Reactions are coming in worldwide worldwide to figure 1.4 of the IPCC AR4 draft report. and the revelation that climate sensitivity is lower by aerosol analysis than the IPCC officially projects. Hotheads are blowing gaskets because the hot air just went out of their cause. William Connolley (with an e) gets the “blown head gasket award” for this round, see below.
First some op-eds:
Washington Times: EDITORIAL: Chilling climate-change news
New leak shows predictions of planetary warming have been overstated.
Forbes: Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: The UN’s Global Warming Forecasts Are Performing Very, Very Badly
Investors Business Daily: Climate Change Draft Undermines U.N.’s Claims
PowerLine: Climate Alarmism: The Beginning of the End?
Climate scientist Richard Betts thanks Nic Lewis for “constructive contribution” to climate sensitivity debate. http://t.co/TU02i5rf
http://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/281706335320555521
Media Matters: WSJ’s Climate “Dynamite” Is A Dud (citing the duds dudes at “Skeptical Science”)
The Telegraph, Delingpole: Global Warming? Not a snowball’s chance in hell
Tom Nelson points out this fun exchange between Matt Ridley and William Connolley (with an e) via James Delingpole:
Twitter / JamesDelingpole: Climate troll and banned …
Climate troll and banned Wikipedia tinkerer William Connolley bursts a sphincter at Worstall’s place http://timworstall.com/2012/12/19/is-climate-change-really-a-damp-squib/ …
[Connolley comment] Anyone saying “trust me, I’m an IPCC expert reviewer” is a cretin. *Anyone* can be an “expert reviewer” just by asking to see the draft. It doesn’t mean the IPCC have vetted you in any way.
Is climate change really a damp squib?
[Matt Ridley’s sane, measured response] …I have since gradually come to the view that the extra feedback necessary to make CO2 warming dangerous is increasingly implausible, though still possible, and that the measures we are taking to cut carbon emissions are doing and will do more harm especially to poor people than warming itself. I may be wrong in this, but it’s not unreasonable to debate this possibility — and nor is it outside the scientific consensus, by the way.
I bring to the subject the same technique that I bring to all the topics I cover as a journalist. (Only on climate (and religion) am I told that my credentials disallow me from even having a view.) I read both sides of the question, I challenge assumptions and I listen to arguments. In this case reputable climate scientists like Judith Curry and Richard Betts agree that Nic Lewis has made a good case and deserves to be considered and debated. Would that Dr Connolley would show the same open-mindedness.
Over at Tamino’s place, Tamino is his usual self, calling other people and their conclusions “fake” while oblivious to his own use of a fake name.
Next, Tamino will call Nature itself “fake” for not cooperating at the correct pace. He seems to conveniently forget all the adjustments (all upwards) that been applied to the surface temperature record this past decade. No matter, as long as the adjustments fit his conclusion. /sarc
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
D Boehm
The CRWS and Stormsurf jet stream maps are a good place to go.
Many of the commenters are optimistic that AGW is on the way out. In my opinion they are overly enthusiastic. Remember that Obama was re-elected. Low information voters were his key to victory. Apply this to Climate Change and what do you have?
Tamino: It just means that there’s not enough data in 16 years to tell for sure, statistically speaking, which way they’re going. That always happens
If significant changes are happening, then 16 years IS sufficient as shown below.
Here are the numbers with the 95% numbers using Hadcrut4.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Start of 1995 to end 2009: 0.133 +/- 0.144. Warming for 15 years is NOT significant.
Start of 1995 to end 2010: 0.137 +/- 0.129. Warming for 16 years IS significant.
Start of 1995 to end 2011: 0.109 +/- 0.119. Warming for 17 years is NOT significant.
Start of 1995 to October 2012: 0.098 +/- 0.111. Warming for 18 years is NOT significant.
Frank Rizzo says:
And, interestingly, his estimate of his effective sensitivity (~1.75 C) is well within the range of what climate models have for a transient climate response (TCR), which is probably more what the method that he discusses diagnoses. (See here for a list of the TCRs and ECSs for the climate models considered in AR4: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html And, note that most of the models that have a TCR in the neighborhood of 1.75 C have an ECS roughly in the neighborhood of 3 C.)
@D Böehm:
Try: http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html
Left hand side of page has links for both N.H. and S.H.
taxed says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm
“Back in August its was the weakness of the jet stream over Russia that give a hint that northern asia could be in for a other cold winter.”
You got to feel sorry for all the poor people over there, struggling with the cold.
It was -20 degrees where I live here in Norway the other day. But it is no problem for us. We just turn on the heat in our houses, and drive our cars. Because we can afford it.
And why can we afford it? Because British Petroleum helped the Norwegians finding oil and gas in the North Sea. And because Capitalism and democrasy has been at work here since the 70’ties.
Give the poor in Asia some Capitalism, some democracy and some oil and gas, I say!
Mike Smith,
Thanks for the link.
Werner Brozek says:
You do realize that the 95% confidence standard is somewhat arbitrary…and that getting uncertainties on trends for correlated data when you don’t know exactly how the correlations behave is not a precise science? Such a confidence standard becomes especially arbitrary when people are willing to mine through the various data sets for the data set and the exact time interval that gives them the result that they want…because things things that will only occur 1 time in 20 become pretty common if you look at enough realizations. (See Willis Eschenbach’s post here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/keep-doing-that-and-youll-go-blind/ I have not looked at this particular paper he criticizes to confirm if his criticism of it is correct, but his basic point about statistics is correct.)
This is all a way of saying that you are making mountains out of moleholes with your post about when the trend is or is not signficant. I agree that Tamino’s statement was not sufficiently precise: There are time periods of 16 years over which one does find a positive trend in the global temperature data that is statistically significant. However, what is true is that 16 years is still too short to reliably be able to detect such a trend with statistical significance given the expected trend and the short term variability in the temperature record. So, not having a statistically-significant trend over such a time period doesn’t allow you to conclude very much.
joeldshore says:
December 22, 2012 at 12:34 pm
However, what is true is that 16 years is still too short to reliably be able to detect such a trend with statistical significance given the expected trend and the short term variability in the temperature record.
Fair enough. However RSS has now gone 23 years without a positive trend at the 95% level.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For RSS: +0.135 +/-0.147 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1991
For RSS: +0.142 +/-0.159 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1992
For RSS: +0.107 +/-0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1993
For RSS: +0.069 +/-0.174 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For RSS: +0.043 +/-0.190 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For RSS: +0.036 +/-0.210 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
For RSS: -0.003 +/-0.229 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997
For RSS: -0.045 +/-0.250 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1998
So let me ask you this: At what point should we stop wasting billions on carbon capture like they want to do in my province soon?
See: http://ukipscotland.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/longannet-carbon-capture-scheme-scrapped/
“Environment Canada wants to spend $6 billion to reduce the atmospheric concentration of a trace molecule by 0.01 ppmv, and assuming there is any advantage in doing so, supposedly cutting global temps by 0.0007°C.”
When an oil company in our province asked for input for their carbon capture plan, I wrote about the huge costs for little gain. They thanked me for my input but it made no difference.
Werner Brozek says:
All of those trends that you’ve calculated are also compatible with a trend of 0.2 C/decade at the 95% confidence level. (Many of them are even compatible with a trend of 0.25 C/decade at the 95% confidence level.)
And, you AGW skeptics basically used to ignore RSS in favor of UAH back in the days when their trends disagreed, with RSS being significantly greater. Now that corrections to the UAH record and a lower recent trend in the RSS data have put them in about the same place in regards to the trend over their full record, you cherrypick the RSS data because over the more recent time period, its trend is actually lower. You are illustrating exactly my point.
So, joeldshore, did the last warming trend end in ’97? We have been cooling for over ten years, and it seems that this will continue indefinitely. People like you pretend that the planet is still warming. Another severe winter is upon us, and who believes you?
Well, I won’t argue with your empirical results, but suspect that it’s a case of IR being largely reflected by water but absorbed by the floating object, which in turn transfers heat to the water by conduction. I suggest that you try the same experiment with a fluid having lower surface tension – perhaps add some Windex to a batch, dish-detergent to another, etc. I’m no physical chemist so others may give you better answers.
RMB says:
December 23, 2012 at 8:21 am
The proposition that the “team” is peddalling is that a gas called co2 gets heated by the sun and coming in contact with the surface of the ocean causes increased evaporation and heat storage in the ocean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is NOT what the “team” is peddling, in fact it isn’t even close. The rest of your tirade is similarly composed of physics that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Perhaps you would like to expand.
mpainter says:
No…It did not. As you can see, a fit of the HADCRUT4 data from 1975 to mid 1997 actually gives a slightly lower slope than a fit of the data from 1975 to the present:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.5/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend
This is a more robust way to look at the trend in a noisy system than drawing trend lines over short periods of time.
joelshore cherry-picks 1975. Well, two can play that game.
joeldshore says:
December 23, 2012 at 6:20 am
you cherrypick the RSS data because over the more recent time period, its trend is actually lower.
The UAH people admit there are some errors that version 6 is supposed to correct. We will see what happens when that comes out.
Although global warming has stopped, and is now headed down, it may resume at some point. Therefore, the only legitimate way to look at it is on the longest time frame for which we have reasonably accurate records.
This shows that the long term global warming trend has remained within well defined parameters. Global warming has not accelerated, despite the rise in CO2. Therefore, CO2 has had no measurable effect. In fact, the green trend line shows that the warming trend has been slowing.
Since CO2 has had no measurable effect on global warming, and since global warming has not accelerated — but rather, has stopped for the past decade and a half — the only scientifically rational conclusion is that AGW remains a failed conjecture. AGW may exist, but if so, it is merely a minor third order forcing — far too minuscule to affect global temperatures in any meaningful way.
The short term coincidental correlation between rising CO2 and rising global temperatures is broken. CO2 continues to rise, but temperatures are no longer rising. Any honest scientist would completely reconsider the CO2=AGW conjecture at this point. But as we have repeatedly seen, when the alarmist clique is faced with a contradictory choice between what their models say, and what the planet is saying, they typically discard the empirical evidence and argue instead that their always-inaccurate computer models are reality. Such mendacious pseudo-science is the reason the climate alarmist crowd has lost all credibility among honest scientists.
D Boehm: 1975 is justifiable because there was a clear change in the global temperature record around that time. And, 1975 to mid 1997 is a fairly reasonable record length of 22.5 years and 1975 to 2012 is a record length of 38 years. By contrast, your cherrypick of 2002 to present is a record length of only 11 years, known to be too short to draw any real conclusions about the underlying trend. So, no, we are not playing the same game; I am playing the game of making scientifically-defensible choices and you are playing the game of making indefensible ones.
joelshore,
Not really.
I have robustly demonstrated that there is no empirical, testable evidence showing that CO2 makes any measurable difference. All the real world evidence shows that CO2 is benign and beneficial. More is better. There is no verifiable scientific evidence of global harm from the rise in CO2. Therefore, CO2 is harmless, based on the complete lack of evidence to the contrary.
You always avoid that fact. If CO2 had the claimed effect, global temperatures would be rising smartly. They are not. Global temperatures are not currently rising at all. Thus, AGW is only an extremely minor, third order forcing that can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. That is what Planet Earth is clearly demonstrating.
Finally, you are making an arbitrary distinction between the number of years you wish to cherry-pick. The IPCC admits that they now have a serious problem. But you keep digging your hole deeper. Wise up. Look out your window. There is nothing unprecedented happening. Nothing. Learn anbout the Null Hypothesis. This has all happened before, and to a much greater degree — and when CO2 was much lower.
joeldshore says: December 23, 2012 at 11:54
“trend in a noisy system ”
==============================
Assuming that you refer here to the last sixteen years of temperature data as noise. Interesting.
I wonder if those who collect and collate the data would agree with your characterization of their efforts. But possibly you refer only to the notorious adulteration of the data by the Hansen GISS.
However, sixteen years provides data sufficient to establish a trend, and so your referenced trend plot has been superceded by more up-to-date information. The latest trend is flat, but the last ten years makes it evident that a cooling trend has started, and so there can be no expectation that a warming trend will resume in this decade. The AGW position is now untenable.
Enjoy the holidays, keep warm. mpainter
joeldshore says:
December 23, 2012 at 3:10 pm
So, no, we are not playing the same game
O.K. I will play your game. From what you have written, I will assume that 20 years and 28 years are long enough to draw appropriate conclusions.
What I assumed was that warming did not stop in 1997, but rather that the temperatures follow a (very poor) sine wave. So if there was a slope of 0 for 16 years, then the top of the sine wave would be after 8 years or at 2005. You could argue that a flat slope of 16 years consists of warming for 8 years and then identical cooling for 8 years. If you get the slope from 1985 to 2005 and then from 1985 to date, the latter slope is lower as shown below. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1985/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1985/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1985/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2005/trend
mpainter says:
I use the term “noise” to refer to short-term variations such as that due to ENSO, weather, even forcings that operate over shorter time scales and tend to be cyclical, like the solar cycle. It is not any slight against those who collect and collate the data. This noise is a natural component of the climate system and, in fact, is seen not only in real data but also in the climate model simulations.
What is untenable is people carefully cherrypicking how they measure trends in order to, say, start at what may have been the biggest El Nino in the last century. And, people failing to understand the concept of uncertainty in a trend line. I have two predictions:
(1) The fact that it is continuing to warm will indeed become obvious over the next decade.
(2) This will have little effect on the views of the people around here (although it will probably affect the popularity of this site).
Werner Brozek says:
You are fitting to noise. Why don’t you try computing the uncertainties on those trendlines of yours.
Have a good holiday everyone!
joelshore says:
(1) The fact that it is continuing to warm will indeed become obvious over the next decade.
“Indeed”? Based upon what? Your fervent hope? And if warming does resume, it will be entirely a good thing. Cold is the real threat.
And:
(2) This will have little effect on the views of the people around here (although it will probably affect the popularity of this site).
You wish. Unlike the alarmist crowd, if the facts change, scientific skeptics will reassess the situation. But giant glaciers could descend across the midwest and Europe, and the alarmist contingent would still refuse to admit they were wrong. That is the difference between skeptics and alarmists.
WUWT is steadily rising, now approaching 135 million hits and close to a million reader comments. It is increasingly linked in national magazine articles. What blog will take it’s place? RealScienceCensorship? Tamina? Unskeptical Pseudoscience? Closed Mind? heh. Don’t be silly.
And I understand why joelshore always avoids answering my regular comment:
“There is no verifiable scientific evidence of global harm from the rise in CO2.”
Because it is true.
Take a plastic wrapping film, as tough as you like, and hold it up to your face, as taut as you like. Then I’m going to punch the film. Hard, and often. With my handy-dandy brass knucks.
How long do you think you can keep your face from getting “warm”?