In the much ballyhooed 2008 NOAA “State of the Climate” report on climate change they state, concerning the climate models, something quite relevant to the issues raised by the new story in the UK Daily Mail:
“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.”
Source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. said in 2009:
“Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions — 15 years of no warming.”
(h/t to Tom Harris)
Or how about this:
Climategate’s Phil Jones ‘insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said’ in 2012
‘Yet in 2009, when the [temperature] plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, Jones told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
‘In other words, though 5 years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years’ h/t to Climate Change Dispatch.
Regarding the significance of the period from 1997, recall that Dr. Ben Santer claimed 17 years was the period needed:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/
They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen said something similar in a WUWT guest post:
There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995.
Yet, today, we see evidence of the goalposts being moved again as the met Office tries to paint this lack of warming “plateau” as being insignificant:
The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.
So we are at 16 years, soon to be 17 years. What happens when we hit 20 years?
Either the models are worth something or they aren’t. In this case it seems they aren’t.
See also:
The Mail On Sunday And The Met Office
by: Dr. David Whitehouse
In Science, theories make predictions.
In Science, theories are tested against their predictions.
When the predictions FAIL, theories are normally revised, re-evaluated, reconsidered, re-examined, recalculated, or just plain re-jected.
The only forces keeping the AGW alarmism theory from being abandoned are those of political correctness.
Hoisted by their own petard! Their intellectual dishonesty is self evident. These are nothing but small time crooks cheating taxpayers out of funds that should have gone to more worthy research.
Reminds me of the immortal Mel Brooks
See Blazing Saddles – We’ve gotta protect our phony baloney jobs gentlemen!
Can I get a harrumph?
I was wondering when someone would remind them of their past proclamations about this timeline.
Where’s David Appell? 🙂
Quoting Phil Jones
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Given that he insists that warming is going to be catastrophic, one would think he would be elated to find out he is wrong rather than worried.
Climategate quote from Phil Jones.
‘I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till 2020
Like David M Hoffer says above, it seems that the Warmists are deeply worried sick that there might be no warming.
For a short while it looked like the Northern Hemisphere was seriously
over-heating, then I realised it was not just autumnal leaves, but many
red faces!
When the fuss of the past few years is considered, the vilification of those
labelled sceptics and the scorn heaped upon them, I find this report
highly amusing, but “not unexpected.” There will be no acknowledgements
of error nor any apologies forthcoming …
It’s right out of Charles MacKay’s book.
DavidMHoffer
Yes one would think that being wrong about (alleged) catastrophe to the entire human race should be a cause for celebration not reason to be “worried”….. unless one cares only about promoting Alarmism and/or protecting one’s pet theory and/or one’s sorry reputation. What’s wrong with these climatologists? We’ve been assured so many times that only “out of context” do these emails look bad, but so many seem really worse the more one knows the context.
Re; GlynnMhor observation.
It seems in the case of the global warming meme, the theory is KEPT and the the collected empirical data is selectively revised, reevaluated, reconsidered, reexamined, adjusted or just plain rejected.
Climate models are unable to make predictions in any scientifically valid sense of that word. The entire controversy about 10, 15, 17, or 20 years of temperature stasis then requires a context persistently blind to that fact.
Some waited for ten years to pass before becoming skeptical of the model. Others hung on, insisting, at least a half climate period (15yrs), before becoming skeptical of the model. So another wave of converts can be expected to appear. Soon it may be hard to find anybody who will admit to being hoodwinked. GK
The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Implying the models model known climate variations such as ENSO, which is false. The models may attempt to model these natural variations but fail even over short timescales (<1 year). To claim they can model these natural variations over decades is deceptive nonsense.
In reality, the models produce random noise of approximately the same magnitude as natural variations.
Gawd, those bozos have a hard time letting go of their pet doctrine, eh?
RealClimate is way ahead of you. They had a guest post a few years ago saying that 20years or more of now warming is possible but then global warming would reassert itself stronger than ever.
Oh, now I get it. It’s Yogi Climate Science!
“I didn’t really say everthing I said.”
“The future ain’t what it used to be ”
“We made too many wrong mistakes.”
DR says:
“Where’s David Appell?”
He’s been recalled to the mother ship.☺
O/T but the Arctic Sea Ice Extent is just below the 2007 extent now. Catching up fast
You’d think they’d all be happy that ‘global warming’ has stopped -all by itself, naturally, without the need to pour in countless more trillions of dollars into a non-problem so that we could use that money to do something useful instead? wouldn’t you?
How scary would it be if the data had been “juiced” and still shows no warming?
Being a denialist (in the catastrophic sense of AGW) and a big fan of WUWT, I have to express my confusion at this 16 year bug-a-boo. I downloaded the HadCrut3 temperature anomaly data and only if you use the extremely warm El Nino in 1997-1998 can you make this claim. If you take any time before mid 1997 there is a positive temperature anomaly. If you chose mid 1992, for example, the anomaly is 0.25 over 20 years. The temperature is up about 0.1 deg C from mid 2000. So I’m confused. For a 16 year anomaly we need to wait until 2017-2018, no?
Between 97 and 2007, regular official statement was: if all countries don’t sign the Kyoto protocol; catastrophe cannot be avoided. Since then, CO2 emission increased beyond anybody’s expectation.
The only reason the leading Warmist don’t start spiting the dummy is: because the Skeptics don’t have any honesty, to admit that:: they have being duped by the Warmist / and by the outdated pagan beliefs / fairy-tales that: localized warmings / coolings are GLOBAL. Skeptic’s misplaced ego is giving oxygen to the Warmist.
TRUTH: there was no ”GLOBAL” warming in the 90’s, the warming is NOT ”flattening” now.- extra warming in the troposphere overall is not accumulative – since 1849 not enough extra heat in the troposphere has accumulated, to boil one chicken egg!!! 2] nobody monitors the GLOBAL temp, b] the data from few selective places doesn’t represent the GLOBAL temp and the Warmist don’t have a case. c] not monitoring for every minute in 24h, is misleading. d] hottest minute is NOT at the same time every day – everyone of the other 1439 minutes in 24h have same value; but temp doesn’t go simultaneously up, or down as the hottest minute. Ignoring my proofs. facts and formulas by both camps; makes both sides of the sandpit equally guilty!!! .http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/global-temperature/
The other alarmists are learning something that repeat offenders like Hansen and Paul Ehrlich learnt long ago — never predict that anything will occur before you’re safely retired and they can’t take the money away.
stefanthedenier,
What is the temperature on your planet?
“WHERE’S THE HEAT!”. LOL! Remember that old Wendy’s commercial?
The Warmunistas are quickly reaching that critical point in their theory/model projections, where there is a whole lot of fluffy bun, but no beef…
The Warmunistas also facing some major climatic events working against them: PDO and SOI already negative, AMO peaked in 2011 and starts its slow 45-year decline from here, the 2013 El Nino event ain’t happening and could even become a La Nina in 2013, the weak current solar cycle peaks around June 2013 and then starts a slow decline to be followed by the weakest solar cycle since 1715, Antarctic growing in both size AND mass, sea rising slowing…. Oh, my….
Where IS the beef?….
You’d think they’d all be happy that ‘global warming’ has stopped -all by itself, naturally, without the need to pour in countless more trillions of dollars into a non-problem so that we could use that money to do something useful instead? wouldn’t you?
__________________________________________________________________________
Except that some idiot talked the Haida Quaii into paying him to dump 100 tons of iron sulphate into the ocean off the Queen Charlotte Islands off the coast of British Columbia, Canada, to enhance fisheries and attract “Carbon Credits”. Course the only real carbon credits are likely to be the million dollars the Haida Quaii paid him for the “experiment”. So now it can be claimed they are Geoengineering the climate to keep it cool /sarc off ….http://saltspringexchange.com/list/100-tonnes-of-iron-sulphate-dumped-off-haida-gwaii/
‘Can I see the dragon?’
‘No, it’s invisible.’
‘Can I feel it?’
‘No, it is non-corporeal.’
‘Can I measure the heat of its fiery breath?’
‘No, it breathes heatless fire.’
Could someone please tell me what real world observations have actually agreed with the models or predictions of the last few decades. Have they got anything right?
Jones told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Politicians take notice of this expert advice: stop worrying now after this past 15 years of flat lining in the average global temperature.
Skeptics also notice: no down ward trend for a total of 15 years: don’t worry.
Ahhh … but it does have ‘a signature’ *; IR Spectroscopy, which cannot be denied …
Nice try.
.
See also “The OCO”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory
* Like water vapor does.
.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
A radical suggestion… … Try What Works:
Despite increasing atmospheric CO2, there has been no significant global warming for approximately 15 years.
The basis for all the failed predictions of the IPCC and global warming acolytes is the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a strong driver of global temperature. This failed hypothesis should be shelved indefinitely – it is unlikely that the further passage of time will provide any real supporting evidence for CAGW mania.
Some of those in the “skeptics” camp HAVE made successful predictions. For example, we wrote in 2002:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
The basis for this successful (to date) prediction is the hypothesis that climate change is predominantly natural and (irregularly) cyclical. This hypothesis could provide a reasonable basis for a rejuvenated approach to climate science that has actually demonstrated some predictive skill.
I know, I know – what a crazy idea! 🙂
David Ball says:
October 15, 2012 at 8:20 pm
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
————————————————–
Ha, Brilliant Dave!
We’re all check mated though. Really. We’re all screwed. And this is a Chinese proverb I think and if it isn’t it should be. Al Gore is miles ahead of us. Because:
no one. NO ONE, can kill a dead snake!
David Ball says:
October 15, 2012 at 8:20 pm
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
——————–
Ha. Love it. Brilliant Dave!
I must say, We are all screwed though. Al Gore is miles ahead of us. He knows that no one……NO ONE…..can kill a dead snake!!!!
The spin on the story in mainstream Canadian news today:
“Some skeptics of global warming have been pointing to British data that a London newspaper claims shows no warming since 1997. But the United Kingdom meteorological office and Weaver said the claims are misleading.
“I don’t know what data they are looking at,” Weaver said. “2010 is the warmest year. 2005 is the second warmest year.”
According to NOAA, all of the top ten warmest years on record have occurred after 1997, when the skeptics claimed global warming stopped.”
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/world-temperatures-matched-record-for-hottest-september-again-1.996307
“Skeptic” doesn’t at all describe the more sensible contributors to the discussion about natural climate variation. Far more importantly, I take strong issue with the ever-so-casual ignorance of nature’s power & beauty, which is universal:
http://i46.tinypic.com/303ipeo.png
+
http://i49.tinypic.com/wwdwy8.png
=
http://i48.tinypic.com/2v14sc5.gif
(slow animation of preceding pair)
SCD (solar cycle deceleration) from:
monthly resolution sunspot numbers
Paul wavelet with:
grain = Schwabe (~11 years) (pattern robust even if not carefully tuned)
extent ~= 64 years (pattern robust even if not carefully tuned)
wide support span (serious, capable parties actively doing the calculations are welcome to inquire for technical details)
While appreciating & respecting nature’s dominating power & beauty, we need to determine the nature of bounds on recent (since ~1997) nonlinearity arising from polar hydrology regime shifts.
Jim,
When can we see the dragon?
Being a denialist (in the catastrophic sense of AGW) and a big fan of WUWT, I have to express my confusion at this 16 year bug-a-boo. I downloaded the HadCrut3 temperature anomaly data and only if you use the extremely warm El Nino in 1997-1998 can you make this claim. If you take any time before mid 1997 there is a positive temperature anomaly. If you chose mid 1992, for example, the anomaly is 0.25 over 20 years. The temperature is up about 0.1 deg C from mid 2000. So I’m confused. For a 16 year anomaly we need to wait until 2017-2018, no?
Firstly the extreme warmists regarded at the time the 1997-8 El Nino as evidence of extreme warming. They can’t just take that back now and say, “that was natural variation”. They made their bed on that one.
Secondly, the 16 year period is to 95% confidence not a fluke. If we haul it back a year or two we are still more likely than not to have the models invalidated. In fact 10 years of flat-line is difficult to explain in terms of some predictions.
Finally, if we take your example of 0.25 over 20 years, then we have a temperature rise, sure, but it is not catastrophic. We have almost two centuries before we reach the “dangerous” +2°C. That won’t do in the alarmist world. They need to show considerably higher rates than that.
Don’t lose the pea under the thimble. They need to show much more than that the world is warming. It has to be accelerating (good luck with that) and catastrophically and caused by CO2.
Soon NOAA will be saying actually it needs to be more time before we can conclusively etc …
You chaps just don’t understand, do you?
There is a scientific consensus concerning the length of time you need to wait to see if a non-warming trend is significant.
The formula is L = C + G
where
L is the length of time you need to see a lack of warming
C is the length of time the Current non-warming trend has been occurring
G is the number of years until your next research grant is approved.
Anyone who denies the accuracy of that formula is obviously in the pay of big oil.
So I guess we’re all going to be around for a while? Good to know. A new generation of climate scientists will get to bury the old one and they will have learned to avoid political thralldom at all costs. Nah.
So just what is the kick-off year for global warming to really take off? 2005 or 2010? As I recall in 1998 reading some magazine while in line at the grocery store, that was the year of all years to send global temperatures onward and upward to infinity, now it is but an honorary PhD on Tom Karl’s wall. I’m confused.
It is becoming clearer now however. Every few years, lower the previous high temperature that was called the hottest year ever, then raise the current or recent year to make it the hottest.
The really neat part is Met O predicted in 2007 years following 1998 would be warmer and by golly they’ve done it! When 2014 rolls around, lower 2010 and possibly 2005 as well just in case, but always make sure 1998 is lower than the average of the previous decade, then place 2014 where 1998 used to be. Pretty soon the trend will go in the proper direction. Woo hoo! I love science.
It’s funny that Phil Jones would be worried by a lack of warming for 15 years. Given that he believes in catastrophic warming you’d think he’d celebrate it not be worried by it. But the truth is that he doesn’t want the models to be wrong, it’s more important to him to be right regardless of the consequences.
Either the models are worth something or they aren’t. In this case it seems they aren’t.
Even one strike against a theory invalidates it and sends it back to the drawing boards. GCM models as used for climate fitting and predictions have another six strikes against them.
Unfortunately climate scientists using these models do not seem to know the scientific rules of success in modeling theories. And the hoi polloi follow them like lemmings.
The other six strikes are documented periodically in this blog:
2)There is no positive reinforcement, sensitivity is much smaller than assumed. The models fail in predicting infrared flow in the troposphere.
3)Humidity is not increasing in the troposphere as is necessary for the feedback hypothesis
4) The missing energy is not hiding in the oceans
5) The models can only reproduce anomalies when fitting and differ widely on real temperatures in the records.
6) hydrological predictions of the models are no better than random number generators
7)No CO2 fingerprint in the troposphere
Jim– CO2 ONLY absorbs IR around a very narrow frequency range of 15 microns.
When CO2 levels exceed 540ppm, any additional CO2 has almost NO added forcing effect as this very narrow 15 micron frequency becomes saturated, and photons of this frequency simply get blown out to space…
H20 absorbs almost the ENTIRE IR frequency range (not CO2’s 15 microns, however), so this saturation effect isn’t a factor..
Oh, and H20’s atmospheric concentration averages around 30,000ppm compared to CO2’s 390ppm… Yawn….
According to papers by Lindzen/Choi, Douglas/Christy and a recent one by Asten, the GROSS CO2 climate sensitivity is theorized to be between 0.7C-1.4C (much less than IPCC’s “best” estimate of 3.2C).
Between1850-1998, the Earth’s temperature rose about 0.65C. Taking the lower-end climate sensitivity number of 0.7C, and given 40% of CO2 doubling has already occurred, approximately 0.28C can be attributed to CO2 forcing and the remaining 0.37C can easily be attributed to the strongest 73-yr string of solar cycles in 11,400 years taking place between 1933-1996. When these strong solar cycles ended, so did the warming trend. Moreover, the weakest solar cycle in 300 years starts 7 years from now…. Oh, my…
It’s becoming more and more obvious that CO2 is merely bit player in Earth’s complex climate process. For political purposes, CO2 took center stage for awhile, but it’s being booed off stage as it’s not acting as advertised…
Only a climate scientist could be worried by “lack of warming” – showing how out-of-touch they are with the practicalities of everyday life. I could make an astrological forecast with as much significance as our (UK) official climate predictions.
Now expect the BBC to come up with a defence of their pals at the Met Office – but don’t expect real balance as per the BBC’s Charter.
While I’m deeply impressed with the scholarship of all the participants on both sides of this “heated” debate, an ignoramus like me can only be very grateful that it is happening; while I can see the human race adapting to a warmer world, I’m not sure how today’s world would cope unscathed with another ice age. If any of the ongoing research helps prevent that, I will be most grateful.
That 18th Law of Scientific Research:
Any prediction made about an event significantly far enough into the future … will never be remembered to be proven incorrect.
But the United Kingdom meteorological office and Weaver said the claims are misleading.
“I don’t know what data they are looking at,” Weaver said. “2010 is the warmest year. 2005 is the second warmest year.”
According to NOAA, all of the top ten warmest years on record have occurred after 1997, when the skeptics claimed global warming stopped.”
When they lie like that – claiming that warm = warming – you know that they know that they are as full of $#!^ as you know they are.
not so fast…a new alarm:
16 Oct: Sydney Morning Herald: AAP: Antarctic climate facing ‘rapid’ changes: chief scientist
Australia’s chief Antarctic scientist says claims by climate experts about environmental changes in the southern continent are not alarmist.
The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) told a Senate estimates hearing today “rapid changes” taking place across the icy land mass would have significant impact on global climate.
Changes in ocean flows and shifts in Antarctic ice cap levels were occurring at rates faster than at any other time in history, chief scientist Nick Gales said…
“That is the engine room of a large amount of world climate, so changes there are important.”
He dismissed suggestions the claims were alarmist, adding scientists were “by definition” sceptics and based their conclusions only on testing data.
Australian scientists “overwhelmingly” report on the basis of their findings, and strive to make clear statements about uncertainties.
There was “no doubt” scientists were observing rapid environment and climatic changes in Antarctica, Dr Gales said…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/antarctic-climate-facing-rapid-changes-chief-scientist-20121016-27ohg.html
not striving hard enough, Dr. Gales, if there’s “no doubt”.
Do I know think that the world has stopped warming? No because the world temperature has no meaning to me , if I was told that the temperature in a certain place had reached 30 degrees c then I would know from my own sensing of the world that I would feel warm if I was at that place.The only way I can make sense of a world temperature is if I compare it with another world temperature and it will be cooler or warmer depending on which world temperature it is compared with .The world temperature can never be cold or warm to me because I can never sense that, it has only a statistical meaning , but some people in this debate such as the media try to give this statistic a personal meaning so they invent climate catastrophes that follow from small rises in global temperatures relative to a particular year.
The mistake he made is a lot more simple that that. He went by the HadCRUT3 dataset which is no longer in use. The UK MetOffice switched to the HadCRUT4 dataset and is what the original article is based on. Maybe if he starts with the right dataset he won’t have such a problem. Also remember they switched to HadCrut 4 because it is suppose to be better so if their “better” dataset shoots them in the foot it ain’t our problem
Wouldn’t it be nifty if there were a climate model which predicts occasional cooling periods that finish like ski jumps causing temperatures to eventually propel upwards?
That would really be swell. For while anyway.
Then not so much when the upwards is a no show.
My favorite in all of this Revenge of the Nitwits climate science has been the sea rise boogeyman.
IMO it’s been the most asinine observation made. Even here in Oregon the fools claim parts of the Oregon coast have already been lost to global warming sea rise. So the AGW that would cause the sea to rise has already happened?
Yeah sure. It’s just that it’s hard to see when ya go to the beach. Any beech.
It takes a trained Nitwit to see it.
BTW, the Santer paper and its 17 years without warming is junk. It uses statistical techniques to analyse the output of climate models, and as Gavin Schmidt says, you can’t do this, because climate model outputs aren’t samples from a population.
The most you can say from Santer’s paper is, in the average opinion of climate scientists, 17 years is the longest period where natural variability can override GHG warming and result is no significant warming.
Of course, as the predicted warming failed to materialize, the opinions of climate modellers changed and so did their models. The real world didn’t change. Natural variability is the same as it always was.
Why would Phil Jones be worried by 15 years of no warming? That’s just what he wants, to avoid a tipping point or catastrophic warming. Phil Jones must be ecstatic now and he can retire knowing his grand-children are safe from the catastrophe (apart from the actions caused by politicians).
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations”
So a near-zero or even a negative trends of a decade or less that is predicted by simulations isn’t a problem for AGW theory.
But a longer trend which wasn’t predicted at all?
If only they had known temperatures were going to remain flat for this long, they could have adjusted them sooner and a little more aggressively. I’m sure they’ll get right on that now and make sure next years trends are up. There’s still time to salvage “settled science” — unless global temperatures dip too far to hide the decline. That’s the problem with consensus. It can change so quickly when facts become stubborn and refuse to cooperate.
Since we are in a current PDO that will last about another 15-25 years, and as also T flatlines for another 15-25 years, it will be interesting to see their excuses stretch out.
Solar magnetic cycle and the geomagnetic ripple around 2000 were fully in phase, but are currently drifting slowly out of phase. If the last 150 years long correlation holds
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
(see no reason why it shouldn’t) then the natural variability in the N. Hemisphere would suggest, as the phase difference increases, more rapid decline towards the base levels reached in the 1970s. Effect of the declining sunspot count would indicate less intense periodic upward/downward bursts. The critical factor across the decades to come is the phase difference rather than amplitude of the sunspot count.
Jean Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:
One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.
also see here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
Steve from Rockwood says: October 15, 2012 at 7:22 pm
“I have to express my confusion at this 16 year bug-a-boo.”
Me too! All that talk about a comment in a NOAA paper about models, and no-one quoting what the trend actually is.
Here’s WFT on Hadcrut 4. It’s an uptrend of about 0.05°C.decade since 1997. Not zero. Higher from 1996. Even from 1998 (not 15 years) there’s still an uptrend.
Goal post shifting is an alarmist trait. Do not be surprised for this to continue.
“He dismissed suggestions the claims were alarmist, adding scientists were “by definition” sceptics and based their conclusions only on testing data.
Australian scientists “overwhelmingly” report on the basis of their findings, and strive to make clear statements about uncertainties.
There was “no doubt” scientists were observing rapid environment and climatic changes in Antarctica, Dr Gales said…”
One look at the link beneath demonstrates exactly that Gales is over the top as well as exaggerating.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Now we will have the same saga we just had at the Antarctic as we have just had about the Arctic Ice, as the seasons change from north to south and the summer rays hit the ice which will ofcourse have the same effect. Normally when applying or exposing heat to ice one would expect something to happen. Let’s se where they take us on this journey, this time.
16 Oct: WaPo: Charles Lane: Liberals’ green-energy contradictions
Al Gore is about 50 times richer than he was when he left the vice presidency in 2001. According to an Oct. 11 report by The Post’s Carol D. Leonnig, Gore accumulated a Romneyesque $100 million partly through investing in alternative-energy firms subsidized by the Obama administration.
Two days after that story ran, Mitt Romney proclaimed at a rally in Ohio’s Appalachian coal country: “We have a lot of coal; we are going to use it. We are going to keep those jobs.” Thousands cheered…
As the Democrats become more committed to, and defined by, a green agenda, and as they become dependent on money from high-tech venture capitalists and their lobbyists, it becomes harder to describe them as a party for the little guy — or liberalism as a philosophy of distributive justice.
Gore’s sanctimony doesn’t help. The erstwhile Tennessee populist bristles at any suggestion that his climate crusade is about money. And, no doubt, he cared about the planet before he got rich. Still, his investments, including in such flops as Fisker, the maker of $100,000 plug-in hybrid cars, create a patent conflict of interest. This hurts his credibility — if not about climate change per se, then certainly about the particular solutions he advocates…
Green energy is not cost-competitive with traditional energy and won’t be for years. So it can’t work without either taxpayer subsidies, much of which accrue to “entrepreneurs” such as Gore, or higher prices for fossil energy — the brunt of which is borne by people of modest means…
For a sense of where this may lead, look at Germany, whose crash program to replace nuclear power with wind and solar is boosting electricity rates. Der Spiegel reports that 200,000 long-term unemployed lost power in 2011 because they couldn’t pay their electric bills…
Small wonder that the United Mine Workers of America — a core Democratic constituency if there ever were one — has refused to endorse Obama in 2012 as it did in 2008. The union hasn’t backed Romney, but he is campaigning hard for rank-and-file votes. That a private-equity baron is getting a hearing in the coal fields should give liberals pause…
Meanwhile, Gore and his partners carry on rent-seeking…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-liberals-green-energy-contradictions/2012/10/15/8c251ba2-16e6-11e2-8792-cf5305eddf60_story.html?hpid=z3
15 Oct: Bloomberg: Stefan Nicola: German Renewables Fee Rises 47%, Opening Government Rift
Germany’s power grid operators boosted the surcharge consumers pay for funding renewable energy to a record, triggering a rift between two ministers in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Cabinet.
The four grid companies set the fee paid through power bills at 5.28 euro cents (6.8 cents) a kilowatt-hour in 2013, up 47 percent from 3.59 cents now. Economy Minister Philipp Roesler wants to lower a federal electricity tax to help counter the increase, he told reporters today in Berlin. Environment Minister Peter Altmaier wants to offer consumers free advice on saving energy instead…
Merkel’s government is seeking to prevent a voter backlash against raising energy costs before the next general election in the autumn of 2013. Last week, Altmaier set out plans to cap subsidies for wind, biomass and solar power that have surged since 2004 when the government guaranteed above-market prices for electricity generated from clean sources…
The total subsidy next year will amount to about 20.36 billion euros, which is paid for by consumers through their power bills. The fee increase will raise the bill of the average German household with 3,500 kilowatt-hours of consumption by 59 euros a year. That impact was inflated by exemptions for big industrial users and leftover costs from the previous year, the operators said…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/german-renewables-surcharge-rises-47-opening-government-rift.html
Hi all
It appears that we are indeed in a period of global cooling, temperatures have been (on average) decreasing since 1997, over the current 15 year period. Scientists have indeed been claiming that soon, something of significance will occur – some warming . . . or perhaps increased cooling?
Let us forget for a moment about this silly little interval of 15-20 years that we are so concerned about. Global warming and climate change are about global averages. If climate change was based on individual 15 year measurements, that were NEVER considered as a suite of results – well, we’d probably all be worried about a new ice age. However, this is not how climate is measured. Defined by the World Meteorological Organization, climate requires variables such as temperature, and precipitation to be considered over about 30 years.
So now you may ask, “why are scientists considering climate over a 10 year interval, if trends are better indicated over a 30 year interval?” – the answer is quite simple, 10 year intervals indicate the warming trends conclusively as well.
“So why are we experiencing a 15 year cooling period?”
For this, there is also a simple answer – trends are never 100% constant when it comes to a DYNAMIC system such as the world’s climate. We will never be able to fully, and comprehensively model World Climate, we can only predict. And yes, sometimes these model predictions are incorrect but what is important are the overall trends that are exhibited. By overall, i mean trends that persist from 100 years ago. NOT trends that you have analyzed that refer to a period of 15 years.
Have a look at http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/. This is a perfect example of how close-minded examination of a 15 year trend, may very lead to a “Cooling” conclusion – but when the data are considered as a whole, the overall trends are made clear: global temperatures are increasing, and climate change is very real.
Have a nice day.
Goalposts. Soon to be 100 years or whichever year funding runs out.
What they really meant was, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people longer than 15 years.
Philip Bradley says: In reality, the models produce random noise of approximately the same magnitude as natural variations.
That sums it up very accurately and concisely.
A number of parameters are put together and the coefficients adjusted until the result looks something like temperature record over the fitting period. This, not surprisingly fails to match earlier periods as Bob Tisdale has pointed out in detail.
It is also totally fails to get even the general trend right beyond 2000 AD,
How they have the bare-faced dishonesty to continue to pretend that these modles have any relevance for climate prediction is astounding.
Phillip Bratby says:
“Why would Phil Jones be worried by 15 years of no warming? That’s just what he wants, to avoid a tipping point or catastrophic warming. ”
What Prof Jones probably wants is to keep the game going so that he can continue in his nice safe , tenured position until his retirement on an equally well-endowed pension.
He probably also imagines he is fighting for the “cause” of ecology rather than realising all this disingenuous stupidity is destroying the enviromental movement.
enviromental [sic] movement.
In 2010 Phil Jones was reported as having been “suicidal”. Now, ahead of schedule, he is not even worried. I am personally very pleased for him.
I am equally pleased that the planet seems to be recovering nicely from it’s recently exaggerated death-projections.
Nick Stokes: What’s the CI on that slope of 0.05 C/decade? And not just using the errors from the regression, but also using the uncertainty from the original data. I doubt that it’s statistically significant, and even if it is, it’s 1/4 what it’s supposed to be.
Nick Stokes says:
“It’s an uptrend of about 0.05°C.decade since 1997. Not zero. “
Yes, half a degree per century is very scary stuff. …. /sarc
The last 4 Interglacials were warmer than today by up to 5°C! Interglacials only seem to last for around 10-15,000 years, perhaps at beast 20,000 years. The last Ice Age ended around 12,000 years ago, we’re living on borrowed time possibly. There were periods in the last 500 million years when there wase almost 20 times todays atmospheric content of CO2, no Catastrophic Global Warming happened! The models don’t model the Earth in reality, they treat it as a black body which it emphatically is not! They do not predict anything, they make projections based upon flawed assumptions, about thousands of parameters they do no understand either fully or in part, & they expect everyone to believe that they can reduce these said assumed parameters known & unknown, to a bunch of matrices & mathematical formulae! Models are infinitely tunable to the desired result. CO2 is essential for plant growth, is vital for mamalian internal organ systems operations, is an acid buffer in the human blood stream, etc, etc! For every Carbon atom we emit, we emit 2 Oxygen atoms with it! Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the Universe, after Helium, Hydrogen, & Oxygen. Carbon is the thirteenth most abundant element in the Earth’s crust!
A true scientist, as any true professional would, when faced with the glaring possibility that he/she may be wrong, display the greatest integrity & honesty & professionalism, & utter the un-utterable words, “I think we may have got this wrong, people!” A charlatan would keep the former ideological belief system going at all costs. To quote Sir Walter Scott in the poem Marmion, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!”
Although this will never happen in Climate Science, these people should be held accountable for their falsehoods, they should atone for the many who die or be injured in automobile accidents, or in their homes because they cannot afford the heating costs to keep warm, young or old, in severe cold weather events that were supposed to be a thing of the past, when local governments who are forced to pay the state forecasters for their flawed forecasts, who cut salt-grit budgets because snow is a thing of the past & a very rare event indeed, & then have to import supplies at great expense to the taxpayer from abroad to make up the shortfalls! When billions of whatever currency is spent propping up taxpayer funded NGOs, with vast budgets, workforces, etc generating mountains of paperwork with little boxes to tick along with all the other societal hoops the people are forced to jump through, all on the grounds of flawed science, laws & regulations, by officials who are “just obeying orders!”, Now that does sound a tad familier. Oh the terrible dilema the Malthusian Greenalists will face in the coming years, how will we reduce the Global population, do they exterminate 6,500,000,000 by using ordinary natural gas, abundant but expensive, or permit the use of Shale gas, equally abundant but cheap? It won’t happen, no, but one can dream, can’t one?
Mooloo says:
October 15, 2012 at 9:11 pm
———————————————
Just because someone makes their bed on a mistake doesn’t mean we should adopt the same strategy.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1997/to:2012/plot/wti/from:1997/to:2012/trend
The trend is positive. Yes it is a very small trend, hard to explain as catastrophic, but that is not what I’m reading.
Josh says:
October 16, 2012 at 3:17 am
————————————————
Josh, you fell into the same trap you’re making fun of. Rather than highlight temperature since 1979 (I notice you didn’t choose the interval during the 1960s when the earth was cooling or during the 1930s when the earth was warming nicely without fossil fuel catastrophy) plot from 1997 to present – which is the interval under consideration. You will find the trend is positive but very much lower than the average alarmist warming. So why over the past 10 years has the earth not warmed as it should have? What happens if this trend (of almost no warming) continues for another 10 years? Does a 20 year trend of no temperature increase invalidate global warming, or do we need 50 years, then 75 years etc?
I know of none climate models, which models AMO or PDO. Because in the very moment, the 1975-2005 warming trend would become a part of AMO. Models go stupidly up like CO2 curve and contain no natural variability, which is considerable.
North Atlantic: http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/310249/Natlantic.jpg
North Pacific: http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/310249/Npacific.jpg
Arctic: http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/310249/arctic.jpg
Wayne2 says: October 16, 2012 at 4:26 am
“Nick Stokes: What’s the CI on that slope of 0.05 C/decade? And not just using the errors from the regression, but also using the uncertainty from the original data. I doubt that it’s statistically significant, and even if it is, it’s 1/4 what it’s supposed to be.”
I don’t think it is statistically significantly different from zero. It is difficult to get statistical significance for short time intervals. But that doesn’t mean that is is zero or less. It isn’t.
This post tries to make something of a statement from NOAA people that periods of fifteen years of zero trend are rarely observed with models in 21st Cen. Whether that actually applies to weather is arguable. But it doesn’t “put the kibosh” on anything, because the premise isn’t there. We haven’t observed 15 years of zero trend in 21st century.
If you want some fun looking at current weather stations around the World go to this site.
http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/ If you dont see many stations hover your mouse pointer over the date at the top of the page to ‘Back Paddle’ 1 hour,another Tip is to uncheck the box in the right hand pane that says “Show personal weather stations” to avoid ‘overload’.
Have Fun.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
As the narrative unravels, and the average persons starts to see that weather is and always has been fickle, the alarmists will grow more desperate. I think the facts are showing significance to the notion that humans only talk about the weather; they cannot really do anything about it. No warming observed means no warming. Besides, cold kills; warmer is better.
Mooloo
I’ve heard this claim before, but never seen a cite for it. can you corroborate anyone actually said that at the time?
If i’m reading the report right, they are referring to ENSO-adjusted trends. Removing the effect of ENSO (and solar influence) gives much warmer trends across all data sets for the most recent 15-year period, and the trends are statistically significant.
If I haven’t misread it, an apples to apples comparson would need to filter out the ENSO influence.
Nick Stokes:
I see that at October 16, 2012 at 5:34 am you attempt the same misdirection from both this thread’s subject and its importance as Dave Britton tried on behalf of the Met. Office at
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
So, I copy the answer I there gave to him.
Richard
Dave Britton:
You say,
What is “meaningful” depends on the meaning of interest.
The 1997 UN IPCC AR4 Report predicted (n.b. predicted not projected) that global temperature would rise over the first two decades after 2000 at an average rate of 0.2deg.C/decade +/-20%. This rise was certain because it was “committed warming” which the models said must occur as a result of anthropogenic GHG emissions already in the system.
The IPCC prediction can be seen at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-4.html
In the graph the orange line represents the “committed” temperature increase the IPCC said would occur after 2000 if there were no additional CO2. Clearly, actual temps from 2000 until now are lower than the projected “committed” warming while CO2 levels have continued to rise.
There are only four possible meanings of the flat-line in global temperatures over the last 15 years; i.e.
1. The models are wrong.
Or
2. The global temperature estimates are wrong.
Or
3. Natural climate variation is sufficient to overwhelm anthropogenic warming.
Or
4. Some or all of the possibilities 1 to 3.
Richard
Please remember that the UK Met Office has to spin stuff in this way so that it fits the UK government’s commitment to decarbonisation. Publishing anything that cast doubt on the scientific basis and hence the rationality of the UK’s anti-carbon energy policy – now steered by Edward Davey to the course previously laid by Edward Miliband (demonstrating that on this occasion, two Eds are far, far worse than one) – would be as good as a letter of resignation from everyone involved.
The more I read the section, of which a portion is cited in the article above, the clearer it becomes that they are talking about trends with ENSO filtered out.
Does anyone parse that differently to me? Because it looks like using global temp trends without ENSO filtered out (as done in the top post) is an apples to oranges comparison, particularly considering the massive el Nino at the beginning of the period in question and the strong la Ninas at the end. This is going to to skew the trends considerably, making the comparison too suspect to be useful.
Can anyone gin up the ENSO-adjusted trends to make an apples to apples comparison?
Remember that email
From Phil Jones To John Christy
…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, *regardless of the consequences.* This isn’t being political, it is being selfish. Cheers, Phil
@richard. I choose #1 first, then #3 second. You don’t need global temperature estimates to be wrong (then neither side could argue and that might even be worse).
Nick Stokes says:
October 16, 2012 at 5:34 am
We haven’t observed 15 years of zero trend in 21st century.
+++++++++++++
DUH! The 21st century is only 12 years.
Hard for normal people to get 15 years of trend out of 12 years of data. It takes a Real Climate Scientists to do that.
Question regarding the models:
Apparently the Met Office is claiming that the models do allow for some variation within the trend, attributing it to factors other than the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. My question is, do the models imply a return to the forecasted trend line over time, as one would expect? After all, if a given level of CO2 causes a given (modeled) temperature increase, but “other factors” disguise that increase for a time, then a return to the trend line at some point is implied. (Note that I’m specifying a return to the trend line, i.e., the forecast temperature level for a particular date, and not just a return to a trend rate of increase.)
But a return to the forecasted trend line following a 15-year period where temperature barely increases at all would imply a rapid increase in temperature sustained for some time thereafter, or alternatively a very rapid short term increase in temps. For that matter, if the models are correct, there should be a 50% probability of temperature exceeding the forecast temperature, so a return to trend could even (should even) result in an overshoot of the trend line.
Are the modelers confident enough in their models to claim that we should soon see a rapid acceleration of global temperatures so that the temperature levels forecasted by their models are reached, or even exceeded? After all, a given level of CO2 in the atmosphere is supposed to yield a certain temperature, as specified in their models. If they are not willing to claim a return to the trend line (not just a return to the forecast upward trend, but a return to the forecast trend line itself), then they are saying that they no longer believe their own models.
Ironically, if they continue to believe their models, the required warming to get them back on track becomes both larger, and more urgent, with each passing year of little or no increase, so they end up being required to forecast larger and larger near-term increases to return to modeled temperatures. If the models fail, they will thus fail spectacularly. A fair question to any modeler is “By what date do you expect the observed temperature to exceed your modeled temperature if your model is accurate?” (I use “exceed” as a reminder that the model forecasts a midpoint of expected temperatures and that, if correct, 50% of the time we should be experiencing temps above the model’s trend line.) The followup questions should be, “And to exceed that temperature by that date will require a minimum of how much warming per year from here on?”
Good questions, both, I think.
I’d been taking this quote as parsed here and other places before I wondered what Jones meant by ‘continue,’ so I looked up the emails.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4149
Written in 2009 after a decade of little warming, Jones and Mike (Mann?) are discussing a trend continuing from the *present*. Mike estimates “10 more years of decline from now on
before it was really significant,” concurring with Jones, who said, “Bottom line – the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. We’re really counting this from about 2004/5…”
So they are talking about a flat trend of about 22 years, not 15.
It’s very clear from the full text, and it has been misinterpreted all over the internet.
For a better perspective on T changes over the last 150 years, see
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
One does not have to be a statistician to see a clear long term trend. By selective choice of any short term time span, one can get any short term trend one wishes to find – even a short term trend toward cooling.
The suggestion that the Earth has stopping warming is silly. Also there are other indicators of long term trends such as the disappearing glaciers in my back yard here in Glacier Park and the sea ice of the Arctic.
I believe that Gavin Schmidt also made comments a few years back on RealClimate that 15 years of no warming would be a problem for the climate models (initially he said 10 years but then changed it to 15).
The temperature trend for the lower troposphere is down for the last 16 yerars according to RSS:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2013/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2013/trend
ericgrimsrud:
At October 16, 2012 at 7:54 am you say
No! It is not a “suggestion”: it is reality according to all available data sets. To claim otherwise is silly.
Such a halt in global temperature change cannot continue indefinitely. Of interest is whether warming towards the global temperature of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) will resume, or cooling towards the temperature of the Little Ice Age (LIA) will set in.
One can hope for the resumption of the warming with all its associated benefits, but should be worried at the possibility of the cooling with its associated horrors.
Richard
Check out rss data. It is flat for 16 years.
ericgrimsrud says:
October 16, 2012 at 7:54 am
You have been shown over and over that gistemp has been “adjusted” for specious reasons. You have been shown over and over that LST are compromised at data acquisition by UHI. You seem like a smart fellow. How come you are not absorbing any of this into your perspective?
Just a quick refresher on the damning emails;
http://drtimball.com/2012/classic-groupthink-behavior-apparently-exposed-in-leaked-cru-emails-2/
barry:
Even by your standards, your spin in your post at October 16, 2012 at 7:40 am is silly.
You say
No!
A “total of 15 years” means a total of 15 years, not 22.
Indeed, in his famous written interview with the BBC Jones said 15 years.
Richard
I am not sure why as skeptics we continue to entertain the Santer/Jones/Trenbath line that we need wait for 15 or 17 years to decide on a 95% confidence level to reject a hypothesis. That is sheer nonsense for the postulates of warming are not time related (other than the short time for an effect to show and the need for full year data to make like for like comparisons).
Hence it is not a time series that needs to be correlated but a T versus CO2 ppm level that needs to be satisfied as causally related. This is not a specific time element but comprised of the physics involved viz: does CO2 cause heating and hence T increase according to a Hansen type formula.
It is simply the difference in CO2 levels versus the change in T. Any reasonable CO2 difference is sufficient to dispel the hypothesis if it fails to show the required T increase. This has little to do with probabilities other than extreme defined events which mitigate and are shown to mitigate.
If it happens once we might tread lightly. Twice and it is almost damned. Three times and one can kiss the relationship goodbye. This is the only area in which the probabilities can assume meaning for there either is a physical causal effect or not.
Let me argue another way. If the CO2 hypothesis is reasonably correct then the only way that this hiatus of T increase can occur for any length of time while CO2 increases is if there are some mighty powerful mitigating factors at play which we don’t understand. Alternatively we would have to assume that CO2 behaves erratically and goes to sleep some of the time – and pigs also fly some of the time of their own accord. Either way this is part of the system and refutes the hypothesis.
My own sentiment is to keep hammering the clear violations like measurements (UHI – A. Watts, McIntyre) and the fact that all Hansen/model predictions have failed and thus falsify the hypothesis.
Getting too caught up in what their models say is counterproductive given that they have always failed. State it. Take it from the 1940’s and the alarmist hypothesis fails dismally.
In comments at Realclimate in 2007 where the latest plateau in temperatures was discussed Gavin Schmidt confirmed that he would be “worried about state of understandig” if 1998 was not dethroned as the record holder in _all_ temperature indices within 5 years. 1998 had already been dethroned by 2005 and 2007 in the GISS and NOAA indices at the time but 1998 was still the record holder in the RSS index as it is now. 5 years has gone by since then and no new record has been reached in the RSS index.
In comments Gavin confirmed this statement from a Daniel Klein: “If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding”
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=497#comment-78146x.
The trend has been mildly negative for the last 10 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2002/to:2012/plot/wti/from:2002/to:2012/trend
Only after another 6 years of flat temperatures can we conclusively state that there was a 16 year period of no warming. Indeed, as Steve from Rockwood pointed out, a starting point just before or just after the 1998 El Nino peak would still leave us with a positive trend:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999/to:2012/plot/wti/from:1999/to:2012/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1996/to:2012/plot/wti/from:1996/to:2012/trend
Rod Everson,
All modelers do, and estimated variability has been a component of models since at least the 80s.
Yes, hiatuses and rapid short-term increases are expected within the long-term trends. With a caveat – if another forcing becomes a player, like intense volcanic activity for a lengthy duration, the trend may be influenced while that endures. Over the last decade or so we’ve had a compination of factors producing a lowered trend – ENSO and low solar activity, for example. Aerosol forcing 9cooling) is also discussed, but I don’t think there is a robust understanding of that component at present The strong el nino of 1998 lies well above the median trend, and even pops over the 2-sigma envelope.
Not necessarily 50% – recurring confluences of cooling factors can see a preponderance of dips, while still returning to the long-term projected trend, but there should also be periods where the obs rise above the median projections.
I wouldn’t imagine so. Modelers are consistent in saying that they cannot predict interannual weather fluctuations. the best they can hope for is to model the variability, not the timing.
A gradual return to the projected trend is also a possibilty.
I don’t think we need to see mirrored effects, but for the models to be sound WRT obs, we would need to see a return to the median trend at a minimum. And there is a range, rather than a sinlge rising value.
I thought your questions were fair, too.
Richard,
The BBC quote has nothing to do with the email conversation. Jones was asked a question about whether or not there was a statistically significant trend from 1995 (and the trend estimate was 0.12C, as he said in the interview, but just failed statistical significance). In the email conversation they are discussing how much longer the decline should continue before it made projections dicey. Two different things.
In order to parse it your way, we would have to believe that a 5-year declning trend was a concern to them – but short term declines are common as muck, and no one at the time was arguing that the trend from 2004 to 2009 was an issue. No, this email exchange was at the time (May 2009) when the 1998 – 2008 trend showed a decline and was being talked about widely. I just don’t think it was possible Jones was concerned about such a short period – they were talking about the 1998 to 2009 decline, and estimating a further 10 years from *now* (Mike), or 15 years from 2004/5 (Jones) of “continued” warming would indicate something was wrong with forecasts.
I think it’s pretty clear.
Chris Schoneveld:
At October 16, 2012 at 8:47 am you say
OoooKaaay. So, “no warming” now means “cooling”. I see.
It seems I need to buy new running shoes for me to keep up with the speed at which the goal posts keep moving.
Richard
barry:
In your post addressed to me at October 16, 2012 at 9:48 am you say
Yes, it is. You are trying to ‘move the goal posts’.
Richard
I think we need to be examining the difference between daily/yearly rising temps – falling temps.
And if you do, there’s no measurable loss of nightly/seasonal cooling.
And if the minimum winter temperatures get reset each year isn’t that heat lost to space anyways?
ericgrimsrud says:
October 16, 2012 at 7:54 am
“For a better perspective on T changes over the last 150 years, see”
The problem Eric is the data itself doesn’t show that, it’s only when you try to extrapolate measurements over areas that don’t get sampled, and then average that up that you get such increases. There’s been a huge difference in the number of stations over time, as well as temperature over an area isn’t linear.
barry:
At October 16, 2012 at 9:38 am in reply to Rod Everson you say
That’s a good try but not good enough to win a coconut.
The IPCC AR4 predicted (n.b. predicted and not projected) that global temperature would rise at a rate of 0.2deg.C/decade averaged over the first two decades following year 2000. This model-derived prediction was for “committed warming” which was certain because of GHGs already in the system.
The minimum global temperature rise according to this prediction of “committed warming” is for
0.32deg.C rise in global temperature from 2000 to 2020.
And anthropogenic CO2 emissions have continued since 2000 which the models say should have added an additional and similar amount of warming. So, if the models are right then the rise in global temperature from 2000 to 2020 needs to be at least 0.64 deg.C.
Since 2000 there has been no warming but more than half of the first two decades has elapsed and, therefore, the 0.64deg.C has to be achieved over the next nine years. Of course, hypothetically that could happen but it is extremely improbable: the entire rise in global temperature over the last century was only 0.8 deg.C.
Importantly, if the extremely improbable jump of 0.64 deg.C in global temperature were to occur in the present decade then it would not explain where the “committed warming” has been hiding for the last decade.
The models are bunkum. Live with it.
Richard
Wow. The Hadcrut boys and girls installed one of the biggest mega computers in the world to predict BBQ summers and an era of drought but got record cold and record rain. NCAR was inspired by this performance to install an 8MW powered superC to keep up with Jones’s. One could pick away at predictions and trends as long as the trend was rising or rising as fast as they could decently adjust figures, but turning to a negative trend puts the alchemists of climate science all together out of the game. What a poor time for a new supercomputer, fed with CO2 malarkey to come on stream.
Concerning the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) which are so often brought up in converations like this one:
There are three factors that control the average T of Earth. They are the intensity of solar radiation, the albedo of the Earth and the magnitude of the greehouse effects. These, in turn, can be affected by events on Earth, such as volcanoes, or the lack of, for example. Also, local or regional weather events do not necessarity reflect a global trend.
So how can we know as much about events that occurred centuries ago as we can about events that are occurred in the last decade? The answer of course is we can not. We do not have such information concerning the preindustrial period that we have since then.
Thus the suggest or implication that we can not understand the present without understanding the detailed climates of the past is silly.
warmists. See how they run.
William Holder says:
October 15, 2012 at 8:00 pm
“Could someone please tell me what real world observations have actually agreed with the models or predictions of the last few decades. Have they got anything right?”
Not for surface air temperature (SAT). From the GISS-E2 Model, the downloaded TAS (SAT) monthly global forecast from the KNMI data explorer website, in a CMIP5 RPC4.5 experiment run, shows no 15 year regression trends (rolling month by month, starting year 2000) less than 0.003 C/year (the current HADCRUT4 trend for the last 16 years) until 2067 when emission growth has slowed and equilibrium starts to settle in. Not even close actually, the minimum rolling 15 year trend until 2050 from the model is 0.009C/yr. From this same model run the average rolling 15 year trend is 0.018C/year for the first 25 years of this century. For the record, the RPC4.5 scenario has CO2 peaking at about 540 ppmv in 2100.
The pro-AGW team would object on the basis that our 16 year trend starts with a strong El Nino and the GISS-E2 model doesn’t model ENSO well so the current HADCRUT4 trend “doesn’t count” as a comparison against model runs.
ericgrimsrud:
At October 16, 2012 at 11:33 am you assert
You know you are wrong about that because I have explained it to you before. Those are NOT the only factors affecting the average temperature of the Earth.
For the benefit of others I will state it again.
All recent climate change could be a result of internal climate system variability. Richard Lindzen states the matter more clearly than I could so I quote his words from
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=1450
Other possibilities also exist; e.g. a redistribution of temperate zones.
Please desist from your habit of making statements that you know are wrong.
Richard
ericgrimsrud says:
October 16, 2012 at 11:33 am
“…how can we know as much about events that occurred centuries ago as we can about events that are occurred in the last decade? The answer of course is we can not.”
Eric, welcome to the geological sciences and to history. Do you doubt the long time ago existence of the dinosaurs? Do you doubt that there were volcanoes over 2B years ago? Do you indeed doubt that there have been numerous ice ages? Do you doubt that it snowed in Greenland over thousands of years? Oh, you accept that. Then it should be easier to convince you of the MWP (when Scottish wines were highly regarded in Europe and Vikings colonized a much warmer Greenland [recent warming is still exposing farmsteads that grew crops and raised sheep that have been buried since the end of MWP]) And you should have no trouble seeing contemporary paintings during the LIA of children playing on thick ice in the Thames River and the old posters and newspaper articles on the “Frost Faires” held on the Thames in the early 19th Century and the reports of Swiss villages in the valleys being crushed by advancing glaciers from the mountains in the 18th century. You can also google the freezing over of the Bosphorus and of New York harbour. New Yorkers even walked across the ice to Staten island. Did you know that a third of the Finns died of starvation because crops wouldn’t grow during the depths of LIA. I haven’t supplied links but this is well known, documented history. Have no fear in exploring outside your comfort zone.
ericgrimsrud says: October 16, 2012 at 7:54 am
“For a better perspective on T changes over the last 150 years…”
Well why pick just the last 150 years if you want to question the significance of the more recent trends? Why not look at the entire climate record?
For a better perspective of our complex climate I’d suggest this excelent WUWT post by Dr. Robert Brown from early this year.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/strange-new-attractors-strong-evidence-against-both-positive-feedback-and-catastrophe/
A small excerpt:
There is little in the climate record to suggest the existence of another major stable state, another major attractor, well above the current warm phase attractor. Quite the opposite — the record over the last few tens of millions of years suggest that we are in the middle of a prolonged cooling phase of the planet, of the sort that has happened repeatedly over geological time, such that we are in the warm phase major attractor, and that there is literally nothing out there above it to go to. If there were, we would have gone there, instead, as local variations and oscillation around the many> minor warm phase attractors has repeatedly sampled conditions that would have been likely to cause a transition to occur if one was at all likely. At the very least, there would be a trace of it in the thermal record of the last million years or thereabouts, and there isn’t. We’re in one of the longest, warmest interglacials of the last five, although not at the warmest point of the current interglacial (the Holocene). If there were a still warmer attractor out there, the warmest point of the Holocene would have been likely to find it.
Since it manifestly did not, that suggests that the overall feedbacks are safely negative and all of the “catastrophe” hypotheses but one are relatively unlikely.
The one that should be worrisome? Catastrophic Global Cooling. We know that there is a cold phase major attractor some 5-10C cooler than current temperatures. Human civilization arose in the Holocene, and we have not yet advanced to where it can survive a cold phase transition back to glacial conditions, not without the death of 5 billion people and probable near-collapse of civilization. We know that this transition not only can occur, but will occur. We do not know when, why, or how to estimate its general probability. We do know that the LIA — a mere 400-500 years ago — was the coolest period in the entire Holocene post the Younger Dryas excursion;
ferd berple says: October 16, 2012 at 7:25 am
“DUH! The 21st century is only 12 years.
Hard for normal people to get 15 years of trend out of 12 years of data. It takes a Real Climate Scientists to do that.”
Indeed so. Let me say again – this post tries to say that a statement by NOAA people “puts a kibosh” on something the Met said about Hadcrut 4 over the last fifteen years. The NOAA was referring to model runs in the 21st century, saying that 15 year periods of zero trend were rare (at 95%). And as barry says, they were referring to ENSO-adjusted trends.
So the “kibosh” fails on at least three grounds:
1. As you say, starting 1997 isn’t 21st century. If you wanted to argue that it’s close, I’d be sympathetic. But
2. ENSO adjustment is a big one. The main reason why this period has relatively low trend is that it starts with a big Nino and ends with Ninas. Take that away and, as Foster and Rahmstorf showed, you have a strong uptrend (very much not zero), and
3. most basically, even without 1 and 2, we haven’t observed that zero (or negative) trend.
Nick Stokes:
re your post at October 16, 2012 at 12:02 pm.
Please read my post addressed to barry at October 16, 2012 at 10:52 am. It provides a complete explanation of why your post is irrelevant and misleading twaddle.
It would be appreciated if you were to read the thread instead of picking up talking points from warmist web sites then posting them here without checking that those points have already been rebutted in the thread.
Richard
Richdo says:
“For a better perspective of our complex climate I’d suggest this excelent WUWT post by Dr. Robert Brown from early this year.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/strange-new-attractors-strong-evidence-against-both-positive-feedback-and-catastrophe/”
Excellent! I’ve made a similar argument against catastrophic warming, it’s never happened before.
[My bold]
That’s what they say. Does anyone know where one can find the results of these simulations so people can check how ‘uncommon’ they are.
So when we hit 17, then 18, 19 and 20 years with no significant warming (or cooling) what is the Met Office and the IPCC going to say about the climate models’ skill? Will they re-assess the projections for the rest of this century? No, they will just move the goalposts another 5 or 10 years. This is either a scam or a religion or both.
You can get your own GCM to run here http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
While it’s not free, you can get a demo license.
richardscourtney says: October 16, 2012 at 12:20 pm
“It would be appreciated if you were to read the thread”
No, you should read the lead post. You’re wanting to talk about why the trend is less than something you claim it should be. But the post claims that a specific statement by NOAA people (see headline) puts the kibosh on the Met counter to Rose. And that NOAA statement refers to a zero trend over 15 years (for models after ENSO adjustment).
Your insistent posts just don’t deal with that at all. Can you explain that “kibosh”?
But if you really want to talk about the AR4 SPM, they said, in 2007, an expected rise of “about 0.2°C/Dec” over the next two decades.
The quote is no longer on the page since at least bfefore
“Last Updated: 12 April 2012”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/gareth-s-jones
H/t Barry Woods
http://www.bishop-hill.net/contributor/18692033
Nick Stokes (October 16, 2012 at 2:16 pm), the AR4 expected temperature rise of “about 0.2°C/Dec” over the next two decades is based on models fed with SRES scenarios from the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (2000). You are not suggesting we should ignore that and test the trend prediction starting from 2007 are you?
It’s the funding, loss of status and the fear of being tarred and feathered for the rest of your life.
On the other hand we are dealing with an odd sort of character who greets bad news as being good and good news as being bad.
Over the death of John Daly:
“In an odd way this is cheering news”
Nick Stokes:
I am replying to your excuse for posting irrelevant and previously rebutted nonsense which you address to me at October 16, 2012 at 2:16 pm.
It seems you want me to spell things out, so I will.
The above article which is the subject of this thread concludes saying
My post at October 16, 2012 at 10:52 am presented evidence that comparison of the most recent 11 years of the “16 years” to an IPCC prediction (n.b. prediction and not projection) shows the models aren’t “worth something”. The most recent 11 years are in the 21st century.
Then, at October 16, 2012 at 12:02 pm, you made your ‘copy and paste’ from a warmist website which said
That had already been rebutted by my post which reported the importance of the global temperature ‘flat-line’ after year 2000. So, at October 16, 2012 at 12:20 pm, I wrote my post which said to you
And you responded with your excuse which I am replying. It says to me
As I have here itemised
1.
I did read the “lead post” and I addressed its conclusion which I quote in this post.
2.
You did NOT read – or ignored – the conclusion of the “lead post”.
3.
You posted irrelevant twaddle that I had refuted.
4.
I asked you to not copy such irrelevant twaddle from warmist web sites.
5.
You have made a silly excuse that has no relationship to reality and asks me to “explain” your nonsense.
Please feel free to post an apology for your silly attempt at disrupting the thread.
Richard
Jimbo says:
October 16, 2012 at 2:00 pm
“Does anyone know where one can find the results of these simulations so people can check how ‘uncommon’ they are.”
You can get your own GCM with a demo license here:
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
Nick Stokes says:
October 16, 2012 at 2:16 pm
“But if you really want to talk about the AR4 SPM, they said, in 2007, an expected rise of “about 0.2°C/Dec” over the next two decades.”
That is really funny quoting the one part of AR4 that is essentially the opposite of what the body of the AR4 is saying. Nice try Nick. People resigned over the SPM “conclusions”.
Richdo, Answer: because temperatures over approximately the last 150 years were made with a marvelously accurate and reproducible methods – generally called “thermometers”. Before that we have proxies T methods which are indeed also useful but to not provide the same sensitivity to small T changes.
Jimbo,
Phil Jones expressed joy over the passing of John Daly because Daly thoroughly — and publicly — b!tch-slapped Jones in this series of emails:
http://www.john-daly.com/cru/emails.htm
Gary, Are you suggesting that the sources of information you cite concerning ancient climates compare with the abundance of detailed info we can collect today concerning the present climate of Earth? I hope not.
ericgrimsrud,
Thermometers measuring in tenths of a degree are not nearly as important as thermometers showing the long term trend, which the CET record shows quite accurately. [This site shows that most modern thermometers are not nearly capable of tenth of a degree accuracy.]
The long term rising temperature trend since the LIA has not accelerated. It is the same, whether CO2 was at a low of ≈280 ppmv, or at the current ≈393 ppmv.
Since the naturally rising temperature trend has not accelerated due to the rise of CO2, the only logical conclusion is that CO2 does not have the claimed effect. Thus, CO2=CAGW is falsified.
Science evolves by self-correction.
The perception of GCM usefulness has reached a critically low level. Their multi-decadal divergence from observed temps has been the underlying reason.
It appears the increasing public and scientific community awareness of the failures of the whole set of GCMs, which are a fundamental key to the credibility of the past and upcoming IPCC assessments, creates easily understandable reasonable doubts about the part of climate science that claims alarming warming by AGW. This is the only the very initial stage of normal scientific self-correction of the alarming warming ‘consensus’/ ‘settled’ climate science position . . . . it will take a while yet for the use of GCMs to fall to a more humble position in the range of tools/methods of climate science. I think it may take another 4 years for the GCM tool usage to be relegated to very limited role in advancing climate science.
There is increasing stress on the scientists who are at risk of losing professional prestige when the evidence shows the GCMs are an insufficient benefit in the alarming warming part of the climate science discourse. The stress creates a defensive posture which further reduces confidence in the CGM advocates and the alarming warming advocates.
My confidence in science increases as I see the continued climate science self-correction away from over-utilization and over-valuation of GCMs.
John
Strawman erection; subject matter you’re bringing up does approach the point of my prior post.
Next …
.
I am scared of the effects of global warming
David Ball says: October 16, 2012 at 3:16 pm
“That is really funny quoting the one part of AR4 that is essentially the opposite of what the body of the AR4 is saying.”
Well, unlike so many here, I do quote to back up what I’m saying. RC didn’t, and neither do you. If you think somewhere in the body of the AR4 contradicts that, please quote.
internetbusniessmarketing says:
“I am scared of the effects of global warming”
You are the victim of false propaganda. Warming is beneficial. It is cold that kills.
Read this site for a while and you will understand that there is nothing to be alarmed about. The entire “carbon” scare is a ploy to get you to agree to cough up more tax money. The scare is based on pseudo-science. That is why its promoters refuse to debate the subject. If they truly believed the nonsense they are peddling, don’t you think they would be happy to publicly discuss it with scientific skeptics? Instead, they run and hide from any public debate.
D Böehm asked ”stefanthedenier, What is the temperature on your planet?”
Boehm, I’ve repeated 1000 times; one more time… here we go::: ”nobody knows what’s the global temp, to save his / her life!!!” How many grains of sand are in Sahara…? There are so many variations in the temperature; on every different place and changes every 10-15 minutes. But I can tell you that: overall warmth is always the same – that’s what the laws of physics say – whatever those laws don’t approve = must be WRONG!
There was big / small ice ages = but they were ALL LOCALIZED! Simultaneously, on the opposite hemisphere is completely different. Same as children’s see-saw -> the more one side goes up -> the more the other side goes down. Not even theoretically both sides simultaneously can go up, or down , Therefore: the Warmist don’t have a case. When was an ice age in the N/H, S/H had ”HOTTER” days than normal. Anybody promoting warmer the WHOLE planet for more than 10-15 minutes; is either lying, or is spreading other people’s lies – in the ”Brainwashing Laundromat” You want to learn about the self-adjusting mechanisms… it’s all on my website. In the 10-10 posts I have; everything is proven, beyond any reasonable doubt. Get down from the cloud-land, my planet, the earth has the best self adjusting mechanisms, my formulas are the most reliable. Climatic changes and the phony GLOBAL warmings, are two not related things. Climatic changes big / small, are constant natural phenomena – GLOBAL warming is a phenomenal lie. warmings are NEVER global / coolings are never global, they happen for real reasons, nothing to do with CO2 or sunspots, or galactic dust. H2O is the corporate, on many different ways.
richardscourtney says: October 16, 2012 at 3:08 pm
‘2.You did NOT read – or ignored – the conclusion of the “lead post”.’
Well, if you think there’s a conclusion in those last paras, please say what it is.
The title, on the other hand, is admirably explicit:
“NOAA’s ’15 year statement’ from 2008 puts a kibosh on the current Met Office ‘insignificance’ claims that global warming flatlined for 16 years”
That’s what I was addressing. It’s not irrelevant.
– – – – – – – –
internetbusniessmarketing,
I feel sorry for you in your fear.
I am not concerned about any aspect of climate behavior over the next ~300 hundred years. Also, I am confidence free thinkers in science and industry will continuously and dramatically advance every aspect of knowledge and quality of life . . . . . if those free men/women can continue to block authoritarian activists of all kinds, not just those authoritarians who promote totalitarianism within the community of ideological environmentalism.
John
Nick Stokes says:
October 16, 2012 at 4:14 pm
The fact that you SPECIFICALLY wrote SPM, tells me that you know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You reveal yourself, sir.
David Ball says: October 16, 2012 at 5:22 pm
“The fact that you SPECIFICALLY wrote SPM, tells me that you know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You reveal yourself, sir.”
I specifically wrote it in response to RC, not you. I wrote it because it seemed to match the words he used.
You, on the other hand, won’t reveal anything unless you can quote what you’re talking about.
Nick Stokes says:
October 16, 2012 at 6:06 pm
RC has not referred to the SPM once. NOT ONCE. Your game playing is despicable.
internetbusniessmarketing says: October 16, 2012 at 4:13 pm ”I am scared of the effects of global warming”
Gooood, BOO, BOOO!!!
David Ball says: October 16, 2012 at 7:16 pm
“RC has not referred to the SPM once.”
No, he didn’t. That’s part of my complaint about not quoting. But unlike you, at least he gave some specifics, in the post that he directed me to:
“The IPCC AR4 predicted (n.b. predicted and not projected) that global temperature would rise at a rate of 0.2deg.C/decade averaged over the first two decades following year 2000.”
Well, in fact the SPM said, in the projections section:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”
Sure sounds like what he’s referring to, but I wanted to check, so I asked. My point was that if that was it, he’s got the timeline wrong. They said, in 2007, the “next two decades”, not starting 2000.
If that was it, I see he also got the “(n.b. predicted and not projected)” wrong.
Nick Stokes says:
October 16, 2012 at 8:08 pm
” But unlike you, at least he gave some specifics”
This is what I am talking about Nick. Weak attempt to deflect the disagreement back onto me instead of having the courage to address what I said. You and I both know what is in the AR4 and the differing Summary for Policy Makers.
Tell you what, send me $50,000 in funding and I will research it full time. Wouldn’t that be fun?
Mark says:
October 15, 2012 at 9:20 pm
You chaps just don’t understand, do you?
There is a scientific consensus concerning the length of time you need to wait to see if a non-warming trend is significant.
The formula is L = C + G
where
L is the length of time you need to see a lack of warming
C is the length of time the Current non-warming trend has been occurring
G is the number of years until your next research grant is approved.
———————————————————————————————————-
Hate to point his out Mark but time does not have “length”. Time and length are different physical units. Why not “period of time” or “time duration”.
One of my pet peeves , couldn’t resist. Well it is a scientific blog!
Some specifics for you Nick;
http://drtimball.com/2012/without-internet-democracy-and-transparency-ipcc-climate-deception-succeeds/
Come on Nick, There is supposed to be a radiative imbalance and even more heating in “the pipeline”. More CO2 goes into the atmosphere every day and we’re measuring stuff better than ever and despite all that the earth simply isn’t playing ball. Something’s wrong with AGW and its got to do with personalities and bias, not science.
Nick Stokes:
Your behaviour in this thread is despicable. My post at October 16, 2012 at 3:08 pm detailed that behaviour and requested that you apologise for it. Subsequently you have made a series of posts which continue that behaviour.
For example, my detail of your behaviour quoted the conclusion of the above article verbatim but in your post addressed to me at October 16, 2012 at 4:42 pm you ask me
The conclusion is the final two sentences in the above article which say
Anybody can see that conclusion and nobody needs to ask “what it is”.
And you have repeatedly attempted to imply I made an untrue or unjustified assertion as foundation of my argument in my post at October 16, 2012 at 10:52 am. For example, at October 16, 2012 at 8:08 pm you quote my having said
And you assert to David Ball saying of that
NO! It does NOT “sound like” that at all!
You did not ask me to what I was referring but, instead, asserted what the SPM said and David Ball repeatedly complained out that the SPM differs from what the body of IPCC reports says (indeed, that difference is why I never cite IPCC SPMs). Your post which asserts “sounds like” is part of your attempts to disrupt the thread but purports to be answering David Ball’s complaints.
The IPCC AR4 says in “Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis” Chapter 10 at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es-1-mean-temperature.html
[emphasis added, RSC]
There has been no “large volcanic eruption” and complete negation of the warming is more than a “somewhat” change to “those values” especially when “about half of the early 21st-century warming is committed in the sense that it would occur even if atmospheric concentrations were held fixed at year 2000 values”.
As I said, that “committed warming” has NOT occurred.
Now, Nick Stokes, I can see you pointing out that the paragraph does not specifically mention the period 2000 to 2020. But I can abort that knit-pick. Because a later paragraph in the same link says
The succinct quotation I have provided here is considered so important a prediction that the IPCC bolds the text I have quoted. .
And emissions have fallen “within the range of the SRES marker scenarios”.
Nick Stokes, I still await your apology for your continued attempts to disrupt this thread with childish irrelevancies.
Richard
Nick, you don’t seem to want to place any weight on 15 years of .05 +- ?, but Kevin wants to attribute 24 hour trends (hot days) and 72 hour trends (storms) to CO2. A few years of quickly rising temperatures seemed to be enough to reveal the “smoking gun” and the “human fingerprint” but a few years of FA should be ignored. Really, you guys have to stop playing good cop bad cop and make a prediction. It’s unseemly.
Please, let’s not lose sight of the obvious… that while the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing, global average temperature has followed a completely different trend. No sight of any tipping point. No evidence of a coming climate catastrophe!
So let’s now humour ourselves a little with Al Gore’s ‘school lesson’ from ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ telling us that when carbon dioxide rises, so does the temperature!
Al… where are you buddy? Al… Al… say again, Al?
SPM states about 0.2C per decade over the next two decades. In an attempt to demonstrate that this figure is inconsistent with that in the body of the report, Richard, you quote this:
That’s the same as the SPM, it’s just that the information is further contextualised. There’s no discrepancy, just a rearrangement of phrasing.
barry says:
October 17, 2012 at 5:21 am
“further contextualised (sic). ”
That is hilarious. Made my morning. Thanks barry.
“That’s the same as the SPM, it’s just that the information is further contextualised. There’s no discrepancy, just a rearrangement of phrasing.”
Actually, I take that back. I re-read the argument (Richard, you would ease the process by being more succinct), and the technical summary section nominates 2000 as the start date. With 7 years difference, I don’t think that’s going to make much difference to the expected trend anyway.
So, we’re 12 years into a 20 year projection.
In conversations w/ a buddy who is bright (Cornell grad) and an AGW proponent, he brings up the issue of the world’s oceans serving essentially as a heat sink and thus absorbing some, or all of, the warming that should be showing up in atmospheric temps.
As a doubter of AGW, I can still see how in theory the oceans could serve to absorb some of the warming, but do wonder how they could account for a good 15 year period of no atmospheric warming.
Can anyone here more versed than me in the down n dirty science boil down the pros and cons of the arguments that the oceans are accounting for some/most of this trend (a flatline on atmospheric warming) we are seeing now for 15+ years?
Additionally, I have seen competing claims that the climate models have been shown to be accurate when applied to known records since 1900, etc. Some say they are dang near spot on, others say they are off by a statistically significant amount. Can anyone comment with cited sources please?
Thanks
When we’re at N years, the appropriate testing period will be N+1 years. That’s my model. It always works.
Keith says:
October 17, 2012 at 7:27 am
Don’t take the easy route. Research those very topics on past WUWT? threads. Read the commentary as well. You will find all you need to refute a Cornell grad.
David,
Thx, I’ve seen some pretty good discussion threads. But I’m sure you can relate that trying to find the nuggets of gold amongst the myriad of comments is pretty challenging.
I’ll do some digging.
K
barry:
Thankyou for your correction at October 17, 2012 at 6:43 am where you say
As you say, “it doesn’t make much difference” which emphasises my complaint that Nick Stokes was attempting to distract the thread with irrelevancies.
In fact, in my post addressed to you at October 16, 2012 at 10:52 am (which Nick Rose used to start his distractions) I avoided exaggeration by only using 11 years (not 12 years) into the 20 year projection.
Richard
Ouch!
This would infer, for an energy transfer (in the form of heat) to occur from one to the other (from source to sink), a temperature differential … is this in fact the case?
1/3 of surface area (land) warming 2/3 of the surface (ocean)? There are different coefficients (specific heat, thermal conductivity, etc) for the two types of ‘surfaces’ to, between water and land.
.
Richard,
Nick was consistently asking for a cite or quote, and you and others in the conversation did not provide that til late in the piece. Nick’s ‘behaviour’ is understandable, not despicable. When someone makes a claim, good etiquette is to back it up with references (rather than take shots at the enquirer).
The fracas could have been obviated had you or someone else posted this link at the outset, quoting the relevant para. The SPM quote is much better known for the trend projection and period you were talking about, and it was natural for Nick to guess that was what you were referring to – I certainy thought that was the reference.
If we were more concerned with making points than scoring points, these conversations would be much more productive.
Having established the reference and that the 20-year estimate starts from 2000, I’ve forgotten the point. What difference does it make?
barry says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:49 pm
“Nick was consistently asking for a cite or quote, and you and others in the conversation did not provide that til late in the piece. Nick’s ‘behaviour’ is understandable, not despicable.”
Nick was playing childish games and knew what I was talking about. Now you are playing them too. Your version of events is demonstrably false revealed in the thread.
Funny that your “buddy” ran away and left you all alone to defend his despicable antics.
David,
richard introduced the topic of the IPCC projection of 0.2C over 2 decades here. For his claim he references an IPCC chart of projections to 2100, 2200, and 2300. This is no corroboration for his claim. The cite is useless as it requires eyeballing something pretty indistinct and none of the text is relevant to his claim.
Nick Stokes replied on the matter first here, referencing the SPM, which is the best-known source for the trend/period projection. This is an understandable assumption, as richard’s reference had nothing on that subject.
There was another reply to Nick Stokes from a different poster, but there was no cite within. richard’s next post to Nick again contained no direct reference for what he was saying.
David Ball (you) chips in rebutting Nick, but still no clear reference, quote or link to lay the matter to rest.
Then Nick here directly asks you for a reference for the claim. That’s not game-playing.
Rather than giving him the requested reference, you make accusatory statements. Nick replies immediately below that post that you (again) have not provided a reference.
You and Richard maintained a claim for which you would not provide corroboration when directly asked, and you let this go on for half the thread. I consider this akin to “game-playing,” and certainly contrary to the fostering of respectful conversation.
My description of events is not demonstrably false, it’s demonstrably accurate, and I think the onfollowing conjecture is valid.
“The fracas could have been obviated had you or someone else posted this link at the outset, quoting the relevant para.”
I’ve backed up my comments with references at the outset to assist the reader. I am not a game-player, sir. And anyone can read this thread to see what happenned.
Now, what was the point again?
ThinkProgress offers a rebuttal to the “Global warming stopped 16 years ago” interpretation of the Met Office report.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/?mobile=nc
I’m not equipped to fact-check its charts and interpretations thereof, so I was hoping somebody out there might be able to take up the cause.
Yeah, I know it’s ThinkProgress, but that outfit is quite representative of the CAGW crowd.
barry says:
October 17, 2012 at 6:10 pm
“That’s not game-playin”David Ball (you) chips in rebutting Nick, but still no clear reference, quote or link to lay the matter to rest.”
Right up until here you were doing well barry. Then you miss the crux and the game playing (or did you conveniently not read my post?), where I point out that Nick specifically wrote SPM after AR4 knowing that there is huge difference in conclusions between documents. He then tried to claim it was because Richard Courtney that mentioned it and I then pointed out that Mr. Courtney had never mention the SPM. Bam.
Everyone who has read WUWT? fairly regularly has read of the differences and who the SPM was “adjusted” by. Hilarious that I need to post a reference when Nick himself revealed that he knew the difference. Game playing. You continue in the same manner.
“Then Nick here directly asks you for a reference for the claim. That’s not game-playing.”
I dare you to read my posts someday. We could have a reasonable discussion if you guys would just stop trying to redirect the discussion into pointless avenues instead of the topic at hand.
David,
“AR4” includes the SPM, Technical Summary, Chapters, Glossary, list of references (and WGII and WGIII), etc. AR4 is a massive document. Richard cited “IPCC AR4” as his reference. How could Nick possibly know which part of AR4 was being referred to?
0.2C per decade over two decades is a projection well-known to be in the AR4 SPM. With no more direction than “AR4”, that is the reference most reasonably knowledgable people would think of. I myself assumed that richard was referring to the SPM statement. Unless you have prior knowledge that Nick is fully aware of the issue as discussed in the Technical Summary, ie, you’ve read him posting about it, then your chastisement is presumptuous.
You said that richard had never referred to the SPM, and that this was how you knew Nick was playing games. But richard didn’t mention the Technical Summary either, where the reference is to be found. In fact, the only person in this thread that ever mentioned it was in the Technical Summary was myself (richard finally gave a link). Unless you know for a fact that Nick was aware of the reference in the Technical Summary, you (and richard) have piled on without cause.
I’ve provided links to the conversation to corroborate what I’ve said. Can you show me where, with one link, Nick “revealed that he knew the difference” between the Technical Summary and SPM references? I could find no such admission.
And then could you remind of the point? What difference does it make if the start of the trend projection is in 2000 or 2007?
barry says:
October 18, 2012 at 3:54 am
Tired of your lack of reading comprehension and tap dancing. Buh-Bye
Asw to how I can be playing games when I eventually agreed with richard’s (and your) take after receiving a reference, I leave to any intrepid readers to decide.
barry:
Yes, you did agree the error of Nick Stokes when it became obvious the error would be demonstrated. And I thanked you for doing it.
However, it does seem that David Ball is right when he says that after having agreed the error you ‘picked up the baton’ of thread disruption from Nick Stokes. Please desist.
Richard
Equally tired of your consistent refusal to reference anything you say. Have a nice day/afternoon/evening.
barry says:
October 18, 2012 at 7:43 am
You’re just too lazy to scroll back up thread and read the bloody posts. It’s all there.
One more question barry. You paid to be here?
A bit late to post but here is the Mail on Sunday/Met. Office follow-up.
Score: David Rose 1 – Met Office 0
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html
FrankK says:
October 16, 2012 at 9:40 pm:
“Hate to point his out Mark but time does not have “length”. Time and length are different physical units. Why not “period of time” or “time duration”.
One of my pet peeves , couldn’t resist. Well it is a scientific blog!”
No! There is theory and there is experiment. Your theory might be that you cannot start a sentence with ‘and’ or ‘or’ or ‘but’ or that time does not have a length. The experiment (English as it is actually used) says otherwise, and trumps the theory every time. That’s how us mere physics teachers can bet with English teachers in bars and WIN EVERY TIME! I’ll bet you right now that time does have a length if you want it to: it’s called a “length of time”. There’s even a selection bias called a “length of time bias”.
To use the word “duration” there would need to be something ‘during’. Period and length would be equivalent in this context.
I might ask you how LONG you have held the belief that periods of time cannot be lengthy?
And funnily enough, lengths of time are measured in units of time, just like periods of time or durations.