By John West (elevated from a comment in Unthreaded Weekend, inspired by Casey at the Bat)
Welcome to the WUWT Sports channel! For the debut game we have “The Cause” vs. “The Skeptics”:
First inning: Gavin Schmidt is up to bat for “The Cause”.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/a-barrier-to-understanding/
Norman Page steps to the mound and blisters one in:
“what year would you reconsider the CO2 – Warming paradigm if the CRU Global annual mean temperature is cooler than 2005 – 2009…?”
Schmidt swings:
“You need a greater than a decade non-trend that is significantly different from projections. [0.2 – 0.3 deg/decade]”
And it’s a miss! A decade +1 of essentially no trend (slight cooling):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/plot/wti/from:2001/trend
Strike 1.
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2019Note
Page steps down to give John Henriksen a chance; He gives it all he’s got with this pitch:
“what would FALSIFY [linking CO2 to ‘warming’]?”
Schmidt swings again:
”that the stratosphere is not cooling as expected (this is a cleaner test than the surface temperatures because there are less extraneous factors)”
And it’s a miss! The stratosphere hasn’t been cooling in over a decade:
http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Research/Highlight/stratosphere.shtml
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temp-and-precip/upper-air/uahncdc.ls
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/RandelEtal.JGR2009.pdf
Strike 2.
Richard Wakefield steps up and pitches:
”How many more years of no acceleration [in SLR] will it take to abandon AGW theory?”
Gavin swings:
“AGW is based on the radiative impact of CO2 and other atmospheric constituents – none of those things depend on sea level rise.”
Hit……..Foul Ball. Misdirection doesn’t answer the question. SLR is one of the claimed major impacts of AGW and often presented as evidence for GW. If sea level rise remains constant or drops I find it hard to believe that wouldn’t damage the AGW case among both laymen and impartial scientists considering how many times temperature increase has been connected to sea level rise and the “it’s accelerating” touted as proof it’s anthropogenic. Later in the same thread: “Do you have peer reviewed papers that shows that the cause of B (sea level rise) is because of AGW?” — Wakefield; ”Response: Yes. Domingues et al (2008). – gavin”. So, if SLR is caused by AGW and SLR stops where does that leave AGW? A cause without its signature effect? LOL.
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=6013
Now, Steve Shaw takes the mound, digs in, and throws a curve ball:
”To clarify what I am wrestling with, whether CO2 warms the planet isn’t the issue. The issue is whether we have enough information yet to say authoritatively that the next 40 years will be more like 1980-2000 than like 2000-2010, in the amount of increase. This is fundamental to determining appropriate public policy. ….. I just need some specific aspects pinned down.”
Schmidt doesn’t swing:
It’s in there, right through the strike zone into the catchers mitt: Obviously, this question is absolutely germane to the “debate”, if we can’t answer “yes”, and explain why in a Willis type elevator speech, then, what the heck is all the hullabaloo about? But instead of commenting with what should be an “easy” answer, this question is relegated to The Bore Hole (#383).
Strike 3; You’re OUT!
Next up at bat its “The Mann” himself and “The Skeptics” are in disagreement over whether they really need to send a picture up to the mound. But we’ve run out of time ….. signing off.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony, I love your blog and your supporters. As a simple RN, I don’t understand much of the material at times but enjoy the laughs, writing and comments.
@Norman Page;
Good post, lots of meat. But …
Don’t ever try to forge a document. Your punctuation and spacing style is idiosyncratically weird and chock-a-block with errors. You’d be outed in a nanosecond.
;p
Brian H – you’re quite right – my brain runs ahead of my fingers and spell check is boring.However, unlike some people, I’m not in the forgery business – being idiosyncratically weird in style is not therefore a great problem.
http://drtimball.com/2012/ipcc-cru-climate-science-product-of-public-relations-and-peer-review/
“Could you point out between which two words the word “statistically” is used?”
I mistyped, and meant to say “significantly”.
“Again: If no warming at all is not significantly different from the projections then why are the projections inciting so much concern?”
The projections are very significantly different from no warming. Perhaps you meant “observations”. Perhaps you’re not even aware of the absurdity of your position, that you had to move the goalposts from 1998 to 2001 to find a trend statistically identical to the expected warming but that you prefer the meaningless slope of. In a few years time you will be spouting the same nonsense but shifted forward another few years. Eventually as global temperatures soar you will no doubt be saying “but there has been no warming since 2028!”. As a simple exercise, I would like you to calculate the global average temperature anomaly for 2001-2010, 1991-2000, 1981-1990 and 1971-1980. What do you find?
“(Note: 1970’s cooling was opined as being caused by burning fossil fuels, then global warming came along with the opposite effect but the same cure.)”
Opined by whom?
VJ says:
“The projections are very significantly different from no warming.”
So, it is a miss since there’s been NO WARMING for greater than a decade.
“you had to move the goalposts”
I used the “goalpost” set by Gavin in his comment in 2007.
“Eventually as global temperatures soar “
If that happens it will be a lot cheaper to adapt then than to try to mitigate now and still have to adapt later. Climate change happens.
“Opined by whom?”
OMG! Start with this:
VJ says:
“As a simple exercise, I would like you to calculate the global average temperature anomaly for 2001-2010, 1991-2000, 1981-1990 and 1971-1980.
I’ll put the kidding around aside for a moment. I’ve been researching this issue since 1994 as a professional responsibility. For the weight of evidence to favor acceptance of CAGW one has to ignore evidence from geology, archeology, history, satellites, etc. One basically has to ignore “when we live”, the end of an interglacial. Yes, I’m a skeptic, but what that really means is that I’m not saying they’re wrong, just that there’s insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude they’re right. Of course, they’re right about many things; and have a list of facts that support their position. So do the “Ban DHMO” folks. The CAGW paradigm is Zohnerism in my opinion. So, yes, those time periods you suggest looking at will show what you want, but how about looking at some truly significant time frames in relation to the Earth’s age. Look at the entire Holocene; see anything unusual in recent climate? I implore you, look at ALL the facts, not just the facts proponents of a position present, and then decide pro/con/inconclusive.
17 years of research and you haven’t even grasped the basic statistics yet? Shame on you. One ten year period is not sufficient to determine a climate trend. You might as well try to measure how fast a baby is growing by taking measurements twenty minutes apart.
And then you tell me to look at the whole holocene! One moment ten years is all you need, the next it’s ten thousand. Make your mind up!
I wonder why you couldn’t do those simple anomaly calculations. I’ll tell you the answer though. There is a regular rise of 0.2°C between each of those four decades.
@VJ
Obviously you missed the irony of the entire situation over the last +decade:
Warmist in 2000: It’s warming and CO2 is climbing.
Skeptic in 2000: True but that’s a short term correlation. Let’s look at something significant like the Holocene, and viola the temperature graph looks pretty normal.
Skeptic in 2010: It’s not warming even as CO2 rises – de-correlation.
Warmist in 2010: True but that’s a short term trend. Let’s look at the longer term trend.
Skeptic reply in 2010: Sure let’s go back to the entire Holocene.
Warmist reply in 2010: Oh no, not THAT long of a term! We have to look at just the portion where CO2 and temperature rise together, nothing else.
Skeptic knows that spells Zohnerism.