if we should “succeed” in digging up and burning “ALL” fossil fuels, some parts of the planet would become literally uninhabitable, with some time in the year having wet bulb temperature exceeding 35°C.
How profound. I wonder what Hansen’s estimate is for when we burn up ALL fossil fuels is?
fan,
I see that one of your other cites is to a propganda site funded by the increasingly fascist Russian government. Are we seeing a pattern here?
A fan of *MORE* discourse: Meanwhile, China’s summer of wet-bulb climate-change catastrophe almost certainly killed thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Chinese citizens … the world will learn about excess heat-deaths in Chinese cities right after TEPCO discloses the full sequence of events at Fukushima
Oh brother, more cherry-picking. Have you not followed any of the recent accounts of people dying from record cold?
The IPCC5 draft shows plainly that Naomi Oreskes is entirely correct: scientists-in-committee are overly timid in drawing conclusions regarding climate-change.
Want to tell us how that is “plainly shown”? The most important of the scientific results between AR4 and AR5 (e.g. reduced or absent warming, lower estimates of ECS and others) are not tending to show that the IPCC writers are overly timid. Perhaps you mean that the writers are abandoning their confidence in AGW too slowly in light of the models’ erroneous forecasts?
The data are from those commie-electrons aboard NASA’s Earth Observatory satellites.
Denialists can be 100% assured that those remote-sensor electrons are commie fellow-travellers … `cuz why else would these electrons engage in “COLLECTIVE quantum excitations“?
Conclusion Don’t trust commie-NASA scientific data!
It’s all incredibly obvious, eh GaryM?
Grasshopper, is your glass half warm or half cold?
a fan of *MORE* discourse: The data are from those commie-electrons aboard NASA’s Earth Observatory satellites.
So Shanghai is hot now; a few years ago it was the area SE of Moscow (while the are NE of that was simultaneously unusually cool); before that, Paris, Chicago, and St Louis took their turns being deadly hot. In the same interval, thousands have died from unusually cold winters in Beijing, Mongolia, Buenos Aires and The Andes.
Where is the evidence that deathly heat waves are increasing faster than deathly cold waves? Nowhere, because there is no evidence of that.
The analysis is plainly n the literature and is validated by independent analysis.
What is your next question, Matthew R Marler?
Fan, exactly. Statistics show this (from that first abstract)
“This hot extreme, which covered much less than 1% of Earth’s surface during the base period, now typically covers about 10% of the land area. It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small. “
FOMBS
Matthew R Marler asks “Where is the evidence that deathly heat waves are increasing?”
The analysis is plainly n the literature and is validated by independent analysis.
Astounding. Some government shills agree with other government shills.
I am really getting curious why fan has so many references to the mouthpieces of the communist Chinese and fascist Russian “Federation” governments.
fan, are you now, or have you ever been, a useful idiot of the various totalitarian regimes whose governing style you so admire?
And don’t bother answering. It’s a rhetorical question.
Script by GarymM, links by FOMD!
Thanks for asking that thought-provoking question, GaryM!
A fan of *MORE* discourse: more-and-more hellish, deadly, relentless heat-waves.
Is there evidence that more-and-more such heat waves are occurring? The published evidence shows little change over the past century. Your link only reports that Shanghai is unusually hot right now. The growth of Shanghai over the past third century has been remarkable and admirable, but that also makes it a UHI hot spot.
FOMBS
When we watch “what governments do, no what governments say” then we see plain evidence that China regards the IPCC5 conclusions as too conservative.
Still angling for ‘compensation’ are they?
Conclusion The Vatican’s 2014 Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature report is destined to exert a far larger influence than IPCC5.
Yes, even your average cardinal probably knows more real climate science than IPCC ‘scientist’. You can learn a lot taking confessions.
Particularly as the great cities of the world experience more-and-more hellish, deadly, relentless heat-waves.
Yes, that’ll be the the more-and-more hellish, deadly, relentless 17-year Pause at work.
These are the sobering realities of 21st century climate-change, eh Climate Etc readers?
Yes, some serious sobering up needed by the FOMBS & friends.
Actually Fan we are not seeing more heat waves and mortality from heat waves is on the decline. Today over 40 cities across the world have adapted by using a heat wave warning/ prediction tool created by Larry Kalkstein ( and scott Sherwood) If you want to prevent deaths from heat waves
1. White roofs
2. Cheap electricity to provide Air conditioning
3. A warning System
4. Cool pavements
5. Cooling centers for at risk populations
Prevent death from cold.. not so easy…..
So, if you are concerned about heat death understand that it is a LOCAL problem, solvable by LOCAL MEASURES, and the problem is not getting worse. However, if the temperature increases by 1-2C, then you might see heat waves double.. maybe.. I’ll know more when I finish looking at the latest regional projections
IOW, the best response to “global warming”, if it’s happening, includes making energy cheaper
Steven Mosher, your techno=fixes display all the moronically libertarian pseudo-wisdom of
Keep Smoking `Cuz science will cure cancer some day!
Use Fluorocarbons `Cuz sun-screens will steadily improve!
Steven Mosher, aren’t your paltry — and only marginally effective — techno-fixes manifestly inferior to focusing wisely upon Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature?
Ordinary folks know better, eh Steven Mosher?
I knew it. Badly stung by being out-wingnutted for once by lolwot, FOMBS has bounced back (above) with some top-notch strawmen, fresh from the bar, all carrying the imprimatur of his moronically totalitarian pseudo-wisdom.
Not a single truth in the entire post. Old FOMBS is back!
Fan
Heat deaths and related drought deaths are common occurrences as a sweep of history will demonstrate.
The 1877 warm pulse and associated drought linked to an el nino was estimated to have killed 10 million people in China and not many less in India.
http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/ACT19/COMUNICACIONES/Revistas/aceetal08.pdf
Your tales of excessive heat in China are not unique but certainly herding everyone into giant cities will only increase the UHI effect as the Ancient Romans knew when rebuilding the city after Nero’s fire
tonyb
Prevent death from cold.. not so easy…..
1. White roofs – Black roofs
2. Cheap electricity to provide Air conditioning – Heating
3. A warning System – A warning System
4. Cool pavements Hot pavements
5. Cooling centers for at risk populations – Hearting centers for for at risk populations
Fan
“Steven Mosher, your techno=fixes display all the moronically libertarian pseudo-wisdom of”
Now actually they reflect the course of successful ACTION taken by local municipalities across the US and in other places.
“Steven Mosher, aren’t your paltry — and only marginally effective — techno-fixes manifestly inferior to focusing wisely ”
The decline in heat wave related death in the US is directly related to to people taking the measures I detail above. In fact, its known settled science.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6222a1.htm
“Heat-related deaths are preventable, and advanced planning for EHEs is recommended to minimize mortality during these events (6,7). Identifying vulnerable populations (e.g., the elderly, very young persons, persons with chronic illnesses, or those with altered mental status) and targeting interventions to those most at risk are keys to prevention. Interventions during an EHE include staying cool, hydrated, and informed about extreme heat alerts in the area and symptoms of heat illness.
Several states developed interventions targeting the elderly during the 2012 EHE. In Ohio, the Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Health, and the Department of Aging collaborated to identify areas of high concentrations of power outages and high populations of older residents. Beginning July 1, approximately 200 National Guard personnel conducted home visits to the elderly to identify persons experiencing signs of heat exhaustion using wellness toolkits prepared by these three organizations. On July 2, Ohio launched a “Check on Your Neighbor” campaign to encourage residents to help identify and assist persons at risk. On July 3, the Ohio Board of Regents and Department of Aging enlisted the aid of university and college students as part of the “Knock and Talk” effort targeting the elderly. The National Guard in West Virginia also participated in home visits to the elderly and other socially isolated persons, with approximately 100 health and wellness teams going door-to-door in communities throughout the state. In Maryland, assisted-living programs servicing ≥50 persons are required to have an emergency electrical power generator onsite.”
Now fan here is what you dont know because you dont read this science
WHEN do heat related deaths occur
“To better understand the scope of heat exposure, mortality data for 1999–2009 (2) were used to review heat-related deaths in the United States overall. During this period, 7,233 heat-related deaths occurred, an average of 658 per year (Figure). In 5,201 (72%) of these deaths, the underlying cause was exposure to excessive heat, and heat was a contributing factor in the remaining 2,032 (28%) deaths. Heat-related deaths were reported most frequently among males (4,955; 69%) and among adults aged ≥65 years (2,621; 36%). Almost all heat-related deaths occurred during May–September (6,821; 94%), with the highest numbers reported during July (2,825; 39%) and August (1,925; 27%).”
Now what does jim hansens science tell us about the PATTERN OF WARMING in a warming world.
A) northern latitudes warm more
B) winter warms mores that other seasons
C) night warms more than Day
What did chicago do in 1995?
Did they read kentucky poets and decide to change the world?
Nope, they had LIVES TO SAVE, not utopia’s to ram down other peoples throats. They took action
http://www.isse.ucar.edu/heat/casestudy.html#3d
Heat Waves are a local problem. The best people to decide what to do, are local officials. THEY ARE DOING IT TODAY. Gratefully they did not wait for you or others to implement global treaties.
I hope you are not a doctor because your cavilier attitude toward death is sickening
A fan of *MORE* discourse: Keep Smoking `Cuz science will cure cancer some day!
Use Fluorocarbons `Cuz sun-screens will steadily improve!
Those are irrelevant to Mosher’s case. You illustrate (and instantiate) the magical though processes of alarmists. You might as meaningfully write about resistance to legalizing aspartame, alar, and acrilonitrile.
Mosh:
Brilliant post, thanks. Only came on CE cos wanted an old thread to mention to Peter Gleick on Twitter. As you were :)
That’s like saying strip mines are “a local problem.”
Not every problem is local … not every solution is individual … not every action is selfish … not all planning is short-sighted. That’s solidly scientific *AND* ordinary human common-sense, eh Steven Mosher?
Especially now that “The Pause” looks to be over!
Isn’t that going to make denialists look … pretty foolish?
fomd, not to worry, the chinese just haven’t adjusted for UHI yet.
Fan-
Today the high in Shanghai is 87F. The largest estimate of deaths I could find is 40. China had similar heatwave 140 years ago. In my neck of the woods it is 20 F below average. It is called weather
It’s George Bush’s preferred denialist techo-solution!
It’s TEPCO’s preferred denialist techo-solution!
Conclusion Foolish quick-fix techo-denialism of climate-change is no less wrong-headed than the (many!) other varieties of climate-change denialism.
Judith,
Does the Otto et al constraint of 0.9 to 2.0°C TCS not support the IPCC statement “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.”?
The observational record shows about 0.6C warming since 1951. Even at 0.9C TCS (the Otto et al minimum), it appears the rise in CO2 caused most of the warming (>0.3C) since 1951.
I can’t see how you can disagree with the IPCC statement then. I also think the IPCC increase in certainty is warranted. Have you considered that since AR4 CO2 has risen further and so the human influence has grown? That alone will increase the certainty in attributing half the warming.
Right, lolwot, increasing CO2 and steady or dropping temperatures increase the certainty that man caused previous warming.
Maybe try reading out loud what you’ve written before posting it.
==============
CO2 rose 26% between 1950 and AR4.
CO2 rose 29% between 1950 and AR5.
0.9C per doubling of CO2 means:
Between 1950 and AR4 CO2 rise caused 0.3C warming
Between 1950 and AR5 CO2 rise caused 0.33C warming
The CO2 contribution has increased. So confidence in the IPCC statement will increase too.
lolwot:
Increasing levels of CO2 seem to be correlating with decreasing levels of its effect on global atmospheric temperatures.
“Have you considered that since AR4 CO2 has risen further and so the human influence has grown? That alone will increase the certainty in attributing half the warming.”
Lolly, you’re circular reasoning is so 2007.
*your*
lolwot: Does the Otto et al constraint of 0.9 to 2.0°C TCS not support the IPCC statement “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.”?
I think you missed the point that the increased confidence is not justified by the research between AR4 and AR5. If there is a case to be made for increased confidence (I don’t see it), perhaps you could make it.
The added years at the end make the statement so much weaker that a higher confidence in well justified by that.
A few years ago the best estimate for the share of human influence was well less than 100%, now it seems to be approximately 100%. By that the likelihood of more that 50% has increased substantially.
Total amount of warming has stayed essentially unchanged, the new evidence does not tell about a higher TCR, perhaps the opposite, but the estimated amount of human influence has risen because it has had more years to build up.
Indeed the so-called pause has brought climate change down into the range where even a mid-range TCR of 1.6 C can explain 100% of the 0.5 C rise since 1950 in terms of the CO2 change alone. It is ironic that the pause has helped increase the confidence, not decrease it.
Jim, it hasn’t increased my confidence. I’m still looking at the long term trend in OHT and the possibility that a significant portion of the residual trend was caused by this. I’m happy to say others that do this sort of thing for a living are looking at it also. How long before that increase in Gulf Stream transport has to be attributed?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00192.1?journalCode=clim
So you even think that Nic Lewis’s TCR is wrong on the high side. Anything even above 0.8 C TCR means that CO2 can account for more than half the warming since 1950. Hardly any skeptics are left in that category of < 0.8 C TCR, and they are not writing papers to prove it for sure. This is why the IPCC now says extremely likely, when they could have been even more certain.
Jim, that’s actually a pretty good point if you only include positive anthropogenic forcings. Makes you wonder what the negative feedbacks are.
It is actually negative forcings like aerosols and a possible solar decline since 1950 that mean this has to be a lower limit, but there have been skeptics who have denied aerosols too. Anyway little room left for natural variability having any effect on average since 1950, unless it was also somehow negative I guess.
Jim, the aerosol forcings are going down in recent studies and no reason to give solar a negative effect since 1950 unless you think it was at equilibrium with solar then. This sounds familiar. I think we have discussed solar before and your belief that solar reaches equilibrium immediately. The question though was how much of the warming had to be anthropogenic and how much could be natural. Increasing the cooling forcings actually allows the percentage of counterbalancing warming forcings that could be natural before you have to start going to negative feedbacks. If you have to include negative forcings to get to your statement then I suspect you are only including CO2 since the data I can find on it indicates about 2W/m^2 increase from all AGHGs since 1950 which, with a TCS of 0.8C, would be over half the warming since 1950. I don’t leave out the possibility that CO2 has net negative feedbacks. Certainly a possibility if OHT determines SSTs and all CO2 does is speed up the hydrologic cycle.
steven, the CO2 forcing change since 1950 is about 1.2 W/m2. Sensitivities in the 1.5 C per doubling range give you the observed 0.5 C warming easily on its own. This is what is meant by attribution: each factor on its own. It says without the CO2 change we would not have had the warming, even with the conservative sensitivities.
Yes, I understand what attribution means. So even with conservative estimates you still have evidence of a change in OHT that could have caused all the warming since 1750. I guess that settles that. Next world crisis?
steven the Otto et al constraint on TCS already deals with OHC.
Unless you claim it’s wrong, you have to accept it shows most of the warming since 1950 is explained by CO2 rise.
This is the bind skeptics won’t engage with. I cannot think of an alternative, and none so far have pointed it out. Judith and Nic have either not spotted any of this or have remained quiet on it.
Pick a sensitivity that frightens you, then calculate how cold it would now be without AnthroGHGs.
============
lolwot, ocean heat transport isn’t the same thing as ocean heat content.
steven, it impacts ocean heat content. What you are saying is still refuting the Otto et al constraint on TCS. What it amounts to is you are saying it hasn’t considered OHT and therefore it doesn’t constrain TCS. Ie it is wrong.
So tell me straight, do you think Otto et al constrains TCS or not? if it doesn’t then it would seem we can’t say there is a discrepancy with models.
kim | September 16, 2013 at 6:47 am |
Pick a sensitivity that frightens you, then calculate how cold it would now be without AnthroGHGs.
============
Praise humans, rather than an indifferent God!?
lolwot, I don’t accept any attribution that hasn’t explained the increase in Gulf Stream transport as either forced, what it is forced by, or internal variability and then attributes the effect on climate. I haven’t seen one that does that yet so the short answer is no, I don’t accept any attribution. The other option would be to show the reconstruction is wrong and there has been no trend. Current data shows no trend but current data also shows no warming.
How many of the negative comments are by Saudi Arabia this time?
In the past:
Keep your eyes on the prize:
Saudi Arabia burns its own crude to keep cool, limiting the amount of oil it can export
Judith – I am interested in your statement in favour of “a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against, discusses the uncertainties, and speculates on the known and unknown unknowns”.
Do you think that there is any way of getting this approach built into the scientific process generally? (Journals, conferences, academies, etc) It seems to me that there is a lot to gain by a complete reassessment of the whole process – in particular re-thinking all of (eg.) Thomas Kuhn’s and Karl Popper’s philosophies and identifying which parts are (un)desirable, (im)practical, etc. Also reassessing the funding methods and sources to see where they adversely or positively affect the process.
It is not clear (at least to me) whether the problem is the actual practice of science, it’s ‘agglomeration’ in various guises for various purposes, or the impressions left on non-scientists by MSM reporting on the ‘agglomerations’. By agglomeration is meant things like the IPCC AR meta analyses, or policy statement by the APS or the NRC on climate.
Except in climate science where there truly seems to have been a cabal of bad actors (Climategate being only one piece of evidence, Steve McIntyres audits another, Marcotts Science papaer being a recent example) I would think that the normal process of science self corrects errors in time. Kuhns theory seems to work well concerning accretion of anomalies.
It seems bigger problems arise when science, especially wrong science, gets ‘congealed’ in some agglomerate. Much harder to correct for reasons like inertia, interconnectedness, organizational agendas that inevitably acrete, all the bad stuff evidenced by CAGW and the IPCC. How is APS going to climb down from a reaffirmed policy statement that triggered resignations from luminaries like Gaiever? How is AGU going to recover from the Gleick fiasco?
From a political/policy perspective, it seems the biggest problems have been with uncritical MSM reporting. Don’t know that much needs to be done about MSM, because their world is imploding thanks to the Internet. Climate Etc. is an example of how and why.
And still they can’t bring themselves to mention the possibility of cooling.
A fatal mistake which if the current 8 year cooling trend steepens and lengthens sufficiently that it becomes obvious to everyone, will destroy the credibility of AR5 and bring about the dissolution of the IPCC, or at least a dramatic reform of said gravy train of fools.
There is no possibility of cooling, and no sign of it either.
Why would you expect a sign of it if there is no possibility of it?
==================
“There is no possibility of cooling”
Ate Up. And I thought Warmers couldn’t get stupider.
Andrew
Hope for being boiled to death springs eternal.
There’s no possibility because the GHG forcing is rising too fast.
I am willing to be proven wrong, but as I said there’s no sign of cooling either.
“proven wrong”
There’s no possibility of that, according to your idiocy.
Andrew
Significant majority of this is either La Nina or ENSO in a neutral phase that is leaning toward La Nina.
Cooling should be happening; your cooling acts a puzzy.
Lolwat. There has been a cooling trend for the last 8 years.
Breaking News:
Has “The Pause” Ended (Already)?
Massive Heat Dome Bakes Asian Oceans
Perhaps that’s why, J Martin?
man that is warm water in the warm pool. Perhaps the Chinese and Indians should pump out more of those cooling aerosols?
I’m sure all that warm water will put put a stop to the Penn & Livingstone slide for you Fan. I am of course delighted for you.
Have you emailed Trenberth to tell him that you’ve found what he has been searching for all these years ?
pokerguy | September 15, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
Second biggest selling paper in the U.K.
=========================================
Whilst the loss-making and worst fundamentalist AGW paper, the Guardian, is losing readers hand over fist.
I think that we should be careful here. Downgrading ECS but stating increased confidence seems barmy at first sight.
As a simple analogy, suppose I were to measure something (with a normal distribution) with 10 samples. I would have an estimate of the mean value.
If, as time goes on, I make 1000 measurements, I will have increased the confidence of of the mean 10 fold.
This estimate may be lower than my earlier one but it would have much higher confidence.
I am not necessarily suggesting that this is the explanation of the IPCC’s conclusions, but until they produce their reasoning, we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that the authors have gone insane.
It seems to me that in the context of meaningfully lower ECS, their statement of near certainty is no longer nearly as alarming as it would have been…even on the wild assumption it’s justified. That of course will be lost on the NYT’s
Pingback: Läcka: IPCC tonar ned klimathotet - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen
Dear Prof. Judith Curry.
As I am not an expert on climate, as you recognize in this attribute, I’ll ask a simple question.
If the IPCC attributed 50% of the change in temperature of natural effects, I wish I knew if these effects should be taken as cumulative and conservative in relation to the global temperature?
If they are not conservative and cumulative effects to simulate future climate, they should be removed from the data and the simulation must start from a base temperature to disregard such effects, since these are natural and variables, up and down, nothing can be said that the basis for the temperature increase generated by CO2 go preserve these values, it can be beyond the natural variation over time, a return to a point below the current source.
Where is my mistake?
In a macabre way, it is altogether proper and fitting that the last person alive in Hitler’s bunker has now died. A quintessential statement upon the bunker mentality when a paradigm, nay, a crusade begins to faultier and then collapse entirely. Hitler could not bring himself to surrender, leaving Germany intact. He would have had to admit that the most fundamental galvanizing mantra that drew German people together was the vocalized perceived unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles ending WW I was wrong and only a device to manipulate useful idiots. Hitler hunkered down, waiting and hoping against hope for something to rescue him and his failed ideas.
Fast forward to the beginning of the 21st Century: CO2, the control knob to climate change. It’s simply plain physics already known for more than 100 years. Anyone who disagrees is, well, a denier.
And now, as the CO2 story begins to flat line, the adherents, the serious as well as the wannabes, begin to see the Biblical “handwriting on the wall.” The prophecy of things to come relate not to climate, but to an idea and all of its ramifications. CO2’s role is yet to be measured, and yet I am confident it will take its rightful place in the pantheon of the forces of our earth’s weather, not a control knob, but a player, maybe one with only a bit part.
In the mean time, the ardent, really, the strident amongst adherents will hunker down, waiting and hoping for some change in the weather to their favor. Such scenarios on the world stage have been seen many times before. The outcome of such behavior has also been observed, left as a foot note of their passing.
A scientist like Mann, a mediocre fellow who’d never in a million years have achieved the sort of fame he currently enjoys (though it’s begun to dwindle) were it not for the great Co2 blunder of the last 20th and early 21st century, will certainly never concede he was wrong. There are many like him.
Jest because we failed to forecast, or to hindcast,
anything regardin’ climate that’s event-uated,
jest because our apocalyptic findings are extrap-olated
from bad programs, cherry-picked, post-hoc-exagger-ated,
doesn’t mean you shouldn’t go on listenin’ to or payin’ us,
for WE are THE CLIMATE SCIENTIST CONSENSUS.
Yes dear Beth. The klimate kidz and their denialist supporters on this very blog, immune as they are to good sense, logic, or reason, certainly are a hoot.
Well his latest paper states that cold shocks cause trees to not lay down tree-rings for the period of cold ‘missing rings’.
Thus, dendroclimatology now is in direct opposition to dendrochronology and, if Mann is correct, all the wood based measuring methods are wrong and so is the 14C record.
RiHo08 it might be news for you, but given Nic Lewis’s last post concerning a median value of TCS of 1.3C per doubling of CO2 (the Otto et al paper), that leads to the conclusion that CO2 IS a control knob of climate, given the rate CO2 levels are rising.
Of course you can alternatively throw the Otto paper out and say it DOESNT constrain TCS, but you can’t have it both ways.
There’s this strange kind of dissonance on climate etc today. Even Judith has continued attacking the IPCC attribution statement even though it’s supported by the TCS figures she posted on the last thread!
All my comments today (well most of them) have been reasoned arguments. you only have to scroll up to see in response climate skeptics are getting a bit lazy. Relying on mixture of quip, poetry (!) and ad hom.
It doesn’t bother me much that climate skeptics won’t engage with the challenge, I can just point that out for any lurkers, who can scroll up and see it for themselves. Either way, I have put the challenge out there.
For example questions for climate skeptics that await answer:
1) Given the TCS constraint Nic Lewis quoted on the last post, how much of the warming since 1950 was caused by CO2?
2) Is “the pause” statistically significant?
Perhaps these won’t get answered because yes they are trap questions. But traps that skeptics should have already managed rather than avoided.
Very interesting that you continue to post dreck from Rose without noting just how drecky it is, Judith. I must say, it is an odd way to “build bridges.”
Allow me to use bold to illustrate:
Finally, Josh the rat shows up to cherry pick a questionable quote in order to insult a woman who’s shown nothing but integrity and courage in a world where such commodities are all too rare.
I can’t imagine what motivates you. and I honestly don’t want to know. No more than I’d be inclined to pick up a rock to inspect what creepy critters are living underneath.
It’s dreck, PG. Rose repeats the same dreck, and Judith continues to reference it, for the most part uncritically or with tepid criticism quite unlike that which she directs to the other side of the debate.
I think that Judith’s motives are just fine (although since I don’t know here it’s hard for me to say for sure). It is her methodology that I question. Since her intent is to “build bridges,” I think she should be less selective in her criticism.
But maybe insulting me some more will change all of that, or deter me from pointing it out.
After all, it has worked so swimmingly in the past, why change now, eh?
Joshua, you say, “It’s dreck, PG. Rose repeats the same dreck”
Joshua, you are a troll and you know it. You have no scientifically credibility – but you don’t know you don’t know. So Rose repeats the same dreck, eh. Humor us, Joshua – go through Rose’s points one by one and point out specifically why you assert it is dreck. Up for it?
Bill –
I’ve pointed out the dreck that he’s written in the past, and I made an explicit reference to dreck in one of the segments that Judith excerpted.
I believe that people like Rose give skepticism a bad name – as to “skeptics” who defend dreck like that Rose writes.
The specific point I made in this thread is characteristic of Rose’s writing. In the past, he has written that scientists have “admitted” things in precisely the same way that here he writes of a “concession.”
It’s dreck.
IMO, if you are serious “skeptic,” you would be taking Rose to task, as should Judith.
Otherwise same ol’ same ol’ selective reasoning is selective.
“I can’t imagine what motivates you”
Misogamy, arrogance and the normal reaction of Priests at the ‘Twilight of the Gods’.
Can’t have been a lot of fun for the Cargo-Cultists when the planes didn’t land and spam didn’t fill the bellies of the people.
Guess you’re not happy about me pointing out the inconsistency of your scientific approach, eh Doc?
“No more than I’d be inclined to pick up a rock to inspect what creepy critters are living underneath”
The stunted little Joshua Tree has a severe dependency problem
Mummy (in this case, Judith C) pays little attention to his whining, so he attempts to irritate her to gain attention. On the odd occasion that this works, he is encouraged to increase the whine, while knowing this behaviour is self-defeating
… the nature of dependency
Joshua, given you have no understanding what science is and what scientist actually do, you opinion of me as a scientist is not one of my major worries.
We could couple with this with your cheer-leading of corrupt individuals, organizations and practices and your rudeness to our hostess and conclude that you are something of a first class wanker.
ianl8888 @ September 15, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Re: Joshua’s whining
+1000
For over 20 years we have been bombarded with slanted alarmist hype by Gore, the BBC, and others, and never have any of the cagw truthers like Joshua found any cause to upbraid them for any of these thousands of reports. And now he calls for Rose to be upbraided.
If like Joshua your motivation is political, I guess such hypocrisy is no big deal.
Memphis –
It appears that your confidence as to what I do and/or don’t believe is misplaced.
Which of my beliefs lead you to conclude that I am a “cagw truther?”
Please try to be specific.
Uhhhh … ain’t Chief “teeny-bopper” Hydrologist this forum’s gold-standard misogynist?
Accompanied by “White Nation” Howard as this forum’s leading isolationist?
Me – Never will you ever bend from your steely eyed purpose. That noble purpose is to condemn wind and solar power for the perfidious insult to the intelligence that it is.
PL – There you go again. You can’t help yourself can you? Nothing but abuse.
Peter confuses mild satire with abuse. Can’t take a joke? Beneath his dignity and seriousness?
FOMBS likewise misrepresents satire on his recursive claims of ‘young scientists’ applies specifically to women. FOMBS is on an infinitely recursive loop and has definitively disappeared up his own arsehole.
As for Jarhead the Jabberwock – being heterosexual is not the same as being politically correct. But you wouldn’t know that would you?
Chief Hydrologist | September 15, 2013 at 5:12 pm | Reply
“As for Jarhead the Jabberwock – being heterosexual is not the same as being politically correct. But you wouldn’t know that would you?”
It never occured to me that it was something I needed to know. What’s your point?
‘It never occured to me that it was something I needed to know. What’s your point?’
There are a couple of levels of irony in there. On FOMBS faux political correctness. Your political incorrectness in identifying sexual orientation as disproof of misogyny.
Too subtle?
Sript by Chief Hydrologist … links by FOMD. The role that Chief describes as “teenybopper” was played by the respected scientists Makiko Sato and Camille Parmesan and Lise Van Susteren and Karina von Schuckmann.
Care to “man up” to your witless (at best!), blatantly misogynistic, anti-scientific, demagogically denialist smears, Chief?
Your lack of social responsibility is reprehensible. Why don’t you stop putting that garbage at the end of your comments unless you’re willing to test them.
Fanny’s Gangnam Style emoticon wannabees roger another thread.
What I was satirizing was FOMBS recursive rhetoric of ‘young scientists’.
And here I could get into some cross cultural trouble – I do think he should man up generally and stop being such a girl.
The expression ‘being a girl’ is used by both sexes in Australia to apply to either sex. Girl power is – for instance – not being a girl. Being a girl is being over emotional, unadventurous, non sporting and a bit of a wimp. Un-Australian in other words.
Fan is a woman.
That’s not what my mole at NSA tells me.
pg – Fan appears to be a woman in a man’s body. No Vive la difference for me in that case. ;-)
ch – there’s probably some use of “don’t be such a girl” used by girls in the US but I don’t think it’s as common as you portray in Australia. But that’s anecdotal. I’ve got a wife of 30 years and two grown daughters and don’t recall any of them or their friends or any of my female friends using the phrase. Political correctness “down under” seems to be more widely embraced and your carbon tax there is a symptom of it. I can’t imagine Crocodile Dundee being worried about political correctness so men like him must not be the stereotypical Australian anymore?
I agree. I believe FOMD’s icons are responsible for periodic thread breaks and the ironical thing about this seems to be that FOMD’s ulterior objective of thread disruption is being achieved without content playing any part.
Script by Howard, link by FOMD.
Gosh, between Howard’s defense of “white nations”, and Chief’s abuse of scientist-“teenyboppers” — not to mention Howard’s colorful (and floridly tumescent?) metaphor “thread-rogering” — pretty much all of Prof. Roberts-Miller’s gender-specific characteristics of demagoguery are being aggressively deployed on Climate Etc … invariably in defense of climate-change denialism:
A Statistical Confection … A word-search of approximately one-half million arxiv science/math articles found zero usages of “rogering” or “rogered” or “teeny-bopper”.
Congratulations, Howard and Chief, you *are* scientific innovators!
But what does Pravda have to say about it?
The new precision farmers are hacking together a way of making food in which the virtual and physical worlds are so tightly bound that having his tractor steered by GPS-guidance with inch-level accuracy is ho-hum. Autosteering of farm machinery has exploded over the past several years, according to an annual survey by Purdue University’s Center for Food and Agricultural Business. In 2004, just 5 percent of agricultural retail outlets offered autosteering. In 2008, more than half did.
In a 2009 issue of Precision Farmer Magazine, Montana wheat farmer Steven Swank described the benefits of a souped-up GPS called “real-time kinematic” (RTK) satellite navigation.
“RTK is so much more relaxing. It allows you to multitask, and that (allows) me to spend more time with my family,” Montana wheat farmer told Steven Swank. “I even watched a DVD in the cab with my daughter recently.”
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/precisionfarming/all/
http://www.gps.gov/applications/agriculture/
The new ‘precision farming’ pretty much demands automatic navigation and steering. It is likely they will be out of the cabin entirely soon.
To get on the end of the thread – press reply on the last comment.
It would be great if they’d automate this:
http://www.enfostuff.com/images/GreaseGun.jpg
What a pleasant way to start the day.
Made me wonder how you start your day Ragnaar. But feel free not to share.
The rule is grease the tractor first thing everyday, and have to fix it less. Lol.
Someone broke the threading again. Shame.
The only correct answer for climate sensitivity is …. wait for it… γ in the linked diagram.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_fig11_zpse58189d9.png.html?sort=3&o=0
From – Michael Ghil (2013) – A Mathematical Theory of Climate Sensitivity or, How to Deal With Both Anthropogenic Forcing and Natural Variability?
Now we need 1000′s of times more computing power to find out what the question is.
The climate shift in 1998/2001 is – however – observed.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=0
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
It is of immense significance as these ‘regimes’ last for 20 to 40 years.
‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability.
To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
Rose – and almost everyone else – misunderstands the fundamental mode of climate operation. Surprising is the least of it. This makes Lomberg’s the more important article – which hardly seems to have got a mention.
‘The current green-energy technologies still cost far too much and produce far too little to replace existing energy sources. To insist on buying these expensive non-solutions is to put the cart before the horse. What we need is investment in research and development to reduce green energy’s cost and boost its scale. When solar and other green technologies can take over cheaply, we will have addressed global warming – without the angst.’
I did bring this up yesterday – only to get an extended and repeated rant from Peter Lang about how current green-energy technologies still cost far too much and produce far too little to replace existing energy sources. On which I obviously missed the point.
This is – btw – an utterly inadequate response. A complete response includes black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone, nitrous oxide and sulphides as well as social and economic factors – population, development, education, health, conservation and farming systems.
I read Lomborg’s article and agree he makes vitally important points in it.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/realism-in-the-latest-ipcc-climate-report-by-bj-rn-lomborg
By the way I think your dismissal of solar energy is premature. I might agree solar thermal and photovoltaic are long shots for a number of reasons but direct conversion of sunlight and CO2 to liquid fuel using no arable land or potable water is already being done economically in small but readily scaleable pilot plants. Undoubtedly this is a viable solution expected by many as the primary milestone on the path to hugely transformative nano-technology. Every bacteria is in essence a programmable chemical factory capable of reproducing itself. Our challenge is to replace the programming developed by evolution with our own programming. Evolution’s only driving force is survival so production of hydrocarbon fuels or precursers is mostly an unavoidable metabolic by-product. We can without much effort or reprogramming provide an environment where natural competition is stifled (think of GM plants not effected by Round Up) and through reprogramming shift the metabolic goal to production of hydrocarbon fuels which is anti-survival in other circumstances. One might also think of this as artificial symbiosis where we provide protection from competitors for our GM organisms in exchange for them producing hydrocarbon fuels for us. Everyone wins.
Talking to me?
I don’t dismiss solar voltaics at all. I have been intrigued for a couple of years in the potential for organic solar. Turn fossil fuels into solar PV.
e.g. http://www.newcastleinnovationenergy.com.au/featured-research/organic-solar-energy-produces-power-your-paint-job#.UjZIhj_hfIs
But certainly algal sourced fuels is one of the technologies I had in mind. There are dozens of potentially – and actually – useful alternative energy technologies.
I thought I’d read you agreeing with Lang that solar was not a viable replacement for fossil fuels. Evidently I was mistaken. Sorry.
I am excited about biotech and nanotech. I have been in tech all my life and love doing it. But there is a dark side. The day, trumpeted since the 50’s, that humans won’t have to do work will finally arrive. That kind of turns our American values upside-down. There won’t be people with jobs to make money to buy things. So, there won’t be people with the means of production to make things. We will almost be forced into a communally owned means of production but with not much to do to sustain ourselves.
Does anyone else see it this way?
I’ve worked with databases a good bit and see what a boon they are to business and government. But then there is the dark side of them that allows governments to track everything we do in detail.
Technology is a multi-edged sword.
Eventually, when we get this energy problem settled, robotics and other tech will be able to do and supply everything we need. What then? How will we as a free society, at least it is my hope that we can remain (or regain) free, cope with this?
This seems to be a much larger problem than iffy global warming.
jim2 | September 15, 2013 at 8:29 pm | Reply
Sure they do. Read “Engines of Creation” by K. Eric Drexler. It’s the seminal tome on nanotechnology.
http://e-drexler.com/p/06/00/EOC_Cover.html
The dangers inherent in individuals possessing material resources that only nations wield today is obvious to most people. With mature nano-tech there’s no more aging so death becomes either a matter of choice or accident or even mandate. The implications in that are staggering as well. The most optimistic thinking is that nano-technology opens up the resources of the entire solar system which is many orders of magnitude greater than the earth alone. Freeman Dyson famously described, over 50 years ago, what’s called a “Dyson Sphere” which may be the ultimate in habitable spaces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
Things like a Dyson Sphere become practically possible with nanotech. It’s also been supposed that the Fermi Paradox is answered by advanced civilizations eventually making their solar systems invisible to the outside by way of Dyson Spheres.
It is so inconvenient when FOMBS breaks the thread.
There are no psychological or emotional barriers to employing female defence force personnel in combat.
– Australia does this now and has done so for many years.
– Arguments commonly mounted to oppose female participation on psychological or emotion grounds are invariably incorrect factually or conceptually.
– Similarly, most social and cultural arguments posed against broadening female participation in combat roles have been disproven by ADF and allied experience gained in existing mixed-gender units.
– All these aspects are discussed in the section on commonplace myths in our discussion paper.
Once trained and qualified, female defence force personnel should be allowed to undertake any military task where the current government policy limitation is due solely to physicality, rather than physiology or bio-mechanics, and where the participating female personnel can meet and maintain the physicality standards needed. http://ada.asn.au/commentary/issues-index/women-in-combat.html
I am not sure that politically correct describes it – tough and armed to the teeth perhaps.
The carbon tax was a political deal done by a minority government with green party. Both suffered grievously on the Saturday before last. We do not like to be lied to by politicians.
‘On one end of the spectrum are low-paying service-oriented jobs that require personal interaction and the manipulation of machinery in unpredictable environments, such as cooking food in a busy kitchen, or taking care of pre-schoolers.
At the other end are jobs that require creativity, ambiguity, and high levels of personal training and judgment. These include jobs that require both physical and advanced mental capabilities (e.g., nurses and plumbers) and creative acts like composing very good songs, writing great novels, or generating good ideas for new businesses.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 65% of today’s grade school kids will end up at a job that hasn’t been invented yet. It may behoove educators, academic institutions, and policy makers to prepare them for tomorrow’s challenges by harnessing the power of computing, collective intelligence and human ingenuity.
“The activities that make us human -– thinking, dreaming, learning, communicating, and feeling, are the skills that are the most difficult to program. In a contest of “man vs. machine”, people will continue to shine and outperform in these areas for years to come,” says the World Future Society.’
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/emergingtech/the-silver-lining-of-a-world-run-amuck-by-machines/2933
Good comment Chief, it what I was thinking about but you have expressed it much better and provided an interesting link to boot.
That was in relation to Chief’s comment of Sept 15 at 9.58
Your argument is reasonable Faustino!
Moreover, the “antics” that break Climate Etc threads are well-understood: these include vile abuse, willful ignorance, and demagoguery.
Recommendation Why not try (for yourself) to solve the blue-eyed islander puzzle, Faustino?
Your appreciation of reasoned public discourse and shared knowledge will be vastly improved!
‘Moreover, the “antics” that break Climate Etc threads are well-understood: these include vile abuse, willful ignorance, and demagoguery.’
Gee I wonder if FOMBS has discovered self-knowledge.
FOMD provides an ongoing demonstration of the meaning of hypocrisy:
[Merriam-Webster]
You have come far, Chief Hydrologist!
Now you need only reflect, that globalized corporate-ownership economies differ from localized personal-ownership economies chiefly in that globalized corporate-ownership economies are stripping away all the activities that once made our American culture human and secure.
Conclusion Chief Hydrologist, your economic/social thinking is evolving to converge with Wendell Berry’s!
Your progress astounds us, Chief Hydrologist!
Your neo-socialist, extreme, radical and fringe beliefs are what they are. Appallingly noxious if spread to far. We are here to see that they don’t.
“Does anyone else see it this way?” Absolutely not. Learn some economics before making such sweeping projections.
So, educate us, Faustino. Why not?
My post at 10.26 was a reply to jim2’s “we’ll all be rooned” by technological advances. If the thread is broken by Fan’s antics (as has been alleged), then he should be banned until he moderates his formatting.
Faustino,
To which comment are you replying?
Faustino @ September 15, 2013 at 10:26 pm
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/leaked-ipcc-report-discussed-in-the-msm/#comment-380651
To which comment are you replying?
jim 2
“I am excited about biotech and nanotech. I have been in tech all my life and love doing it. But there is a dark side. The day, trumpeted since the 50′s, that humans won’t have to do work will finally arrive. That kind of turns our American values upside-down. There won’t be people with jobs to make money to buy things. So, there won’t be people with the means of production to make things. We will almost be forced into a communally owned means of production but with not much to do to sustain ourselves.
Does anyone else see it this way?”
True, but don’t dishearten. Human productivity of the future is not likely to be measured by handling a hoe or rake, pounding a nail, driving a forklift or assembling a car. Gathering and processing data is now leading our information age economy.
Watching our children engrossed in their electronic toys suggests to me that the next economy will be the economy of “interchange”; interacting electronically with one another and with our world. For that to be sustained will require the age of educational interactions (in part digital education) to grow where we all become connected with and teachers of one another. The exchange and our personal involvement will require an infrastructure no less elaborate than that of the internet today, needing to be built, maintained and destroyed as we move to yet another level of economic and interpersonal interchange.
My eyes are weakening such that I can not see much past the children of today. By observing what our children do is one measure and guidepost of where we are going collectively.
jim2 @ September 15, 2013 at 8:29 pm
Back in the 1960’s the electricity industry told us that, in the not too distant future, farmers would sit at home watching TV while electric tractors did everything on the farm for them. The whole property would be run by automatically controlled, electric powered equipment. No sign of that happening.
But I agree that energy is (nearly) everything. Energy and human ingenuity provide everything we need. The more cheap energy the better off everyone will be. Per capita energy consumption has grown from ‘8 MJ/ day for ‘primitive man’ to 920 MJ/d ‘technological man’ (see chart here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4313879)
There is no reason to believe the trend if increasing per capita energy consumption will not continue.
[As an aside, we sure ain’t going to get it from renewables, like solar and wind power !!]
“Does anyone else see it this way?”
When I can get a robotic replacement wife that strokes my ego in the right way, when everyone who wants a Mercedes Benz can have one, then we can talk about this.
For those who can’t do these kinds of things, there is always keeping things clean. Getting rid of graffiti, building a double fence south of the border. Being a father, or a mother (funny how we have to have both parents work in this hyper age of productivity). And until the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang guy figures out how to make a haircut machine that works, we need a percentage for the service industry (I recently read the human sensitivity to pressure, and was interested that it is in the tens of nano-meters, or thousands of times more sensitive than the longest (not widest) nano-tube).
For the person lamenting ag improvements, agricultural innovation is increasing (gas powered tractors that don’t require a driver, I know a guy who worked in Australia and did this), lettuce culling machines that cull over-seeded lettuce, etc., are in the field doing their job. All that needs to happen is the costs have to make sense. Hey, raising the minimum wage leads to automation.
And of course, we can always build pyramids. Like, convert to solar and wind, send a man to the moon, or mars. To me, it’s a waste of time.
I see Chief is re-posting his same comments that I’ve already refuted on previous threads all over the place in multiple threads. What a troll.
boo-hoo – looking for sympathy Lang?
Damn this threading to hell.
Hopeless – I was going to watch a couple of episodes of Under the Dome online – think I will. Much more entertaining than swingeing prevarications on a broken post – and then to sleep.
Just for numbnut though.
The AR4 said that warming would continue at the same rate as in recent decades. They were wrong. They were obviously wrong. They were obviously wrong at the time and are seem to be catching up maybe. Some sad little Borg collective cult of AGW groupthink space cadets not so much it seems.
Here’s the real background rate that may some part anthropogenic.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/lontermtrend_zpse9264a75.png.html?sort=3&o=6
Moreover – from the same paper.
‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’
http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
It would be deeply ironic if no one believed numbnut any more because the world doesn’t warm – only to have climate shift dramatically.
I was looking at the Berkeley Earth charts in the summary of findings and it showed (near as I can tell from the charts) something like 1.25C from 1900. Am I reading these charts wrong or are there two different calculations showing up between these two data sources?
ordvic
BEST (land only) data show a linear increase of around 0.97C from 1900.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1900/trend
Max
thanks
Question below (I meant to reply)
You boyz never fail to amuse.
I criticize Judith’s input into the debate – something that is entirely consistent with skepticism – and y’all line up to direct personal venom directed my way.
It really just goes to show how much of “skeptics” y’all really are.
What is funniest is that, unskeptically, you seem to think that directing venom my way will discourage me from criticizing Judith’s opinions when I feel that it is warranted.
Or maybe not. Perhaps what is funniest is just how deeply I live in y’all’s heads. I’ve already got the cable service set up, next on the list is to set up the Zagat’s wine delivery service.
So – lessee
PG? Doc? Bill? Ian?
http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/452280-white-knight
I guess would shouldn’t be surprised at Joshua’s comical self-importance. Deluded people are often deluded about more than one thing.
All Joshua’s comment above shows, is his annoyance that the IPCC been caught lying again.
Until now the IPCC has produced its Summary for Policy Makers many months ahead of its full Technical Report. This time they are putting a draft full report up 3 days later. That is real progress in bringing the IPCC to heel at least a little bit, a victory for skeptics. See the IPCC email below for details.
David
>From: “Werani”
>To: “Climate Change Info Mailing List”
>Subject: IPCC statement on the recent articles about forthcoming meetings
>Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:48
>Dear Climate L readers,
>
>In response to recent articles about forthcoming meetings of the
>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC would like to note that:
>Contrary to the articles the IPCC is not holding any crisis meeting. The
>IPCC will convene a plenary session to finalize the Working Group I
>contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, in line
>with its normal procedures, in Stockholm on 23-26 September 2013. The
>session has been scheduled for several years and this timetable has been
>repeatedly publicized by the IPCC.
>
>As part of the IPCC’s regular procedures, member governments were invited
>to comment on the final draft of the Summary for Policymakers of the
>Working Group I report ahead of the Stockholm
>meeting. Over 1,800 comments were received – a typical number for this
>exercise – and they will be considered as planned at the meeting in
>Stockholm. The Summary for Policymakers is due to be
>released on 27 September 2013. The accepted Final Draft of the full
>Working Group I report, comprising the Technical Summary, 14 Chapters and
>three Annexes, will also be released online in unedited form, on Monday 30
>September. Following copy-editing, layout, final checks for errors the
>full Working Group I report “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
>Basis,” and its Summary for Policymakers will be published online in
>January 2014 (tbc) and in book form by Cambridge
>University Press a few months later.
>
>For more information contact:
>IPCC Press Office, Email: ipcc-media@wmo.int
>Jonathan Lynn, + 41 22 730 8066 or Werani Zabula, + 41 22 730 8120
>
>For more information on the IPCC review process go to:
>http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf
>
>__________________________________________________________
>
>Subscribe to all other IISD Reporting Services’ free newsletters and lists
>for environment and sustainable development policy professionals at
>http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm
Hi Judy
That’s a bit of an understatement on your part! David Rose writes:
But if we actually check the AR4 WG1 SPM, we find that the statement was:
So the actual AR4 number for warming since 1951 was 0.13°C per decade, NOT “0.2C every decade” as David claims. He’s definitely comparing apples with oranges.
Do you think this acceptable? Although you mention it in passing, you seem to brush it under the carpet.
However, it means that David’s headline “Global warming is just HALF what we said” and standfirst “Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007” are based on a comparison of two different quantities.
What do you think about this?
Richard
I would say egregious, but I think people might plead ignorance for him. He’s just a journalist after all. We can’t expect him to understand what AR4 said before writing about it.
Agreed, he overstated the case, and confused the IPCC projections (about 0.2C per decade) with the post 1950 rate of warming.
He should be drawn and quartered of course, in the finest British tradition….. OK, maybe that is too extreme. A more reasonable comparison would have been the 1975 to 2000 warming rate of 0.18C per decade. (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:200)
Can he retract his article?
Richard
What do you think are the reasons behind the sharp, decades long decline in CET?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
tonyb
From that we can only conclude that CET (or any other equally local temperature) cannot be used as proxy for global temperatures, at least not over periods of this length. Over a century it may already be a better, but still a highly imperfect proxy.
Pekka
It has a very interesting correlation with BEST and giss global
Tonyb
Pekka’s ‘only conclusion’ is to dodge the subject.
=======
It has certainly a positive correlation, but your question does directly emphasize, how lacking that correlation is anyway.
The variability over few decades is much larger in any local temperature than in wide area averages. Over long enough periods much of that variability disappears and worldwide changes start to dominate. How good the correlation is over a few centuries may vary considerably. Therefore even observed correlations do not prove conclusively about the value of CET as proxy for earlier periods.
The 30-year running average of CET (not shown, but I have done this) has a better relation to the global hockey stick with the distinct double rise of the 20th century.
Pekka
Sorry, meant to say that with a five year running average it had good correlation with Best to 1750 , plus giss northern hemisphere and hadcrut northern hemisphere. It shows ‘the tendency but not the precision’ as lamb used to say, which is all that historic records can achieve as they are certainly not accurate to tents of a degree.
Tonyb
Tony,
I offer another formulation:
You expected more correlation than observed. Thus you should revise your expectations.
Pekka
What correlations did I expect?
CET is not a global proxy but it’s a pretty good northern hemisphere proxy.
There are plenty of other stations that are cooling apart from CET. According to the Ar4 that is unexpected as it cited very few places that are cooling
Tonyb
Tony,
If you didn’t expect more, then what was the point of your question?
CET happens to be one of those local time series that deviates like that from most. There are always some that deviate in that direction and others that deviate in the opposite direction. The curve alone tells that variability has been similar earlier as well.
Pekka
I was taking advantage of asking A very senior person from the met office if they have any idea why their own data set is deviating so substantially from the global record, with the sub text that as co2 increases so substantially you would not expect to see such a substantial cooling.
Had he replied I would then have asked why the warming trend should date back some 350 years
Tonyb
I just learned that there may be something behind your observation. That’s because it may be linked to an interesting observation discussed by Eduardo at Klimazwiebel. The winter months have had a cooling trend over most Eurasia, while there’s little hiatus otherwise. He speculates on possible explanations.
Omigod, from impertinent record to pertinent in the blink of an eye.
======
AR4 Summary for Policy Makers
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Rose got it wrong. It’s worse than he thought. IPCC projected 0.2C/decade warming under a range of emission scenarios. In fact what happened is CO2 emissions grew following the worst case scenario and there was jack diddly squat warming response to it for 17 years and counting. There isn’t enough egg in all of Tyson farms to cover all the faces that bought the crap peddled in IPCC reports.
Heh, Richard should be on the last thread explaining how it came to be that the Met Office model is programmed to read high. Maybe he could tell us what he thinks about that.
===========
Richard:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
you clown
Did you miss Rose’s bait and switch. He first talked about the projected change they had (apples), then compared it to a number for the actual rise rate since 1951 (oranges). Many were fooled, or maybe it was just bad sentence construction and forgetting a few pertinent qualifiers.
Pot.Kettle.Black (examples available on request!)
But that aside … In AR4 WG1 SPM, one finds (p. 12 of pdf):
What do you think about this, Richard?!
Was the average layperson unarmed with the apparently (conveniently and confusingly!) ever-changing “nuances” of CliSci-speak supposed to ignore this red-lettered claim or???!
Hilary (and John Bills)
I think that’s a red herring, because the SPM passage you quote is about future projections, but I’m talking about Rose’s comments on past changes – he compared to the warming since 1951.
If the idea was to compare projections with past warming, there’s no need to use one from AR4 and the other from AR5. Both reports have both observed past warming and projected future warming. Comparing the reports should be done for like-with-like, else it simply doesn’t make sense.
Richard Best
The IPCC predicted 0.45 C from 1990 till now.
It didn’t warm 0,3 C from 1990.
lolwot,
“1) Given the TCS constraint Nic Lewis quoted on the last post, how much of the warming since 1950 was caused by CO2?
2) Is “the pause” statistically significant?”
1) There is insufficient information available on things like ocean heat uptake in 1950 and data on the actual aerosol offsets at that time to make a reliable estimate of the attribution to CO2. If you want to specify those things then at least some estimate could be made, but it would only be as good as the assumed 1950 rate of OH uptake and aerosol offsets, with some added uncertainty for those same factors today. You also need to account for other GHG forcing (methane, N2O, halocarbons, trop. ozone… maybe ~50% of the CO2 forcing) when attributing a portion to CO2; looking only at CO2 attribution doesn’t even make much sense.
2) That is a trick question, right? I suppose if you think the similar ‘pause’ from the mid 1940’s to ~1960 was statistically significant, then the current pause would also qualify (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900). As a statistical question, answering would require considering serial correlation in the data as well as specifying what time range you consider to be ‘the pause’ and specify “statistically significant compared to what”? (the trend from 1970 to 1998, 1850 to 1998, 1000 BC until now?)
I am not trying to beg the questions, only pointing out that you need to provide much more information for someone to even make a SWAG at the answers. One of the things about the leaked IPCC summary document that is puzzling (as others have already pointed out) is that a divergence of the recent trend from the earlier trend would seem to make assigning % attribution to GHG forcing somewhat less confident, not more. After all, rising forcing with flat temps increases the plausible size of natural variability.
It’s simple, Steve Fitzpatrick!
There’s no observed pause in sea-level rise; there’s no observed pause in global energy imbalance, there’s no observed pause in polar ice-mass loss.
Conclusion There no pause in the steady increase in scientific confidence — based observationally upon global-scale thermometry, gravimetry, and altimetry — that James Hansen’s climate-change worldview is essentially right.
It’s plain common-sense that global energy-balance science dominates both cherry-picking “cycle science” and quibbling denialism, eh Steve Fitzpatrick?
Intriguing.
Re: Global Warming Cult – are you a high priest or an over-enthusiastic new acolyte?
Fan:
> There’s no observed pause in sea-level rise
Been rising since long before A CO2 entered the picture.
> there’s no observed pause in global energy imbalance
The measurement of which is nowhere near robust enough.
> there’s no observed pause in polar ice-mass loss.
Yes, dropped significantly of late.
But being but a bait-and-switch knee-jerk troll for the alarmist cause, don’t expect Fan to follow any of this up.
Follow-up cheerfully provided!
Thank you for your continuing interest Memphis!
Fan
How can it be a ‘cheerful follow up’ when you reference an older post of yours. Surely it is a ‘look back?’
tonyb
The first question is just mathematical. You only need to know the CO2 content in 1950 (310 ppm), that in the last decade (390 ppm) and the TCS (1.4 C) to compute the warming Lewis would attribute to CO2, and then compare that with the actual warming in that period (0.5 C).
AFOMD,
A Deus is for ever.
There’s been another leak. Word is, Al Gore has agreed to a sequel: An Inconvenient Pause.
Like the Rocky series, they should have left it at two.
I can see the resemblance – http://media.photobucket.com/user/sebathius/media/Inspiration/Joan.jpg.html?filters%5Bterm%5D=joan%20of%20arc&filters%5Bprimary%5D=images&filters%5Bsecondary%5D=videos&sort=1&o=22
Judith Curry is right. She’s been progressively more right ovedr the past fey years. And now she’s famous too … she’s on the front page of ‘The Australian‘
Congratulations Judith Curry! And thank you for improving the balance in the debate about the CAGW religion.
Thank you for saving the world from the evil forces.
Peter
I think TRUE fame for Judith will be when she appears on the front page of a small circulation local paper.
tonyb
Test comment.
My letter on this to The Australian:
Well, what a surprise. Global warming science is not “settled.” Those of us who contested the case for costly and ineffective emissions reduction programs are not evil “deniers.” Climate change will not be “catastrophic” (“We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC,” 16/9).
The IPCC process was never intended to find the truth about climate science. It was explicitly tasked with demonstrating that humans were causing “catastrophic” warming. Eminent scientists who queried the IPCC line – which is based on models rather than clear understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms – and eminent economists and statisticians who argued that the case for net costs from any warming had never been demonstrated – were vilified.
The IPCC is being forced to back down by the weight of evidence that non-human influences on climate are greater than they claimed, that actual and prospective warming is much lower than they warned, and that plants, animals and people will prosper with a slightly warmer Earth.
It is time for the many politicians who swallowed the IPCC line to reconsider.
… and my letter in today’s paper:
The ALP’s Jane Garrett has savagely attacked the Greens (“The Green thorn in our side,” 14-15/9). Fair enough, the criticism is well-deserved. But everything she said must have been known to Labor when they made a pact with the Greens in order to take power in 2010. Having made a pact with the devil for their own purposes, Garrett and the ALP can hardly turn around and blame the Greens for the adverse consequences, which were expected by most observers.
Faustino @ September 15, 2013 at 7:48 pm
+1
for your letters to ‘The Australian‘
Judith I wonder if you could run an article on what the grounds would be for the current warmist culture or person to change their views to accommodate the idea of both a pause and of global cooling.
The question is not entirely without merit but is not being given credence probably for the reason that once one admits there are boundaries at which one’s views would change one would have to admit the possibility of one’s views being wrong.
The question is even more vexing on considering a pause.
If one says any length of time that rules out the prospect of seeing the change in our lifetimes then that person is saying that Natural Variability [otherwise known as our current state of knowledge of the climate system] is a lot stronger [more unknown] than any of the known and supposed forcings and feedbacks currently postulated.
The longer the time they are prepared to commit to the more they confirm their lack of knowledge.
This is particularly appropriate to “the length of a pause” currently which keeps on extending out from 12 to 15 to 17 to 30 years i.e. we know less and less for certain.
We would not be having these discussions if the hockey stick had occurred
Obviously a change cannot occur suddenly. If it dropped a degree a year for 3 years It wouldn’t be climate change as we know it It would be some new , probably catastrophic event.
But if it drops 0.1 degree a year for 3 years? If it drops 0.2 in 10 years ?
If the arctic approaches over the 2000 average for 10 years would scientists and bloggers alike accept this as a sign that natural variability is alive and well and man made AGW is out the window at least until the next big natural variability event occurs.
In other words can we define some boundaries or concepts for Natural Variability.
It’s a good question. But could it be the wrong one both Warmists and skeptics?
At issue: what does the pause specifically “say” about positive feedback, in particular that aggregate 1/(1-f) multiplier in the aggregate simplified model. From what I understand it’s deltaT (of GMT) that works on clouds and water vapor (let’s dismiss ice albedo because it more polar “less aggregate”) to create changes which in turn positively increment deltaT. So if GMT is held down with positive GHG forcing being cancelled by negative natural trend there is no deltaT, so there is no positive feedback?
When the natural trend is moves out of negative trend, will the sensitivty to the positive forcing show once again a trend >2C for 2xCO2 over that time period?
Chief Hydrologist | September 15, 2013 at 7:23 pm | Reply
“Too subtle?”
Yes, I was too subtle. I said you loved women. That is subtley different from heterosexuality. One can love women without sexual involvement and one can hate women while still being sexually attracted to them. In other words love is mental and sexuality is physical. Love and hate are mental not physical reactions.
The urban dictionary puts it more concisely and bluntly:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=misogynist
David,
Imho, all emotions are ultimately physical. When we say we “feel” something, that’s not a metaphor.
IMO emotions started out as chemical states, with perhaps some overlay of neurological modelling, along with many obvious (and not so obvious) neurological responses and feedbacks.
So what are you boys “feeling” when you tell your mother you love her?
By the way, FANG of More Discourse, teeny boppers include both genders. I believe what Ellison was mocking was the age not the gender of Hansen’s entourage.
David; two genders? I think not.
I think perhaps it is subtly politically incorrect to ‘love’ women in some sort of higher spiritual sense in general.
Certainly I love women and quite broadly. I love strong, independent and proud women. I love Madonna and child – they are so cute – and that’s a bit spiritual. I have this thing about long silver hair – not sure where that comes from. I have loved half crazed girls in rags and feather.
All in all – it is less spiritual than carnal and usually one at a time rather than some sort of global abstraction.
Vive la difference!
If that’s now politically incorrect it’s a sad turning but you’re probably right. I’m not enamored of many things French but celebrating the difference between the sexes is an exception.
I think perhaps it is subtly politically incorrect to ‘love’ women in some sort of higher spiritual sense in general.
Certainly I love women and quite broadly. I love strong, independent and proud women. I love Madonna and child – they are so cute – and that’s a bit spiritual. I have this thing about long silver hair – not sure where that comes from. I love real and physical women. I have loved half crazed girls in rags and feather.
All in all – it is less spiritual than carnal and usually one at a time rather than some sort of global abstraction.
Chief Hydrologist | September 15, 2013 at 8:31 pm | Reply
“Certainly I love women and quite broadly.”
Love broads broadly.
Got it.
yer really not good at politically correct are you Jabberwock?
The leaking of the AR5 will obviously reduce its impact on the community and on decision-makers in general. Since the memes of the IPCC have not shown any tendency to change in response to current short term movements in the global temperature metric, any longer term trend remains moot, as it should be expected, given the absence of testable hypotheses on natural variability.
It seems almost impossible to believe that a taxpayer funded UN body, charged with a scientific task can be so reluctant to admit they were wrong. Wr have just had a Federal election in Australia and one of the key issues was the carbon tax,Yet the media had not reported on any doubts in previoud IPCC conclusions nor in that body’s projections for the future, This is close to criminal conduct by the IPCC who had allowed their initial conditions to accept the view that the science was ‘settled’and never accepted the view from observations that that initialview was wrong.,
There are no psychological or emotional barriers to employing female defence force personnel in combat.
– Australia does this now and has done so for many years.
– Arguments commonly mounted to oppose female participation on psychological or emotion grounds are invariably incorrect factually or conceptually.
– Similarly, most social and cultural arguments posed against broadening female participation in combat roles have been disproven by ADF and allied experience gained in existing mixed-gender units.
– All these aspects are discussed in the section on commonplace myths in our discussion paper.
Once trained and qualified, female defence force personnel should be allowed to undertake any military task where the current government policy limitation is due solely to physicality, rather than physiology or bio-mechanics, and where the participating female personnel can meet and maintain the physicality standards needed. http://ada.asn.au/commentary/issues-index/women-in-combat.html
I am not sure that politically correct describes it – tough and armed to the teeth perhaps.
The carbon tax was a political deal done by a minority government with green party. Both suffered grievously on the Saturday before last. We do not like to be lied to by politicians.
Virtual ink flows.
Venom spews.
What of humanity?
Sorry, jim2, don’t want to take the time at the moment.
I mean, in my job now, I put people out of work via automation. What’s to stop it?
OK, The threading is broken. Great!. That provides an excellent opportunity to trial and demonstrate running a thread with no subthreads. All we have to do is start each comment by referring to the name of the commenter and the time. Optional is to provide a link back to that post and/or quote the relevant text. e.g.:
Faustino @ September 15, 2013 at 10:26 pm
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/leaked-ipcc-report-discussed-in-the-msm/#comment-380651
To which comment are you replying?
Jim2. You’re being too pessimistic about the future, much like our friends who believe in castropheric global warming. The jobs of the future will be quite different if communication technology is involved and collaborative interaction is required, but there will always be labouring and personal service jobs available.
Communications tech is so yesterday.
Haven’t this form of technology changed much then jim2? I can see that scientific advances in biotech and nano-tech will continue but I sometime wonder if scientists will continue to do their research in the same way.
It seems to me that much scientific research methodology is indeed “so yesterday” and is in need of new approaches to the communication of results and the way they interact between themselves and the general community.
> The best thing, IMO, would be to abandon the entire IPCC process, and have the AR5 be the final report.
Ian Boyd might be less tempted by this suggestion, then:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/12/a-standard-for-policy-relevant-science/
To summarize, I asked climate skeptics whether “the pause” was statistically significant. I had a few replies but none of them answered that yes it is statistically significant. The view among skeptics seems to be that they don’t know whether the pause is statistically significant, they haven’t checked, and furthermore they don’t care (!). They claim it doesn’t matter whether the pause is statistically significant.
Wow!
Contrast that with the skeptic approach to warming. Phil Jones can show us a warming trend since 1995. But then skeptics demand is that statistically significant? “Statistical significance, or it didnt happen!” they say.
Why do skeptics demand statistical significance when it comes to warming events, but not when it comes to pause events? How is that not a blatant example of confirmation bias?
It’s even more intriguing to see how skeptics justify their personal belief in a pause and how they react if you dare challenge that belief. If you question the pause, eg as I did by pointing out it’s not statistically significant, skeptics get very cross and essentially tell me that I should stop asking questions and accept it on the word of the Met Office and because many people believe it. Yes that’s right! Not because of any evidence they can provide for the pause, but because the Met Office say it! Appeal to authority and consensus!
The hypocritical stance of Do as I say, not as I do, couldn’t be stronger.
1) Climate skeptics repeatedly attack the use of scientific consensus, but in this case they not only appeal to scientific consensus but use it to criticize others for not bowing to it!
2) Climate skeptics refuse to accept the authority of the Met Office on many issues in climate, but in this case they demand others do.
3) Climate skeptics demand statistical significance when it comes to warming events, while in the case of pause events they not only don’t demand such a test but some of them even criticize such demands.
You were given your answer. You are simply not able to understand for whatever reason.
The only correct answer for climate sensitivity is …. wait for it… γ in the linked diagram.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_fig11_zpse58189d9.png.html?sort=3&o=0
From – Michael Ghil (2013) – A Mathematical Theory of Climate Sensitivity or, How to Deal With Both Anthropogenic Forcing and Natural Variability?
Now we need 1000′s of times more computing power to find out what the question is.
The climate shift in 1998/2001 is – however – observed.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=0
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
It is of immense scientific and policy significance as these ‘regimes’ last for 20 to 40 years.
‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
Rose – and almost everyone else – misunderstands the fundamental mode of climate operation. Surprising is the least of it. This makes Lomberg’s the more important article – which hardly seems to have got a mention.
‘The current green-energy technologies still cost far too much and produce far too little to replace existing energy sources. To insist on buying these expensive non-solutions is to put the cart before the horse. What we need is investment in research and development to reduce green energy’s cost and boost its scale. When solar and other green technologies can take over cheaply, we will have addressed global warming – without the angst.’
I did bring this up yesterday – only to get an extended and repeated rant from Peter Lang about how current green-energy technologies still cost far too much and produce far too little to replace existing energy sources. On which I obviously missed the point.
This is – btw – an utterly inadequate response. A complete response includes black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone, nitrous oxide and sulphides as well as social and economic factors – population, development, education, health, conservation and farming systems.
Chief,
So you intend to continue your misrepresentations (i.e. lying) on this thread to do you?
My understanding of Peter Lang’s view on solar and other green technology is that he does not believe that they can ever replace existing energy sources as Lomberg had insinuated.
This may be construed that Peter L is pessimistic about the liklehood that research into green technologies will ever be productive in respect of gridbased power systems but he seems to think that solar panels could have their uses in off-grid situations but only in minor ways.
On the other hand Chief and I would be more optimistic that small solar systems could be of significant benefit to third world counties and their inhabitants with resulting less reliance on the burning of wood and dung etc, which have implications for CO2 emissions.
Peter Davies,
You have represented my position correctly. Thank you. And I do not disagree with your point that renewables can provide power to remote villages and by so doing avoid some burning of biomass. However, while this is greatly beneficial for health and must be encouraged, it has insignificant contribution to replacing fossil fuels and therefore has negligible effect to reducing global GHG emissions. We need to remember that around 99% of global electricity is supplied by electricity grids, not off-grid generators. And renewables are of no use for supplying power to mines.
We should also recognise that renewbles for off grid situations are still very expensive, but better than no electricity at all. As the demand increases, grids will expand to connect to more and more demand areas. So the off grid renewable component of electricity will remain a small and decreasing proportion of total global electricity supply.
In short, the proportion of off grid generation is tiny and shrinking. So it is not where we should focus our efforts if we want to make real inroads into cutting global GHG emissions.
My main point is: No matter how much more funding we throw at renewable energy research, there is negligible likelihood of renewable energy (solar and wind) becoming economically viable in the foreseeable future, probably never (I explained some of the main reasons for this here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/13/open-thread-weekend-32/#comment-380102 ) Therefore, there is little likelihood renewablwe energy will provide a significant contribution to global energy supply. Therefore, it cannot make a significant contribution to reducing global GHG emissions.
Peter – I have already dealt with your swingeing prevarications. The discussion began with the current green-energy technologies still cost far too much and produce far too little to replace existing energy sources. To insist on buying these expensive non-solutions is to put the cart before the horse.
The discussion began from there and moved on – despite you mightiest efforts to prove that solar and wind ‘still cost far too much and produce far too little to replace existing energy sources.’
Lomberg specifically discussed green technology – in which I would include
‘What we need is investment in research and development to reduce green energy’s cost and boost its scale. When solar and other green technologies can take over cheaply, we will have addressed global warming – without the angst.’
This was the bit you really have not the slightest clue about. Despite my my dozens of links to various public and private research initiatives on dozens of technologies including those you mentioned – and in particular solar and wind.
http://www.newcastleinnovationenergy.com.au/featured-research/organic-solar-energy-produces-power-your-paint-job#.UjafWT_hfIs
http://www.newcastleinnovationenergy.com.au/featured-research/organic-solar-energy-produces-power-your-paint-job#.UjafWT_hfIs
http://www.skywindpower.com/#files_WWO__homepage_36_0
You don’t know where the markets are going and you certainly don’t know where technology is going.
What is patently obvious in a ‘wild climate’ is that it needs to be away from sources that tend to destabilise climate. I think this one is the obvious source for much of our near future power – http://www.ga.com/energy-multiplier-module – as I said. I could be wrong.
‘The U.S. has the equivalent of about 63,500 quads of potential energy in its inventory of used nuclear fuel, which is approximately 9 trillion barrels of oil, an amount equivalent to about 1,800 years at current oil
consumption of 16 million barrels per day The nuclear industry is currently using only ~0.5% of the available energy from mined uranium. The rest accumulates in large stores of depleted uranium (DU) and used nuclear fuel.’ I could be wrong but it has multiple advantages.
This reminds me of our first discussion – in which you doggedly insisted that there are working deep nuclear depository’s. Even in the remote chance that it can be proved that these facilities can contain waste for hundreds of thousands of years. The new technology – btw – produces a small fraction of conventional waste that is dangerous for hundreds of years. From that it emerged that I knew nothing about nuclear power.
There was the discussion that Chernobyl killed 28 people. The official figures are 5,000 and many, many more childhood leukemias. Other figures from credible sources range from hundreds of thousands to millions.
The other story concerned 24 Kyoto gases. You took my reasonable correction that most of these were isotopes and there are only 6 gases badly as I remember.
There was a discussion about policy. I know I disagreed you, Johanna and Michael on whether decisions on environmental issues were made politically or by technocrats processing and making objective cost-benefit analyses in the optimum public benefit. Hayek is turning in his grave. From that it emerged that I knew nothing about economics or politics.
Finally – I would be very cautious about whom you call a liar. It is grounds for moderation at least. I have made copies.
‘In July 2008, a British businessman won a defamation case and £22,000 in damages at London’s High Court after false claims about him being g@y and a liar were posted on the Facebook social networking website.’
You have not called me g@y yet – and I would merely laugh and call you a homophobic troglodyte if you did. But liar is another matter entirely and – as you are domiciled in Australia – proceed at your own risk.
So do Peter Davies and Chief agree that wind and solar are a complete non-starter for mass first-world purposes, but potentially useful for small, third-world ones ?
Chief would no doubt speak for himself but I am thinking that the third world is already benefiting from mobile phone technology and that there is considerable potential for them to benefit from solar and/or wind technolgy, with the caveat that these technologies continue to become more efficient and affordable.
‘The Japanese realize the cost of building the solar station in orbit would be prohibitive at the moment, and the array could not be commercially viable at today’s prices. The Japanese consortium therefore has to find ways of drastically reducing the costs. With the launch of a single rocket costing around 10 billion yen, the cost of the space solar station could be as high as two trillion yen, according to Koji Umehara, the Director of the Japanese Space Development and Utilization ministry, making the electricity supplied exorbitantly expensive.
The first step in bringing the plans to fruition will be the launch in around 2015 of a satellite fitted with solar panels that will beam electricity to earth.
JAXA, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency plans to have the orbiting space solar system operational some time in the 2030s.’
Read more at: http://phys.org/news172224356.html#jCp
I am a bit unclear about how this may work. Solar paint is something I can get my head around and could supply useful power in hot Australian summers. Geothermal has great potential as do a number of other technologies. Technology and markets will rule – and I am content to be a technological enthusiast rather than dogmatically rule things in or out.
Chief Hydrologist,
You misrepresent the situation, again, and as you have consistently done. You made an incorrect statement and I corrected you. You do not understand what you are talking about on matters of energy, economics and policy and because of your enormous pride and ego you cannot accept being told you are wrong.
For anyone interested in the argument (with all its usual unpleasantness), it began here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/13/open-thread-weekend-32/#comment-379468
Chief started several new sub threads (apparently so the responses would be to his comment rather than to where the debate began) so it is a bit hard to follow the sequence of comments. Part way through I attempted to summarise and clarify what the disagreement was about so we could try to be constructive (to no avail) here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/13/open-thread-weekend-32/#comment-379539
A significant comment where I attempted to educate Chief was here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/13/open-thread-weekend-32/#comment-380102
However, it must have gone right over his head. I realise he doesn’t read links if he doesn’t like what they may say, so it is impossible to get through to him. His pride and ego prevents him accepting he is wrong.
So Chief’s first statement that he dealt with bla bla bla, is just typical of Chief’s BS, bravado, misrepresentation and dishonesty
Peter Davies,
Yes. You are correct. There are many benefits of electricity, and solar and wind power are viable options for remote communities and off-grid situations. But as I said in a previous reply to you, the benefits are not to do with reducing global GHG emissions. I explained why in my previous comment.
Chief says,
I agree technology and markets should rule. However, picking winners (like passing favourable legislating and subsidising wind and solar in production for decades to multiples of their cost) distorts markets. And that is the problem. We’ve spent decades subsidising these technologies and the rhetoric is the same now as it was two and three decades ago, such as:
– oh, they will be viable any time now
– there will be a breakthrough soon
– the price is coming down
– they are baseload capable and cheaper than nuclear now (Professor David Mills and Dr Dienendorf have been saying those for over two decades, and Professor Stephen Kaneff even longer)
After many decades of high subsidies wind contributes about 3% of world electricity and solar ~0%. The subsidies are enormous per MWh of energy delivered. And they are making insignificant progress in terms of supplying an increasing proportion of global electricity. The trend is clear. It’s going nowhere.
What is really bad is that it is diverting focus from pragmatic, rational, solutions that have already been proven. Renewables are a distraction. The arguments like Chief puts forward are the same ones that have been used, over the past three decades, to divert effort and funding from nuclear power to renewables, to scare the pants off the population about nuclear, to make legislation and regulations that strongly favour renewables and make nuclear a very risky investment for investors – thus forcing the price of nuclear up and renewables down. Because of the public paranoia about nuclear power, nuclear’s share of global electricity generation has declined from 18% to 13% over the past two to three decades. Fossil fuels, not renewables, have made up the difference. If not for the activists who push renewables, the trend of growth in nuclear that was underway from 1960 to 1980 would probably have continued. We’d now be at perhaps 30% of global electricity generated by nuclear power. GHG emissions would be much lower than they are. And we’d be on a fast trajectory to ramp up the trajectory of reducing global GHG emissions – and do so in a no cost way!!!
I agree with Chief that: “Technology and markets will rule”
But I disagree with irrational, baseless enthusiasm such as Chief: “I am content to be a technological enthusiast”. Irrational optimism in the face of the blindingly obvious facts is blocking real progress.
I misrepresent nothing and made the original quote from Lomberg – which you insist is wrong. OK – move on. No one really cares what you think of Lomberg’s argument. I think Lomberg is correct – and that your notions are entirely irrelevant to discussion – or indeed to anything fruitful or productive.
Lomberg moved on to a much more fertile and productive concept. You refuse to move past your obsession with wind and solar subsidies and insist on it with many and varied swingeing prevarications.
The real topic is research of many and varied green technology – but you miss this point entirely it seems.
‘What we need is investment in research and development to reduce green energy’s cost and boost its scale. When solar and other green technologies can take over cheaply, we will have addressed global warming – without the angst.’
This is the real message – and I am not interested at all in your automatic nay saying based on what you don’t know about future markets and future technology. And yet you refuse to understand that I am not interested in how much solar power costs now – we began from the point of stating it was too expensive – and you continue to pontificate about points that are utterly irrelevant to either the argument of Lomberg or myself.
Do you really not understand that current costs of wind and solar are utterly irrelevant – and that I am not about to argue any point about current wind and solar technologies because it is utterly irrelevant to the point I was making. The point that you so studiously ignore. Then you insist that your point is the core of the discourse. It seem very odd.
Chief Hydrologist continues to miss the point or is being intentionally disengenuous. he says:
‘Every indication is that technologies that are cheaper will replace existing technologies quickly in the market. Cheaper solar and wind will find more applications as markets recognise newer cost realities.’
But solar and wind are not cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear for grid connected electricity supply (which comprises around 99% of electricity supply). In fact, they are many times more expensive. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely they will become cheaper in the foreseeable future, if ever. Chief, doesn’t seem to be able to understand this. The reasons are discussed in my previous comment.
What I refuse to accept is high and mighty pronouncements about markets and technologies of the future. Because that is where I started the thread and not with tedious, pedantic, abusive and pompous reiteration of the f_cking obvious.
Again – as Lomberg said. ‘‘The current green-energy technologies still cost far too much and produce far too little to replace existing energy sources. To insist on buying these expensive non-solutions is to put the cart before the horse.
Chief,
I haven’t read your long no doubt tedious, no doubt full of misrepresentations, not doubt full of abuse. I stopped at the first sentence:
That is not the misrepresentation and you know it. I didn’t dispute where the quote came from. You have continually misrepresented what I said, even after I’d corrected you many times. That demonstrates you are dishonest.
As long as you continue to misrepresent what I’ve said, I will respond, correct you and highlight your dishonesty. You’ve suggested to me and others an number of time to stop, let it go, move on, good bye, etc, then continued on this thread.
So, why don’t you take your own advice, as you stated:
This repeated from above.
What is patently obvious in a ‘wild climate’ is that it needs to be away from sources that tend to destabilise climate. I think this one is the obvious source for much of our near future power – http://www.ga.com/energy-multiplier-module – as I said. I could be wrong but GA is spending $1.8 billion of their own money on basically a Los Alomos design and prototypes.
‘The U.S. has the equivalent of about 63,500 quads of potential energy in its inventory of used nuclear fuel, which is approximately 9 trillion barrels of oil, an amount equivalent to about 1,800 years at current oil
consumption of 16 million barrels per day The nuclear industry is currently using only ~0.5% of the available energy from mined uranium. The rest accumulates in large stores of depleted uranium (DU) and used nuclear fuel.’ I could be wrong but it has multiple advantages.
Conventional nuclear is going nowhere for very good reasons. What is needed is a circuit breaker – a genuinely new technology that has such overwhelming advantages it is a no brainer. Something that solves all the intractable problems of conventional nuclear.
Some people are as they say – unable to chew gum and walk at the same time. Technology is not an either/or proposition. Technology is horses for courses. Less polemic and more enthusiasm I say.
Chief,
Haw many times have you posted that same link? 20? 50? How boring. You know nothing about the subject. You see a link, has pretty pictures, or shiny surfaces so you get all excited. Stop trying to pick winners, and just get rational.
At the risk of repeating myself again.
Never will you ever bend from your steely eyed purpose. That noble purpose is to condemn wind and solar power for the perfidious insult to the intelligence that it is.
I agree – there are no possible or actual feasible purposes for solar energy. Research into such a loser technology is pointless. I am a fool for ever considering the possibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_solar_power_satellite_concept_1976.jpg
I am a nasty, evil person for responding to your condescension and abuse by calling you a pompous old fool.
I have a feeling nothing I write is read by you. Sort of defeats the purpose really. I might just say that quoting you cannot be considered misrepresentation.
I like GA. They have such a cool name – General Atomics – and such a powerhouse with long experience.
How about this instead – http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Generation-IV-Nuclear-Reactors/#.UjbTHj_hfIs
Generation IV Nuclear Reactors
(updated July 2013)
An international task force is developing six nuclear reactor technologies for deployment between 2020 and 2030. Four are fast neutron reactors.
All of these operate at higher temperatures than today’s reactors. In particular, four are designated for hydrogen production.
All six systems represent advances in sustainability, economics, safety, reliability and proliferation-resistance.
Europe is pushing ahead with three of the fast reactor designs.
What is your problem?
There are over forty small modular nuclear power designs listed here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Small-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UjbSPqIcbSg
They are in various stages of conceptual design through to in demonstration. No one knows which ones are most likely to succeed. So it is silly to pick one design out and advocate for it. The US DOE has picked the mPower to be the first it want’s to take through NRC licencing. It is based on the well proven submarine engines that have been operating with little trouble for forty odd years. Two or more other designs are expected to be selected soon to go through the NRC licencing process.
From the above link:
[Quote]
Some of the developments described in this paper are fascinating and exciting. Nevertheless it is salutary to keep in mind the words of the main US pioneer in nuclear reactor development. Admiral Hyman Rickover in 1953 – about the time his first test reactor in USA started up – made some comments about “academic paper-reactors” vs. real reactors. See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover for the full quote:
“An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose. (7) Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.
“On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.
“The tools of the academic designer are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone sees it. The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. …….”
USS Nautilus was launched in 1955.”
[End Quote]
The point to take from this is that new designs take decades to reach maturity and become accepted for commercial use. If we want to move forward, we must begin with what is available now or delay decades.
Rickover died in 1986. These designs have been in development for decades. GA have 50 years experience building small nuclear plants.
A helium cooled design is operating now.
‘Yet newer helium-cooled reactors designs have proved attractive—at least in China. The country recently built and started operating a small 10-megawatt helium-cooled reactor, and it is building a commercial version now that’s scheduled to be ready by 2017.’
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/518116/a-nuclear-reactor-competitive-with-natural-gas/
GA’s is one of many technologies. The great advantage is that it solves waste, proliferation, safety and decommissioning problems. Research and development is the key – not pontificating from the sidelines.
The point’s gone right over your head … Again!
Chief said:
Corrected:
Did you read this?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/13/open-thread-weekend-32/#comment-380102
Do you think you understood it?
Did you look at the links?
If you think you understood them, do you yet understand why renewables, like solar and wind, are unlikely to make a significant contribution to global energy supply in the foreseeable future, if ever, and, therefore, cannot make a significant contribution to cutting global GHG emissions?
Let me know when you have grasped that point.
The topic was research into green technologies and not your prejudices about ‘renewables.’
I don’t think it is true even. These are lots of ideas. Macroalgae was in the Australian today.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/product-may-clean-up-mine-tailings/story-e6frg8y6-1226719612749
You abuse me because I don’t believe you at all? I said so politely at the beginning – I certainly disagree Peter.
Chief,
Still lying. Still trying to deceive other readers, eh?
What do you think Lomborg means by ‘green technologies’ if not ‘renewables’? And why does he often add after renewables “like wind and solar”?
The topic began with your quote from Lomborg and me disagreeing with this part of it,
because solar and other green technologies will not take over cheaply for the reasons I explained. You replied with a bate and switch:
The fact there are many applications where solar PV are practical now is irrelevant because they make up ~ 0% of world electricity use and always will (I’ve explained why in the comments). It is a totally irrelevant diversion. You continued with similar diversion throughout, and continually misrepresented what I’d said. That is why I’ve pointed out you are dishonest.
You said this (wrong) statement (referring to large scale generation replying):
and made many other similar (wrong) comments which I refuted.
You said:
No, I point out you are pompous, arrogant, ignorant of energy, economics and policy, can’t admit you are wrong, dishonest, and devious – and I return your abuse in kind.
You put words in Lomberg’s. The fact was he talked about green technology – and the range of these is quite large. Macro algae was just the latest I mentioned.
You talk about less than 50% of the problem and insist that wind and solar will never make an inroad.
Just on those I link to 2 projects that might have an impact.
http://www.newcastleinnovationenergy.com.au/solar-paint-technology#.Ujb1sj_hfIs
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/07/15/flying-wind-turbines-could-cut-costs-and-boost-power-generation/
I pointed to opportunities to integrate sources –
http://www.nrel.gov/esi/
I linked to green nuclear – fusion – tidal – geothermal research.
I think you are a nutcase.
Chief,
It doesn’t matter how many links you post because they are irrelevant to the argument and you don’t have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to energy, economics and policy. You haven’t read and understood the point. You don’t listen. You keep repeating the same irrelevant stuff over and over again – like advocating space solar and one particular nuclear concept that hasn’t seen the light of day but you read it somewhere with nice coloured pictures. You are so ignorant and gullible I wont be surprised when you advocate piping hydrogen from the Sun.
I suspect your environment course was presented by Greenies about energy matters. Was Dr Mark Diesendorf one of your teachers?
I don’t understand why your mind is so closed. You are not even sufficiently interested to read the links. So you continue to reiterate absolute nonsense … and misrepresent what I’ve said.
This is totally pointless. You are not listening and you do not have sufficient background to understand. People with open minds ask questions and are willing to learn. You are not. One possible reason there is no communication is that you keep talking about technologies but you have no concept of the constraints (physical constraints and others). Importantly, you have no understanding of energy, economics or policy. So it’s like talking in two different languages. It’s a complete waste of time.
You imagine that there is an argument about wind and solar and insist that I should address your argument – and moreover agree with it. Hijacking the thread is what it’s called.
The one and only relevant point – in a wider discussion – was about research and technology.
lolwot:
“Contrast that with the skeptic approach to warming. Phil Jones can show us a warming trend since 1995. But then skeptics demand is that statistically significant?”
So what do we have, going with as you mentioned 1995? I think we have it hasn’t warmed and it hasn’t not warmed. So we are at we don’t know.
Seems a bit odd, but fair.
We also have the big step up around 1998. That is confusing me with how to fairly treat that.
It’s an ENSO dragon king.
‘There are four major Dragon Kings, each ruling a sea corresponding to one of the four cardinal directions: the East Sea (corresponding to the East China Sea), the South Sea (corresponding to the South China Sea), the West Sea (sometimes seen as the Indian Ocean and beyond), and the North Sea (sometimes seen as Lake Baikal). They appear in the classical novels Fengshen Bang and Journey to the West.
Because of this association, they are seen as “in charge” of water-related weather phenomenon. In premodern times, many Chinese villages (especially those close to rivers and seas) had temples dedicated to their local “dragon king”. In times of drought or flooding, it was customary for the local gentry and government officials to lead the community in offering sacrifices and conducting other religious rites to appease the dragon, either to ask for rain or a cessation thereof…’
The live in coral castles and are guarded by crab generals and shrimp armies.
Yes it was.
I was watching that Sornette video again. Look like I have to look at power laws.
The rule is grease the tractor first thing everyday, and have to fix it less. Lol.
So this time the IPCC has written up the studies BEFORE the conclusions. Progress indeed.
Is the 17-year Pause significant?
Almost as significant as the 25-year warming that fuelled the whole alarmist political drumbeat in the first place, whose significance was (and still is) never questioned by those questioning the Pause.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:200
+1
‘Well less is more , Lucreza, I am judged.’
H/t Andrea del Sarto.
Front page of The Australian newspaper’ terday:
‘We got it wrong on warming says the IPCC.
… The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest
assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically over
estimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years
the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed
in the previous IPCC Report in 2007….’
O/T OZ PM Abbott has picked a tough team … Andrew Robb
fer Manufacturing & Resources, Barnaby Joyce, Agriculture,
Christopher Pyne, Education. That’ll make the feathers fly! :)
A serf.
“and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC Report in 2007”
That is of course false. Daily Mail and now the Australian have shot themselves in the foot a bit. It’s quite easy to show that the claim is false by quoting the 2007 IPCC report!
Beth promotes the Australian’s claim: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically over estimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed
in the previous IPCC Report in 2007”
Yet the previous IPCC report says: “Here’s AR4: “The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. {WGI 3.2, SPM} ”
Whoops Beth! Why didn’t YOU notice that error? Quite clearly the last IPCC report hadn’t claimed 0.2C/decade warming over the last 60 years. Why didn’t you pick up on that? I mean your typical Australian reader could be forgiven for being tricked, but you supposedly follow the climate issue more closely, but you didn’t notice that blatent error?
> Daily Mail and now the Australian have shot themselves in the foot a bit.
Yes, the IPCC didn’t exaggerate by 100%. Probably only about 80%.
lolwot, if the Australian article 16/09/13, on page , is incorrect,
no doubt the IPCC will take it up with the newspaper.
Trends make sense over the right periods – accounting for climate shifts around 1910, 1945, 1976 and 1998.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1998/trend
The important point is that the IPCC concluded that
warming would continue at the recent rate of 0.2 degrees C/decade. It isn’t and that was quite obvious when they said it. So quibbling about words may appeal to some deep seated need in you – but the greater error is yours.
The thing is that 25 year warming IS statistically significant.
For a temperature series over millennia? I don’t think so! What are the bounds of natural variability over the past millennia?
That’s typical denier FUD Peter Davies. Please go away and learn what statistical significance is.
The fact is that 9 out of 10 of the warmest years on instrument record have occurred since the year 2000 and that numerous other metrics besides tropospheric temperatures all confirm that the Earth’s energy imbalance continues unabated.
No, it doesn’t. I can’t believe warmists are still using this logical falacy! The plateau years are the warmest by definition!
R. Gates
numerous other metrics besides tropospheric temperatures all confirm that the Earth’s energy imbalance continues unabated.
But since AGW works by first impacting tropospheric temperatures, this claimed imbalance cannot be due to AGW.
lolwot, one of CE’s foremost ad-hom merchants, now suddenly complaining about ad-homs. Yeah, I’m told murderers don’t appreciate being murdered either.
But ah, the joy in heaven for the repenting sinner. Well, only the sincere ones, mind.
Pingback: Bronca a cuenta de la nueva biblia del clima. ¿Y si cerramos el IPCC? | Desde el exilio
Is the pause significant?
Quite apart from the maths of the matter, you do have to ask yourself – why would the IPCC, bound by its constitution to argue for cagw, and almost all MSM egging them on, admit the pause?
I mean, this must really stick in their craws.
Can only be they realise the case is overwhelming, and already have as much egg on their face as they can stand.
Did someone just use “Fan” and “content” in the same sentence ??
Yes. Guilty as charged!
One of the things that should be done is comparing the “facts” for the Chapters to the Technical Summary FODs to the SPM. It seems there is a changes in both the confidence and the qualifications of statements.
For example in the technical summary, it says :”The global combined land and ocean temperature data show an increase of about 0.8°C over the period 1901–2010 and about 0.5°C over the period 1979–2010. The warming from 1886–1905 (early-industrial) to 1986–2005 (reference period for the modeling chapters and the Atlas in Annex 1) is 0.66°C ± 0.06°C .” Note the different time periods. It is almost as if they don’t want comparisons made.
lolwot cheerfully lived without statistical significance all the years of the great warming, but now that the warming’s vanished, he suddenly wants it.
Statistical significance of trends was a subject bought up by climate skeptics a few years ago, to claim that warming had stopped in the first place.
What it shows is that skeptics like memphis are fundamentally dishonest. Not only fibbing about what the IPCC has said, but apply selective “rules” depending on circumstance. Statistical significance matters to memphis only when he/she wants to deny warming.
Statistical significance was of course brought up by alarmists originally, to dismiss the Pause in its early years. lolwot knows this but claims otherwise. Standard dishonesty fare for the alarmist truebeliever consensus.
Speaking of IPCC “leaks” and “whispers” …
Here’s a very quiet “whisper” found in p. 3 of IPCC-XXXV/Doc. 17, a report that was tabled (or read, or whatever typically happens to such reports at IPCC Sessions) according to the “Draft Report of the 35th Session of the IPCC” held in June 2012:
Now, there’s no cause for alarm or anticipation of impending “crisis” regarding this “pre-meeting” – it is certainly not unprecedented. After all, such a “pre-meeting” meeting was also held prior to the “approval” of the SREX or SREN (sorry can’t remember which – perhaps even both!)
But it is somewhat curious that, notwithstanding the additional notation immediately following the above excerpt:
this “complete listing of all meetings” makes no mention of this “pre-meeting” meeting. Nor is it listed on the Agenda for WG1-12 (link to which can be found here.
Perhaps someone can enlighten us regarding where these CLAs and Drafting Authors will “pre-meet” – and what the purpose of this “pre-meeting” might be. If, in fact, it will take place, should we anticipate yet another “leak” on Sept. 22, after the presumed conclusion of this “pre-meeting”?!
Or is this simply yet another instance of this “gold standard” IPCC “process” at its “open and transparent” best?!
It will greatly benefit the science community and the world if all rational climate scientists will reject the AR5 and all IPCC reports as nothing more than the product of wishful thinking and pseudoscience of environmental activists. Trying to improve the report is a waste of time. It’s like trying to correct Aristotlean physics. They belong to the trash can.
AKA Into the Dustbin
“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.”
—————————————————————-
It is virtually certain, that this statement is BS.
Sufficient to look at AR4 temperature data and uncertainty:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/syr_fi42.jpg
Between 1951-2005, temperature increased by approx. 0.6 deg.
Temperatures dropped about 0.2 deg between 1940-1951, which may be due to the shift in PDO/AMO, but these 0.2 deg are likely recovered when both AMO and PDO turned positive again in 1976.
Which leaves at maximum of 0.4 deg of these 0.6 deg for human influence.
AND (!)
within these 0.4 deg we also have to consider uncertainty in temperature data.
How big is that ? A mere 0.2 deg would already shoot down the IPCC’s selfconciousness.
Actually, the IPCC has no clue..
Their relevant paper quotes Donald Rumsfeld’s famous known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns (no joke !)
“A definitive assessment of uncertainties is impossible, because it is always possible that some unknown error has contaminated the data, and no quantitative allowance can be made for such unknowns. There are, however, several known limitations in the data, and estimates of the likely effects of these limitations can be made [Rumsfeld, 2004].”
http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/hadcru-and-rumsfeld-2004/
http://climateaudit.org/2007/12/30/ipcc-figure-spm1/
Now, that was only a brief look at uncertainty of temperature data. Known unknowns of natural und human forcing and unknown unknowns, such as a natural warming trend since the little ice age, are to be laid on top.
And don’t forget the unknown knowns. The things you think you know but actually don’t. The ones, Rumsfeld did not consider.
Manfred the sensitivity TCS that Nic Lewis graphed on the other thread support the IPCC attribution statement.
I can’t make any sense of your reply.
Did you mean Nic Lewis computation does confirm the uncertainty which the IPCC attributed to its temperature data and that his computation even excludes a bias due to unknown unknowns or unknown knowns ?
Certainly not.
A Note on Threading There is only one way to break the threading on Climate Etc, and that is to post a comment so vile and/or abusive that Judith Curry, or her students, are forced to remove it by hand (which breaks the threading).
Recommended Reading Mathematician Terry Tao’s weblog, in particular is (wonderfully entertaining) post The blue-eyed islanders puzzle, which is a master’s class upon two themes:
Tao’s First Theme Uses of
mathematical markup language in the blogo-sphere, and
Tao Second Theme The surprising mathematical logic of reasoned public discourse and shared knowledge.
Tao’s puzzle is highly recommended as a fun self-assessment test!
Conclusion The principle that “when threads are broken, abusers are to blame” is both a practical WordPress reality and a vivid metaphor for public discourse!
Because Climate Etc (at its best) is all about reasoned public discourse and shared knowledge. Not about vile abuse, willful ignorance, and demagoguery, eh?
‘There is only one way to break the threading on Climate Etc, and that is to post a comment so vile and/or abusive…’
Yes that’s what we were saying – indeed that all of your comments were vile and abusive. Do try to keep up.
‘Moreover, the “antics” that break Climate Etc threads are well-understood: these include vile abuse, willful ignorance, and demagoguery.’
Gee I wonder if FOMBS has discovered self-knowledge.
Still no comment from Judith or Nic Lewis concerning how the Otto et al climate sensitivity figures relates to the IPCC attribution statement.
JC note: I am insanely busy until Wed, so can’t respond to anything here
That’s okay, presumably some others can set me straight. I am open to being wrong, presumably I am missing something or else it’s very strange why skeptics have given so much lip service to Otto et al and so much criticism of the IPCC attribution statement, but have never discussed the obvious relevance of the two to each other.
On the last Nic Lewis thread it was claimed that Otto et al constrains TCS to a minimum of 0.9C warming per doubling of CO2. In that case of course it was convenient to say TCS had been constrained because that way the models more easily fall outside the constraining range.
But it’s a case of live by the constraint, die by the constraint. If you promote a constraint on TCS then you have to live by what that constraint shows surely.
Constraining CO2 to causing at least 0.9C warming per doubling (TCS) implies that the IPCC attribution statement is correct. Given that CO2 has increased by about 37% of a doubling since 1950. That is the constraint says that CO2 has caused at least half the observed warming since 1950.
I find it disturbing how many climate skeptics are promoting the Otto et al narrative (“it shows climate sensitivity is less than the IPCC said!”) but really when push comes to shove they refuse to accept the constraint and continue pushing the idea that most of the warming is natural, or that rising CO2 doesn’t cause warming.
Hopeless – I was going to watch a couple of episodes of Under the Dome online – think I will. Much more entertaining than swingeing prevarications on a broken post – and then to sleep.
Just for numbnut though.
The AR4 said that warming would continue at the same rate as in recent decades. They were wrong. They were obviously wrong. They were obviously wrong at the time and are seem to be catching up maybe. Some sad little Borg collective cult of AGW groupthink space cadets not so much it seems.
Here’s the real background rate that may some part anthropogenic.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/lontermtrend_zpse9264a75.png.html?sort=3&o=6
Moreover – from the same paper.
‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’
http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
It would be deeply ironic if no one believed numbnut any more because the world doesn’t warm – only to have climate shift dramatically.
It’s pretty simple chief and laid out in detail here:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/editing-environment-out-of-existence.html
The Australian and Daily Mail have been caught making erroneous statements
The Australian writes: “The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain’s The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.”
The 2007 IPCC assessment never claimed warming since 1951 was at a rate of 0.2C/decade. What it said was:
“The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade)”
0.13C/decade.
And yet based on this error the Daily Mail and Australian have both led with the lie that the world has only warmed half as much over the past 60 years as claimed in AR4.
Obfuscate all you want.
I have read it – and also the relevant AR4 section. It is quite true what I said. Obfuscation doesn’t come into it. The background warming identified in the study and elsewhere is correct. Climate shifts are very real. Low frequency climate variability is very real. The ‘regimes’ last last 20 to 40 years.
Do try to keep up.
During that time, the warming on LAND was about 0.2C per decade according to Curry’s BEST data.
We have been through this before. Differentials are the result of different lapse rates over land and sea.
It makes no difference at all to the global heat content.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss
Deep analysis doesn’t listen to what the Waterboy says.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/seasonal-nino/
Tamino further explored the analysis of Kosaka and Xie and found no levelling off of temperature in the summer months.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/nhem_summer.jpg?w=500&h=270
The apparent “pause” is caused by a compensation of temperatures during the winter months.
During what time? We can roughly remove decadal variability last century – leaving a 0.1 degree C/decade temperature increase – or a 0.125 degree C/decade increase on land. I am inclined to dismiss the importance of land temperature – which is modulated by water availability over land which shifts with ENSO and other – and related – ocean patterns. All of these ocean and atmospheric patterns are ultimately related as it is all just one system. The increasingly important atmospheric metric is tropospheric temperature. This background rate include all other factors. Solar, clouds, volcanoes and atmospheric gases – which seem almost certain (>99%) to dominate recent forcing in some combination. Seriously – clouds seem to be the crunch variable.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=24
BEST, HADCRUT4 and HADSST3 are shown here. Global and SST are intimately related – as in a truely coupled system. Surface temperature varies with water availability as a result of changing lapse rates over land. It doesn’t seem all that important. Only webster and Jim D make a meal of this.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/Hx/plotterv2.htm#HxB1?HxG=%5B%5B1900,2012,’0,0′,[0,0],0,[]],[[[-1.3746,0.7704],0,0,[1979,2000]]],[[[4,0],28,0,0,0],[[0,1],26,0,0,0],[[5,0],16,0,0,0]]]
No do I particularly care about nonsense so-called analysis of seasonal temperature. No leveling off in the summer months is sounding farily desperate.
I presume you mean your winter? Temperatures rise and fall at the beginning of the year that is peak ENSO season. Thy have been heading down because that’s the nature of decadal shifts in the Pacific.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2013_v5.6.png
‘Compensation in the winter months’ is another term for letting idiots loose on data they barely comprehend.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/Hx/plotterv2.htm#HxB1?HxG=%5B%5B1900,2012,%5B0,0%5D,0,%5B%5D%5D,%5B%5B%5B-1.3746,0.7704%5D,0,0,%5B1979,2000%5D%5D%5D,%5B%5B%5B4,0%5D,21,0,0,0%5D,%5B%5B0,1%5D,8,0,0,0%5D,%5B%5B5,0%5D,6,0,0,0%5D%5D%5D
MOYHU is being difficult.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/Hx/plotterv2.htm#HxB1?HxG=%5B%5B1900,2012,%270,0%27,%5B0,0%5D,0,%5B%5D%5D,%5B%5B%5B-1.3746,0.7704%5D,0,0,%5B1979,2000%5D%5D%5D,%5B%5B%5B4,0%5D,27,0,0,0%5D,%5B%5B0,1%5D,13,0,0,0%5D,%5B%5B5,0%5D,24,0,0,0%5D%5D%5D
Judith Curry,
The indefinite uncertainty on climate sensitivity proves that the most essential issues in the recent global warming have not yet been understood by the mainstream ‘scientists’. Why in this way? On the basis of my experiences on any multi-disciplinary, complex problem that kind of flaws may take place if one is not able to approach it cross-disciplinarily enough; i.e. you have to be openminded, you have to find potential, multi-disciplinary factors influencing the problem effectively enough, and you have to be able to analyse them for the final synthesis needed. The properly multi-disciplinary research has already been ignored by UN as IPCC is ordered to solve a scientific background only on anthropogenic warming.
In this situation, in my opinion, JC’s ‘synthesis’ begins properly; http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/leaked-ipcc-report-discussed-in-the-msm :
”The best thing, IMO, would be to abandon the entire IPCC process, and have the AR5 be the final report.”
As to the ‘synthesis’ of my own, I have expressed that in comment http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/#comment-377927 :
”As to the adaptation to natural extreme events of weather I agree with IPCC [AR5]. Whereas any global warming believed to be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions has no evidence in reality. There is no empiric evidence a) according to which anthropogenic CO2 emissions could conrol CO2 content in atmosphere and b) according to which any increase of total CO2 content in atmosphere could dominate global warming. Hence, in order to control global warming, there is no reason to cut anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
Lauri, you write “The indefinite uncertainty on climate sensitivity proves that the most essential issues in the recent global warming have not yet been understood by the mainstream ‘scientists’.”
and “There is no empiric evidence a) according to which anthropogenic CO2 emissions could conrol CO2 content in atmosphere ”
I agree with the sentiment of what you have written about there being no empirical evidence, but it is not strictly true. There IS empirical evidence relating to the climate sensitivity of CO2; in the modern temperature/time graphs. Beenstock et al has looked for a CO2 signal in this data and found none. No-one has measured a CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph.
Now, unfortunately, this is NEGATIVE evidence, not positive evidence. But it is evidence. So, while it is impossible to prove a negative, nevertheless there is very limited empirical evidence, that gives a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2, however defined, is indistinguishable from zero.
the GLOBAL warming is not just half the strength, but ZERO! You have being half duped… again: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/
Pingback: Leaked IPCC report discussed in the Main-Stream Media | OMSJ
Apparently the word ‘leaked’ is a spam magnet. So much spam I can’t go through it to check for legit comments. Apologies, hopefully the spam will settle down soon.
Judy: ” The best thing, IMO, would be to abandon the entire IPCC process, and have the AR5 be the final report.”
I second the motion. I have called for their elimination and would sure like to see an end to this nest of pseudoscience. The elephant in the room is of course the existence of the pause that has finally been dragged into view by the new draft. They of course pretend that they have no idea why it exists when a theory explaining it has been available since 2007. I am referring to the Miskolczi theory of course that was vilified by true believers in the blogosphere and has been studiously ignored in climate science literature since then. Not surprisingly because it attacks the very basis of global warming science. In 2010 Miskolczi found a way to prove it experimentally by using existing data sources. NOAA has a weather balloon database that goes back to 1948. He used it to study the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere and discovered that absorption had been constant for 61 years. Carbon dioxide at the same time went up by 21.6 percent. This means that addition of this substantial amount of CO2 to air had no influence whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This counter-intuitive effect happens when several greenhouse gases simultaneously absorb OLR. Their total absorption is not the arithmetic sum of their individual absorption values because an optimal absorption window is established that they jointly maintain. In earth atmosphere the two greenhouse gases that count are carbon dioxide and water vapor. The best optical thickness value for their joint IR absorption window is 8.67. This corresponds to a transmittance of 15 percent or absorbance of 85 percent. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb and IR optical thickness will increase. But as soon as this happens the amount of water vapor starts to decrease until the optimum optical thickness of 8.67 is again restored. This explains why absorption in Miskolczi’s experiment did not change when carbon dioxide was added. This water vapor effect is equivalent to negative water vapor feedback, the exact opposite of that claimed by the IPCC. The net outcome is absence of the greenhouse effect predicted by Arrhenius. That is because the Arrhenius theory is incomplete and leaves out the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere.
The absence of the greenhouse effect explains the existence of the pause and much more. There is more carbon dioxide in the air today than anytime in recorded history but it is completely unable to cause that greenhouse warming needed to uphold the myth of anthropogenic global warming. The pause itself that results is not the first one nor the longest one on record. Satellite record tells us that there was no warming from 1979 to the beginning of the super El Nino of 1998, a period of 18 years. Unfortunately most people don’t know this because in ground-based temperature records the eighties and the nineties are represented as the “late twentieth century warming.” Doing research for my book “What Warming?” I determined that this warming had to be fake and said so in the book. It took two years but finally GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC, all in unison, decided to stop showing it and aligned their data with satellites. This was done secretly and no reason was given for it. If I were a user of these I would make sure to get their latest output. Better yet, switch to satellites because those data-sets also have additional problems with fake peaks inserted by a computer. With that, we have two standstill regions that leave only a narrow gap between themselves for the super El Nino and its accompanying step warming. Together, this amounts to 34 greenhouse-free years of global temperature record. Is it possible that any earlier warming could have been greenhouse warming? Not very likely, probably close to zero I would say. And that’s the way the anthropogenic global warming fantasy ends.
FYI: Judith’s post was reported in The Australian today (top of p 4), with extensive quotes and some sensible comments. The Oz also printed my letter on the topic.
Correction: optical thickness=1.87. Sorry.
in the new dictionary IPCC should become symbol for deceit.
What puzzles me about this site is firstly the bashing and venomous articles against the IPCC just before AR5 is released, suggesting many followers have made up their mind even before it is released. Like the UN the IPCC is not perfect, but it does assume the mantle of international guidance and leadership on climate matters and now is not the time to bash. Secondly the congratulations and cheeriness by many followers of the result of the Australian and Norwegian elections, what the heck has politics (like religion) got to do with climate matters?. Thirdly no mention (so far) of the Colorado situation and (I apologise if I have missed the thread) the bizarre behaviour of the Arctic Jet Stream and the two recent papers on the matter.
why are you puzzled? This is obviously a climate denial blog. What do you expect?
Yea, the realists are here simply because the moderator does not ban commenters that understand science.
That gives the impression that this site is balanced.
WHT
Your definition of “realists” and ” commenters that understand science” is
“commenters who agree with WHT”
Duh!
Get used to it Webby. There are others whose opinions are just as valid as yours (if not more so).
Max
I agree. They are otherwise known as the 97%.
Max
Where have you been? Hope you haven’t been too inconvenienced by the extensive mountain snow that seems to be currently falling in Switzerland and Austria
tonyb
tony b
Yep. Been back in snowy Switz for a couple of weeks – the mountains all around us are already snowed in – promises to be another good year for skiing. (Guess the weatherman here hasn’t read the leaked IPCC AR5 report yet.)
Max
lolwot
Ummm. Who exactly is “denying climate”?
That would be like believing models rather than the real thing.
(Seems like a dumb thing to do.)
Max
Exactly Max, warmists are the real climate (change) deniers and have been projecting their denial on skeptics.
Hi Max,
Pesky snow. Pesky mountain climate. )
Beth the serf.
Hate to see AGW impact ski resorts. Most of the skiing in Switzerland is upper altitude, unlike places such as Croatia, many at less than 1500 m.
WebHubTelescope
Yea, the realists are here simply because the moderator does not ban commenters that understand science.
Redsky : you need to know that for Web, a “realist” is who one says that when models completely fail to align with measurements, you must believe the models.
redskylite, you write “Thirdly no mention (so far) of the Colorado situation and (I apologise if I have missed the thread) the bizarre behaviour of the Arctic Jet Stream and the two recent papers on the matter.”
Just about every week, our hostess has an open thread. This is where denizens of CE introduce subjects that they find interesting. There should be a new such thread coming up in a few days. Why dont you introduce us to these topics? I, for one, am always delighted when some knowledgable person introduces a topic about which I know very little.
redskylite, you write “What puzzles me about this site is firstly the bashing and venomous articles against the IPCC just before AR5 is released, suggesting many followers have made up their mind even before it is released.”
I am not sure why it puzzles you. You seem to be unfamiliar with the blogosphere. Blogs, like CE, can have various levels of moderation, when posts get censored by the blog owner. Judith, since the start of CE, has had one of the most liberal moderating processes of any blog which discusses CAGW; thank heaven. This means that the posters control what you read, not our hostess. If posters decide to be venomous about the IPCC, then that is what is going to happen. If you find any aspect of CE to be obnoxious, as I find FOMD to be, then the best thing for you to do, is to ignore it.
He’s just not up to date. There’s plenty enough to bash about what has already been released. Not to mention that the IPCC has already pretty well bashed themselves.
===============
See increased confidence in attribution vs the pause. The self-contradiction, it bashes.
==================
rsl, read Ross McKittrick in the Financial Post.
===============
Yay, Pokerguy, who beat me by six minutes, and links to Ross below.
===========
Politics in climate change arguments?
rsl comes off as terribly naive. Go see what Connie Hedegaard has to say about ‘correct’ energy policy necessarily raising the price of energy.
====================
Welcome to this blog redskylite. Your comments are always welcome but I suggest that you have a good look through Judith’s blog site, especially the previous postings and comments from a lot further back.
If you take the time and trouble to do this, you will be able to place a lot more of the current discussion in its proper context and you will have a greater understanding of where we are at.
This blog is, as someone has already stated, one of the most lightly moderated and open blogs on climate change you will ever find. You will find lots to agree with and disagree with and you will have some fun in sorting out the wheat from the chaff.
And the wry from the chafe.
==========
redskylite,
You might like to read Ross Mckittrick’s pdf that gives
a detailed picture of the what’s wrong with the IPCC,
Function, structure and as revealed in the Climategate
emails, a culture of advocacy, stifling debate and
manipulating data.
Beth the serf.
http://www.thegwpf.org/new-report-reform-or-abandon-the-ipcc/
redskylite
IPCC is not perfect, but it does assume the mantle of international guidance and leadership on climate matters and now is not the time to bash.
You have a complete misconception of the situation. The IPCC is demonstrably corrupt from top to bottom, run by green activists, and has one agenda and one agenda only : to argue for CAGW.
Now more than ever is the time to bash.
What’s the IPCC that’s corrupt?
1) Just the chairman (not paid by IPCC)
2) All the people paid by IPCC, i.e. the secretarial staff of 12 persons?
3) The decision making body of government representatives that meet annually?
4) All the thousands of scientists that participate in the IPCC work?
5) A subset of all 4), then what?
Who are the green activists who run the IPCC, and how they run it?
Who has demonstrated that IPCC is corrupt? You can certainly find lists of what IPCC has got wrong in the view of some people, but where is the evidence of corruption?
These conspiracy theory yo-yo’s are utterly ridiculous
> You can certainly find lists of what IPCC has got wrong in the view of some people, but where is the evidence of corruption?
Start with La Famboise’s book.
And as regards the funding, everyone in it gets their money from government one way , even if not directly from the IPCC. So it would be nothing short of a miracle if it did NOT have an inherent overall politicizing bias, given the subject matter. Climategate certainly showed that, as did their ‘nothing to see here, move on folks’ response to it. Indeed it would require some sort of conspiracy of objectivity to STOP that bias/politicizing/corruption.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/
“The IPCC must take everybody for fools”
-Ross McKitrick
Lawrence Solomon: Climate changing for global warming journalists
ordvic
you might be interested in my article here whereby I looked at BEST to 1750 and CET to 1660. There is a good correlation between them, but what is interesting is that the warming trend can be seen to have existed for some 350 years
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/
tonyb
Seems to me we are all arguing about peripheral matters, and not fundamentals, like Earths sensitivity to GHG and whether she (Earth) is attempting to adjust feedback to get to an equilibrium state.
Surely, at this stage of the game greenhouse gas IR absorption characteristics are not in dispute ?
No, GHG IR is not disputed, their ability to leap thermodynamic boundary layers willy nilly is disputed. The “surface” impact is over estimated by a factor of two and there is a longer term secular trend unaccounted for. Other than being completely friggin’ wrong, we have zero problem with the state of climate science.
Pingback: AR5 – closer to the sceptic view. | ScottishSceptic
Wow, Judith! You go, girl! ….Lady in Red
PS: Great photo.
Wonderful, but lacks canines.
========
True. Something to match her hair…? Golden Retriever…? A Munsterlander, for accent….? ….Lady in Red
Lady in Red, perhaps you missed the prior photo of Judith Curry with her adorable doggies:
Judith Curry with her dogs, Rosie (left) and Bruno, in the mountains near Lake Tahoe
There’s one big problem with the theory of CO2 and warming. The amount of infrared radiation returning from the earth is not unlimited. It is a discreet amount limited by the amount of direct radiation from the sun. As CO2 increases, it depletes the available radiation in the two narrow absorption bands exponentially. As the available infrared radiation decreases, the amount of warming decreases. It has been calculated that by the time the concentration of CO2 reaches 350-400 ppm, most of the available radiation has been depleted and little further warming can occur
Beers law is a better fit to this than the equations by Arrhenius. His equation
Delta T = k ln (C/Co) . When C = 0, (no CO2) one would expect temperatures to fall to some finite number. But,in this equation, when C = 0, Delta T = negative infinity, which is physically absurd, so that Arrhenius’s equation cannot be valid below a certain minimum value of C.
Pingback: These items caught my eye – 18 September 2013 | grumpydenier
It is extremely likely that man’s estimates of man’s effect on the global climate will be reported by the IPCC as being absolutely correct.
It is extremely likely that no climate scientist will ever propose a properly controlled laboratory physics experiment designed to demonstrate the magnitiude of the effect of CO2-induced heat retention.
‘Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.’
This is the first time I come across the expression “Medieval Climate Anomaly”. So if we are now matching the tempratures of that time we are experiencing an “anomaly”, implying it is unusual. Why not stick to the word “period”, which is more neutral?
None dare call it Optimum.
====================
Pingback: Is global warming real? - Page 32 - Parapsychology and alternative medicine forums of mind-energy.net
Pingback: Tap tap tap | Climatemonitor
Pingback: Drafts, reviews and leaks | The IPCC Report
Pingback: Access: The “leaked” IPCC AR5 draft Summary for Policymakers | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: US and Europe tried to cover up data showing lack of global warming | mediachecker
Pingback: Desperate times in climate alarmism | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: The Corbett Report | Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed
Pingback: Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed -
Pingback: Global Warming: The IPCC Exposed | Ronmamita's Blog
Pingback: James Corbett – The Corbett Report – Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed – 28 September 2013 | Lucas 2012 Infos
Pingback: Desperate Times in Climate Alarmism | Sovereign Independent UK
Pingback: The Corbett Report | The IPCC Exposed (video)
Pingback: The IPCC Exposed (video) -
Pingback: The Corbett Report ~ Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed | Sovereign Independent UK
Pingback: John Quiggin » The Mail on Sunday’s own goal for delusionism
Pingback: Blog posts on September 2013 IPCC 5th report leak | Teaching Environmental Economics at NU
Finding a business accountant to help bookkeeping online certificate
programs you. You should always file your return in as little as $200
for the month at this stage. The spinoff does not preclude owing payroll taxes for disappointing earnings in
the quarter ended June. Congress should also follow the lead of the European Union and the International Monetary Fund effectively branded Britain
a tax haven for Apple’. Taxes are higher All of which, as a form of theft in
most cases.
Could be that they (IPCC) wanted to imply a catastrophe in climate COULD result, from continued heavy emissions of GHG’s. perhaps some probabilistic stat. analysis indicted this. Climate sensitivity is unknown, and will never be settled absolutely. We, unfortunately don’t have the proverbial crystal ball. But as with cigarette smoking and cancer, systemic causality will apply- if it walks like a duck,quacks like duck etc, etc