Whoo boy. Judith writes:
Muller bases his ‘conversion’ on the results of their recent paper?
So, how convincing is the analysis in Rohde et al.’s new paper A new estimate of the average surface land temperature spanning 1753-2011? Their analysis is based upon curve fits to volcanic forcing and the logarithm of the CO2 forcing (addition of solar forcing did not improve the curve fit.)
I have made public statements that I am unconvinced by their analysis. I do not see any justification in their argument for making a stronger attribution statement than has been made by the IPCC AR4. I have written MANY posts that critique the IPCC’s attribution analysis. Here I try to give a sense of the challenges in attributing climate change to causal factors.
See her post here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ouch, that’s gotta hurt
“The closest in approach is the Lean and Rind analysis, which considers all of the external forcings (with units, not just curve fits) and discusses their uncertainties.”
I was unaware that we had discovered them all…
Yeah, I have said for a long time that CO2 forcing, as it currently exists in the science literature, is simply the manifestation of uncertainty. All we do is take what we THINK we know drives climate and assign the remainder the CO2. Bad science.
I think the quote of the week from Dr. Curry should be “No one that I listen to questions that adding CO2 will warm the earth, all other things being equal.”
There is a truly stomach-emptying article on this from the BBC today, they even have a quote from Mann!!.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501
[REPLY: Yes, but you may also note what may well be an “unprecedented and controversial” BBC act: mentioning Anthony’s paper and providing a link as the last word. -REP]
[REPLY: Yes, but you may also note what may well be an “unprecedented and controversial” BBC act: mentioning Anthony’s paper and providing a link as the last word. -REP]
you think anyone is going to go there???? “sceptical blogger” hardly an invitation to discover more….
[REPLY: No. Perhaps, though, BBC readers will be curious enough to follow that link… as long as it stays there…. -REP]
The BBC weather man warned us in rural areas of the north of the UK to watch out for a ground frost tonight , It is mid summer for crying out loud – ”global warming’ is freezing our socks off here !
“spurious doubling” in quotes. Does this mean the BBC:
doesn’t understand what “spurious doubling” means
didn’t read the paper so don’t know what the hypothesis is for the “spurious doubling”, or
Read the paper but still didn’t understand the hypothesis?
Trying to fit empirical data to a model with a SINGLE variable is called ‘statistical regression’. Trying to fit empirical data to a model with MULTIPLE variables is called ‘deconvolution.’
Discerning the difference between deconvolution and lying requires an electron microscope.
Under no circumstances can human activity have any impact on the environment, world ecosystems or global sustainability. And if you truly believe that I have some space acreage I would like to sell you. Enjoy your time on this planet while it lasts as it lasts not.
more soylent green! says:
July 30, 2012 at 10:08 am
======
FIrst off, there is nobody who believes that more CO2 will not result in more warming. The question is, will that warming be closer to 0.1C or 10.0C.
So quite with the insulting strawmen.
Secondly, your attempt to put words into Dr. Curry’s mouth is highly inaccurate and merely points to your inability to actually form an intelligent response.
But, strictly on a business -model- innovation perspective, you’ve got to hand it to Muller.
(1) claim to be a skeptic who possesses the superior intellect of an astro physicist.
(2) claim a miraculous conversion upon looking at the data. Make sure people know that unlike those lesser intelligent climate scientists, you looked at the data using the superior intellectual skills of an astrophysicist.
(3) the media, who find arithmetic challenging, promote Muller to celebrity. After all, he was a skeptic who now validates their world view. Oh, and did I mention he’s an astrophysicist – how dreamy.
(4) the funding sources, upon.seeing that Muller is a media celebrity who is able and willing to promote the agenda, shower Muller with grant money.
…a strategy well executed.
Odd how that appeared after my formal complaint to them earlier today, it will be interesting to see what weasely words they try to excuse their biased alarmism with!
tadchem says:
July 30, 2012 at 10:59 am … the funniest thing I have read all month. Thank you.
MarkW says:
“FIrst off, there is nobody who believes that more CO2 will not result in more warming. The question is, will that warming be closer to 0.1C or 10.0C. So quite [sic] with the insulting strawmen.”
I see that MarkW has never heard of Dr. Fernc Miskolczi, a well-known peer reviewed author.
Dr. Miskolczi gives the temperature rise for a doubling of CO2: 0.00 ºC.
First, read under JC Summary, third paragraph on Dr. Curry’s site. (http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/30/observation-based-attribution/) . It’s an exact quote.
Second, what’s the strawman?
Third, “secondly” isn’t the proper usage of the word “second.”
If Richard Muller is looking for a song he can identify with,here it is :
MarkW says:
July 30, 2012 at 11:21 am
@ur momisugly more soylent green!: “First off, there is nobody who believes that more CO2 will not result in more warming.”
First off, you’ve made one hell of an overarching assumption.
“There is a truly stomach-emptying article on this from the BBC today, they even have a quote from Mann!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501
[REPLY: Yes, but you may also note what may well be an “unprecedented and controversial” BBC act: mentioning Anthony’s paper and providing a link as the last word. -REP]”
Three cheers for linking to Anthony’s posting, but stop and just look at the lead graphic in the BBC posting!!!
Notice the stunning temperature rise caused by human contributed CO2!!!
Muller et al need to review: http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/Temp_%26_CO2.htm
Bill Tuttle says:
July 30, 2012 at 12:04 pm
MarkW says:
July 30, 2012 at 11:21 am
@ur momisugly more soylent green!: “First off, there is nobody who believes that more CO2 will not result in more warming.”
First off, you’ve made one hell of an overarching assumption.
Agreed.
Also, more CO2 may not result in any measurable warming that can be directly attributed to the additional CO2, at least with our present abilities.
There may be a lot of folks who agree with that.
I think that giving a link to WUWT is the first indication that Auntie Beeb has lifted her skirts slightly and is making the first moves toward preparing an exit strategy from Warmism as the world refuses to warm and public opinion in the UK mocks the people who say otherwise..
It isn’t proven the human produced CO2 is the reason CO2 levels are rising, despite isotope ratio arguments. There are other potential sources (even larger) than anthropogenic origin. The interesting aspect is the increase in CO2 itself, that is, the fact that the equilibrium has shifted. We know CO2 turns over in about 10 years. So whatever CO2 man has emitted over the last century is largely gone. And yet CO2 levels are still going up. Something else is behind the increase, not our use of fossil fuel.
Then we get to the question of the significance of CO2 to trapping heat. That’s the work of Mayer, O., et al., Baloney. Water vapor matters and dwarfs any contribution of CO2. Both are variable, not static at any location on the Earth. There is only a tiny window of additional absorption where CO2 may contribute to surface IR absorption beyond that due to water vapor alone. Far more likely CO2 responds to temp change and does not cause any significant change.
The new gold standard in climate science.
Ignore prior science, ignore unsupportive data, ignore other scientists’ contributions, mess correlation with causation, simplify climate to a single factor, trumpet non reviewed results through willing main stream media, do not allow comments in the Guardian and elsewhere. tell a fairy tale about a converted sceptic and crown the “result” with a very good looking picture and a very convincing name “BEST”. Why do we pay so dearly for climate science, if main stream media get all they desire from a Mr. Mueller ?
MarkW says:
July 30, 2012 at 11:21 am
more soylent green! says:
July 30, 2012 at 10:08 am
======
FIrst off, there is nobody who believes that more CO2…….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark, if you haven’t figured this out yet, Soylent is a fellow skeptic. It was the qualifier Curry used which we should notice, (all things being equal).
Personally, I’m one of them who believe the earth is self regulating, and in the end, we’ll see minimum or no change.
tomwys says: “Three cheers for linking to Anthony’s posting, but stop and just look at the lead graphic in the BBC posting!!!”
I couldn’t believe it either! A bit of passive aggression maybe–toward the PC media agenda?