Tweet
The IPCC AR5 draft was recently leaked, and, well, it’s not very supportive of catastrophe. What may be most interesting about it is that one of the chapters ‘speaks’ of amplification factors for a solar influence, which is sort of common knowledge amongst the so-called denier scientists. Ah, but those guys aren’t politically correct, so no need to respect their positions. So far.
Whether the final IPCC report will have the ‘new’ stuff about solar amplification scrubbed, remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Anthony watts believes that the biggest “bombshell” in the leaked draft report is that temperatures are trending well below the most expected values, for all of the models.
Perhaps this shouldn’t be all that surprising:
It is not well known that even the IPCC agrees that the direct effects of CO2 will only increase world temperatures by 1.2°C. All of the projections above that (3.3°C , 6°C etc) come from model projections based on assumptions of what water vapor and clouds will do (these are the feedback effects of the original 1.2°C).[i] Are the feedbacks correct?
If the IPCC models are right about the feedbacks, we would see a hot spot 10km above the tropics. The theory is that with more heat, more water will evaporate and rise, keeping relative humidity constant at all heights in the troposphere. The point has been conclusively tested with 28 million weather balloons since 1959.[ii]
See also Another IPCC AR5 reviewer speaks out: no trend in global water vapor
If water vapor, the #1 greenhouse gas, can’t save the anthropogenic CO2 climate catastrophism hypothesis, perhaps methane can do the job?
It sure doesn’t look that way. Take a look at the first graph in Another example of clear failure of IPCC models to predict reality in the AR5 draft
89 Comments
Can’t happen. Humidity requires temperatures above freezing.
The highest clouds, Cirrus, are at approximately 18,000 to 20,000 ft.
From wikipedia:
Also from Wikipedia:
The other point to be made is the relative amount of water vapor (ratio of water molecules to air molecules) for a given humidity falls as the temperature of the air falls.
Models are models. They have to be calibrated. One can only argue against the variables used, the testing methodology and assumptions in the models.
When you can make those arguments, and propose fixes to the models, instead of waving your arms (metaphorically) and writing “the models are bad, so there!”
All your assertions do is state the models are inexact. We know that. Now make a positive suggest as to how to the variables are related in the models, question assumptions (see variables and relationships) and how they should be tested.
Either demonstrate an understanding of modelling, especially climate modelling, or find something else to discuss. Something at which you are expert.
The title of this diary (originally) only mentioned “off”-ness. However, if you look at 2 of the links I have kindly provided, it’s clear that the CO2 and methane models are all off in a certain direction. The most probable values of all of the models have exaggerated predictions, relative to real world data, for both temperature, and methane.
I also wrote (following Anthony Watts) that
I’ll update the title in a second, changing “off” to “exaggerated”.
Regarding fixing the models, I’m not even sure that they are fixable. I.e., I believe they’re fundamentally flawed, both via ignoring solar variations (not just total solar irradiance, which varies very little, but things like UV, which varies by 70%; some recent work has modeled UV variation), but possibly (I think likely) by not using a viable paradigm.
I certainly don’t claim to understand it, but some researchers have found Hurst Kolmogorov dynamics over 9 orders of magnitude of time scale.
(emphasis mine)
It just so happens that I recently purchased “Nonlinear Dynamics and Statistics” (ed. by Mees), but I doubt that I will get to it for years, and will need extensive background in advanced statistics and non-linear dynamics to get anything out of it.
Better to let the pros fix their models. In the meantime, I suggest we all remember R.P. Feynman’s warnings against cargo cult science, and recall that theories at variance with reality need to be rejected. (Of course, Feynman knows that no theory, even his highly exact quantum field theory, will ever yield provable, completely exact predictions).
If the pros refuse to fix their models, or can’t fix their models, nobody should feel that they are under any compulsion not to reject inferences made from them. I can’t imagine Feynman taking a faith-based approach to climate models, can you?
Oh boy, more wisdom from the intrepid Anthony Watts, who is nothing more than a plastic, talking head, local weatherman. LMAO! Nothing like getting one’s information from a guy who went to college for seven years and still didn’t manage to graduate. Of your links, four go to Watts’ site and the other goes to another (non scientist) climate change denier who is a former plastic, talking head. Well done, metamars. Outstanding debunking of your own argument with links to people who are only expert in being whack jobs.
Nice ad hominem attack. I suppose that’s all you’re capable of.
Watts’ award winning site not only has guest posters and commenters who are scientists, he himself has co-authored a paper which, if it holds up, will show just how careless the mainstream climate community has been.
Then, too, I can see with my own lying eyes what Watts points out in the IPCC graphs.
What do your lying eyes tell you about the performance of IPCC models and a)temperatures b) methane?
No, I’m not expecting an honest answer….
metamars, do you have a picture of where this climate stuff is leading? Are you saying we’re being systematically deluded by the scientific community of climatology? Are we being deluded for some nefarious purpose. What exactly do we expect the IPCC to do? Is this some scheme to institute worldwide regulation by some group of UN elites?
You’re way too smart to believe that the ice caps aren’t melting, or the glaciers aren’t retreating. That’s verifiable. So what are you saying?
Is it that you don’t think it’s related to greenhouse gas emmisions? Or that you don’t think that anthropogenic emmisions are an important determinate? You haven’t come right out and said so. You haven’t come right out and said much of anything. All I hear you doing is backbiting some climate catastrophists.
Please don’t take a potshot at me. I don’t want to lump you in with that group of scientists who muddied the waters in government hearings about tobacco smoke for ‘levendy-’leven years when my Mom knew that smoking causes cancer in 1929, just like every other rational person in the country (on the planet).
Where did he get awards from? Some Koch Brothers foundation maybe?
In terms of the “guest posters and commenters who are scientists,” let us take a look at the kind of “scientists” that Anthony Watts hosts at his site.
A small search answers that question about Anthony Watts guest posters. . . . As a good example, here are a number of wattsupwiththat articles featuring Dr Roy Spencer (who denies both Climate Change and Evolution).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/08/roy-spencers-ish-population-adjusted-discoveries/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/29/dr-roy-spencer-on-publishing-and-climate-sensitivity/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/08/dr-roy-spencer-evaporates-taminos-critique/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/22/roy-spencers-testimony-before-congress-backs-up-moncktons-assertions-on-climate-sensitivity/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/23/new-book-from-dr-roy-spencer/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/27/dr-roy-spencer-lord-christopher-monckton-to-challenge-climate-orthodoxy-at-cancun-un-conference/
And this one here (below) is especially good, it features “Dr Roy” being critical of the idea that Global Warming is “settled science,” and I’m sure we’ll soon see a similar article questioning whether or not Evolution is a “settled science.” (because that is just the kind of nut-bar Roy Spencer is)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/a-challenge-from-dr-roy-spencer/
Nothing “ad hominem” about it. Do you even know what that means? I was attacking your “experts”‘ lack of qualifications and since you used them as experts, that is entirely relevant.
No, I’m not going to address a paper I haven’t read except to say that sometimes models need to be adjusted, this is how science works. But just because they aren’t perfect doesn’t mean your denialism is then true. All it means is that something is wrong with the model. The thing is that in such a complex field of study as climate modeling is, one can’t and shouldn’t expect to get everything exactly right all the time. The EMPIRICAL data is that global temperatures are warming while the sun remains stable. What factors, other than releasing greenhouse gases, are you prepared to cite to explain those temperature increases?
I’ve used Anthony Watts as an “expert”?? What does an expert even mean in a multi-disciplinary field? Do you think a statistical expert who studies temperature proxies is going to be familiar with the sun’s UV radiation on the troposphere?
I’ve never cited him as an “expert”. You’re making stuff up.
Whether you like it or not, he’s knowledgable about climate (enough to have been a coauthor of this), he’s smart enough to read graphs (which, apparently, a lot of Americans are not), and his blog has contributors, both for front paged articles, but also comments, from people who are scientists, and acquainted with parts of the vast scientific literature related to climate.
His knowledge is certainly more impressive than yours, otherwise, how to interpret this:
?
The empirical data is that there’s been no statistically significant warming in 16 years. The empirical data – as per the IPCC, prior to 1990 – is that it was warmer during the Medieval Warm period, than it is now, and CO2 was lower back then. At least some of the empirical data (on my todo list is to get a sense of the preponderance of the data) is that the Medieval Warm period was worldwide, and warmer than today, contrary to Michael Mann and other establishment climate scientists.
Your unqualified statement sounds like the blathering of a layperson parroting a talking point, who has no clue as to the complexities involved.
And here it seems to me you betray the degree of your ignorance. The sun is “stable” in the sense of total solar irradiance not varying by more than about .1%, and in no other sense, that I know of. Furthermore, if you had bothered to do even a little bit of homework, you would have known this.
Here, knock yourself out. (The most interesting part of this presentation was what happens when you add the effects of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantice Multi-Decadal Oscillation, together. I don’t think anybody knows, for sure, what drives these oscillations, but the idea that human CO2 might is laughable.)
See also Luning, especially from 35:00. Around 37:00, Luning gets into how UV variation (which can go as high as 70% >> .1%) appears
linked to “stratospheric ozone changes and climate in the troposphere”. Modeling like this, of solar UV, is very recent…. Later, around 39:00, Luning discusses a recent (Sept. 2012) paper which shows UV / Stratosphere / Atlantic climate variability in the troposphere.
The biggest climate lie of all time is that “the science is settled”.
And the constant cry of the deniers (be they denying Global Warming, Evolution, or that smoking causes cancer), is that the science is not settled.
If you knew anything about stars, you would know that a less then 0.1% variance is not only extremely stable but extremely rare. But I want to address how you first claim there has been “no statistical warming for 16 years”, which is rank bullshit but then go on to explain why there has been warming by citing UV levels and Pacific oscillations. I can’t have a debate with a person who is all over the place like you are. And yes, by citing Watts’ work to support your positions, you are indeed using him as an expert. Where I came from, attending college for seven years and failing to get any kind of degree only makes someone an expert in managing to waste a university’s time.
on another post you said:
“We’ve got a climate change denier on one thread, simultaneously with a post praising the very “principled” teabaggers for being oh so friendly toward and such fierce protectors of Social Security. It’s no wonder DDay left.”
Makes sense.
How a site operated by a person who was arrested at a 350.org protest, can permit this person Metamars really to be one of their featured writers, is truly a mystery.
This site is on the way out.
Oh, wow! So you want to compare us to another solar system! Considering all that’s not known about weather within our solar system, which is so much more accessible than other star systems, I’d say that you would have done well to avoid a career in science.
What’s next? Shall we investigate the PDO, here on earth, by examining details of the planets discovered by their gravitational perturbational effects on their suns?
Why am I not surprised you have nothing to say about Luning’s solar variation related points?
What you call “rank bullshit” is more properly referred to as the HADCRUT 4 dataset. Judith Curry, a “lukewarmer”, has confirmed Rose’s characterization of the data.
Are you aware that the statistical margin of error is wider than the puny, 0.03C/decade trend? That means the earth might have cooled in the last 16 years.
You apparently fail to understand that non-experts can find flaws in experts’ reasoning. I was admitted to a damn fine grad school in math mostly – I presume – because of my recommendations. My PDE prof, a Princeton grad who was clearly much smarter than me, was corrected by me during class. My topology professor also wrote a good enough recommendation for me. In his case, I argued strenuously with him during his office hours, but lost the argument. He later told me that he appreciated my independence of mind, and that he thought I would make the kind of grad student that he would like to have.
If you can scale this intellectual ant hill, then you might grasp why your remark is not only delusional as to Watts being used, by me, as an “expert”, but why it wouldn’t necessarily matter, even if your misapprehension was correct.
Ah-h-h, I think only one diary of mine regarding climate was ever front-paged at MyFDL. I don’t think it appeared at FDL, proper.
I normally give lots of reference to scientific data and anlyses, or at least to works – yes, even by non-experts (see previous comment) – by people who are writing about scientists’ work.
I’ve also corrected non-sense claims by others, in their climate diaries, again, with references. In one case, you could read the graph that the diarist provided, and see that he was contradicting his own graph!
If you prefer laughably false claims, regarding climate, to stand at MyFDL, unchallenged, you should try to get me banned.
Having said that, Dayen leaving would be a serious loss. What reason or reasons did he give?
metamars, do you have a response to Ragg Mopp in 5?? I’d be interested.
I’ll address a small part of it. I really have much more important things to do. Sorry for how rambling the following is.
I find the whole climate catastrophism fiasco interesting on a few fronts: Scientifically (it’s an area of active research, and I love physics and mathematics), politically from an elite perspective (as per hidden agendas of elites, some of which actually aren’t all that hidden, just simply not talked about), scientifically anthropologically (in a mostly negative sense; my interest in dysfunctional science and preceded my loss of faith in climate catastrophism by a few years), and politically from a ‘standard politics’ POV.
It’s somewhat interesting, but equally annoying, in a psychological, tribalistic way – the rationalizations and accusations that people make are just incredible. Now, I deduced from a very young age that a lot of what people call “reasoning” is anything but, and pressing an issue will lead to anger, on their part. So, observing what to me is psychological pathology, an understandable evolutionary remnant, is interesting but in a similar fashion to rubbernecking to look at an accident. It’s also painful to observe, and due to its repetitiveness, not that interesting. If anybody thinks its real fun or interesting to keep asking people to give a non-doublethink definition of “climate change denier”, well, they’re wrong. It’s mildly interesting, equally annoying, and no fun, at all.
I personally intend to look deeper into the science, and also the political origin, but I can’t imagine why, where I, personally, am interested in going, would be of interest compared to what the people driving this game are intending. I’m just a fly on the wall. One with a big mouth, but small wings. :-)
Tarheel Dem has informed us that carbon taxation is dead, but there are still signs of life, like this article from the Wall Street Journal, 3 days ago.
One thing that should concern you, if you have a middling complement of progressive beliefs, including a belief in CO2 climate catastrophism (I assume that most FDL readers fit this description), is why the hell is there no strong support for zero carbon options, especially in light of a micro-funded guy like Eric Lerner having such notable success on such a tiny budget?
This is a strong indication to me that there is strong Veal Pen at work – one that could kill the planet, if CO2 climate catastrophism is valid. If there’s one blog community that should have been perceptive to Veal Pen influences, its the FDL community. Yet, I’m not seeing what, to me, would be a rational response.
I’m not seeing rational responses to a lot of other, non-climate related, but political things, either. That’s somewhat depressing, actually, but I’m a stubborn fellow, with activist genes, apparently.
The two things that bother me most about CO2 climate catatastrophism are 1) it’s deceitful use to exert yet more control over the population and degrade national sovereignty 2) the corrupting, malicious and intimidating atmosphere this has created amongst the scientific community. Regarding 2) I’m not sure whether it marks a new trend, or not, but some of the CO2 catastrophist crowd has recently started scraping the bottom of the barrel. I’ve been reading stuff about supposed psychological problems that we so-called “deniers” suffer from, and comparisons have been made to pedophiles. It sounds paranoid to say that maybe, the day is coming when Richard Lindzen is dragged from his room, and forcibly admitted to a psychiatric hospital, there to be rehabilitated – maybe. Or maybe it’s best to just keep him there, drugged, where he can’t contaminate anybody with his “denier” ideas.
I don’t see this as any more immoral than throwing a kid in jail for smoking pot. And, unfortunately, there’s an economic incentive to do both.
Here’s a bonus link for you, that I discovered just today, which gets into the political origin of CO2 climate catastrophism. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist (and well known so-called denier) apparently got interested in ultimate causes, and presented a talk in 2009 called “Deconstructing Global Warming”
Well, well. Now I can intelligently comment on this paper. But why should I when the author of the paper is an actual scientist, (unlike metamars and Watts). Here’s What DR. Richard Klein had to say about the fuss:
Also the whole notion that this was leaked is absurd as Klein points out, the draft is freely available to anyone who registers as a reviewer.
And what does the lead author of the chapter that metamars is flogging say about it? Why don’t we ask PROFESSOR Steve Sherwood:
It also turns out that Alec Rawls didn’t print the whole chapter, just those parts that he thinks supports his position.
But you don’t have to take my word for it, you can follow the link and read for yourself. So there it is. Debunked once again by Doctors and Professors. Are any of your “experts”, (who claimed to be such in order to register to get the draft report), “Doctors” or “Professors” metamars? No? Just plastic, talking heads, aren’t they? So sad for you, so predictable for anybody living in the real world.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,……
I’m not a climate scientist, thought I have studied the effects of climate change on human history, which are massive. I’ll just throw out the Little Ice Age and let you look it up. There’s a LOT of hard data there. For example, in the 1200′s English wine was prized; a hundred years later grapes wouldn’t grow there. Now, there are vineyards in Devon again.
I’m not really sure what you’re saying. You tend to go all over the place on this subject, but most conspiracy theories do, so that’s no surprise. You seem to claim that the theory of human-caused climate change is some grand conspiracy, and then turn around and slam people who believe in it for not pushing hard enough to limit human-made CO2 emissions, and then claim that methane is not being released in large enough quantities to affect the climate.
At least that’s my impression. In any case, do you believe that climate change is happening, for whatever reason, or not?
You’ll never convince me it’s not. I grew up in San Antonio. The flora and fauna there have changed in my lifetime. I was a resident of the Denver area for 20 years. During that time, I saw a pattern of shorter and milder winters and hotter and hotter summers. I’ve been in the Cleveland area for a mere seven years, and have already seen a year without a winter, a couple of years fraught with record-high temperatures, and the worse drought in over half a century.
The jet stream has shifted to such an extent that the National Weather Service’s computer models are consistently off. One such shift resulted in Hurricane Sandy slamming into the Northeast. This happened because the Arctic Ocean is warmer than it was.
And the polar bears are on the path to extinction.
There is simply too much evidence to rationally deny that climate change is a fact. Whether it leads to a warmer world or a new Ice Age is open to debate, but you can’t tell me it’s not happening and expect me to take you seriously. But as I said above, I’m not really sure exactly what it is that you are saying.
Thank you Margaret. As usual, the truth will out.
You mean Richard Lindzen, the mathematician who has admitted that his 2009 paper on his “iris” theory contained some “stupid mistakes” that were “just embarrassing” and who is considered discredited by most climate researchers? That Richard Lindzen?
I live in Montana. I spent my childhood hiking and camping in the Mission Mountains and made yearly visits to Glacier Park.
The proof of warming is right in front of me everytime I go there now. Glacier Park is now on track to becoming the Park with zero glaciers by 2050, or even earlier if things continue the way they are now. Most of the glaciers in the Missions are already gone.
The snows of my childhood winters never happen anymore, and we often don’t get any snow at all anymore.
Climate change deniers are fools. The evidence is all around us. Open your eyes!
Being arrested at a 350 protest is a badge of courage and honor. I am pleased to be at least peripherally associated with her.
The fact that metamars is “allowed” to post here is a mark of how the owner of this site allows freedom of speech and has not banned him/her for being a total idiot.
Quite aside from your hysterical tone, which doesn’t predispose you to be taken seriously, you really ought to do a little more reading before you so readily make a fool out of yourself.
The good PROFESSOR Sherwood is obscuring the fact that the existence of a solar amplification mechanism is not negated by a particular mechanism (GCR->cloud; see Svensmark) of solar amplification being weak. From A rebuttal to Steven Sherwood and the solar forcing pundits of the IPCC AR5 draft leak
Are you saying that increased solar radiation is responsible for rising global temperatures?
Leave Margaret out of it. Yes, no, maybe. Which is it?
I’m sorry that you think that I, or any of the so-called “deniers”, don’t believe that climate changes. The reason that you think so is that you have been heavily propagandized – and rather successfully, I might add. Don’t feel too bad about that, because the success of the propaganda effort is widespread. You are hardly alone.
Not so long ago, before temperatures started plateauing and some dramatic cold spells made the previous propaganda meme of choice – “global warming” – stall, there was a very perceptible change in the propagandists’ strategy. Some details are given in this video – the interviewee claims that there was actual, focus-group type research as to how to apply malarkey lipstick to the climate pig. (Not his words, mine.)
The idea that climate doesn’t change is laughable. Indeed, as Lindzen points out in his “Deconstructing Global Warming”, climate is changing all the time.
The real scientific debate is not about whether climate changes. Nor is it (at least for most dissenters from the climate catastrophist narrative*) about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The real scientific debate is over whether or not there are positive feedback mechanisms, involving CO2, that could lead to catastrophic rises in temperature. CO2 itself is a mild greenhouse gas, on present in trace amounts in the atmosphere, and most of it’s non-feedback potential for warming the earth has already occurred.
I highly recommend the Lindzen lecture that I discovered, today. I fell asleep towards the beginning, and had assumed that it was mostly about the political origins of the hysteria. In fact, it’s mostly about the science.
* there are exceptions, like Hertzberg, who doesn’t believe in the Green House Gas Effect, anthropogenic or otherwise.
The first paragraphs of your Lindzen link, which is to the wikipedia page, says,
If he made errors in some of his papers, boo hoo. At least he admits his errors.
Back when I was coming up, most Princeton undergraduates had no chance to get into MIT. The fact that he’s a professor – oh, excuse me, a PROFESSOR - there should tell you something about his abilities.
Shorter metamars:
“I, my plastic, talking head “experts” and a skeptic who won’t publish the whole chapter know more about climate change than any climate scientists because…freedom…and New World Order…So there!”
You’ve been pwned and debunked at the same time and you’re too goddamned stubborn to just slink away and try to save one tiny shred of self respect.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,….!
Whose degree is in mathematics, not climate science. Oops! Forgot to mention that little jewel, didn’t we?
It’s not possible for the “solar radiation” (in the form of Total Solar Irradiance) to drive climate change, on it’s own. This is widely accepted, including by the so-called deniers. However, there’s good evidence for solar amplification factors – and has been, for a while. See Nir Shaviv’s blog. Also, a lecture by Shaviv is posted on Lubos Motl’s blog.
As per Luning, recent research has shown that the UV component of solar radiation can vary up to 70%, and this is “linked” to climatic factors. Most of the research about solar drivers, that I’m aware of, dealt with the GCR/cloud factor, which is affected by the sun’s magnetic effects.(Which are much more variable than total solar irradiance.) I frankly don’t know if there is a tie-in to magnetic shielding occurring in the upper atmosphere, or whether the sun itself varies it’s UV component, somehow, at it’s source.
Your ignorance is showing. I wonder if you even realize that there’s a huge divide between applied and pure mathematics. Hell, I wonder if you even know that there are two such beasts as pure and applied mathematics.
PROFESSOR Sherwood’s Ph.D. is in Oceanography, by the way. In your inestimable opinion, Margaret, does that prevent him from speaking knowledgeably about the atmosphere? Or about land temperatures?
The position of the deniers has shifted over time.
Originally the position was: there is no global warming, and we don’t need to take any action to deal with a non-existent problem.
Next it was: OK, it is getting warmer, but that has nothing to do with human activity, it is just part of a natural cycle, so we don’t need to take any action.
Now it tends to be: OK, it is getting warmer, and this change is caused by human activity, but the ultimate impact is not going to be that big, so we shouldn’t worry about taking any action.
The consistent component is always “we shouldn’t worry about taking any action to regulate green house gas emissions.”
Don’t insult my intelligence by putting words in my mouth or telling me what I think. I never once said that I thought you didn’t believe climate change was real, though I did warn you not to try to convince of that obvious falsehood. I never said that you were trying to do so, and yet you’re “sorry” I think that?
It is not I who have gone out on a factual limb here, it is you. Yet you are sorry that I am being deluded and propagandized?
IOW, you cannot possibly be wrong or have committed an error? I admit I’ve been wrong before(for example, I really thought Obama might be FDR II in 2008, silly me), but you fall back on quotes from PROFESSORS to “prove” your point.
I’ve got news for you, dude. I’ve met lots of PROFESSORS, and some of them are raving idiotic lunatics who hide behind the scraps of paper they somehow acquired. Hell, even George W. Bush had a MBA, and Barack Obama taught Constitutional Law.
I rest my case re PROFESSORS. Many medical doctors are no better or worse.
As for CO2 in the atmosphere causing positive feedback loops, well, indisputable archaeological evidence suggests that it CAN. Whether it is now or not, I really don’t know, nor do I know which direction the climate will ultimately go. I DO know it has changed quite a bit in my lifetime. And the climate has gotten WARMER. Period. That’s undeniable.
I’ve lived it, you see.
Be careful whom you quote. Many of those you do, as others here have pointed out, seem to be in the pockets of those who have a vested financial interest in denying climate change so as to avoid seeing their profits potentially cut. Whether they have a Piled Higher & Deeper degree matters not.
I’m beginning to think you are manufacturing a conspiracy theory for the sake of manufacturing a conspiracy theory. Why don’t you try this one instead:
Jackie Kennedy hired Oswald to assassinate her insufferably philandering husband.
Prove I’m wrong.
Yeah, that about sums it up.
It’s just the old Karl Rove trick of accusing others of what you are yourself are doing. Great for muddying the waters, which is all the denialist trolls want to accomplish.
Here’s our buddy metamars from another thread:
I speaks well of Jane not only for her commitment to freedom of speech here, but for her understanding that, though it may take a while, the best thing to do with industry shills is to let them bleat, but to continue to expose their industry connections and motives.
The capacity of well-funded, self-interested industry lobbies to spew mountains of bullshit can seem overwhelming and impossible to counter at times. But eventually, if light is shown on them, they are exposed for the hacks that they are.
Witness the NRA.
On the national sovereignty thing, deniers can do a 1-2 shuffle. Step 1 is to say they don’t want any international binding policies because of “national sovereignty.” Step 2 is to point out that, for one single nation to adopt regulations is foolish, because it will not stop other nations from doing their own polluting.
The simple fact is that Earth is one planet, and CO2 emissions affect everybody, so I say: screw national sovereignty (when it comes to protecting the Earth).
The second part can apply any time there is a crackpot minority view. The people who were trying to say that smoking doesn’t cause cancer were just as upset by the reaction of the larger scientific community.
Here is the difference: throwing kids in jail for smoking pot actually happens. Throwing deniers in jail is a part of your fantasy. Another fantasy is the idea there there is a great conspiracy to promote action on Global Warming. If you want reality, look at the 2012 presidential debates, not a single mention of Global Warming was made by either candidate, or the media moderators. The only conspiracy that exists there is to keep silent on the subject.
I’m still waiting for a model of a 40% increase in Earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide that doesn’t involve the sort of intense global warming that has provably been part of previous changes in Earth’s temperature. See e.g. Petit et al.:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399429a0.html
And it’s pretty obvious what the deniers are defending: capitalism.
Please. Feel free to take those years. Go.
Actually I find that stuff to be fairly basic. I’ve dealt with feedback (linear and nonlinear ) all my professional life. Statistics is a breeze.
I guess I’d never read his diaries on this subject in detail before. Silly me, trying to get a straight answer.
NRA, indeed. Heh. Now that’s a model and a history with which I am very familiar. Good analogy. Thanks.
Ah, sorry, I should have worded things differently. Like,
I’m quite sure that most so-called “climate change deniers” don’t believe in phlogiston, or an ether, either. But you didn’t inquire as to whether or not I believed in an ether, while you did inquire as to climate change beliefs.
The fact that you were actually seriously wondering whether I believed that climate doesn’t change, and might try to persuade you along those lines, should tell you something.
What do you think that something is?
This is one big parlor game to you.
Great. So, why not tell us your impression of the Markonis and Koustoyiannis paper?
Do you think the hapless IPCC modelers will be able to constuct more accurate models, if they take the Markonis and Koustoyiannis approach?
I’m not a shill for anybody, much less an industry. If you state otherwise, you are lying.
P-f-f-f-t. I actually consider it a psychological flaw, in myself, that I would be so inclined to enlighten people who have not the slightest interest in examining their tightly held beliefs.
On the plus side, I don’t consider it a flaw that I would be inclined to defend good, honest scientists, from people who would smear them.
In this very comment thread, I’ve stated that it’s not fun to deal with irrational tribalists. I guess you thought I was lying.
But you’re not challenging anyone’s tightly held beliefs. Doing that would actually require that you provide an alternate climate model for how a 40% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would not increase average temperatures on Earth.
Oh, wow! Have you let the suffering masses know that this is the reason why they are not even being challenged? Or is this common knowledge amongst climate catastrophists, but you were the one who finally blabbed?
And how does your theory stack up against the equally humorous “Exxon Mobil shill” theory of ineffectual “climate change deniers”?
And in fact I don’t know you. Maybe you’re doing this for free on the weekend before Christmas.
But the “sources” you cite are another matter. They should have energy company logos on their clothes the way Nascar drivers do.
Here’s your Christmas present.
And here’s your New Year’s Day present.
What you call “my fantasy”, but I would call a concern or fear, became more concerning, this morning. The post at the top of WattsUpWithThat.com, as I write this, is,
Beyond bizarre: University of Graz music professor calls for skeptic death sentences
Intimidation of scientists has been going on for a while. If this is part of an orchestrated plan (not saying it is; there are still too few data points to even make a reasonable inference, IMO), I suspect the target is not just to keep dissenting studies out of journals, and dissenting scientists and editors out of jobs, but rather to keep dissenting scientists, who have largely kept their mouths shut until now, from starting to speak out.
Judith Curry, a “lukewarmer”, has urged the climate community to come clean:
As the scientific case (such as it was…) for CO2 climate catastrophism continues to fall apart, and still no US carbon taxation or trading scheme, which could ultimately be used to prop up a globalized bureaucracy, it’s quite plausible that the CO2 schemers are becoming desperate.
A paid stooge of the Heartland Institute trying to show that the blood money of the Heartland Institute doesn’t amount to much.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
As if that’s the only financial rock these guys crawl around under.
This is like a Mafia henchman saying that their budget is small compared to the GDP. So how could they be corrupt.
You’re not very good at this, are you?
16 years ago takes us to 1996. Here’s the yearly temperature differences above the global mean (from 1950 to 1981)
1996 .045 deg C
1997 .051 deg C
1998 .082 deg C
1999 .058 deg C
2000 .055 deg C
2001 .064 deg C
2002 .078 deg C
2003 .072 deg C
2004 .068 deg C
2005 .082 deg C
2006 .074 deg C
2007 .086 deg C
2008 .063 deg C
2009 .078 deg C
2010 .093 deg C
2011 .078 deg C
2012 .075 deg C
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
Notice something? Every single year since 1996 has been hotter. Every…Single…Year.
For this little intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt statistical trick to work, you have to cherry pick exactly the right year – 1998 might work.
Here’s where you “data” comes from.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html
Your “source” manages to publish 5 times more global warming denial “reports” than actual news about the real science.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daily_Mail
Much of that material come from the shadowy “Global Warming Policy Foundation”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
They hide their funding but only 1.6% comes from membership fees. I guess that’s why old Anthony Watts didn’t include that in his “accounting” of industry funding.
In this case, though, your source is not only biased, but they can’t even get the hang of sleazy arithmetic. To get to 1998 you have to subtract 14 years not 16.
I do like the blood red “chart” with no link to any actual data, though. Very cartoonish.
You obviously fail to understand
1) the difference between warming and warmth
2) what statistically significant means
Why don’t you learn something, before you waste my time?
I just realized something – if you go to the table of nasa data you’ll see that the temperatures are in hundreths of deg C. So my numbers should begin with “0.” not “.0″.
You are free to make this a big conspiracy if you’d like, metamars. I know that’s fun for you.
You answers get pretty feeble in the face of actual data, don’t they.
As I said, you aren’t very good at this. I have no way of knowing if you are a shill, but if you were, whoever sent you really ought to consider replacing you with somebody more skilled.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
This is very appropriate.
You are a climate change denial one-note samba.
Ha, ha. OK, for making me laugh, I will reward you with the following offer.
Do a least squares fit of the HADCRUT4 data set that has created all the fuss, and if there’s a statistically significant increase, then I’ll donate $20 to FDL. In additional, I’ll give you 50 million Percent of my ill-gotten payments from Exxon Mobil, the Koch brothers, and the coal industry.
OTOH, if there is no statistically significant warming over those 16 years, you must pay me 1 USD for every person who has frozen to death in Russia and Eastern Europe, since the current deep freeze began. Additionally, you must accurately calculate the odds that the surface temperature has cooled, over the last 16 years.
The loser of the wager must additionally blog about their mistaken ways right here at MyFDL, so that a permanent record of said person’s goofiness can remain, forever and anon!!
Deal?
ETA: Of course, I’m not going to just take your word on anything, so you need to turn over to me any digital assets you used to make your splendiferous findings.
Also, you can get as much help as you want, from anybody willing to give it to you. Statistic professors, Synoia (see his comment), anybody at all. Even
the devilGod, Himself.Perhaps you trace this “intimidation” back to the time when a group of crack-pot scientists were saying that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. *Sigh*, I guess it has always been hard being a crack-pot, but those big industry checks they get probably help ease some of that pain.
And I actually don’t have a problem with scientists exploring alternative theories. But there is a difference between scientific exploration, within the scientific community, and actions aimed at the general public. For example, I don’t care if the Creationist, Roy Spencer, writes a scientific paper challenging Evolution. Such a paper will probably give the other scientists a laugh, but if he starts trying to get Creationism taught in schools, I have a problem with that.
The same thing applies to Global Warming. I think scientists should be free to challenge the ideas of other scientists; however, I have a problem when deniers try to dupe the general public, and push to hold off on taking action to protect the Earth’s bio-sphere.
I don’t think you should get too worked up by the statements made by a music professor from the University of Graz.
And, if you want to talk about what is truly bizarre, you might look at your idea that there is great conspiracy to push a Global Warming prevention agenda.
Again, I’ll repeat, there was not a single question about climate change at the 2012 presidential debates. And more generally, Obama has done noting but drag his heels, and obstruct real progress, on this issue. The only conspiracy here is the push to do nothing, and continue with business as usual.
Do that same thing with that particular dataset but not with the magic number of 16 years and see what you get.
As I said, you’re not very good at this.
Here’s a nice little tool you can use to plug in data from various datasets.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
I plotted out a long duration in this example – you can see why the group behind metamars’s “news” story picked that particular stretch of time, see that there are other periods that happen to be rather flat, and see what it looks like in the context of a longer trend.
Anyone can plug in their own stretches of time. Even you, metamars. Maybe you can find a stretch in the record that’s even flatter than the one that your source cherry picked.
Think of what a hero you’ll be. Impress your friends!
I take that as a “no”. So, you admit, do you, that there’s been no statistically significant warming for 16 years?
I didn’t say that you can’t get the intellectually dishonest trick of cherry-picking start and stop points in the record to come out just so.
I pointed out that it’s a deceptive, intellectually dishonest, and morally bankrupt statistical trick.
And you need to point out that this ONLY works in this one data set for the specific duration of 16 years.
Ah, the subtext is failing models. The subtext is exaggerated claims.
Do you admit the models are failing? (or near failing) If you won’t admit that the models are failing, you’ll have little motivation to try and figure out why they are failing.
Now, if you had scientific integrity, and especially if you knew about, and understood what John von Newman meant when he said,
then the fact that you could construct models that worked OK, over a relatively small time domain, would not have satisfied you.
Oh, if there was a repeatable experiment involved, where a good fit was made for 25 years, say, then that would be a different matter. Even if the model contained contradictions, and nobody quite understood it (there are solutions to technical problems involving genetic algorithms that fit this bill), at least the model would be useful. (“All models are wrong. Some are useful” goes the saying.)
The modelers are basically no more accurate now, than they were decades ago; furthermore, if you watch the Lindzen presentation linked to above, they make really bad predictions about fundamental, aggregate properties. They’ve all been shown to make the wrong prediction. Every single one.
(I note that a physicist, here at myFDL, said the Lindzen was having trouble getting this work published, so you can take with a grain of salt.)
What you cannot ignore is a six-sigma analysis of a year by year temperature gain in a decade.
In other words, from that excellent WoodForTrees plotter, if you take the data from 1880, and plot the decade through 1890, you get a range with a mean, and upper and lower control limits.
Repeat that from 1881-1891, 1882-1892. and so forth to the present.
It is inescapable that the mean is rising, and in fact rises faster in the last 50 such iterations, much less the last 20.
Why do you persist in saying that isn’t the case?
No, the subtext is a frantic search on the part of industry funded shills to look for any way, no matter how miniscule, no matter how deceptive, no matter how dishonest, to muddy the waters.
As I said, this only works for a short time. All you have to do is shine a light on it.
Anybody here can examine what I’m talking about by using the tool at the link I provided to see what metamars’ pals are attempting.
Can data be manipulated to try to achieve a predetermined result? – you bet. The sources you cite do almost nothing but. That’s why peer review was created and it’s why corrupt, conflict-of-interest tainted people like your Lindzen can’t skirt it.
I told you the ball was in your court, and you didn’t even understand.
Even better, maybe metamars could use 16-year samples to perform the same analysis, since 16 years is apparently the very bestest possible way to look at things.
How bout it, mars? Run Kelly’s analysis that way and come back and tell us that there’s been no warming.
Also, that bit metmars challenged about the least squares regression? That was a nice bit of distraction fluff, because here’s what a least squares regression is…
Implicit in modeling is something that one is regressing against, or in other words, what variable is one testing to see if the least squares fit the curve the way your variable(s) curve.
So I put the challenge back to metamars;
If in fact what you claim is that there is no temp change, and if I read your comments correctly that there might even be a down ward temp shift, then you are saying that you can produce a least squares out of the available data sets that shows a fit with your hypothesis curve that there is no, very little or even a downward curve in the mean temps.
Please proceed, governor…
Hey, if other Creationists can say that the world is 6,000 years old, then maybe metamars can do them one better, and claim that the world is only 16 years old. :-D
Ah, that link of yours may prove to be even more illuminating, Kelly.
From the last paragraph:
1998, 2007 and 2010 were unusually hot – it may be using the least squares method is another bit of cherry-picking on the part of the shills. You would know more about it than I, however.
Hey, Happy Holidays, Kelly. I hope you and yours are healthy and happy.
Idiotic.
When Judith Curry urges the climate modelers to
and when I point out that the subtext to the observation that there’s been no statistically significant warming for the last 16 years is what this pause tells us about the validity of the models, you regress to your infantile, default position of “industry funded shills” looking to “muddy the waters”.
What is a rational person suppose to make of this? Apparently, you believe that Judith Curry is an “industry funded shill”, and that the 16 year pause in global warming tells us nothing about how valid the climate models are. In saying or implying such mental rot, you ignore what some of your precious modelers, themselves, have said. (One positive aspect to this is that it suggests that they really believed in their models. Oh, well!)
On either count, I don’t think you’re playing with a full deck. And, as I noted, if you can’t even get past the fact that the models aren’t doing too well, assuming you have no real scientific ethics, plus curiosity, you’ll have zero motivation to look into why they’re not doing well.
As I noted previously, I am interested in this subject from a few angles, not least of which is the scientific one. Political animals, such as yourself, are not only obnoxious at a civil level, you’re insulting to science, itself. You have no real interest in climate science, and it shows.
I suggest you read R.P. Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science”, though I doubt it’ll make the slightest difference in your life. You strike me as completely devoid of any scientific curiosity, and if you were inclined to science as a living, I have little doubt (though I don’t know you – thankfully) that you would have little scientific ethics, either.
I’ve seen cheating by future mathematicians (grad students), first hand, and heard about an extensive cheating scandal at another school that I have a connection with, by their physics grad students. There really are a lot of morally dubious people in all walks of life, including the sciences.
That is also a reality, though not one that I expect you can handle, either.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck. Not saying I know one way or the other, but I’ll definitely keep my mind open to that “shill” possibility. ;-)
(A) If you really want to debate the science, I think you’d be better off taking the matter up with actual climate scientists, rather than hanging out here at FDL (which is not to say that there are no climate scientists around here, just that the majority of us are probably not climate scientists).
(B) It also seems like somebody with a broader interest in the science wouldn’t end up quoting from a single website ( http://wattsupwiththat.com ) so much.
Basically, I approach your arguments in the same way as I’d approach the arguments of somebody who came around here claiming that smoking does not cause cancer, and who believes that the reason why people think that it does cancer is due to some kind of anti-smoking plot.
Where is this cheating going on? It sounds like I might have a chance at an advanced degree in Math or Physics after all.
I’m the one, you will recall (alright, you’ll resist it, but I’ll point it out to others) that linked to real data – and to a tool for people to examine that data on their own.
I pointed out that there are other flat portions in the general upward trend of the temperature record. Nobody but the cretins that supply the Daily Mail with their misinformation see a current flattening as unusual or inconsistent with the overall warming trend.
Certainly that and EVERYTHING need to be studied and further understood. (It may be something more than El Nino/La Nina cycles but doesn’t much appear to be.)
What it doesn’t call for is to be put in boldface screaming passages as though one particular, cherry-picked portion of data, dishonestly derived and shameless trumpeted, is some smoking gun – which is what you, in your great desire to “communicate honestly” did.
If that is communicating honestly then Bernie Madoff is actually Mother Theresa.
I’ll add one other thing.
In one way, you’ve communicated quite honestly.
The string of uncalled for insults and nasty invective you directed at me in the post I’m replying to communicates with great precision just what kind of human being you are.
And a Merry Christmas.
Here’s some information about Curry and her conflicted relationship to the Daily Mail:
metamars, allow me to repeat what your heroine said:
When pressed for the scientific basis for these statements, Curry admitted the time period was too short for a statistically significant difference to emerge
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry
warp:
It would appear that Ms. Curry quacks remarkably like a duck.
See above.
Yep, thanks, good stuff there.
I especially like this part:
And BTW, Merry Christmas All! (and that definitely includes metamars—I may disagree with him about global warming stuff, but I still wish him well)
Merry Christmas back atcha.
I’ve been reading up on Curry (instead of getting the last minute holiday things done that I should).
It appears that she’s astoundingly naive about the type of reptiles she’s dealing with in the denialsphere. And more than a little tone deaf in her public statements.
The crux of what she appears to really be saying about the temperature record of the last decade is a difference of opinion with other scientists on whether its just statistical noise combined with cyclical ocean variations (like El Nino/La Nina) or if there might be other natural variations at work. It’s a little hard to tell because her statements are really clunky.
She agrees on the meat of what other climate scientists are saying, though.
Thing is, she seems, remarkably, to have had no clue what the rabid weasels in the far right press do with simple disagreements about approach between scientists. The latest thing I’ve read is that she has now decided she won’t talk to reporters, but will instead communicate through her blog – because she’s been so badly misquoted. Might not help, though. She writes rather poorly.
No citation given for this, citation given for its opposite…..
Watts has criticized the BEST study because Muller didn’t use as high quality data as he could have, when drawing inferences from the data. Watts had communicated this fact to Muller.
I’m not sure if Muller ever responded. I’d really love to know what he said about this, if anything. (I believe he’s simply ignored Watts, which makes me suspicious about Muller’s intentions and agenda.) I’d also love to know what Judith Curry has said about this, if anything.
Using the top 2 highest quality data subsets, leads to a significant adjustment of the aggregate (US) data – by a factor of 2, downwards. If this holds up – and I believe it will, though I doubt the climate establishment would ever own up to it – it will have revealed a degree of ‘junkiness’ to climate science for which there’s little excuse.
Predictive models are very hard, and “all models are wrong, some are useful”. But what possible excuse can be offered for flubbing a historical dataset?* You should read about the extraordinary lengths to which serious experimental physicists go to control extraneous variable in their experiments, at least in particle physics and gravity waves. When I was in college, most of the huge percentage of freshman leaning towards physics, but who couldn’t cut it, went into engineering. Apparently, some government climate scientists could graduate with degrees in geology, but would never make it in particle physics. (Just guessing, and poking a little fun at them.)
* We’re talking thermometer readings, not temperature proxies, which tend to be very fuzzy.
“The two things that bother me most about CO2 climate catatastrophism are 1) it’s deceitful use to exert yet more control over the population and degrade national sovereignty 2) the corrupting, malicious and intimidating atmosphere this has created amongst the scientific community.”
So we are being systematically deluded by the scientific community of climatology in concert with the one worlder-do gooder progressive/socialist/fascist UN for the nefarious purpose of degraging our precious national sovereignty.
That being the case I applaud your pursuit of a corrupting, malicious, intimidating atmosphere amongst the perperators of this conspiracy of lizardlike climatologists.
Thank you metamars. Was blind but now can see.
“Idiotic.”
“On either count, I don’t think you’re playing with a full deck.”
An ad hominem attack? Sorry, but you just lost some of your shine.
Well, if you had any “scientific curiosity” you would find out
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#stopped
Tell me, were those unethical math students you mention above also too lazy to do a little homework? If so, maybe you were their inspiration.
Having come under personal attack from the author of the tripe in this diary, I compelled to make a few points – but not about the attacks per se.
I want to discuss the sleazy methods of the vast majority of climate change deniers.
Start with their goal – to spread as much confusion as possible about the issue of climate change. The energy industry – source of most of the material they use to that end – seeks to paralyze the public debate. The longer they can continue with business as usual, the more profit they know they will make.
That industry knows full well that the CO2 their products put into the atmosphere drive climate change. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases trap heat on the earth. This is a well-understood effect. When you hear the phrase “the science is settled” it is shorthand for the BASIC science of climate change is settled.
Because global climate is a vastly complex system, there is disagreement as to how that may play out – the precises timing, local repercussion, etc. This is what the deniers exploit – focusing on minutia in an effort to make people thing that there is controversy about the basic science.
There is no controversy about the basic science – except what’s generated by the energy industry.
CO2 traps heat. CO2 is rising at a rapid rate. Human beings are the source of tremendous amounts of excess CO2.
The deniers have a number of avenues of attack. They claim the mantle of the sceptic. A true skeptic is valuable. ALL scientists are true skeptics. What is a true sceptic – one who looks at the data alone and seeks to find the reason the data exists – what the causes are. They do this in good faith and without a pre-determined goal in mind.
Deniers are not true skeptics. They HAVE a pre-determined goal in mind – to spread confusion, to muddy the waters. Deniers conduct no experiments, publish no results for scrutiny and peer review.
When deniers – bad-faith skeptics – fail because of the above, they invariably change tactics.
One tactic is to go on the attack – to launch personal jihads. (Witness some of the personal attacks of the author of this diary.)
Another tactic is to introduce as many tangents and digressions as possible. To fill the air with chaff. Show that their premise is wrong and they will fling a dozen other unrelated premises at you. Because the goal is not understanding but rather the polar opposite – confusion.
Another tactic is to conflate the rejection of their poor (sometimes non-existent) scientific methods with political opposition. They are being intentionally excluded by a cabal of conspiring mainstream scientists. Peer-review exists merely to quash them, etc.
Another tactic is to take politically naive scientists and misquote them – never about the basic science of course, but about the minutia where scientists are still working things out, still in disagreement. The naive scientist thinks this is about getting at the truth, exploring all sides. The denialist reporter is just untutored and is getting it wrong. The scientist will further try to clarify. The denialist will take that attempt to clarify and spin it into more confusion about the basic science. Lather, rinse, repeat.
There are more tactics than this, many many more.
The point of all this is to make methods and motives clear. When a denier, a bad-faith skeptic is about their work, they need to be exposed. There is lot at stake.
Here we see the tactic of conflating the scientific with the political. This commenter is saying that ALL scientists are colluding to systematically delude the public. He/She is claiming that the entire community of hundreds of climatologists got together to perpetrate an massive, world-wide hoax.
Here, once again, a denier – a bad-faith skeptic – spreads confusion by pretending that the side consensus of the basic science, which is well understood and therefore agreed upon is actually a political conspiracy.
Scientists do science – deniers do politics.
Don’t be fooled.
Your wiki source is confused. It reads like Curry has recanted the fact that there has been a 16 year pause, in the sense of a statistically significant trend. The meaning Of “statistically significant” is a general one – the 16 year linear trend is almost flat, and the statistical error is such that the earth might have cooled.
There’s no serious doubt about this statement. Any controversy must involve the meaning of the pause, in relationship to the climate models.
Your wiki source apparently was referring to what you quoted, here, viz.,
After her comment in the diary in which the above is taken from, Curry quotes her email:
16 years may not be long enough to point to an error with 100% certainty, but 15 years with no warming is long enough to point to an error with 95% accuracy, according to NOAA’s annual State of the Climate report for 2008 (carried in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society for 2008). “16 years without warming were as near impossible as makes no difference”. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/25/bethlehem-and-the-rat-hole-problem/
Santer (who was part of a team) gave 17 years as a minimum needed to identify a human “signal”.
Even if the temperature rises in the coming year, does anybody believe that it will rise enough to point to a catastrophic problem, consistent with the models?
I don’t really know if Curry is saying that we need to wait another year before judging the models have failed; and/or whether she is saying the there is still a 1% chance that the models have not failed (or whether that 1% should be a 5% or even 50%).
What I do know with precision is that she has told the modelers, themselves, to
In fact, some of the climate catastrophists have recently started speaking about natural variability, which has not allowed them to escape some ‘friendly’ mocking from the so-called “climate change deniers”.
==================================================================
RFShunt words of non-wisdom, from post 72:
Ignoring backpedaling and moved goal posts, the humorous situation pertains that you are describing some of the very climate modelers who are high priests of your peculiar religion.
Your ignorance about how science can be corrupted is showing.
Watch the Lindzen video, and pay close attention to what he says about scientists who he respects, on account of their scientific work, going along with the climate catastrophe mumbo jumbo because it makes their lives easier.
Also, Lindzen tells us that there’s a bunch of scientific societies, whose members core competency has nothing to do with climate science, that have put out statements that are essentially press releases – press releases that contradicted the IPCC, but not the fallacious authorities who misrepresented the IPCC.
They have thus shown that they gave no serious scientific consideration to their endorsement! Not surprising, in view of the fact that their members are largely not climate scientists. (Doesn’t surprise me, as much as amuse me. See Not Even Wrong and The Trouble with Physic for more examples of pathological science.)
See also Rancourt’s interview of Bob Carter. They disagree about the sources of corruption, but agree that retired scientists are the best ones to ask, in order to get honest opinions.
Gee, whiz, can you figure out why asking retired scientists the truth about climate catastrophism should be the best road to go down?
meant
You should be able to figure out what particular information Watts had conveyed, that I was referring to. Correct?
And here we see, in full bloom, the tactic of taking a disagreement between scientists about advanced topics, about emerging science and acting as though this indicates disagreement about the fundamentals, the BASIC science of climate change.
There are disagreements about how to model. This is natural and right – the models are emerging science. Notice what the commenter chooses to empahasize with bold type:
This is discussion about how to weight models. But the implication, because it contains terms like “orthodoxy” and “flawed assumption” and “dominates the greenhouse warming signal”, is that the basic idea of human generated warming is what is being debated.
It is not. It is detailed talk about a detailed tool. A discussion of advanced and emerging science – not the basic science of climate change.
Do not be fooled.