The Guardian Fails Their O-Levels

By Steve Goddard

CRU Temperature Anomalies

Yesterday, the Guardian reported :

Meteorologists have developed remarkably effective techniques for predicting global climate changes caused by greenhouse gases. One paper, by Stott and Myles Allen of Oxford University, predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C from their second world war level. This is precisely what has happened.

Huh?

The temperature rise since WWII reported by CRU is 0.4C (not 0.8C) and it occurred prior to the date of the study. Climate models use thousands of empirically derived back-fit parameters. Given that fact, the only thing remarkable is that their prediction was so far off the mark. Their forecast is the equivalent of me predicting that Chelsea wins 12-0 yesterday. Off by a factor of two, and after the fact.

I recently attended a meeting of weather modelers, who told me that their models are effective for about 72 hours, not 60 years. GCMs use the same underlying models as weather modelers, plus more parameters which may vary over time.

h/t to reader M White

Advertisements

214 thoughts on “The Guardian Fails Their O-Levels

  1. Q: Who guards the guardians (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes)?
    A: Looks like Goddard guards the Guardian (Goddardus custodiet Custodes).

  2. And the CRU dataset is made up. If CRU were in charge of the Premiership, Newcastle United would win this year.

  3. Hmm, Steve, I hate to be a wet blanket, and it does cause more questions than answers, and it doesn’t really change the basis of your statements, go here, http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1945.5/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1945.5/trend . To me, it looks closer to 0.7. I agree, demonstrating predictive prowess is better demonstrated in future events. I predict that yesterday a hockey stick was shattered, once again. Climatologists should hire me! I don’t even have to use a GCM for my predictive prowess to be demonstrated on retroactive future events!

  4. The Guardian wrote an article in the mid-1970s discussing “the first atomic bomb blast in Los Alamos.”
    A woman from Los Alamos wrote in : “I have lived in Los Alamos for a long time, and think I would have noticed had a nuclear explosion occurred.”

  5. Just predict anything warming, and the Guardian will praise your infinite wisdom through all ages. Maybe their job is to look the BBC good in comparison. They do that well.

  6. DirkH says:
    August 15, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    Sorry, that should have read
    “[…]through all ages. Maybe their job is to make the BBC look good in comparison. […]”

  7. Bob,
    I’m actually not English, but I have lived in England on and off for much of my life. I used to watch Oxford United when they were at the bottom of Division 3 and had barbed wire separating the fans.
    That was back in the good old days when England was World Cup champions (based on some dodgy refereeing ;^) and you would see burned out trains on the way to London – the handiwork of football hooligans.
    I do still play footie two or three times a week. Lots of foreigners and talent in the US these days. What did you think of the Liverpool own goal today?

  8. Steve, it’s no longer O-Levels. Nowadays it’s called GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education). You must have been away for quite a while 🙂

  9. James Sexton: August 15, 2010 at 12:18 pm
    Hmm, Steve, I hate to be a wet blanket, and it does cause more questions than answers [cut to hadcrut link] To me, it looks closer to 0.7.
    There’s almost .3ºC difference between the CRU 1945 – 2010 graph and the hadcrut3gl 1945.5 – 2010 graph.
    It’s worse than we thought!

  10. QUOTE: “I recently attended a meeting of weather modelers, who told me that their models are effective for about 72 hours, not 60 years.”
    The warmists are pathetic. Getting more desperate, every single day. Falsifing data by claiming that a weather model is accurate for predicting long term climate. What a shame… 🙁

  11. Something happening in New Zealand you all might want to look at
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4026553/Court-challenge-to-Niwa-climate-records
    While I’m very dubious that the courts are the right place to argue about science, the refusal of NIWA to fully explain how and why it adjusted the New Zealand raw temperature data to produce a temperature rise where previously there was none has been an ongoing annoyance.Yes the raw data is available. Yes the adjusted data is available. What they won’t do is explain the methods used to get from the first to the second. Instead of explaining the science they hired PR consultants to spin the reasons why they refused to talk about it. At least the court case may finally force them to finally come clean on that.
    However the immediate reaction in the MSM has been ugly. The ‘D’ word has been in repeated use on the radio this morning.

  12. stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    And gratuitously
    Bill Tuttle says:
    August 15, 2010 at 12:38 pm
    “James Sexton
    The WFT graph you linked shows 0.4C from WWII to 1996, which was the period of the study.”
    Oops, my bad, you’re right, I didn’t end my graph at 1996 and went to most recent. Never mind.

  13. ‘The Guardian Fails [singular] Their [plural] O levels.’
    You might want to make these match if you’re going to be critical of the Gradniau – unless it’s deliberate, in which case I’ll shut up and go to bed too.

  14. Hey Anthony, bias NOAA shows that it was the warmest July
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=7&submitted=Get+Report
    1.05??? You have to be kidding me. And yet UAH showed it at .49. NOAA adjusted the objective satellite based temperatrues .5 to fit their political agendas.
    http://www.accuweather.com/video/73146202001/1998-still-beating-2010-by-objective-standards.asp?channel=trpexprt
    yet Objective standards show this is not happening. It’s sad how NOAA will lie to get their political cookies and treats.

  15. Ian H says:
    August 15, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    “Something happening in New Zealand you all might want to look at…”
    Yes, it has been known for some time New Zealand’s official temp record is an arbitrary, subjective record of someone’s fanciful whims. You can look at the archives here, just do a search on New Zealand and you should find several references. I hope you guys kick a** in the courts!!!

  16. The courts are a great place to settle this. Because they can force full disclosure of all evidence including data, sources and code

  17. This is what I call the ‘Liberty Valance’ approach to journalism. “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. “

  18. O/T but for those at WUWT interested in national temperature records.
    The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition said it had lodged papers with the High Court asking the court to invalidate the official temperatures record of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).
    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/
    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/niwa-faces-court-challenge-3702290
    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/120800/niwa-faces-court-challenge-over-accuracy-data

  19. If there’s any fudged data left can someone send it over to Tottenham Hotspur. We’re gonna need every spare point.

  20. Leif Svalgaard says:
    ‘world war’ without qualification is World War I …
    And, indeed, temps have risen 0.8 since then 🙂
    Very clever of the Guardian

    The quote says second world war level.

  21. What bugs me most about the warming, that is stressed by the media as alarming, is the tax angle.
    My tax dollars go to research that supports findings targeted at milking more taxes out of me.
    My vote is targeted at cutting off those institutions. Problem solved.

  22. The aim of the Colorado meeting is to develop more precise predictive techniques to help pinpoint the location and severity of droughts, floods, and heatwaves before they happen and so save thousands of lives.

    They will predict floods in areas that are flood prone, droughts in areas that drought prone, heatwaves where….I’m sure you get the picture. The exact timing will be suitably vague so when it happens they can say their models predicted them.

    Certainly, one thing is clear: there is no time to waste. The effects of global warming are already upon us.

  23. Dave F says:
    August 15, 2010 at 1:40 pm
    The quote says second world war level.M
    Missed that word ‘second’. Thank you.
    The study used data from 1946 on. So, let’s see:
    dT for 1946 was -0.204, for 1998, it was +0.548, for an increase of +0.762 [i.e. 0.8 to one decimal place]. Rumor has it that 2010 will be hotter than 1998, so the 0.8 quoted sounds about right.

  24. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm
    I can remember the day when my journalism teacher called implications, like “World War” without explicit reference, as material fit for the editors pen. Tricky by omission, yes, unbiased journalism, no.

  25. rbateman says:
    August 15, 2010 at 1:44 pm
    What bugs me most about the warming, that is stressed by the media as alarming, is the tax angle.
    My tax dollars go to research that supports findings targeted at milking more taxes out of me.
    My vote is targeted at cutting off those institutions. Problem solved.
    I hear yer buddy, couldn’t have said it better myself. Now if only we could reduce shonky research funding to pre 1970 levels.

  26. stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 2:07 pm
    In England, WWI was the “Great War” and WWII was the “World War.”
    Yes, I missed that, my bad. But let’s see:
    The study used data from 1946 on. So, let’s see:
    dT for 1946 was -0.204, for 1998, it was +0.548, for an increase of +0.762 [i.e. 0.8 to one decimal place]. Rumor has it that 2010 will be hotter than 1998, so the 0.8 quoted sounds about right.

  27. “The aim of the Colorado meeting is to” have a taxpayer funded boondoggle in Boulder and eat at some nice restaurants.
    Sounds good. Maybe I will sign up.

  28. The Guardians environment section seems to be firmly lost in the darkness of it’s own backside these days.
    Today we have the rabidly interesting ‘Is it OK to eat fresh tomatoes?’ story – comparing the global warming impact of Spanish tomatoes vs UK equivalents. Last week we had highly stimulating ‘Is it OK to go wild camping’ – I have yet to understand what the difference is between wild camping and using a campsite.
    Next week we might just get ‘Is it OK for old people to flatulate?’ this will look whether it would kinder to the environment if these people just accepted involuntary euthanasia.
    Meanwhile George Monbiot has rescinded his self imposed ban on flying. Apparently he has justified the decision by the fact that he has offset his carbon footprint by planting an extra row of cabbages in his vegetable garden!
    The Guardian: You couldn’t make it up – but they do!

  29. LOOKOUT! Extreme weather like the Pakistan floods my be coming to a city
    near you! The news just gets weirder with each passing day.
    Concerning the Pakistan floods, this article:
    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/08/06/wales-begins-task-of-helping-pakistan-flood-survivors-91466-27007853/
    has this quote from Chairman Naseem Babur who said: “It usually happens every year but not like this. We haven’t seen anything like this since 1972.”
    Yes, Pakistan had a big flood in 1972, and what do you suppose caused that. Well, back then it was global cooling which was apparently the prime suspect.
    For the musically inclined, take a look at the Gwen Stefani music video:
    http://muft.tv/watch/Video,Item,3831791378.html
    about global cooling and stop frame at 1:36 where we see “During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan, and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries”.
    Been there, done that! The more things change the more they stay the same.

  30. Leif, I would venture to say that “depending on the temperature data series used”, 2010 may be hotter than 1998.

  31. 1934 was +0.5°C (or higher, depending on the “adjustment”)
    Another case of careful selection of starting point.

  32. Now the AGWers have the Guardian lying too?
    Snap! Caught in their web.
    Wonder how many subscribers that just cost them.

  33. I’ve been posting comments at the Guardian heavily yesterday and today. Today though some crazed greenie moderator must be in charge. I’ve been deleted wholesale for asking commenters for evidence and offering up contrary evidence particularly with regard to their story about scientists predicting natural disasters.

  34. Steve Goddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 3:05 pm
    The study went through 1996, not 1998
    but the verification of their prediction was for 2010: “predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C, no?

  35. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    Steve Goddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 3:05 pm
    “The study went through 1996, not 1998”
    but the verification of their prediction was for 2010: “predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C, no?

    Which it did precisely, so good prediction. Kudos to them. It is rare that climate predictions come out so well, wouldn’t you agree?

  36. Leif,

    by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C from their second world war level. This is precisely what has happened.

    Do you just like to argue? Second World War was 1939-1945. Average HadCrut anomaly during that period was -0.010125. Last full year anomaly (2009) was 0.438.
    0.438 – -0.010125 = 4.27
    Rounded to 4.0C, just as I said.

  37. Ian H says:
    August 15, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    Something happening in New Zealand you all might want to look at
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    From the article you linked:
    Court action against New Zealand’s state-owned weather and atmospheric research body is “stupid” and just creating confusion, University of Otago pro-vice chancellor of sciences Keith Hunter says.
    Everyone has their opinion. Someone also has said Arctic Ice isn’t worth blogging about. But not everyone thinks lawsuits over a temperature set are stupid and that Arctic Ice is not worth blogging about. 🙂

  38. stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 4:30 pm
    Do you just like to argue? Second World War was 1939-1945. Average HadCrut anomaly during that period was -0.010125. Last full year anomaly (2009) was 0.438.
    I just comment on what they correctly predicted. They clear started with 1946 for which the anomaly was -0.204, 2010 will be the hottest since back then for estimated +0.6, so increase of 0.8 as they said. If you have a quibble with them, they should probably not have used the phrase ‘second world war level’ when they meant 1946.
    Rounded to 4.0C, just as I said.
    I have a strong suspicion you meant 0.4C, but let that slide for now.

  39. So when we say the temperature of 1946, do you mean the average temperature of 365.25 24 hour days from stations around the world, land and sea, or noon temperatures over Winnemuca, Nevada, or midnight temperatures over Fargo? What?
    Is there a basis to believe the methods of establishing that average temperature are both accurate and similar to how it was done in 1996?

  40. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 1:53 pm
    Rumor has it that 2010 will be hotter than 1998,
    Their magic wand for changing temperature has turned into a bludgeoned. It looks to be the coldest summer on record north of 80N but GISS has it above normal. On the one hand we have DMi that does everything they can to collect data to use for determining temperature and on the other hand we have GISS that does everything it can to use as little data as it can—and is run by a man who has a reputation for radical environmentalism. Who to believe, who to believe…..

  41. soccer, soccer, soccer,…….come one, real football starts on September 9. Are you ready for some football? 😉

  42. I had originally typed this up, but deleted it because I thought it was too pedantic. Guess I was mistaken.
    Temperature Anomaly during WWII: Approx +0.02 deg C
    Temperature anomaly for last 12 available months of HADCRUT3: Approx +0.51 deg C
    So, it looks to be about 0.5 deg C … still a lot closer to 0.4 than 0.8.

  43. Leif Svalgaard, we all know now that this global temperature is boggus. So this is truly a discussion about nothing.

  44. “I recently attended a meeting of weather modelers, who told me that their models are effective for about 72 hours, not 60 years. GCMs use the same underlying models as weather modelers, plus more parameters which may vary over time.”
    Interesting, very interesting.
    Steve, an in depth article looking at all the various GSMs and their models and how they compare with and differ from weather models would be of great interest.

  45. These silly arguments related to increasing temps, decreasing temps, and since this year or that year is irrelevant in such a complicated system as Earth’s climate. Even IPCC understands that there will be short term trends. There are better ways to talk about this issue than with a linear statistic, and Leif, you know this better than anyone given that you prefer to talk about solar metrics with non-linear statistics.

  46. Physics is mathematical, but mathematics is not physics. Practitioners of these two disciplines chide each other in appropriately abstruse terms; for example, mathematicians cite “The Physicist’s Proof That All Odd Numbers are Prime”:
    Three (3) is prime, five (5) is prime, seven (7) is prime. Nine?– well, that’s just an exception– eleven (11), thirteen (13) … AGW Catastrophists, unite– you have nothing to lose but your brains.

  47. If I have a weather model that can tell you with in 1F what temperature it is going to be today, haven’t I explained the reasons the temperature was 90F? Why do climate modelers need the additional factors? Is it because their methodology removes information from the dataset?

  48. stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 4:40 pm
    Sorry, cut and paste problem in the calculator – should read
    0.438 – -0.010125 = 0.448125
    Steven-
    I presume that you were exaggerating for an illustrative purpose, but you know that that many digits after the decimal point can’t be justified.
    Aren’t temperature data only to the nearest whole number? My limited knowledge of math and stats says that it’s impossible to have greater precision than the least precise number in the data set.
    IanM

  49. The Guardian article refers to “Stott and Myles Allen of Oxford University, predicted in 1999”
    Anyone located the source?
    Here’s Allen’s site
    http://climateprediction.net/content/scientific-papers
    neither of the first two references, which are Letters to Nature, seem to reference a prediction for 2010. The second was received in 1999 and published in 2000.
    It is interesting though, with reference to 1946 -1996 stats. Look at figure 3.
    http://climateprediction.net/science/pubs/nature_allen_051000.pdf

  50. TomRude says:
    August 15, 2010 at 5:18 pm
    Leif Svalgaard, we all know now that this global temperature is boggus. So this is truly a discussion about nothing.
    I didn’t start it.
    Pamela Gray says:
    August 15, 2010 at 5:50 pm
    These silly arguments
    somebody made a big deal out of that and occasioned an article on WUWT.

  51. O/T – meanwhile from the same organ … Sunday 15 August 2010 20.59 UTC
    Coal-fired power stations win reprieve

    Exclusive: Government’s decision to put pollution standards ‘on hold’ raises possibility of dirtiest coal plants going ahead

    There’ll be a lot of new climbing rope sold this week.

  52. stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 8:15 pm
    How do these useless discussions get started?
    A Steven Goddard posts an article…
    stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 8:16 pm
    Why are you wasting my time?
    You don’t need to respond to every correction…

  53. You don’t need to respond to every correction…
    Yes but in the absence of substantive comments as one’s “corrections” approach minutia, then one has likely lost the argument.

  54. Meteorologists have developed remarkably effective techniques for predicting global climate changes caused by greenhouse gases.
    Let me guess: some of the techniques involve shutting down rural stations, splicing non-calibrated data sets together, a campaign of airport stations, and interpolating selected stations over vast distances (like 1200 km).
    Overwhelming odds favor the prescribed outcome.
    Cost: loss of credibility and growing skepticism.

  55. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 2:13 pm
    “The study used data from 1946 on. So, let’s see:
    dT for 1946 was -0.204, for 1998, it was +0.548, for an increase of +0.762 [i.e. 0.8 to one decimal place].”
    So it had already happened before the prediction. Excellent find, Leif.
    Now explain how they used data from 1946 -1996 to make that specific prediction for “by 2010”.

  56. Jaye says:
    August 15, 2010 at 9:05 pm
    Yes but in the absence of substantive comments as one’s “corrections” approach minutia, then one has likely lost the argument.
    There really is no argument:
    1) The starting year for the analysis is 1946.
    2) There are strong indications that 2010 will be the hottest year ‘ever’ [ http://www.physorg.com/news200991063.html ],
    3) From 1) and 2) it follows that the increase is 0.8C as the Article referenced in the Guardian states is correct [to the extent that our data is correct – but Goddard assumes that too, so no argument there either].

  57. Glenn says:
    August 15, 2010 at 9:34 pm
    So it had already happened before the prediction. Excellent find, Leif.
    Indeed. The prediction was made in 1999, if one can trust Goddard quoting correctly.
    Now explain how they used data from 1946 -1996 to make that specific prediction for “by 2010″.
    Not my prediction. Read their article to find out.

  58. Dunno, doc; looks closer to +0.6C to me.
    And with El Nino in swing (and the Monarch butterflies migrating south early again), I wouldn’t bet on 2010 breaking any records.

  59. Glenn says:
    August 15, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    “The study used data from 1946 on.”
    On to when? The present?

    Read what Goddard wrote: “By Steve Goddard CRU Temperature Anomalies Yesterday, the Guardian reported : Meteorologists have developed remarkably effective techniques for predicting global climate changes caused by greenhouse gases. One paper, by Stott and Myles Allen of Oxford University, predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C”

  60. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 9:56 pm
    You said (and snipped here):
    “The study used data from 1946 on. So, let’s see:
    dT for 1946 was -0.204, for 1998, it was +0.548, for an increase of +0.762 [i.e. 0.8 to one decimal place].”
    So it had already happened before the prediction. Excellent find, Leif.
    Indeed. The prediction was made in 1999, if one can trust Goddard quoting correctly.
    Now explain how they used data from 1946 -1996 to make that specific prediction for “by 2010″.
    “Not my prediction. Read their article to find out.”
    You’ve made claims about it, you read it. If you like I will refresh your memory in that regard. In the meantime, unless you have more data to go on than is in the thread, explain how a prediction made in 1999 that came true in 1998 is a prediction, Leif. Apparently you like to play with people while you are insulting them. Take some of your own medicine.
    You might also want to support your contention that 2010 will be higher than any other, before 2010 is over.

  61. Glenn says:
    August 15, 2010 at 10:06 pm
    explain how a prediction made in 1999 that came true in 1998 is a prediction
    Their prediction was not for 1998, but for 2010.
    You might also want to support your contention that 2010 will be higher than any other, before 2010 is over.
    http://www.physorg.com/news200991063.html
    stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 10:09 pm
    Why are we having this discussion?
    Because the starting year was 1946, and the ending year 2010, not 1939 and 2009.

  62. Glenn says:
    August 15, 2010 at 10:06 pm
    You might also want to support your contention that 2010 will be higher than any other, before 2010 is over.
    Every month of 2010 has been warmer than the same month in 2009:
    2009 0.377 0.374 0.370 0.410 0.402 0.500
    2010 0.490 0.474 0.571 0.559 0.508 0.522
    Unless you can show otherwise, I’ll take that as a good indication that the rest of the year will not be much different.

  63. “Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm”
    And many people forget that more people died after “The Great War” (The war to end all wars) from an influenza epideminc than those who died in actual combat.
    “MartinGAtkins says:
    August 15, 2010 at 1:53 pm”
    Fortunatly, a court rulled those TV ads were misleading and inaccurate and were pulled off air some months back.

  64. stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 10:09 pm
    Why are we having this discussion?
    “Because the starting year was 1946…”

    Their 1999 Nature paper [ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Natur.399..569T ], explicitly states in the abstract, even:
    “For the warming from 1946 to 1996 regardless of any possible amplification of solar or volcanic influence, we exclude purely natural forcing, and attribute it largely to the anthropogenic components”
    You can disagree with their conclusion, but not with their starting year, 1946.

  65. Leif,
    This article is a critique of the misinformation in the Guardian piece. The title of the article is “The Guardian Fails Their O-Levels”
    The Guardian article which I am critiquing states :

    “that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C from their second world war level. This is precisely what has happened.”

    Nothing in that sentence was correct.
    If you want to write up a critique of a paper published in Nature, please feel free. This article does not discuss that.

  66. “Ian H says:
    August 15, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    Something happening in New Zealand you all might want to look at
    From the article you linked:
    Court action against New Zealand’s state-owned weather and atmospheric research body is “stupid” and just creating confusion, University of Otago pro-vice chancellor of sciences Keith Hunter says.”
    Well, Mr. Hunter of UoO and all at NIWA have a vested interest in keeping their taxpayer funded employment and perks. Now that the NZ National Govn’t has implemented it’s ETS, everything in NZ is just that mcu more expensive. I know may NZ’ers who are considering leaving NZ permanently. I recall a weatherman posting an article on the same website sometime back in 2001/2002 I think it was where he stated that temperatures had not shown any significant change since 1941. The article was quickly removed (Wished I’d kept a cached copy).
    Unfortunately, the federal election is this w/e in Australia. Sadly, with a strongly pro-AGW MSM many first-time and, in particular, younger (Gen-Y, Gen-Now and Gen-Next types) people appear to have fallen for the misinformation and hype. An additional ~1.3 million new voters registered this year. Australian Labor and The Greens will form a coalition and follow NZ with an ETS. What is funny is that Mr. Brown, leader of The Green party, states that his policy is to tax the big polluters (That’s the carbon polluters of course, must mean concrete industry I suppose) which won’t cost us (Voters? Consumers?) a thing. Yeah right Mr. Brown. We will then follow closely behind, in economic destruction, the likes of Spain, Greece and Italy etc etc.

  67. stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 11:01 pm
    This article is a critique of the misinformation in the Guardian piece.
    So you are criticizing their use of the term ‘second world war’ [should have been 1946], not the [very likely correct] predicted 0.8C increase. Thanks for the clarification.

  68. Leif,
    You quoted ““For the warming from 1946 to 1996.” Then you said “You can disagree with their conclusion, but not with their starting year, 1946.”
    How about their ending year, 1996 from the same sentence? Temperatures rose 0.4C from 1946 to 1996.
    Sorry, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    ” For the warming from 1946 to 1996 regardless of any possible amplification of solar or volcanic influence, we exclude purely natural forcing, and attribute it largely to the anthropogenic components.”

  69. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 10:00 pm
    Glenn says:
    August 15, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    “The study used data from 1946 on.”
    On to when? The present?
    “Read what Goddard wrote: “By Steve Goddard CRU Temperature Anomalies Yesterday, the Guardian reported : Meteorologists have developed remarkably effective techniques for predicting global climate changes caused by greenhouse gases. One paper, by Stott and Myles Allen of Oxford University, predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C””
    I did read the article,what Steven wrote and what you wrote. You’re comparing individual year data. Global temperature has already risen by .8C, in 1998, the year before the prediction, and 1998 is “by 2010”.
    You claimed “Which it did precisely, so good prediction”. It seems the onus is on you to support how they arrived at that “good prediction” with 1946 – 1996 data.

  70. stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 11:14 pm
    Clearly not headed for a record.
    “the January-July period [of 2010] was the warmest first seven months of any year on record, averaging 58.1 F (14.5 C). In second place was January-July of 1998.” [National Climatic Data Center reported Friday].

  71. stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 11:21 pm
    How about their ending year, 1996 from the same sentence? Temperatures rose 0.4C from 1946 to 1996.
    and they predicted another 0.4 for the following 14 years [which has indeed come to pass]. Clear enough?

  72. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 10:29 pm
    Glenn says:
    August 15, 2010 at 10:06 pm
    explain how a prediction made in 1999 that came true in 1998 is a prediction
    “Their prediction was not for 1998, but for 2010.”
    No, it was stated in the article “BY 2010”. But it amazes me that you can claim with a straight face, especially when you are holding on to the prediction being for 2010, already done, and a good prediction: “Which it did precisely, so good prediction”.

  73. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 10:38 pm
    Glenn says:
    August 15, 2010 at 10:06 pm
    You might also want to support your contention that 2010 will be higher than any other, before 2010 is over.
    “Every month of 2010 has been warmer than the same month in 2009:
    2009 0.377 0.374 0.370 0.410 0.402 0.500
    2010 0.490 0.474 0.571 0.559 0.508 0.522
    Unless you can show otherwise, I’ll take that as a good indication that the rest of the year will not be much different.”
    You call that support? 1996 was 0.137C. There are years that are cooler, and years that are hotter than others. 1998 for instance, the year before the article. Unless the Guardian article (which is the one showcased in this thread) has misrepresented the article itself, predicting one year will be hotter than another is silly, and is silly since 1998 also fit the bill. But 2008 was 0.327C. I’ll ask you again, how did they arrive at the prediction with 1946-1996 data, and what is the prediction exactly?

  74. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 11:36 pm
    stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 11:21 pm
    How about their ending year, 1996 from the same sentence? Temperatures rose 0.4C from 1946 to 1996.
    “and they predicted another 0.4 for the following 14 years [which has indeed come to pass]. Clear enough?”
    You saying that each year of the following 14 years (1996 -2010) has been 0.8C higher than 1946?

  75. Glenn says:
    August 15, 2010 at 11:47 pm
    You might also want to support your contention that 2010 will be higher than any other, before 2010 is over.
    “the January-July period [of 2010] was the warmest first seven months of any year on record, averaging 58.1 F (14.5 C). In second place was January-July of 1998.” [National Climatic Data Center reported Friday].
    You saying that each year of the following 14 years (1996 -2010) has been 0.8C higher than 1946?
    They predicted that 2010 would be 0.8C higher than 1946, and it looks that it will be [or close].

  76. Glenn says:
    August 15, 2010 at 11:47 pm
    I’ll ask you again, how did they arrive at the prediction with 1946-1996 data
    I have no idea, but I assume that Goddard reported that correctly [I could be wrong], and predicting future climate is what climate scientists do, no?

  77. No, no, no.
    ‘Fails’ and ‘their’ both relate to the subject of the sentence, not the object. So they should agree – either ‘fails its’ or ‘fail their’. The o-levels, or the number of them, are irrelevant.
    I must go and grease up my combine harvester.

  78. WOW! Ms Gillard has just stated on Ten News there won’t be a carbon tax! I wonder if her advisers are watching what is going on in places like Spain, Greece, The US and, in particular, the obvious global cooling happening.
    Mind you, she is a politician, so won’t hold my breath.

  79. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 11:45 pm
    “Glenn says:
    August 15, 2010 at 11:33 pm
    and 1998 is “by 2010″.
    Looks like fuzzy math to me, but perhaps my standards are higher than yours…”
    An example of your standards: ““Which it did precisely, so good prediction”.”
    Your turn.

  80. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 11:59 pm
    Glenn says:
    August 15, 2010 at 11:47 pm
    I’ll ask you again, how did they arrive at the prediction with 1946-1996 data
    “I have no idea, but I assume that Goddard reported that correctly [I could be wrong], and predicting future climate is what climate scientists do, no?”
    So you don’t have any idea, but you know “precisely”, quote: “Which it did precisely, so good prediction”. Is that based on what Steven reported?

  81. Ms Gillard has promised the greens something for their preferences,I suspect it is an ETS. Ms Gillard will promise anything,she knows she doesn’t have to keep any promises.She has 3 years to rule(presuming somebody doesn’t do to her what was done to Rudd.

  82. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 11:57 pm
    “the January-July period [of 2010] was the warmest first seven months of any year on record, averaging 58.1 F (14.5 C). In second place was January-July of 1998.” [National Climatic Data Center reported Friday].
    Not if you use those new fangled things called satellites. The NOAA chaps don’t like them ‘cos they can’t fabricate the data.
    http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/Jan-Jul-UAH.jpg
    July is the second warmest for the UAH data set.
    http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/UAH-Jul.jpg

  83. “I do still play footie two or three times a week. Lots of foreigners and talent in the US these days. What did you think of the Liverpool own goal today?”
    As Liverpool fan, very painful to watch.

  84. Noelene says:
    August 16, 2010 at 1:48 am
    Ms Gillard has promised the greens something for their preferences,I suspect it is an ETS.

    When it was originally announced, taxpayers were only going to stump up with $4.7 billion of the total price tag. Following a study by McKinsey and KPMG that number skyrocketed to $26 billion because they found that during the early years private investors would not accept the NBN’s risk profile.

    Where’s the money coming from?

    If one works on the basis that the NBN will end up being wholly funded by taxpayers, which is likely given that its expected returns are (a) so low and (b) uncertain (read risky), it will increase Australia’s national debt by roughly 30 per cent (assuming it stays on budget, which commentators believe is unlikely), and will cost every household in the country more than $5,000 before they even start paying for the NBN service.

    The greens and Gillard will do more damage than Rudd. A hefty energy tax is a certainty and more ad-hoc taxes will be the order of the day. It will all of course be in the name of building a better more caring community. There is no free lunch. If the government have control over the network it will censored for your own good. The service will be pathetic and subscription costs will be out of reach for all but the ever expanding and well paid bureaucracy.
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2983739.htm
    Their already setting up CSIRO to be a propaganda machine for any lunatic scheme they can conjure up in the name of saving the planet.

  85. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm
    ” ‘world war’ without qualification is World War I …”
    It’s already been pointed out that the quote actually said second world war, but I’d like to add the remark that, in England, if you say either “the World War” (without qualification) or “the War”, it means WWII. The First World War (as it is most commonly referred to) is “the Great War” (its pre-WWII name).

  86. @Leif Svalgaard
    ‘and they predicted another 0.4 for the following 14 years [which has indeed come to pass]. Clear enough?’
    ROFL, If you went to as great a length to explain your whole reasoning, in as a simple and clear way, in the first place as you do argue moot points maybe people actually would understand the point you make, in the first place. :p

  87. This really has to be absolute Carbon Really Aint Pollution! The very fact that they have predicted “exactly” what occurred is the dead give away here. Can’t they be more convincing by saying “almost” or “very nearly”, I’d be more inclined to pay attention to a 0.75°C or 0.85°C approach than an exact one! I’m from the “that’s near enough” school of engineering!

  88. > MartinGAtkins says:
    August 16, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Not if you use those new fangled things called satellites. The NOAA chaps don’t like them ‘cos they can’t fabricate the data.
    July is the second warmest for the UAH data set.
    http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/UAH-Jul.jpg

    I don’t think NOAA or UAH deliberately fabricate data, but I still haven’t seen an explanation for why the July 2010 UAH anomaly is only ~0.05 deg higher than the July 2009 anomaly while the raw AQUA Ch5 temperatures are ~0.2 deg higher.

  89. Glen asked “How does one get the 2010 mean temp before at least the end of 2010?”.
    You must be new around here Glen.
    Computer models can already tell us the mean temperature for 2050 and beyond.

  90. Steve Goddard fails O-level reading!
    It is a good idea when attacking others for being inaccurate to get one’s own facts right.
    The comment on the graph shows temperature anomaly 0.44C.

    that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C from their second world war level. This is precisely what has happened.

    Wrong. More like 0.7 even if you believe CRU undocumented unreproducible (I’ve lost my data ) adjustments.
    So what Stott (and the Guardian in citing him) got wrong was that the 0.7C rise that had already happened would continue and hit 0.8C by 2010.

    The temperature rise since WWII reported by CRU is 0.4C

    So 0.44 gets rounded down to suit the argument but was the wrong figure anyway since it is the “anomaly” w.r.t the 1960-91 average NOT since WWII.
    Steve totally missed what Stott and the Guardian could have been critised for and shot himself and thus WUWT in the foot.
    Anthony, if Steve cannot make more effort to be objective and accurate maybe he should be given less column space on WUWT. He is damaging the credibility of the site.
    best regards.

  91. sorry the cite=”” tag does not seem to work. First quote was from guardian , second from Goddard.
    [Reply: use the simple ‘blockquote’ command in HTML (not BBCode). ~dbs, mod.]

  92. In 2008 in the first month the anomaly was -0.2 and now it is about +0.5. So it has risen 0.7 in just two years, which just goes to show how unimportant the rise of 0.8 was from the second world war.
    The rise in 60 years is no more than the short fluctuations, and depending on which 50 year period you take you can get a positive or even a negative anomaly.

  93. “I recently attended a meeting of weather modelers, who told me that their models are effective for about 72 hours, not 60 years. GCMs use the same underlying models as weather modelers, plus more parameters which may vary over time.”
    ____________________
    Is there a lawyer in the house? IS THERE A LAWYER IN THE HOUSE?

  94. Hopefully this video will make it clear to everybody. There is no date prior to 1915 which has seen a 0.8 rise.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaOeHKARSxY]

  95. John Finn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 4:06 am
    I don’t think NOAA or UAH deliberately fabricate data, but I still haven’t seen an explanation for why the July 2010 UAH anomaly is only ~0.05 deg higher than the July 2009 anomaly while the raw AQUA Ch5 temperatures are ~0.2 deg higher.
    I wish I could help you. Better brains than I have been looking the issues with AQUA Ch5.
    http://magicjava.blogspot.com/search/label/Aqua%20Satellite
    You could try Dr Roy Spencer.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/july-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-49-deg-c/
    I don’t have the raw AQUA CH5 data. As I understand things it needs processing and as I graph lots of data I can’t really spend much time looking at the intricacies of each data set.

  96. stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 8:15 pm
    Ian L. McQueen
    What is obvious is that WWII (1939 – 1945) was about zero anomaly and current is about 0.4.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
    How do these useless discussions get started?

    Usually Goddard jumps the gun and makes a mistake in a post and rather than admit he’s wrong desperately tries to defend his mistake against all comers. Notable previous examples include ‘CO2 snow in the Antarctic’ and his numerous Barrow posts this summer.
    stevengoddard says:
    August 16, 2010 at 6:02 am
    More clearly :
    “moving backwards from the present, there is no date prior to 1915 which saw a 0.8C rise.”

    Apart from ~1904-14, ~1890-5, and 1855-65 judging by your graphic.

  97. More stupid reporting:
    http://ht.ly/18AmDV

    “I never thought I was in a sand trap,” Johnson told CBS after his bogey at the 72nd hole was turned into a triple bogey. “I looked at it a lot, and it never once crossed my mind that I was in a bunker.”
    But why didn’t Johnson ask for a ruling?

    If it never crossed his mind that there was a problem, why would he ask for a ruling?

  98. Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 1:15 am
    Is that based on what Steven reported?
    Of course, he is usually quite trustworthy.
    Alan the Brit says:
    August 16, 2010 at 4:05 am
    I’d be more inclined to pay attention to a 0.75°C or 0.85°C approach than an exact one! I’m from the “that’s near enough” school of engineering!
    It is standard practice in most science that if you state a number like 0.8, it could mean anything between 0.750000… and 0.849999… If one really had it down to a hundredth of a degree, it would be stated 0.80.

  99. OMGZ world is ending quickly convert to communislam to save yourselves from…from…

  100. The 0.8 figure is correct. Look, CRU data shows 0.44, and when you round it off 4+4 =8. There… Simple! [I got my math degree from U of Phoenix–cost me $30 by mail]

  101. “I recently attended a meeting of weather modelers, who told me that their models are effective for about 72 hours, not 60 years. GCMs use the same underlying models as weather modelers, plus more parameters which may vary over time.”
    There is a difference between weather and climate. Being unable to predict the weather 72 hours in advance doesn’t mean you can’t predict the climate 60 years in advance, becuase GCMs do not attempt to predict the weather, instead they perform multiple simulations of the weather and take averages to cancel out the stochastic variability (“weather noise”) and leave the response to changes in forcing (the “forced climate change”).
    For an example of a chaotic system, whos exact path is unpredictable, but for which its long term statistical behaviour is predictable, see here
    Comments such as the above from the OP merely indicate a lack of understanding of the basics of climate modelling.

  102. Dikran Marsupial
    You are missing the point. It is the same models, and errors compound.
    Do you think that two week forecasts are more accurate than four day forecasts?
    Are five year forecasts more accurate than four day forecasts?
    There is a huge gap in logic which climate modelers choose to ignore.

  103. Dikran Marsupial says:
    August 16, 2010 at 9:59 am
    “[…] instead they perform multiple simulations of the weather and take averages […]”
    Oh shove it. Simulating a chaotic system over a century and pretending that a little averaging buys you, what, precision? There’s not even an estimate about the distribution of results, do you assume they’re distributed equally? How will you then estimate the increase in precision your primitive averaging buys you? How many runs do you do? Say, 1000? Simulating a system with billions of degrees of freedom for the initial state?
    That’s like buying 10 tickets for the lottery and saying, now we got it covered; we’ll win the jackpot now for sure.

  104. Steve>
    You wrote ‘prior to 1915’ when you meant ‘after 1915’, I think. Must have been all those oil dollars making your keyboard slippery 🙂
    On the subject of the Liverpool own-goal, I think there’s an interesting parallel between the Arsenal fans convinced Almunia had a worse game than Reina – because they’ve been screaming for Almunia’s head – and the climate faithful. You can see what you want to see, and then you don’t have to admit you were wrong.

  105. Richard Lawson says:
    August 15, 2010 at 2:26 pm
    “………. Last week we had highly stimulating ‘Is it OK to go wild camping’ – I have yet to understand what the difference is between wild camping and using a campsite.

    Richard isn’t that the one where you fail to ask permission and end up being chased by a ‘wild’ landowner/farmer/gamekeeper or other such aggrieved party.

  106. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2010 at 8:19 am
    Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 1:15 am
    I’ll ask you again, how did they arrive at the prediction with 1946-1996 data
    “I have no idea, but I assume that Goddard reported that correctly [I could be wrong], and predicting future climate is what climate scientists do, no?”
    So you don’t have any idea, but you know “precisely”, quote: “Which it did precisely, so good prediction”. Is that based on what Steven reported?
    Is that based on what Steven reported?
    “Of course, he is usually quite trustworthy.”
    Say Leif, if 2010 turns out to be say +0.762C or +0.786 over the 1946 anomaly, will you claim the prediction of 0.8C came true for 2010?

  107. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2010 at 8:19 am
    “It is standard practice in most science that if you state a number like 0.8, it could mean anything between 0.750000… and 0.849999… If one really had it down to a hundredth of a degree, it would be stated 0.80.”
    “Most”? What science does not follow this “standard practice”?

  108. I think Leif is playing with Steve. But, he is correct as far as it goes. All it demonstrates is one can cherry pick and get whatever result you want. Steve did basically the same thing when he chose his WWII values. Someone else might choose the mid-point. It’s all a game.
    Now, let’s say this La Niña is a strong one and next year the anomaly drops to .2. Does that now make the prediction wrong? How could it be if it is already right? Specific choices of beginning and ending dates can lead to strikingly different results.
    In this case the prediction was nothing more than lucky to have picked a El Niño year as the end date. What if they had picked 2008?

  109. “I recently attended a meeting of weather modelers, who told me that their models are effective for about 72 hours, not 60 years. GCMs use the same underlying models as weather modelers, plus more parameters which may vary over time.”
    I am sure you know perfectly well that climate and weather are different phenomena. So, what’s the value in this statement? Who exactly were these modellers, and did you ask them at any point about climate models, or only about weather models?
    The fact that climate and weather models often share code is entirely irrelevant. They are tools to investigate different phenomena.
    [actually…. as an anonymous commenter, your irrelevance takes precedence ~mod]

  110. “thousands of empirically derived back-fit parameters”
    Can you list some small proportion of them? Say, 50 or so?

  111. Richard M
    I did not “choose the WWII values.” They are taken from HadCrut.

    predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C from their second world war level.

    This conversation has been frustrating, to say the least.

  112. stevengoddard wrote
    “You are missing the point. ”
    No Steve, you are missing the point that climate modellers don’t make projections of future climate by predicting the weather, so it doesn’t matter if the models can’t predict the weather 72 days in advance or 72 seconds. It just isn’t how climate prediction is performed, it is how weather prediction is performed.
    “It is the same models, and errors compound.”
    No, the point of using Monte Carlo simulation is that “errors” cancel. Monte Carlo simulations are a very well understood field of statistics. Again, you are demonstrating that you don’t understand the basics of climate prediction – in this case why an ensemble of model runs are used (they are used in weather forecasting as well for much the same reason).
    “Do you think that two week forecasts are more accurate than four day forecasts?”
    No, but as I have pointed out, climate prediction is not performed by predicting the weather, so it isn’t relevant.
    “Are five year forecasts more accurate than four day forecasts?”
    Of weather, of course not, but then again climate prediction is not performed by predicting the weather (have I got that point across yet?).
    Did you look at the link I gave, which explains the difference between weather and climate, and explains why not being able to predict the weather a long way in advance doesn’t mean you can’t predict the climate. It even explains why ensembles are used.

  113. Dikran Marsupial
    Your comments indicate to me a lack of familiarity with climate models.
    Monte Carlo techniques are used in climate models for small tasks, like approximating cloud coverage in a grid cell. But the models themselves are necessarily deterministic because of positive feedback effects. For example, if a model mispredicts changes in albedo during year one, the error will get worse in year two.
    There is no mechanism for them to correct, because they assume that climate is dominated by positive feedbacks. They only get worse.

  114. stevengoddard says:
    August 16, 2010 at 11:36 am
    Phil,
    You seem to have missed the part :
    “moving backwards from the present”
    Do you see any dates between the present and 1915 which were 0.8C?

    No I thought you were writing in English not Gobbledegoop, you should express yourself more clearly.
    Had you actually said ‘there is no date between the present and 1915’ there would have been no confusion, with your clumsy construction I had to assume that you meant something else. Even then 1919 would probably be closer to the mark.
    The mistake the Grauniad made was not to say ‘post WW II’ which would have been consistent with the work they were quoting. Quite a minor nit to base a post on.

  115. StevenGoddard writes:
    “Monte Carlo techniques are used in climate models for small tasks, like approximating cloud coverage in a grid cell.”
    ROTFLMAO! The whole ensemble is one big Monte-Carlo simulation, and I think you will find that cloud cover is generally parameterized in the GCMs, not simulated.
    “Your comments indicate to me a lack of familiarity with climate models.”
    Oh the irony! ;o)

  116. Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    Say Leif, if 2010 turns out to be say +0.762C or +0.786 over the 1946 anomaly, will you claim the prediction of 0.8C came true for 2010?
    Absolutely, wouldn’t you? wouldn’t any reasonable person?
    Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 1:33 pm
    “Most”? What science does not follow this “standard practice”?
    Here is one example:
    stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 4:30 pm
    “Average HadCrut anomaly during that period was -0.010125.”
    The ‘accuracy’ of this number is not commensurate with the number of decimals shown. A more ‘standard’ way of expressing that number might have been -0.010, but perhaps this was not meant to be ‘science’.

  117. Dikran Marsupial
    GCMs us the same core code as weather models. They have to. They are modeling the same processes.
    The code you imagine would be completely useless. Weather/climate consists of massive amounts of detail. Again, it is quite clear that you are not familiar with how GCMs work.

  118. @Leif Svalgaard
    ‘It is standard practice in most science that if you state a number like 0.8, it could mean anything between 0.750000… and 0.849999… If one really had it down to a hundredth of a degree, it would be stated 0.80.’
    I’m betting you mean in most climate science, and no wonder climate science is a bunch of crap. People being concerned with point oh of a degree but think it’s ok to scrap point oh oh of a degree and disregarding the uncertainty of point oh oh to point oh.
    If scientist ain’t concerned with the minute details, as you think, then we all can go head and use the politician version of accuracy of about one degree.

  119. StevenGoddard wrote:
    “GCMs us the same core code as weather models. They have to. They are modeling the same processes. ”
    Yes, I know they do; however for weather forecasting they are used to predict the exact trajectory of the atmosphere, in climate prediction they are used to simulate weather with statistical properties governed by our understanding of climate physics. The same type of models, used in very different ways.
    “The code you imagine would be completely useless. Weather/climate consists of massive amounts of detail.”
    Yes, and the reason climate modellers don’t attempt to predict weather is becuase (amongst other things) it would be impossible to measure the initial conditions in sufficient detail. Which is why they simulate weather instead of predicting it. I have made that point several times.
    Did you look at the double pendulum example I linked to earlier, which explains why the long term statistical behaviour of chaotic systems can be predicted via simulation, even though the exact trajectory can’t be predicted?
    “Again, it is quite clear that you are not familiar with how GCMs work.”
    Blogsphere bluster, nothing more.

  120. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 9:53 pm
    Jaye says:
    August 15, 2010 at 9:05 pm
    Yes but in the absence of substantive comments as one’s “corrections” approach minutia, then one has likely lost the argument.
    There really is no argument:
    1) The starting year for the analysis is 1946.
    2) There are strong indications that 2010 will be the hottest year ‘ever’ [ http://www.physorg.com/news200991063.html ],
    3) From 1) and 2) it follows that the increase is 0.8C as the Article referenced in the Guardian states is correct [to the extent that our data is correct – but Goddard assumes that too, so no argument there either].”
    1) the analysis was for the yearS 1946 through 1996, not “from 1946 on” or for individual year comparisons, like 1946 and 1998 or 1946 and 2010.
    2) the “hottest year” is not what the prediction presumes to address, according to the Guardian article: “predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C from their second world war level.”
    Paraphrased this means that BY 2010 GLOBAL TEMPERATURES will rise by .8C.
    This can only be taken to mean, the mean global temperature. And as Steven has identified more than once, and on the CRU graph he posted, mean temps have not risen by .8C. Just by eyeballing the graph no more than .6C increase can be seen from 1946 to 2009.
    3) Actually, no. That one year meets the prediction is not relevant, as 1998 temp should demonstrate, which was the year before the prediction was made. Look to Steven’s claims about mean temperatures, or just look at the graph at top, as he advised.

  121. With all due respect to Steven Goddard, Leif Svalgaard and all the other learned folk here, I must pose a question:
    How many pedants can dance together on the head of a pin while ignoring the rotten foundation upon which the pin is standing? The HAD-CRU database is corrupted, as confessed to in the harry_read_me.txt files.
    – “But what are all those monthly files? DON’T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that’s useless …” (Page 17)
    – “As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.” (57)
    – “COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!” (71)
    – “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah — there is no ’supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )” (98)
    Read more: Harry Read Me, THE Climategate report | The Daily Inquirer http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/harry-read-me-the-climategate-report/127123#ixzz0woHYISV8
    Via: The Daily Inquirer
    GIGO. It should be called the global garbage anomaly.
    You guys are arguing about 0.4deg. or 0.8deg. of Garbage whose provenance we know nothing about.
    And this doesn’t even address the garbage coming out of NOAA, or GISS. There is an inordinate faith in technology and data that borders on zealotry. It leads to the logical fallacy of misplaced precision. People err, machines malfunction. As honorable people we seek the truth but we easily mislead ourselves. I don’t get too excited about tenths of degrees per decade. My thermometer is calibrated in 2 degree increments for crying out loud. We just had a 40 degree F. swing today.
    OTOH, thanks to all for the great reading and deep thinking.

  122. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2010 at 2:58 pm
    “Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    Say Leif, if 2010 turns out to be say +0.762C or +0.786 over the 1946 anomaly, will you claim the prediction of 0.8C came true for 2010?
    Absolutely, wouldn’t you? wouldn’t any reasonable person?”
    No to both. And you have no excuse for the mistakes you have made, despite being corrected. Were the *mean* global temperature “by 2010” at or exceeded 0.8C I would. Of course we (or we should be) critiquing the Guardian article, that published the prediction and figure. Even comparing individual years, anything less than 0.8C is, well, not quite 0.8C. Why do you think that unreasonable?
    “Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 1:33 pm
    “Most”? What science does not follow this “standard practice”?
    Here is one example:
    stevengoddard says:
    August 15, 2010 at 4:30 pm
    “Average HadCrut anomaly during that period was -0.010125.”
    The ‘accuracy’ of this number is not commensurate with the number of decimals shown. A more ‘standard’ way of expressing that number might have been -0.010, but perhaps this was not meant to be ‘science’.”
    Thanks for not answering that simple and direct question, Leif. The article claimed that by 2010 global temperatures would “rise by 0.8C” above WWII temps. The article claimed that the scientists used data from 1946 – 1996 to make the prediction. If the figure 0.8C was used it would mean 0.8C or above, not something less than that, irregardless of the individual data values used to arrive at the prediction, unless they specificially identified a range. The Guardian article did not.
    Your attitude here has been to show support for the language in the Guardian article.

  123. Dikran Marsupial
    You need to think about how positive feedbacks work. Hansen’s models predicted that Antarctic ice would recede, decreasing albedo, causing further ice loss and warming the ocean.
    In fact, the opposite has occurred. The models have to calculate very precise details within each grid cell, or they will head off in the weeds. Which is exactly what they do (head off in the weeds.)

  124. Here is an example of how GCMs use Monte Carlo techniques.
    Within a grid cell and layer, a certain cloud fraction is input. Rather than trying to precisely identify the positions of clouds for radiative transfer calculations, the modelers assign a random number (based on the cloud fraction) to each greenhouse gas component.
    The average LW absorption over a series of time steps works out about the same as if the cloud positions are modeled precisely.

  125. Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    Even comparing individual years, anything less than 0.8C is, well, not quite 0.8C. Why do you think that unreasonable?
    Because the usual practice is that when you write 0.8 is means anything between 0.75 and 0.85. If you meant a very precise number of 0.8, you would write 0.80 or 0.800 or whatever you think the error is.
    Your attitude here has been to show support for the language in the Guardian article.
    what has attitude to do with a simple arithmetic? What is your attitude? I simply point out that they forecast from a 1946 base out to 2010, and that there are good indications that they will get it right. Simple as that. This does not automatically mean that they will be right for the right reason. Or do you fear that they might?

  126. We don’t really understand how the radiation and energy flows in and out of the Earth system. Has anyone actually explained this adequately yet. Trenberth is invoking a mysterious “negative radiative feedback” of -2.8 watts/m2 to cover the lack of warming/heat accumulation observed to date.
    I don’t know why we should have such an unchangeable faith in the climate models. Modeling the climate would be a tough enough job on its own, let alone the fact that all the factors are still not understood yet.
    The predictions to date are, let’s say, about one-third to one-half right. That is about all we know right now. What is the reason for this error margin? Over-confidence would be one of the reasons.
    Next March, when temperatures have fallen 0.2C to 0.3C, we’ll see if someone will try to start over.

  127. stevengoddard writes:
    “You need to think about how positive feedbacks work. Hansen’s models predicted that Antarctic ice would recede, decreasing albedo, causing further ice loss and warming the ocean.”
    So what? The point is that GCMs don’t work by predicting the weather, but by simulating weather and taking the ensemble average to cancel the stochastic “weather noise”, leaving an estimate of the forced climate change. Hence, it is irrelevant that we can’t predict the weather more than 72 hours in advance, climate modellers know that perfectly well and their approach does not assume that they can. That really is basic stuff, GCM 101.
    It is ironic that an article criticising a bit of sloppy journalism contains a far more egregious error than the target of the OP.

  128. stevengoddardsays:
    “Here is an example of how GCMs use Monte Carlo techniques.”
    Here is another: GCMs are used to run a number of stochastic simulations of the Earths climate system to a change in the forcings. The outputs of these runs are averaged to cancel the stochastic variability of each run (i.e. the weather) give an estimate of the forced response of the system (i.e. climate change). As I said, the whole ensemble of GCM runs is a Monte-Carlo simulation.

  129. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2010 at 4:45 pm
    “Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    Even comparing individual years, anything less than 0.8C is, well, not quite 0.8C. Why do you think that unreasonable?
    Because the usual practice is that when you write 0.8 is means anything between 0.75 and 0.85. If you meant a very precise number of 0.8, you would write 0.80 or 0.800 or whatever you think the error is.”
    No, Leif, when I write that a temperature will be .8C more than a previous temperature, I do not mean .75C. In context to the subject, I would be right if the temp was .8C or more. When you add 0.122 to 0.6 you do not get 0.672 or 0.8.
    “Your attitude here has been to show support for the language in the Guardian article.
    what has attitude to do with a simple arithmetic? What is your attitude? I simply point out that they forecast from a 1946 base out to 2010, and that there are good indications that they will get it right. Simple as that. This does not automatically mean that they will be right for the right reason. Or do you fear that they might?”
    The Guardian article won’t be “right” for any reason, Leif. “To 2010” excludes 2010 itself, using your own language, which by the way is the same as “by 2010”. And as I showed you, using your curious rounding argument, that the “prediction” came true the year before the referenced article was written, by comparing yearly temperatures. That isn’t in any way “right”, or a prediction at all. But it appears you want the Guardian article to appear “right”, and have used several curious phrases and claims to make it appear so, as in creating the appearance of the prediction as a comparison of two single year global anomalies, claiming that 2010 is one of those years, and advocating an acceptable “rounding error”.
    Look at the graph above, if the little black line had not stalled around 1999, the mean temp by 2010 may have met the predicted 0.8C. It did stall, and it will not meet the prediction, even if you use 2010 (looking like it will be a hot year, gee I wonder why you keep insisting on using it) and it is much hotter than expected.

  130. Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 5:38 pm
    No, Leif, when I write that a temperature will be .8C more than a previous temperature, I do not mean .75C.
    As I said, “fuzzy math”…

  131. Dikran Marsupial says:
    The point is that GCMs don’t work by predicting the weather, but by simulating weather and taking the ensemble average to cancel the stochastic “weather noise”, leaving an estimate of the forced climate change.
    Does it really leave you an estimate of the forced climate change, though? It is a pretty weak stand for the IPCC to take that the net natural forcings are ~0. I don’t think that is justified and I also believe that when you factor in the contamination in the temperature record, we can see that the models are actually much further off than they appear.
    Weather isn’t exactly random anyway, unless you are speaking on weather terms. When we are talking about climate, the world follows a predictable pattern (seasons, anyone?). The StDev is just large because of the myriad amount of factors in play. Science would be better off trying to develop intricate understanding of the weather. Characterizing the response of nature to the inputs and outputs of the system as random is, imho, essentially giving up on the meat of the problem. If you can’t predict the weather, you don’t understand natural forcings well enough for me to trust you.
    The DMI temps, the hurricane predictions, the ‘BBQ summer’, and the lack of specific predictions like Russian heat waves and Pakistan floods all point to a ‘101’ level of misunderstanding the problem. I am not attacking you with this post, my kangaroo friend, I am simply pointing out some of the reasons I think warrant skepticism. I am a much more friendly person to disagree with face-to-face.

  132. Dave F says:
    “Does it really leave you an estimate of the forced climate change, though?”
    Whether it works or not is irrelevant to the point – climate prediction does not depend on accurately predicting weather, it works by simulating weather. I have no problem with anyone deciding they don’t trust the models, as long as they don’t mislead with incorrect arguments such as “we can’t predict the weather more than 72 hours in advance, so we can’t predict the climate 60 years in advance”. This is a non-sequitur as climate predictions are not made on the basis of predicting the weather.
    “If you can’t predict the weather, you don’t understand natural forcings well enough for me to trust you.”
    This is faulty reasoning. The behaviour of a double pendulum can be described in a few equations, but you still can’t predict its actual trajectory. This is the essence of chaos (as opposed to randomness), even if you understand natural forcings *perfectly*, you still can’t predict the weather more than a few days in advance, because the weather is also a chaotic system.

  133. Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 5:38 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2010 at 4:45 pm
    “Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    Even comparing individual years, anything less than 0.8C is, well, not quite 0.8C. Why do you think that unreasonable?
    Because the usual practice is that when you write 0.8 is means anything between 0.75 and 0.85. If you meant a very precise number of 0.8, you would write 0.80 or 0.800 or whatever you think the error is.”
    No, Leif, when I write that a temperature will be .8C more than a previous temperature, I do not mean .75C. In context to the subject, I would be right if the temp was .8C or more. When you add 0.122 to 0.6 you do not get 0.672 or 0.8.

    Well what you would do is not the issue, rather what any scientist does is exactly what Leif described. This is elementary High school science, check significant figures and rounding rules.

  134. …even if you understand natural forcings *perfectly*, you still can’t predict the weather more than a few days in advance, because the weather is also a chaotic system…
    The weather is just a sum of responses to various energy conditions, though, is it not? Weathermen give very reasonable, and physically scientific, explanations for the day’s weather pattern. Anyhow, I think that it may be less chaotic than it appears if we were to study it further. I do notice that the weather generally follows the same patterns seasonally, but it seems that the standard deviation of the data is still large enough to make any signals teased out by averaging questionable.
    Check the graph of the area I live in.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati#Climate
    The average high for the year is 17.8C (just to obey the rules Leif has set out 😉 ). Yet you can find an average 14C less than that or 12C more than that depending on what month/season you look at. That is a pretty large variation when you consider that the monthly averages are constructed from 30 days each of data spread over how many years? As far as I know, the StDev shows up the best with more samples so we can generally say that the StDev of the annual average is pretty large, right? So why would 0.8C over ~70 years start to become significant? I would say that is well within the range of variations of weather, and that those variations are averaged out of the figures the anomalies are derived from. So if you want to attribute these things to something, the onus is on your theory to eliminate the smoothing as the cause first.

  135. Phil. says:
    August 16, 2010 at 7:08 pm
    Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 5:38 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2010 at 4:45 pm
    “Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    Even comparing individual years, anything less than 0.8C is, well, not quite 0.8C. Why do you think that unreasonable?
    Because the usual practice is that when you write 0.8 is means anything between 0.75 and 0.85. If you meant a very precise number of 0.8, you would write 0.80 or 0.800 or whatever you think the error is.”
    No, Leif, when I write that a temperature will be .8C more than a previous temperature, I do not mean .75C. In context to the subject, I would be right if the temp was .8C or more. When you add 0.122 to 0.6 you do not get 0.672 or 0.8.
    “Well what you would do is not the issue, rather what any scientist does is exactly what Leif described. This is elementary High school science, check significant figures and rounding rules.”
    Appears Leif would disagree as he said: “It is standard practice in most science”.
    But if you wish to claim that 0.122 + 0.6 = 0.672 be my guest.

  136. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2010 at 6:00 pm
    Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 5:38 pm
    No, Leif, when I write that a temperature will be .8C more than a previous temperature, I do not mean .75C.
    “As I said, “fuzzy math”…”
    Say “hfh9hekjberjkb”, makes about as much sense, Svalgaard. Seems you are of the school where 0.122 + 0.6 = 0.672.

  137. Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 9:27 pm
    “As I said, “fuzzy math”…”
    Say “hfh9hekjberjkb”, makes about as much sense, Svalgaard. Seems you are of the school where 0.122 + 0.6 = 0.672.

    It seems you have left science behind and have run out of anything worthwhile to contribute.

  138. Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 9:24 pm
    When you add 0.122 to 0.6 you do not get 0.672 or 0.8.
    But when you add the 1946 anomaly you get 0.804 = 0.600 – (-0.204).

  139. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2010 at 9:40 pm
    Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 9:24 pm
    When you add 0.122 to 0.6 you do not get 0.672 or 0.8.
    But when you add the 1946 anomaly you get 0.804 = 0.600 – (-0.204).
    And when you add mayonnaise, mustard and ketchup you get McDonald’s secret sauce. So what?

  140. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2010 at 9:38 pm
    Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 9:27 pm
    “As I said, “fuzzy math”…”
    Say “hfh9hekjberjkb”, makes about as much sense, Svalgaard. Seems you are of the school where 0.122 + 0.6 = 0.672.
    “It seems you have left science behind and have run out of anything worthwhile to contribute.”
    Or you are looking in the mirror wondering what to say that won’t make you look so silly.

  141. All this heat and smoke over 0.4 deg C… 🙂 I suspect that many of general public are assuming that Global Warming has caused a scientifically proven average temperature increase of at least 3 to 7 deg C in order to cause all those record high extreme temperatures reported around the world and to threaten the sudden melting the polar ice-caps. One could make a real comedy routine about someone proclaiming that a 0.6 deg C average temperature increase since 1880 meant the end of the world was at hand.

  142. “I recently attended a meeting of weather modelers, who told me that their models are effective for about 72 hours, not 60 years. GCMs use the same underlying models as weather modelers, plus more parameters which may vary over time.”
    This is entirely true: only a fool, a fraud, or Piers Corbyn would claim to be able to forecast if it will rain on your wedding next year. It is also completely irrelevant and profoundly misleading – when did you ever see a climate scientist predict the weather 60 years hence.
    As I am sure it has been explained to you many times, weather forecasting is an initial value problem – our inability to precisely measure all aspect of the weather at the start of the forecast introduces errors that propagate and become large enough to cause the forecast to have no skill – climate projections are a boundary problem.
    Consider whether it will snow at Christmas: a weather forecast made in August would be useless. A climate forecast, derived from our understanding of Earth’s orbit, would usefully predict a higher probability of snow at Christmas than in August.
    There is a useful debate to be had about how well the models reproduce certain aspects of climate. By repeating the oft rebutted canard you demonstrate you are not remotely qualified to participate.

  143. stevengoddard
    “If you average together 10,000 numbers which are biased too high, you get an average which is ………. too high.”
    But the error doesn’t compound by averaging, it reduces as the variance cancels and you are left only with the bias.
    It is a standard rhetorical technique to evade admitting an error (in this case suggesting that the fact that weather can only be predicted 72 hours in advance means climate can’t be predicted 60 years in advance) by moving the discussion onto other topics. Fine, if you can’t admit you are wrong, it is your perrogative, but don’t expect me to help you with the evasion.

  144. richard telford says:
    “There is a useful debate to be had about how well the models reproduce certain aspects of climate. By repeating the oft rebutted canard you demonstrate you are not remotely qualified to participate.”
    Well said, repeating these oft rebutted canards is bad enough, but the inability to admit it and the evasion suggests a lack of genuine scientific skepticism, which is arguably even worse. Scientists get stuff wrong all the time, and they know they do, but good ones are able to learn from it.

  145. Richard Telford says:
    “Consider whether it will snow at Christmas: a weather forecast made in August would be useless. A climate forecast, derived from our understanding of Earth’s orbit, would usefully predict a higher probability of snow at Christmas than in August.”
    That is your defense of GCMs??
    Maybe you folks need a computer model to tell us there is a higher probability of snow in cold weather, but the rest of us enough have common sense to know that low bar is no defense of computer models..
    This table shows the lack of accuracy of climate models. The total is 1 correct prediction, 27 incorrect, and 4 questionable.
    The universe of commodity trading of, say, soybeans, is much smaller than the universe of factors that determine regional climates or future planetary temperatures. If a supercomputer could predict the climate, wouldn’t someone use a supercomputer to predict a relatively small commodities market, and convert computing power into immense wealth?
    Of course they would. Do they? No, there are too many variables in the soybean market. But compared with climate variables, the soybean market’s variables are tiny.
    It should be remembered that even the biggest, most sophisticated GCMs fail to predict the climate in any region with any accuracy. Not a single GCM predicted the cooling over the past ten years. Not one of them. The UN/IPCC admits as much, pointing out that the climate is a chaotic system.
    What is worse, the warmist crowd portrays models as evidence. Models are not evidence. Models are tools — and not very accurate tools.
    The empirical evidence shows that the current climate is well within its historical parameters. Nothing unusual is happening, despite the fervent wishes and beliefs of those infected with cognitive dissonance.

  146. Smokey says: August 17, 2010 at 5:15 am
    Christmas
    It’s not a defense, but a simple case to help those with limited understanding.
    “Not a single GCM predicted the cooling over the past ten years.”
    Two canards – we’ll have enough for Duck Soup soon. First, there has not been cooling over the last ten years. Second, the models could only have predicted cooling if they had been initiated with the ocean and atmosphere in the 2000 configuration, as if they were weather forecasts run for a decade. Most models are not initiated in this way (a couple of recent ones have been), but instead have a long run in phase. So the models cannot predict next year’s weather, but you can look in the model runs and test if long periods with little warming occur. Go on have a look – you would be surprised.
    I bet you won’t look at the model output – it would be most unlike a skeptic to risk anything that might change their beliefs.


  147. Smokey
    says:
    “Not a single GCM predicted the cooling over the past ten years. Not one of them.”
    (i) What cooling over the past ten years would that be? For example UAH shows a small (probably non-significant) warming over the past decade. The UAH dataset is generally the one showing the smallest warming trend, so I am not cherry picking.
    (ii) The reason that the models didn’t predict it is because it is caused by weather noise (in this case very probably by ENSO) and is not the forced response of the climate system. However, as Easterling and Wehner show, decadal or longer periods of little warming or even cooling are to be expected, even during a long term warming trend, because the trend is small in comparison with the effects of short term cyclic phenomena such as ENSO. Not only do such periods ocurr in the data, they also ocurr in the model output. So you are wrong, the models did predict that such periods will ocurr, they just can’t predict exactly when, as they are not caused by the forced climate change, but by internal variability (i.e. weather).
    You have just demonstrated that, like Steven Goddard, you don’t know the difference between weather and climate, and furthermore, you don’t actually know what the models do predict and what they don’t. Read Easterling and Wehners paper, it makes the point quite straight-forwardly.

  148. richard telford,
    Thanks for your opinion. But in fact, the models are wrong.
    And of course there was global cooling over the past decade. Your opinion does not trump that fact.
    You simply do not understand the role of scientific skeptics. Skeptics do not have a belief system, like those promoting the CAGW belief do. Skeptics simply say, “Provide convincing, empirical, testable and replicable evidence that a tiny trace gas drives the Earth’s climate.” But no such evidence exists.
    See, the burden is on those promoting the CO2=CAGW hypothesis. So far, they have failed to provide convincing evidence showing that human emitted CO2 causes any measurable changes in the planet’s temperature.
    That leaves only the null hypothesis: natural climate variability fully explains current observations. Falsify that, if you can. If you do, you will be the first, and on the short list for the [now greatly diminished] Nobel prize.

  149. Glenn says:
    August 16, 2010 at 9:59 pm
    Or you are looking in the mirror wondering what to say that won’t make you look so silly.
    I have tried very hard to stick to the science and the numbers as I have understood them. And you give me that. Sigh.

  150. Dikran Marsupial
    It makes no sense to measure 2000-2010 temperature trends, because 2000 started in La Nina and 2010 is still seeing peak temperatures from the last El Nino.
    Six months from now will provide a sensible comparison, because the trend will start and end with La Nina.

  151. Smokey, the decade didn’t end in Nov 2009 ;o)
    For *scientific* skepticism, the thing that should come first is skepticism of your own position, before you tackle the arguments of the opposition. If you did that, you wouldn’t be trotting out old cannards and not understand the refutations.
    Science is best performed as a chess player plays chess, you aim to minimise the maximum gain available to your opponent, rather than merely the move that gives you the greatest gain if your opponent doesn’t spot a good reply. For instance, when I wanted to demonstrate that there has been no cooling over the last decade, rather than choosing the GISTEMP data (which would show the largest warming trend) I chose the UAH one (which shows the lowest). I did so to make it clear that I wasn’t cherry picking (I don’t have to on this occasion as the data demonstrate you were wrong whatever dataset you choose), and so you couldn’t make any argument about UHI or other such problems with station data. Go ahead, show some real skepticism, starting with your own arguments (try and prove them wrong before using them). That way you may make some gains rather than marginalising yourself by demonstrating your ignorance and bias.
    n.b. not I haven’t claimed that the models are skillful here, I just pointed out Steven Goddards canard.

  152. I don’t think any of us disagree that warming is happening so we shouldn’t be worrying about the odd tenth of a degree of accuracy in the extent to which it is happening.. The real discussion should surely concentrate on whether we bloggers and the rest of humanity are causing it.

  153. richard and dikram, , you’re going to have to do a lot better than simply expressing your opinions here.
    The following decade or longer declining temperature charts falsify the grant-sniffing Easterling-Wehner link: models can not predict even the decade immediately ahead.
    Prof Freeman Dyson explains:

    I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do… They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

    Models are very effective as a tool in supporting grant applications. But in predicting the climate? Not so much.
    IPCC climate model vs reality.
    Also, please don’t use WoodForTrees charts without displaying the parameters. Why? Because it’s mighty suspicious when someone posts a graph with no metadata. Here is a chart of declining UAH temps.
    Here are four temp sets since 2002 — including the ARGO deep sea buoys.
    Here’s a chart of GISS vs other benchmarks. Note that GISS shows rising temps — while everyone else shows declining temperatures. Who should we believe, an organization under James Hansen that constantly begs for more grant money based on a baseless scare? Or our lyin’ satellite eyes?
    Raw monthly temps again. Is it time to panic yet?
    Want more? OK, here is another chart of satellite temperatures. Note the decline. Same here.
    Time to face reality: computer climate models are wrong. And the premier empirical test of the CAGW model “fingerprint” fails. No tropospheric “hot spot.” Conclusion: CAGW falsified.
    The null hypothesis remains standing — while the CO2=CAGW hypothesis conjecture is once again debunked.

  154. Dikran Marsupial
    I am not familiar with, nor am I trotting out “old canards.”
    Rather, I am explaining how GCMs work. A lot of people show up here and arrogantly assume that the authors are not familiar with the topics they write about.

  155. Smokey says:
    August 17, 2010 at 7:10 am
    You have either not read, or not understood Easterling and Wehner (2009). Which is it? They clearly demonstrate that the models predict periods with little or no warming. The models cannot predict when these periods will occur because of the way they are initialised.
    You call yourself a skeptic and then have the gall to link to http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
    Do you not think that a little even-handed skepticism is in order. Exactly what magical force drives the trend and oscillations? Climate change science should be based on physics not numerology.

  156. stevengoddard says:
    August 17, 2010 at 7:22 am
    Rather, I am explaining how GCMs work. A lot of people show up here and arrogantly assume that the authors are not familiar with the topics they write about.
    ————-
    That many authors don’t know what they write about here would be the more charitable of the possible explanations for the ignorance often celebrated.

  157. The WFT graph you linked shows 0.4C from WWII to 1996, which was the period of the study.

    No it wasn’t.
    The study was in 1999, and used climate data from 1946 to 1996 to come up with a predicted increase of temps at 0.8C by 2010. It says so right in your top post.
    James Sexton was right. The temperature increase from 1946 – 2010 is ~0.7C. That is 0.1C off the prediction made in the study, as reported by the Guardian.

  158. Smokey says:
    “The following decade or longer declining temperature charts falsify the grant-sniffing Easterling-Wehner link:”
    Actually as Easterling and Wehner say that we should expect to see the occasional decade or two with little warming or even cooling, even in the presence of a long term warming, those charts corroborate Easterling and Wehners paper. Did you not even read the abstract?
    BTW, the “grant-sniffing” is an ad-hominem and impresses nobody, and FYI all academics are “grant sniffing”, even the sceptics, getting grants is part of the job and it would be a career limiting move not to pursue funding. As it happens plenty of skeptical research gets funded as well.
    “models can not predict even the decade immediately ahead.”
    Nor do they attempt to do so, for the reasons set out in Easterling and Wehner. Over such a short period the observed trends are dominated by things like ENSO.
    “Also, please don’t use WoodForTrees charts without displaying the parameters. Why? Because it’s mighty suspicious when someone posts a graph with no metadata. Here is a chart of declining UAH temps.”
    Not very observant are you, the ledgend on woodfortrees plots provide the metadata. Also it is very funny that you make the assertion that temperatures have been declining for the last decade and back it up with a plot that ends in Nov 2009, and then when a plot of the last decade is given, you bluster (incorrectly) about the lack of metadata, and then give a plot starting in 1998! If that is skepticism, sorry, I am not that impressed.

  159. Steve Goddard wrote
    “I am not familiar with, nor am I trotting out “old canards.””
    It is obvious that you are not familiar with the refutation, if you were you would know that it is indeed a canard.
    “Rather, I am explaining how GCMs work.”
    incorrectly if you think that the prediction horizon for weather forecasting has any bearing on climate prediction, for the reasons I and Richard Telford have given,.
    “A lot of people show up here and arrogantly assume that the authors are not familiar with the topics they write about.”
    No assuming required, my opinion was formed a-posteriori after having seen your comment about not being able to predict the weather more than 72 hours in advance. Your argument was wrong not because it was made by you, but because of the nature of the statement, I have an open mind about anything else you write and will form an opinion based on the content. However, not all are as open minded and your inability to accept and correct errors will make you an object of ridicule for many. As I have said before I would like to see a strong debate on this issue from both sides, and your posts on this side are presenting an open goal for your opponents.

  160. Some folks above nominate themselves as the sole arbiters of who might be a scientific skeptic. I refer those people to Dr Karl Popper, who shows explicitly what is required regarding a hypothesis such as CO2=CAGW:

    1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
    2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
    3. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
    4. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
    5. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)
    6. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem.”)
    One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

    Skeptics are still waiting for testable experiments or observations showing that CO2 has a measurable, real world effect that causes the planet’s temperature rises.
    The Easterling and Wehner paper is not falsifiable because it claims that warming — or cooling — is all predicted, no matter which happens: if the temperature rises, that was predicted; if the temperature falls, well, that was predicted too. That is not a testable hypothesis, nor does it make any risky predictions or forbid temperature rises or declines [#2 above]; therefore, it is not science.
    Regarding the end dates of the charts I post, they are charts obtained from various sources. Most go right up to this year. If the ending date is the issue, then you win the argument. But if the declining temperature over most of the past decade is the issue, then you lose the argument.
    The null hypothesis of natural climate variability is easily falsifiable: temperatures simply need to go outside of their past parameters to falsify the null hypothesis. But a hypothesis that says temperatures can either go up or go down is not testable or falsifiable; therefore, it is not science.

  161. Smokey says:
    “The Easterling and Wehner paper is not falsifiable because it claims that warming — or cooling — is all predicted, no matter which happens. That is not testable; therefore it is not science.”
    Wrong, if we observed a long term warming of the climate with no cooling periods, that would falsify Easterling and Wehner as they predict that such periods will happen. If you really understood Popper, you would be applauding climate modellers as they are producing testable predictions of the consequences of their theories. The models are easily falsified, all you need is observations that lie outside the error bars of the model projections. Sadly if you insist on choosing very short periods, which are dominated by internal variability rather than climate per se, then the error bars will be large reflecting the uncertainty due to things like ENSO.
    “Regarding the end dates of the charts I post, they are charts obtained from various sources. Most go right up to this year. If the ending date is the issue, then you win the argument. But if the declining temperature over most of the past decade is the issue, then you lose the argument.”
    The start and end dates are indeed the issue, because ENSO allows you to cherry pick a period to suit any result you want a-priori, e.g. by starting at the El-Nino in 1998 and stopping in Nov 2009 before the current El-Nino (an you have presented several examples). I on the other hand produced of a chart of the last decade, which was the period you specified (not me – so you can’t accuse me of cherry picking!) it just so happens that at the moment that trend shows warming, but you didn’t bother to check the data before making the argument. The difference between us though is that I know that short terms trends are essentially meaningless, which is why (unlike you) I don’t try to base my arguments on them. Pick a period long enough to average over many ENSO cycles (e.g. 30 years) and cherry picking becomes more difficult, which is why “skeptics” don’t like to talk about them (genuine skeptics on the other hand are fine with them).

  162. Been reading some of the comments in the Guardian.
    Sort of the same debate going on between two people there
    Bioluminescence says
    The authors made their calculations using data from 1946 to 1996, i.e. they calculated the average temperature during this period, then derived the anomalies. The anomalies derived from the two baseline periods – 1961-1990 and 1946-1996 – are different, therefore using anomalies based on 1961-1990 is incorrect in this case. You have to use the anomalies based on the 1946 to 1996 data.
    So far for 2010, I get an increase of 0.76 since 1946. Has anyone else tried?
    BombNo20 says
    I found the paper here.
    Can I sign off with an indicator that shows the sensitivity of start-point selection – something I should have picked up on from the start?
    The data you linked to has:
    1946 – 2010 ranging -0.204 to +0.533 = +0.737 rise.
    and
    1945 – 2010 ranging -0.007 to +0.533 = +0.540 rise.
    This raises the question of how much value I can grant to even specific predictions. Given that this prediction, made 11 years in advance, is still subject to the vaguaries of weather (good/bad from one year to the next), how long should I wait to decide if a prediction is ‘right’ ?
    If “Your” anomaly data says +0.737 – how good is the prediction of +0.8C? I’d say pretty darned good.
    If “My” anomaly data says +0.540 – how good is the prediction of +0.8C? I’d say it was not even close.
    Much to ponder.
    Bioluminescence
    Thanks for the link – I’ll try and have a proper look at it soon.
    Since I don’t know how they reached their conclusion it’s difficult to comment. Perhaps if they’d started with 1945 rather than 1946 their estimate would’ve been different – am I making any sense? I’m of course assuming they started in 1946 because their analysis is based on data from 1946 to 1996.
    Maybe a statistician could enlighten us?
    End

  163. Dikran,
    Thank you for your conjectures. Apparently you believe — despite satellite evidence — that the global temperature increased from 2000 – 2010.
    Instead, you believe the models, which clearly predict a tropospheric hot spot must appear if the CO2=CAGW conjecture is correct. Decisively falsified.
    You believe the current climate is unprecedented. Wrong.
    You believe the current temperatures are going outside of their historical parameters. Again, wrong.
    You believe you understand Karl Popper. Wrong.
    You believe the climate models are correct. Wrong. They are 400% off the mark.
    You believe the climate is getting worse. Wrong.
    You believe the current natural warming cycle is caused by human activity. Wrong.
    While you’re getting up to speed on this subject, I will be on the top [BREAKING] thread. You have quite a bit of learning to do here in order to get up to speed. When you think you’ve mastered the difference between a conjecture and a testable hypothesis, and between a scientific skeptic and a pseudo-scientific climate scientist, feel free to join us there.

  164. Smokey writes:
    “Thank you for your conjectures. Apparently you believe — despite satellite evidence — that the global temperature increased from 2000 – 2010.”
    Give it a break, old chap, [snip], the plot you provide goes from 2002 to 2009, not 2000-2010. I’ll might pay attention to the rest of your posturing if you can give a plot of data for the lat decade (i.e. 10 years working back from the current time) that shows cooling.
    BTW, the plot you gave is a good example of the ENSO-based cherry picking I mentioned. It starts in 2002 rather than 2000 replace a weak La Nina with a weak El Nino, and ends in 2009 so as not to include the current El Nino.

  165. stevengoddard says:
    August 17, 2010 at 9:36 am
    “72 hours is the standard window of accuracy assumed by weather modelers. I’m sorry that you don’t want to believe it.”
    ROTFL, nowhere did I say that 72 hours is not the standard prediction horizon for weather modellers. What I did say is that has no bearing on climate prediction for 60 years hence (as implied in the OP). If you are going to argue [snip], then you would be better served with somthing a little less obvious than the above straw man.

  166. BTW Smokey, of the list of things you assert I believe, you were right about one of them, wrong on six (I don’t actually believe them) and half right about one (unlike you, I understand Popper enough to be able to point out how Easterling and Wehner could be falsified; however a full understanding of Popper would require rather more study of the phillosophy of science than I have time for, interesting though it is).

  167. Dikran Marsupial
    I have been trying to discuss politely with you, and after a dozen posts I really have no idea where you are headed with this rambling discussion.

  168. Steven Goddard writes:
    “I have been trying to discuss politely with you, and after a dozen posts I really have no idea where you are headed with this rambling discussion.”
    I’m not headed anywhere, I was following your lead. I merely pointed out an error in the OP, which impled that the prediction horizon for weather prediction of only 72 hours had some bearing on climate projection using GCMs – It doesn’t. I have been amused however by your inability to admit that it is of no relevance.

  169. Dikran Marsupial
    The “inability” is to make any sense of your arguments.
    Climate models use the same underlying code as weather models. If a weather model is used to incorrectly forecast a warm winter (Met Office) then the error feeds back and causes more errors.
    22 years ago Hansen made some climate forecasts which bombed. Just as current climate forecasts will do. The same excuses will be made by each successive generation, and they will claim to have it correct “this time.”
    If the model is inadequate, billions of dollars in hardware won’t do any better than a $250 netbook.

  170. stevengoddard says:
    August 17, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    Climate models use the same underlying code as weather models. If a weather model is used to incorrectly forecast a warm winter (Met Office) then the error feeds back and causes more errors.
    ——-
    This is irrelevant as climate models don’t depend on the initial conditions being exactly right, but on the boundary condition. This has been explained several times on this page, and many many times elsewhere, but yet you persist in spreading the canard and wonder why some would call you a denialist.
    —–
    “22 years ago Hansen made some climate forecasts which bombed.”
    Have you tested if the forecast was skillful? Or is that too much like hard work?

  171. G’day, Smokey. May I cut in?

    Apparently you believe — despite satellite evidence — that the global temperature increased from 2000 – 2010.

    Your example starts in 2002. The temperature trends from 2000 to present for RSS and UAH, plotted with the data they provide are:
    RSS = 0.11C/dec
    UAH = 0.15C/dec
    Here is the plot at wood for trees so you can check for yourself.
    (You also get a slight warming trend if you run ‘to 2010’ (ie, 2000 – 2009 inclusive. You don’t get a cooling trend from 2000)
    The caveat must be added that you don’t get statistically significant trends with respect to climate at these time scales. These plots are too influenced by weather variation to be meaningful, but the result is still clear even by these poor standards.

  172. stevengoddard says:
    August 17, 2010 at 6:28 pm
    WUWT anticipated your question and delivered four days ago. If you want to post here, you really should actually read the articles. Or is that “like too much hard work?”
    —————————-
    I read and commented on that pathetic article some days ago – if you had bothered to check you could have saved yourself another mistake. There are statistical tests of skill. Christy doesn’t bother to use these, preferring to eyeball the data, which gives him his predetermined answer.

  173. Steven Goddard wrote:
    “You asked : “Have you tested if the forecast was skillful? Or is that too much like hard work?”
    WUWT anticipated your question and delivered four days ago. [blah blah blah]”
    I note you failed to answer Richard’s main point, which was an explanation of why the fact that weather forecasting and climate modelling use very similar computational methods does not mean that climate modelling shares the same 72 hour prediction horizon with weather forecasting [because weather forecasting is dependent on knowledge of initial conditions, but climate projections are not]. This is hilarious, given that I had earlier written
    “I merely pointed out an error in the OP, which impled that the prediction horizon for weather prediction of only 72 hours had some bearing on climate projection using GCMs – It doesn’t. I HAVE BEEN AMUSED HOWEVER BY YOUR INABILITY TO ADMIT THAT IT IS OF NO RELEVANCE.”
    It maybe that GCMs have no forecasting skill, but it is obvious that I do! ;o)

  174. “[actually…. as an anonymous commenter, your irrelevance takes precedence ~mod]”
    What a needlessly hostile and unpleasant reply, from an anonymous moderator. I guess it’s easier just to say something rude than it is to address the substance of what I said. Ad hominem, they call it.

Comments are closed.