David Rose of the Mail on Sunday is having a go at the Committee on Climate Change for their denial of the points raised in his article last week and this graph, which was sourced from NCAR and used in the Economist article noted on WUWT.
Rather stubborn, these blokes.
Excerpt:
The official watchdog that advises the Government on greenhouse gas emissions targets has launched an astonishing attack on The Mail on Sunday – for accurately reporting that alarming predictions of global warming are wrong.
We disclosed that although highly influential computer models are still estimating huge rises in world temperatures, there has been no statistically significant increase for more than 16 years.
Despite our revelation earlier this month, backed up by a scientifically researched graph, the Committee on Climate Change still clings to flawed predictions.
Leading the attack is committee member Sir Brian Hoskins, who is also director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London. In a blog on the Committee on Climate Change’s website, Sir Brian insisted: ‘The scientific basis for significant long-term climate risks remains robust, despite the points raised . . . Early and deep cuts in emissions are still required.’
He also claimed our report ‘misunderstood’ the value of computer models. Yet in an interview three years ago, Sir Brian conceded that when he started out as a climate scientist, the models were ‘pretty lousy, and they’re still pretty lousy, really’.
Our graph earlier this month was reproduced from a version first drawn by Dr Ed Hawkins, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. Last week it was reprinted as part of a four-page report in The Economist.
AGW_Skeptic says: March 31, 2013 at 8:26 am
Can this graph be updated to remove the shaded red bands to the left of the blue line? Since they were hindcast, they really shouldn’t be there in the first place.
…………..
Yes
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GR1.htm
I like this chart showing Hansen’s predictions from 1988 vs reality.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/hansen-1988-a-b-c-scenarios.gif
Scenario A is what should be compared to Reality. Conclusion….the model is wrong.
Hansen so believes in his models that
http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/dr-james-hansen-calls-civil-disobedience-capitol-coal-plant-march-2
says
“Dr. James Hansen, the internationally recoginized climatologist has released a public service announcment, calling on all of us to join the Capitol Climate Action, the largest civil disobedience against global warming in U.S. history. “
richard verney says:
March 31, 2013 at 9:05 am
“If there is no increase in temperature within the next year, the ‘prediction’ will have dropped out from even the 95% confidence wide band width. Expect to see more articles of this nature being published in MSM. All of this is making the task of preparing the next IPCC report more difficult.”
No doubt the IPCC and associated elites regret the day that they wrapped themselves in the flag of science. Watch for them to shift all their efforts to the policy front. It seems that Mann has done this. Gore’s game is all that remains to them.
Have the seen the article “The Joy of Global Warming” by Bjorn Lomborg in The Sunday Times? It’s on the front page of the New Review section!
richard verney says:
March 31, 2013 at 9:05 am
“If there is no increase in temperature within the next year, the ‘prediction’ will have dropped out from even the 95% confidence wide band width.”
Yes, but then there is the 99% (even wider) band. And after that is the 99.9% band, and so on, each band being wider than the last. They will simply say, “Look, there’s still 0.0001% that the climate is behaving as modelled.”
They will never cease.
I always said that it would not be too long before we knew who the real ‘deniers’ are. They are the new ‘Temperature Standstill Deniers’. Hey, I didn’t start the name calling.
As Paul Matthews points out the bullet points are:
1. The Hoskins quote ‘the models are lousy’.
2. Hindcasting.
3. Lord Deben’s astonishing corruption.
================
HADCRUT3 doesn’t include polar temperatures while the models and GISTEMP do, so GISTEMP has shown a warming more in line with the models in the last decade. The pole is warming faster than anywhere. Also land warming as seen in BEST exceeds the model gradient here, being 0.3 C per decade since 1980, so the discrepancy is due to the non-polar oceans remaining cooler, probably as a result of a long-period circulation mode.
Of course Sir Brian Hoskins (Committee on climate change, Grantham Institute for Climate change, Council member for the Natural Environment Research Council that funds and supports most of the environmental research in the UK) gets not a penny for his selfless work (http://www.adbiogas.co.uk/tag/prof-sir-brian-hoskins/)
Not at all like Tim Yeo
http://order-order.com/2013/02/15/tim-yeos-2-5-million-conflicts-of-interest/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2187948/Conservative-MP-chairs-climate-committee-earns-140k-green-energy-firms.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/2529667/Tory-MP-Tim-Yeo-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-car-tax-report.html
http://eotp.org/2012/09/19/2012-conservative-m-p-tim-yeo-conflict-of-interest/
And so on- ad infinitum
It should be noted that there are periods in the geological record of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 has high and the planet was cold and periods when atmospheric CO2 was low and the planet was warm. An explanation for the multiple periods of millions of years when planetary temperature does not correlate with CO2 levels is that there a missing mechanism that is not modeled by the general circulation models that causes the CO2 warming mechanism to saturate. CO2 absorbs specific radiation bands. In the lower atmosphere there is agreement among the specialist that the CO2 warming mechanism is saturated (i.e. Increased CO2 does not result in significant warming of the lower atmosphere.) It was believed however by some of the specialist that the CO2 mechanism could heat the planet due to high altitudes were the CO2 mechanism is not be saturated.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf
The majority of the warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm has predicted to occur in tropical troposphere at roughly 10 km above the earth’s surface. This warming should have created a hot spot (warming region) in the tropics at 10 km. There is no observed tropical hot spot. If there was a tropical hot spot the tropics would have warmed. There is no observed 20th century warming in the tropics
The 20th century warming that did occur is in high Northern latitudes, particularly in the Arctic and there is some warming in high Southern latitudes, however, the Antarctic has cooled slightly rather than warmed. (Interesting this specific warming pattern, warming in Arctic and slight cooling in the Antarctic and is called the ‘polar see-saw’. The polar see-saw occurs cyclically and correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes.)
The likely explanation for the saturation of the CO2 greenhouse mechanism is planetary clouds increase or decrease in the tropics to resist forcing changes which is supported by Lindzen and Choi’s analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation using satellite data compared to changes in ocean surface temperature (the satellite data determines the frequency of the radiation in addition to the magnitude of the radiation and hence can determine where the emitted radiation is long wave ‘heat’ from the planet or short wave sunlight reflected by planetary clouds.).
As the extreme AGW paradigm pushers have anchored the public and the science group think to the paradigm that increased CO2 caused the 20th century warming, the fact that there is no tropical troposphere hot spot and the warming that has occurred is the regions that cannot be explained by the CO2 mechanism, supports the assertion that majority of the 20th century warming has not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Ironically it appears an abrupt change is occurring to the sun which will cause significant planetary cooling. As there is more evidence for cooling, I will outline the mechanisms in detail.
Shaviv and Veizer’s paper Celestial driver of Phanerozoic Climate provides an outline of how the change in galactic cosmic rays (high speed protons, the misleading term ‘rays’ is used as the early researchers mistook the high speed cosmic protons with radiation) that occurs when the solar system through the plane of our galaxy as solar system rotates about the galaxy.
As discussed in Nir J. Shaviv & Ján Veizer’s paper Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate, there has been four ice epochs on the earth in the last 500 million years. Shaviv and Veizer analysis supports the assertion that the 50 to 70 million year ice epochs are caused by the increased galactic cosmic rays that occurs when the solar system passes through the plane of the galaxy.)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf
Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy. Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term “equilibrium” warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models.
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReply/RahmReply.html
RECONSTRUCTING COSMIC RAY FLUXES —The starting point of SV03 is a reconstruction of cosmic ray fluxes over the past 1,000 Myr based on 50 iron meteorites and a simple model estimating cosmic ray flux (CRF) induced by the Earth’s passage through Galactic spiral arms ([Shaviv, 2002; Shaviv, 2003]). About 20 of the meteorites, making four clusters, date from the past 520 Myr, the time span analysed in SV03. The meteorites are dated by analysing isotopic changes in their matter due to cosmic ray exposure (CRE dating [Eugster, 2003]). An apparent age clustering of these meteorites is then interpreted not as a collision-related clustering in their real ages but as an indication of fluctuations in cosmic ray flux (CRF). One difficulty with this interpretation is that variations in CRF intensity would equally affect all types of meteorites. Instead, the ages of different types of iron meteorites cluster at different times [Wieler, 2002]. Hence, most specialists on meteorite CRE ages interpret the clusters as the result of collision processes of parent bodies, as they do for stony meteorites (ages _ 130 Myr) to which more than one dating method can be applied.
If you measure the (model-actutal) for hindcast and forecast you can perform a t-test comparing hind/fore casting. Such a t-test would tell you if they have honestly used models or if their models are actually fits.
I did this last week and got a p of 0.003
My my – did I just read that the Committee on Climate Change (COC) are deemed stable climate deniers? Does that make the rest of us stable climate alarmists? If so I cheerfully accept the label.
Everyone remembers Chicken Little, the boy who cried “wolf”, and the chap with his finger in the dyke, but nobody remembers who set them right. It is the role of the MSM to keep the trend alive and so the myth of the hockey stick and the low-bred science behind it will outlive us all.
Repeated for truth!
Jim D says:
March 31, 2013 at 9:58 am
HADCRUT3 doesn’t include polar temperatures while the models and GISTEMP do, so GISTEMP has shown a warming more in line with the models in the last decade.
See Hansen’s forecast compared to GISTEMP: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/PNAS_GTCh_Fig2.pdf
Not even close.
Look out JimD is about, pushing all the warmist excuses.
He even has the cheek to quote the totally mangled GISS temperature set, which is totally divorced from history and reality.
Theo Goodwin says: March 31, 2013 at 9:30 am “such a conflict of interest would ignite a firestorm.”
Theo, I haven’t seen much of a firestorm over Mr Obama’s EPA shenanigans and GM and Green Subsidy fiascoes.
Theo Goodwin says:
March 31, 2013 at 9:30 am
In the US, such a conflict of interest would ignite a firestorm.
===========
only if it involved sex.
Maybe someone should calculate how much sun’s energy radiation changes and how much global mean temperature changes, use Kelvin, which is vital for correct answer. Okay I’ll do it. Sun heat radiation +-3 W/m2 means approx 6/1362=0,44% and the tempertaure +-0,6 K, which means 1,2K/287,5K=0,42%.
Is this coincidence?
Jim D says:
March 31, 2013 at 9:58 am
HADCRUT3 doesn’t include polar temperatures while the models and GISTEMP do
NO THEY DON’T !! Go read Hansen’s metadata.
son of mulder says:
March 31, 2013 at 9:37 am
I like this chart showing Hansen’s predictions from 1988 vs reality.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/hansen-1988-a-b-c-scenarios.gif
Scenario A is what should be compared to Reality. Conclusion….the model is wrong.
No, Scenario A is the path not taken as expected by Hansen, the actual emissions are close to Scenario C for all but CO2 which was close to A & B which were expected by Hansen to not differ very much by 2012. So what should be compared to reality is somewhere between C and B.
Of course the comparison with the UAH temperature is bogus too with an arbitrary shift to match at zero in late 1987 despite the fact that A, B & C didn’t match at that point!
So it’s clear that the author of that graph hadn’t read Hansen 88, didn’t understand what the calculations were based on, and made an arbitrary choice of temperature comparison to make the it look as bad as possible!
Ira’s recent attempt although it contains misunderstandings, is much better than this rubbish.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/20/how-well-did-hansen-1988-do
Jim D:
You are clearly the person I have been seeking because at March 31, 2013 at 9:58 am you say
Obviously, you are saying you know, understand and trust GISSTEMP. So, I ask you to explain this
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
Why and how does GISS repeatedly make such large alterations to global temperature determinations for decades in the past?
Either
(a) the adjustments are proper so GISSTEMP is ‘correct’
or
(b) the adjustments are unjustifiable and, therefore, GISSTEMP is so indeterminate as to be worthless.
The temperature measurements were made decades ago and GISS does not have a time-machine to go back and make more of them. But the GISS compilations of those past measurements are often altered. Why? In the absence of an answer to this question it has to be assumed that GISSTEMP is so indeterminate as to be worthless.
Please note that I have repeatedly asked this question (including to representatives of GISS on WUWT) with no reply. However, you have posted here to support GISSTEMP and, therefore, I assume you can answer my question.
Thanking you in anticipation of your answer
Richard
On Yahoo, Bill MacCracken continues to spew his IPCC and models despite having proven repeatedly he has little understanding of meteorology. He now even wants more money for geoengineering! That is how out of touch with reality the director of the Climate Institue is with reality. The green mongers are getting desperate to sell their scam in the Guardian and elsewhere. Wintry conditions that were explained through warm air displacing cold air (Overland, Wang, Pethoukov) is now supposed to relate to “global warming slowing down the polar vortex letting cold air “escape” more freely”… Dr. Coumou from Postdam claimed recently. Next, we’ll learn that glaciations were in fact a huge influx of global warming letting escape tons of polar air southward… LOL
30 years ago, had a student come up with such BS, he would have been laughed at. Not today. Why? Because the MacCracken types are running departments and have no clue about reality.
It’s amusing to see how those 75% & 95% confidence levels were “calculated” on that chart — in the hindcast portion (ie, 90% of the chart), they were placed such that the instrumental record is within the 75% zone 75% of the time, and ditto for the 95% zone. Isn’t hindsight wonderful! Damn those forward-going temperatures! The needed solution is tweakable *current* temperatures — will the IPCC address this urgent need?
Britain will need a lot more of Qatari LNG in the coming decade.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/uk-gas-supply-gets-lng-relief-from-qatar-as-cold-bites-stocks/article10263544/
You should not forget that you have have to get the CO2 level OK at the same time. Good models replicate reality in all of its aspects at the same time. So, lets compare the predictions of temperature simultaneously. It looks worse, because mankind did not follow the add no new CO2 scenario.