Take a look at Figure 1.4 from the AR5 draft (shown below). The gray bars in Fig 1.4 are irrelevant (because they flubbed the definition of them), the colored bands are the ones that matter because they provide bounds for all current and previous IPCC model forecasts, FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4.
Look for the surprise in the graph.
Here is the caption for this figure from the AR5 draft:
Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in °C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.
So let’s see how readers see this figure – remember ignore the gray bands as they aren’t part of the model scenarios.
I’ll have a follow up with the results later, plus an essay on what else was found in the IPCC AR5 draft report related to this.
Philip Shehan says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/#comment-1176425
Henry says
Interesting. I did not even know we could already take the data to 2013
Here is my counter plot
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend
All major data sets show we are cooling from 2002 (11 years = one solar cycle ?)
just as I had predicted
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
richardscourtney:
Thanks for the support! That forecasts are made by the IPCC climate models implies the existence of a statistical population, for a forecast is a consequence of an inference of the outcome of an event in this population. For the IPCC climate models, however, there is no such population. Conflation of the term “prediction” with the similar sounding term “projection” popularly yields the false conclusion that predictions (aka forecasts) are made when they are not.
That forecasts are not made by them has the result that the climate models provide no information to policy makers regarding the outcomes from their policy decisions. 100% of the information that policy makers think they have in making policy is fabricated through conflation of predictions with projections plus related equivocations from climatologists. For further information on the role of the equivocation fallacy in climatological arguments, bloggers could review my peer reviewed article at http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ .
In response to comments above:
It is true that we cannot conduct a “two earth” experiment, but this kind of problem occurs in many areas of science which are more observational than experimental, eg astrophysics and studies of the origin of the universe, evolution, continental drift etc. But they are backed by observations matching a sound understanding of physical and chemical principles.
The physico-chemical properties of greenhouse gases have been known for over a century, and climate models accommodate this knowledge in addition to what is known about other climate forcing factors.
There is empirical evidence for CO2 as a forcing factor in that past temperature changes can only be matched to theory by including what is known about the effects of CO2 in the forcing calculations.
At what point will this experiment of adding CO2 to the atmosphere and observing the results be declared “over”? For most climate scientists the experiment has been running long enough (since the effects of the industrial revolution became evident) for the effects of greenhouse gases to be known to a high degree of probability. Certainly we will have a clearer picture in twenty or thirty years, but if the climatologists are correct, the time will be long past for remedial action to be taken.
There is indeed a range of uncertainty in the forcings which is why the model projections are represented by a band between upper and lower bounds. A significant source of uncertainty lies in the effects of feedback loops which amplify or diminish the direct effects of greenhouse warming, eg the effect of increased water vapour in the atmosphere with global warming (positive feedback) and increased cloud cover (negative). This is the well known “sensitivity “ question.
Global temperatures rely in part on thermometers placed sparsely around the globe and latterly on satellite measurements. There are differences in the data sets reflecting these uncertainties. Hadcrut data for instance has been criticised as having less data from the more rapidly warming polar regions.
The error bars in the figure in question for global temperatures are in a range of less than 0.2 C.
Henry P wants to cherry pick data from 2002. To show the kind of fun and games you can have with this, consider the following:
The trend from1979 (when the data sets used for Wood For Trees begin) to the present is significantly upward, the line from 1979 to 2007 is even steeper. So the line from 2008 to the present must be really downward right?
Well no, trend from 2008 to the present is the steepest of the lot!!!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2013/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2013/trend/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2007/trend/plot/wti/from:2008/to:2013/trend
The point is you can cherry pick to prove anything. The correct procedures is to take the longest relevant view. Can henry fit ins 11 yaer solar cycle to the data from 1979, since the onset of global industrialization in 1850?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
Philip Shehan says
Henry P wants to cherry pick data from 2002. To show the kind of fun and games you can have with this, consider the following:
The trend from1979 (when the data sets used for Wood For Trees begin) to the present is significantly upward, the line from 1979 to 2007 is even steeper. So the line from 2008 to the present must be really downward right?
Henry says
The point to you that I made to you earlier:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/#comment-1175645
is that you have to see a parabolic curve which reaches its top (if you look at means) in ca. 1998.
clearly you do not understand what a parabolic fit is.
Or perhaps you do no not want to understand it.
it is your choice.
Whatever choice you make, remember the Truth has habit of finding its way back to people.
Henry P, the results so far for the experiment I’m referring to can be seen in the graph from the draft IPCC AR5 we’re currently discussing in this post on WUWT. In other words, the results of that experiment are (so far) that the models have incorrectly projected temperatures when using CO2 as the primary driver for climate. To further clarify, my points were:
1) Why all the alarm and appeals to the general population to reduce CO2 emissions before the results of “the experiment” (as defined above and in my original post) were in? If they’d waited until now, they would have no reason at all to be sure that CO2 emissions were going to result in an increase in temperatures. It seems like they don’t (necessarily), is the point I’m making! But we’ve all been told to worry about our “carbon footprint” etc, since the beginning.
2) If they had set up additional models in the first place, with *different* forcings set to “most significant”
rather than just always assuming CO2 would be the most significant no matter what anyone else said to the contrary, they could have produced a number of different series of projections. One of those alternate series of projections, from a model using an alternate forcing – a forcing other than CO2 – as it’s primary driver of climate, made in the past, may have matched the subsequently observed temperatures better than “the CO2 one”. It seems to me that “the CO2 one” is all anyone is ever interested in working with. What I was saying was, we could have been sitting here now looking at various graphs, similar to the one we’re discussing now, but of models that don’t base everything on CO2 as well as the ones that do. That would have given us a more complete picture, surely? Basically, many climate scientists seemed to put all their eggs in the CO2 basket, and now that observations aren’t matching what was projected
, they effectively need to redo everything from start, when if they’d had the foresight to include the possibility that CO2 might not be the “be all and end all” control switch of climate, they could have run a whole host of different projections using other forcings as the “main one” in their models (still with the CO2 forcing in there, but set to have a much lower level of influence, perhaps)…AT THE TIME. From the beginning. And we could have been seeing the results of that now. In other words they could have been objective, but chose not to be. And yes I guess I am being “Captain Hindsight” here, but something to consider for the future perhaps?
Sorry if I explain this terribly, I hope someone can see what I’m blathering on about.
“Ignore the grey bands”
LOL.
Yes, ignore everything that doesn’t fit your argument. That’s a solid method for a rational argument.
GrahamW says
Sorry if I explain this terribly, I hope someone can see what I’m blathering on about.
Henry@GrahamW
there never was ANY such experiment, excepting those that were carried out more than 100 years ago by Tyndall and Arrhenius, i.e. the so-called “closed-box” experiments. To this day, even Al Gore tries to sell these stupid experiments and they are still being taught at schools as gospel truth.
However, if you are able to figure out the various truths that I am stating here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
you are OK.
Philip Shehan says:
“There is empirical evidence for CO2 as a forcing factor in that past temperature changes can only be matched to theory by including what is known about the effects of CO2 in the forcing calculations.”
Ah, the old Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy: “Since I can’t think of anything else, then global warming must be caused by CO2.” LOL!
There is no testable, falsifiable “empirical evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. That is simply an assertion. If there was testable, falsifiable evidence showing that ∆CO2 caused ∆T, WUWT readers would have been hit over the head with that putative “empirical evidence” for the past five years. There are only Shehan’s “calculations” which are certainly not empirical evidence. “Calculations” are what run models, and climate models are always wrong. That is simply because they assume that CO2 has a measurable forcing effect. It does not.
The only cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temperature is that ∆T causes ∆CO2. True empirical evidence confirms that CO2 does not have the claimed effect. Therefore, all funding to ‘study climate change’ and related wastes of taxpayer funds must be terminated. Too much taxpayer money has already been wasted on the phony AGW scare.
Tzo:
Your post at December 18, 2012 at 11:08 am says in entirety
O Wise One, please enlighten me as to what the grey bands indicate, why that should be taken into account, and what taking them into account says about the model “projections”.
I await your illuminating exposition with bated breath.
Richard
Graham W says: @ur momisugly December 18, 2012 at 9:31 am
…..If they had set up additional models in the first place, with *different* forcings set to “most significant” rather than just always assuming CO2 would be the most significant no matter what anyone else said to the contrary, they could have produced a number of different series of projections. One of those alternate series of projections, from a model using an alternate forcing – a forcing other than CO2 – as it’s primary driver of climate, made in the past, may have matched the subsequently observed temperatures better than “the CO2 one”. It seems to me that “the CO2 one” is all anyone is ever interested in working with….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That was never ever apart of the mandate and that is why it was never done.
Well that’s ridiculous Gail. Not saying that I don’t believe you, saying I think that’s ridiculous…you can make as many model predictions as you like, it’s not like we don’t have the computer power. Why not run thousands, millions of future projections with every conceivable combination of forcings at different levels of influence over the model output, different interactions, etc….then just see what happens in the future. Keep all the projections in a giant database. 30 years time, run the observed measurements over the preceding years into some cross-referencing thing, it picks out the projection that has the best fit to that climate change over the period, then that’s pretty good evidence that this chosen model, with its combination of forcing a (maybe CO2 right as the least influential lol) is the current best understanding of the climate. Then you build from there. In the meantime still investigate for any new forcings and improve on existing knowledge etc.
Don’t just say its got to be CO2 as the main thing, that’s it, no other configuration can be accepted…just silly. Isn’t it?
Graham W
Rather than that model which offers the best fit, I suggest that what is needed is that model which conveys the maximum possible information to policy makers about the outcomes from their policy decisions. Though they offer relatively good fits, today’s IPCC models convey no information to policy makers thus being useless for the purpose of regulating the climate.
D Böehm says:
December 18, 2012 at 12:08 pm
“Ah, the old Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy: “Since I can’t think of anything else, then global warming must be caused by CO2.” LOL!”
No. That is entirely wrong. It is as invalid as the argument:
“Ah, the old Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy: “Since I can’t think of anything else, then global warming must be caused by solar activity and volcanic eruptions.” LOL!”
The understanding of climate involves many factors of which CO2 is just one. They must be combined to match theory with observation. Modelling the data using only calculated impact ofsolar activity and volcanic eruptions since 1850 does not match the temperature data. Modelling using only calculated impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gas and sulphate aerosols does not match the data. Only combining all four factors major factors gives a good match to the data.
The fact that WUWT readers have been hit over the head with this kind of combination of empirical evidence combined with theoretical understanding and still wish to deny that it exists is indeed a source of concern. ( I await sophisticated argument along the lines that the published data I cite on this is reproduced on the skeptical science website so it is therefore rubbish.)
Philip Shehan says:
December 18, 2012 at 4:48 am
What date are you selecting for the start of the 16 year period?
Since I did not see a response by mpainter, I will do my best. He said: “Do you agree that there the record shows no warming these past sixteen years? “ That can only mean the most recent 16 years from the present day. At least three data sets show no warming for the last 16 years when rounded to the nearest year.
1. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November)
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/rss/from:1997.0/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1
However in view of the significance of the 16 years lately, I would like to elaborate on RSS. The slope for 15 years and 11 months from January 1997 on RSS is -4.1 x 10^-4. But the slope for 16 years and 0 months from December 1996 is +1.3 x 10^-4. So since the magnitude of the negative slope since January 1997 is 3 times than the magnitude of the positive slope since December 1996, I believe I can say that since a quarter of the way through December 1996, in other words from December 8, 1996 to December 7, 2012, the slope is 0. This is 16 years. Therefore RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
Werner Brozek:
However, the argument for no warming is based upon unsupportable assumptions of linearity, normality and independence.
Philip Shehan
Thank you for your response. The problem of a trend line I put as one of the last sixteen years, i.e., the interval from late 1997 to present. I see you kindly provided other intervals. Another was helpfully provided by HenryP, which showed a cooling trend. The issue is this: how reliable are the climate models, and is sixteen years of observation a long enough interval to judge their reliability. You seem to argue sixteen years is of inadequate duration for such judgement. This seems an untenable position, because you have to argue why sixteen years is too short a time. I welcome your argument, however. I quote you:
“By definition, climate models do not specifically project any periods of no warming, low warming, or extreme warming due to unpredictable future occurences such as the 1998 el nino year or la nina years or the mount Pinatubo eruption.”
I can go you one further and say that by definition climate models project warming and nothing else. The reason, of course, is that climate models are devised to project warming and nothing but warming, and are incapable of forecasting any period of cooling or lack of warming, such as the last sixteen years. This is the essential failure of climate models: they are rigid contrivances designed to project a warming trend indefinitely into the future, and could not forecast cooling if you submerged them in liquid nitrogen. So, one does not need the last sixteen years to judge the reliability of climate models when one understands that climate models are incapable of nothing but warming projections. I think that every climate modeler realizes this. Do you?
I note that you claim ignorance of the panic talk of future climate disaster, “tipping points” and CO2 mitigation schemes. Most curious that you should be interested in climate issues and be unaware of this. Insofar as the relevance of such, it has to do with the reliability of climate models, because if the forecast ability of these contrivances is as poor as the record of the last sixteen years shows, then the world has been had. Thank you for your attention
Philip Shehan:
I was in process of answering your mistaken post at December 18, 2012 at 3:28 pm when I noticed that you intend to copy any reply to SkS.
Hence, you will not get a reply from me or from anyone else who makes rational comments about the climate because none of us would want to be associated in any way with that climate porn site.
Richard
Philip Shehan says:
“Since I can’t think of anything else, then global warming must be caused by solar activity and volcanic eruptions.”
Wrong on several levels.
First, I never mentioned either solar activity or volcanoes. I don’t think we have a handle on what exactly caused the LIA or the [entirely natural] recovery from the LIA. You certainly don’t know for a fact.
Next, you presume that CO2 causes global warming, but you have no empirical measurements proving that it does. It might. But I am a measurements type of guy. If it can’t be measured and tested, it is hardly science. At best, CO2=AGW is an untested conjecture. As for catastrophic AGW, don’t be silly.
Next, you say: “The correct procedures is to take the longest relevant view.” And then you once again post that phony SkS unattributed, handmade chart. If you have to depend on nonsense like that to try and win a debate, you lose.
Here, I’ll show you real long term charts, based on real data. They clearly show that the recovery from the LIA is along the same long term trend line, with no recent acceleration. In fact, global warming has stopped for the past decade and a half. If CO2 caused measurable global warming, then temperatures would have begun to accelerate long ago. But they haven’t.
Since the long term global warming trend has not accelerated, despite a large increase in CO2, the only reasonable conclusion is that CO2 does not have the claimed effect. Sorry about your conjecture.
Terry Olberg says:
“….though they offer relatively good fits, today’s IPCC models convey no information to policy makers thus being useless for the purpose of regulating the climate.”
==================================================================
Regarding this “purpose of regulating the climate”, are you feeling well?
mpainter:
I’m feeling fine. A number of governments are attempting to regulate the climate through curbs on CO2 emissions. Policy makers for these governments need but do not have information about the outcomes from policy decisions. What do you think?
Mario Lento: Surely you agree the trend is up!? There is no ‘new red line’ showing ht etrend over 15 years! And what about the Arctic summer sea ice http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-of-doubt-escalator-updates.html – why is that melting faster and faster if we are in a cooling trend? The sea ice is even more important than the overall temperature rise as the melting of the permafrost and the release of the massive amounts of methane stored there is one of the tipping points climate scientists are concerned about. Once the ‘methane bomb’ goes off it’s all over Red Rover.
Trouble with changing horses like you’re doing (OK so its not temperature but just look at what Arctic sea ice is doing) is that you are then exposed to all the other phenomena that might be expected to flow from an amplified ghe but aren’t happening. Why aren’t we seeing more flooding, hurricanes, Antarctic sea ice, amplified mid troposphere tropical heating, relative enhancement of meridional flow component? You can’t retrospectively select variables to support attribution, you have to write them down in a sealed envelope ahead of time and check back later. I write as someone comfortable with the reality of a ghe, even comfortable with an anthropogenic component albeit at the bottom of the range shown on Fig 1.4 of the draft Summary for Policymakers.
Max Beran
In reply to above responses
Werner Brozek :
Since for most of 2012 people have been using the “no warming for 16 years” argument, it is not unreasonable to ask whether they mean 1996. But you miss the real point in my posts. Cherry picking dates can give you any trend you like.
mpainter says:
December 18, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Climate models are not designed to project warming and nothing else. The fact that the observed temperatures match the models used in hindcast indicates that they are simply doing what they were designed to do match theory with observation and allow projections of furute observations based on this success. I did not claim ignorance of the subjects you mention, I just stted that they were irrelevant to the point under discussion.
richardscourtney says:
December 18, 2012 at 3:59 pm And I reproduce the post in full
“Philip Shehan:
I was in process of answering your mistaken post at December 18, 2012 at 3:28 pm when I noticed that you intend to copy any reply to SkS.
Hence, you will not get a reply from me or from anyone else who makes rational comments about the climate because none of us would want to be associated in any way with that climate porn site.
Richard”
Right on cue. I wrote “I await sophisticated argument along the lines that the published data I cite on this is reproduced on the skeptical science website so it is therefore rubbish.”
D Böehm says:
December 18, 2012 at 4:09 pm
No you did not mention Solar activity and volcanic eruptions. But you can make exactly the same statement about them as you made about the CO2 contributions and it would be equally wrong.
I noted above that climatology is one of those sciences, along with cosmology, evolution and plate tectonics that cannot be done in the laboratory. That does not mean the theories are unsupported by empirical data. If you think my earlier posts in any way indicate that I believe that CO2 is the only factor affecting climate, once again I am peplexed by your level of comprehension.
The figure you refer to is not “hand made”. It uses the observed temperature data. There is no reason whatsover to expect that long term data trend is linear. The data has been computer matched to an equation giving a very good correlation coefficient r squared of 0.84
Philip Shehan says:
“No you did not mention Solar activity and volcanic eruptions. But you can make exactly the same statement about them as you made about the CO2 contributions and it would be equally wrong.”
You set up that strawman and knocked him right down, you brave strawman killer, you. That is a perfect example of a strawman fallacy, BTW: quote something someone else never said, then argue with it. The alarmist crowd lives on such logical fallacies. That, and their endless psychological projection.
Regarding your totally phony SkS chart and the numerous links I have posted that flatly contradict it, note that the charts I posted are based upon testable data, while John Cook’s charts are the product of a mendacious cartoonist.
Finally you write: “That does not mean the theories are unsupported by empirical data.”
They are not “theories”, they are merely conjectures. Learn the difference, because words matter. You have never posted any testable, empirical measurements showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. The reason is clear: there are no such testable measurements. AGW is a conjecture — which may be true — but if so it is de minimus. If AGW exists it is only a third-order forcing, and thus it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. It is simply too insignificant to matter.
D Böehm
I second your claim that: “They are not “theories”, they are merely conjectures.” The statistical population and sample from this population that might elevate these conjectures to theories are absent.
Philip Shehan says:
December 18, 2012 at 7:00 pm
In reply to above responses
Werner Brozek :
Since for most of 2012 people have been using the “no warming for 16 years” argument, it is not unreasonable to ask whether they mean 1996. But you miss the real point in my posts. Cherry picking dates can give you any trend you like.
When David Rose wrote his article in October, it is my understanding that he meant Hadcrut4 and that he started from January 1, 1997 and assumed that the remaining months of 2012 would not change the fact that there would be no significant warming when the final numbers for 2012 are in. So the original 16 years were from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2012. Then we can talk about significant warming at the 95% confidence level or a slope of 0 for 16 years. Hadcrut4 does NOT have a slope of 0, but it does show no warming at the 95% level for 16 years. As a matter of fact, it shows no significant warming for 18 years. The numbers from 1995 to 2013 are 0.097 +/- 0.113. (I realize there are two more months to go, but that will not change much with the ENSO Meter at 0.14.)
Strictly speaking, when one talks of no warming for 16 years, one should mean the most recent 192 months in my opinion.
As for “Cherry picking dates”, it was NOAA that said what it did about the 15 years. We have no choice about the final date. We can only go back 15 years from today to see if NOAA’s statement applies. I was once challenged to prove there was no warming for 15 years. I showed there was no warming for 180 months and was promptly accused of cherry picking a date just before the El Nino! Another person showed a trend for a shorter time and was accused of not going 15 years!
“There is no reason whatsoever to expect that long term data trend is linear.”
Terry Oldberg also mentions the linearity or lack thereof. You both are correct, but take that up with NOAA. They set a ‘goal post’ based on linearity and 15 years or more. Earth ‘scored’ a goal. Do not blame me for just pointing that out.
Phillip Shehan; you say
“Climate models are not designed to project warming and nothing else.”
But previously you had said
“By definition, climate models do not specifically project any periods of no warming, low warming, or extreme warming due to unpredictable future occurences” I take this to mean that none of the models are capable of forecasting a trend of no warming or of actual cooling.
These two quotes reveal you as self-contradictory. I put previously “climate models are incapable of forecasting any period of cooling or lack of warming, such as the last sixteen years” I believe that this is correct. Furthermore, there is no expectation that warming will resume this decade, now that the climate models are shown to be unreliable.
The conclusion must be that AGW theory has been refuted by the last sixteen years temperature record and AGW theory cannot be reconciled to these observations.
mpainter:
The climate models do not forecast. Their “projections” do not match the defintion of “forecasts.”
mpainter:
Your conclusion that “AGW has been refuted by the last sixteen years temperature record” is incorrect. The statistical sample that would provide for this refutation does not exist.
occupyjane says:
December 18, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Mario Lento: Surely you agree the trend is up!? There is no ‘new red line’ showing ht etrend over 15 years! And what about the Arctic summer sea ice http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-of-doubt-escalator-updates.html – why is that melting faster and faster if we are in a cooling trend? The sea ice is even more important than the overall temperature rise as the melting of the permafrost and the release of the massive amounts of methane stored there is one of the tipping points climate scientists are concerned about. Once the ‘methane bomb’ goes off it’s all over Red Rover.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
OK lets take that one idea at a time.
1.Despite the fact that the global temperature records are ‘adjusted’ they STILL show no upward trend in the last 16 years as D Böehm keeps showing.
2. Arctic Ice: “why is that melting faster and faster if we are in a cooling trend?” This could be something entirely different than what you think and be consistent with a cooling trend. Note the recent decrease in the Arctic Melt Season
The short answer is winds and storms:
The long answer is the Bi-polar Seesaw
The name for this effect is the bipolar seesaw. A new paper suggest that this bipolar seesaw is a key to understanding the length and more important the termination of an interglacial.
Another paper states:
“…Once the ‘methane bomb’ goes off it’s all over Red Rover….”
As other have explained that is not a real problem. The arctic has been much warmer than it is now without any ‘Tipping Point’ or really hot temperatures.
Another paper:
This is a graph of the Northern Hemisphere Summer Solar energy vs Temperature for the Holocene.
Terry Oldberg says: December 18, 2012 at 8:39 pm
mpainter:
The climate models do not forecast. Their “projections” do not match the defintion of “forecasts.”
==========================================================================
How Right You Are! Congratulations, you are starting to understand.
The climate models do not forecast because they cannot forecast. They are contrivances meant only to project warming into the indefinite future and are incapable of making forecasts, as Philip Shehan confessed before he saw the trap. He then tried to wriggle out but he was caught on record. And now you are on record, too, showing a fine aptitude for what is taught here.
Isn’t Anthony Watts a fine fellow, to provide this nice blog where you can learn about climate? Stick around, ’cause there’s lots more to learn. Tomorrow we are going to explain why “regulating the climate” is not such a good idea. Don’t miss out!
mpainter
mpainter:
To state that I am “starting to understand” is inaccurate. I published a peer reviewed article on the topic of logic and climatology two years ago in which I pointed out that the climate models did not make forecasts but seemed to do so as a consequence of conflation of predictions with projections on the part of climatologists..
Terry Oldberg says:December 18, 2012 at 9:03 pm
mpainter:
Your conclusion that “AGW has been refuted by the last sixteen years temperature record” is incorrect. The statistical sample that would provide for this refutation does not exist.
==============================================================
Gosh, Terry, you are going to have to explain that one for me because I know so little about statistics.
mpainter:
If you were to hold the sarcasm and attempt the proof of a conclusion, perhaps this conversation would lead in a useful direction.