Real Climate posted a weblog on June 21 2009 titled “A warning from Copenhagen”. They report on a Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress which was handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen in Brussels the previous week.
Real Climate writes
“So what does it say? Our regular readers will hardly be surprised by the key findings from physical climate science, most of which we have already discussed here. Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago – such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice. “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″, says the new report. And it points out that any warming caused will be virtually irreversible for at least a thousand years – because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
First, what is “physical climate science”? How is this different from “climate science”. In the past, this terminology has been used when authors ignore the biological components of the climate system.
More importantly, however, the author of the weblog makes the statement that the following climate metrics “are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” ;
1. “rising sea levels”
NOT TRUE; e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis.
Sea level has actually flattened since 2006.
2. “the increase of heat stored in the ocean”
NOT TRUE; see
Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions.
Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.
3. “shrinking Arctic sea ice”
NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.
These climate metrics might again start following the predictions of the models. However, until and unless they do, the authors of the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report and the author of the Real Climate weblog are erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving.
Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
hareynolds (06:38:51) :
That “all is lost” attitude will get you and more importantly – us – nowhere. You and we all have to fight this. Remind all those young people this guy talks about that their properity and freedom is being ripped from under them in the name of a bogus cause. Tell them to get on facebook and get in a warmists face! Get a million people to call on their representatives to NOT pass this travesty of all that is good – the global warming farce, enslave and suck-the-life-out-of-Amercia bill.
When the truth is sacrificed so easily for wishes, desires, and imaginings (in this case. climate models), you know that as a society something has gone terribly wrong. I find it frightening that we no longer have even the semblance of a rigorous, challenging press (unless it is to undermine someone with an opposing opinion/policy to the left-leaning elitist consensus). When you are already that unhinged from reality (and proud of it) , it’s only a matter of time before greater delusions are accepted as fact. That can only lead to a great deal of human suffering. History is replete with such examples. Unfortunately, we are in for another round unless those in the scientific community who believe otherwise and yet are keeping quiet for the sake of their careers get some guts and perform some serious informational correction.
As long as we are descussing sience fiction, what are the possibilities that enhanced cosmic radiation diminishes the ablity for rational thought in humans? The historical incidence of armed conflict seems to increase during periods of reduced solar activity.
OK… yes I’m having trouble keeping a strait face but, what the heck.
Sam the Skeptic (04:28:42) :
“just scratching each others backs while gazing at our own navels (if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor!)”
Just to point out Sam that you have NOT mixed metaphors. Both same [body parts]
I may be on a ‘sticky wicket’ but errors like this ‘make me boil’! [which IS a mixed metaphor] 🙂
cheers David
“J. D. Lindskog (07:48:38) :
As long as we are discussing science fiction, what are the possibilities that enhanced cosmic radiation diminishes the ability for rational thought in humans? The historical incidence of armed conflict seems to increase during periods of reduced solar activity.”
May also have something to do with crop failure and starvation._But given the current
AGW hysteria-you may be on to something.Put a cloud chamber in say,a congressperson’s office and do a GCN count and the ratio of Irrational decisions…
Linear regressions are about as useful as “bubkes” when they are applied to non-linear functions…
A linear regression of an incomplete SIN wave will have a very steep slope and be totally meaningless…SIN wave
As would a linear regression through any warming or cooling sequence on any of these charts.
If I drew a linear regression from the start of the maximum phase wavelet in Fig. 2-15 to the green arrow just past the second peak, I’d get a very steep and very meaningless upward secular trend for an oscillating function.
The “short trend” from the second peak of the maximum phase wavelet above is far more relevant to understanding the function of the wavelet than the linear regression could ever be.
Jim (07:35:12) :
hareynolds (06:38:51) :
That “all is lost” attitude will get you and more importantly – us – nowhere. You and we all have to fight this. Remind all those young people this guy talks about that their properity and freedom is being ripped from under them in the name of a bogus cause. Tell them to get on facebook and get in a warmists face! Get a million people to call on their representatives to NOT pass this travesty of all that is good – the global warming farce, enslave and suck-the-life-out-of-Amercia bill.
I posted the Cap and trade being passed in the house with all the “highlights” government controls and agencies that will be put in place just to regulate your housing requirements (The what, when, and how to’s they will enforce upon us) all the while making the cost of electricity and the cost of owning/selling a home sky rocket therefore dictating your profits from the sell of a home. I even put a challenge on there “What were you doing while this bill passed in the house?” “What will you do to keep it from passing in the Senate?”. Did any of my over 1 hundred friends and friends of friends reply or post anything in response? No, instead they continued talking about what their plans for the weekend were, complaining about work, Ohh and this is the best one complaining about there bills!!! I could not believe it. Most of all my friends are conservatives, this day in age it seems people are more concerned about not being concerned.??????….
On the one hand we have,
On the other,
While I hope that Wade is right, and the Alarmists are cornered rats desperately fighting to survive, reading the Tom Friedman column that Hareynolds links, with its uncritical assumptions about “the reality and urgency of climate change,” leaves me pessimistic.
“The reality and urgency of climate change” is the operating mantra of almost all the political, governmental, scientific, and media establishments of the Western world. It is an unquestioned truth, on the order of “the sky is blue,” or “pollution is bad.” One has only to look at the conference report that Flanagan linked, “CLIMATE CHANGE: Global Risks, Challenges, and Decisions,” to get an idea of how deeply the ideological belief in “the reality and urgency of climate change” has permeated, and how much money and institutional impetus it has generated.
Glancing over this snazzy, expensive report, nowhere did I see even a hint that any of the assumptions, predictions, conclusions, or speculations of the IPCC about ‘climate change’ might be questioned; nowhere was there any suggestion that the data might be faulty or the analyses off the mark.
The President of the United States, and all of his ‘science’ advisors are ardent adherents of the belief that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the Earth to warm, with catastrophic consequences likely unless we stop producing ‘carbon’. The Congress goes along, for the most part in blithe ignorance.
The media, evidenced by columnists like Friedman and Krugman, simply repeat the party line, and brook no contrary views. While Fox News and publications like the IBD have been spilling a few ‘skeptical’ beans, they are distinctly on the margins.
As long as the financial and institutional impetus for ‘climate change’ goes unchecked, there won’t be much that underfunded and scattered realists can do to stop it. The Alarmists aren’t cornered at all; they are scampering all over the kitchen in broad daylight, raiding the fridge and the pantry, totally ignoring any suggestion that their cause is foolish and ill-founded.
The only way to stop them is to educate the public at large, and those in the Congresses and Parliaments who will listen, to pull the financial plug. Once the public starts to complain about spending billions to combat a mythical ‘climate change’, and once they start to vote the spenders out, we might have a chance. Take away some of that grant money that sends smug academics to conferences in Copenhagen to hobnob with other ‘climate change’ elites, and they’ll change their tunes pretty quickly.
/Mr Lynn
Dave: ever heard of over-determination of time series?
Gavin Schmidt’s approach to comments has been so egregious that he has actually edited my comments in addition to blocking some. He’s manipulated entire discussions in doing so. After team responses posted questions and criticism of my comments Gavin disallowed my replies. Then the team declared that I had lost the points and left in fear of being further “embarrassed”.
I am very experienced in blogging and Gavin is the absolute worst offender of hosts manipulating discussions and content.
Add to this reality that Gavin et al view their approach as justified their integrity is is as lacking as their science.
[snip]
[snip]
How does our government get so distorted that it insulates from consequences a Gavin et al behavior?
REPLY: Save screencaps of these things, before and after. – Anthony
REPLY2:I missed this the first time around. As I’ve said in several recent threads, please don’t use the word “fraud” as it has not been proven. Continued use of that term will get you a time out or a ban. – Anthony
I had a look at last year’s NSIDC chart from this time of year and discovered they have increased the 1979-2000 sea ice average line (it shouldn’t have changed – the 1979 to 2000 data is 8 years old and the 2007 line has not been changed).
They did switch to a new f17 sensor from the f13 sensor but at the time they said it produced data that was very, very close to the previous dataset. The chart they produced shows no visible change between the two satellites for the data from May 2008 to May 2009. So, why would that have visibly increased the 1979 – 2000 average.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/060209.html
Here are the two charts – open them both in a new Tab and click back and forth to see what I mean. There is no change in the X or Y axis scaling. Anyone want to make a blink comparator / animated GIF.
Last year’s chart.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/200807_Figure2.png
This year’s chart.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Flanagan (08:08:56) :
Dave: ever heard of over-determination of time series?
The phrase “over determined” refers to a linear system that has more equations than unknowns. Therefore, the “over-determination of time series” that you mention in reference to Dave’s comment is, well, idiocy. I’m not sure how that applies to what Dave is talking about even if I allow your tortured use of the phrase.
Dave’s point about using linear regressions to model non-linear systems is correct. More importantly, any system that is non-stationary with a true state that has time variable slope cannot be accurately modeled by a linear regression, period. Dave’s sinewave example is a perfect illustration of this.
Mark
hareynolds ,
Did you read the comments following the piece ? They were largely negative – at least the first several . This surprised me , coming from readers of the NYT . I’m beginning to think the tide might actually be turning .
smallz79 (08:02:20) : and Mr. Lynn:
It does not matter that no one seemed to pay attention or that the media are taking sides. The fight is still worth the effort. With an attitude like “why fight it, the battle is over,” you might as well just go over to the warmist side becuase you are helping them win!!
Jim (08:33:05) :
smallz79 (08:02:20) : and Mr. Lynn:
It does not matter that no one seemed to pay attention or that the media are taking sides. The fight is still worth the effort. With an attitude like “why fight it, the battle is over,” you might as well just go over to the warmist side becuase you are helping them win!!
I did not say I was giving up. I just can not believe that no body is saying anything, and I am talking about those people that I grew up with and that raised me. I know they believe and feel the same way I do, but why not let me know they are on board. I would like to share my burden, which happens to be everyones especially if it passes the senate, so that I can get a decent nights sleep. Not to hard of a request I think. However, I am not in any way discouraged. I will keep fighting this Freedom Breaker Tax for as long as it takes.
I don’t see how overdetermined would apply to my example. Are you referring to statistical overfitting? Even then, I don’t see how it applies.
If you have a high frequency signal embedded in a low frequency carrier wave…A linear regression through a segment of the high frequency signal won’t tell you very much about the amplitude and frequency of the carrier wave. If your linear regression captures less than one full cycle of the carrier wave it will give you a very false impression of a secular trend.
jim,
“The fight is still worth the effort.”
I wholeheartedly agree. What better way to spend your time than engaged in discovering and exposing the truth of a matter? I mean, that’s what science is. Anyone scientifically minded knows this. No one ever said or should pretend science is always easy and the day’s work is just too much. A scientist will always continue his pursuit despite the obstacles. Obviously, we have quite a few obstacles in our path. The scientist puts his brain to work, and learns how to get around or over or under them. (or blow them up! 😉 )
Andrew
Jim (06:32:31)
Thanks for that link.
I assure you I am a fully paid-up skeptic and almost always have been. It is becoming increasingly frustrating to see the climate alarmists trotting out ever more spurious statistics while “climate activists” are allowed to pursue their agenda apparently without being held to account.
I know the media have been taken in by all this rubbish (with a few honourable exceptions) but this has to be almost the only major subject in the world where the media do not cast their own skeptical eye over the pronouncements of vested-interest pressure groups. I can understand their taking the science at face value but not the sort of totalitarian tripe that the IPPR is putting out.
Seems to me they just admitted their climate models are worthless.
John H (08:09:56) :
Gavin Schmidt’s approach to comments has been so egregious that he has actually edited my comments in addition to blocking some. He’s manipulated entire discussions in doing so. After team responses posted questions and criticism of my comments Gavin disallowed my replies. Then the team declared that I had lost the points and left in fear of being further “embarrassed”.
I am very experienced in blogging and Gavin is the absolute worst offender of hosts manipulating discussions and content.
Add to this reality that Gavin et al view their approach as justified their integrity is is as lacking as their science.
[ snip ]
This should not be allowed in any government arena. There is something very wrong that Gavin can so easily perpetrate his assault on the truth and use his position to defraud public officials and the taxpaying public at large.
How does our government get so distorted that it insulates from consequences a Gavin et al behavior?
REPLY: Save screencaps of these things, before and after. – Anthony
YEah the same thing happens to me anytime I post on “The Denial crock of the week” on U-tube run by a person named greenman that is a good buddy of gavin scmidt. They hound me and other poster for references I basically cut and past them they never get posted. Then they attack me and others for not posting references. It is pure rubbish and down right un becomming of any mature and supposedly upright “learned” peoples. Unlike this site that allows and in fact welcomes any persons view so long as they keep it clean and do not personally be little people.
While some folks continue to argue about how many angles are dancing on the head of a pin — bees are dying, pollen is sterile and our agriculture system is big-time ailing. Are we not able to move forward and solve real problems instead of finger pointing?
Dr Reese
http://DrReese.wordpress.com
How do create a “fan of” link on Face Book? Better yet how do I creat a Layout on Face Book or default??? something that wil automatically show every time I create a comment or somebody looks at my profile?
REPLY: I don’t know and I don’t care, Facebook isn’t something we discuss here. – Anthony
Take heart in this:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090630_298_0_WASHIN285450
But don’t let Inhofe’s comments stop you from telling everyone you know the truth about “climate change” !!!
This was on the Boston Globe.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/01/no_climate_debate_yes_there_is/