Guest essay by Professor Philip Lloyd
People have the nasty habit of giving their opponents names. Those who are convinced that humans are wrecking the world by burning fossil fuels call those who don’t believe them “denialists.” It implies that they are close to the Holocaust deniers, and so are clearly beyond the pale.
I have come to the conclusion that they are wrong. The true denialists are those who believe in global warming, and who will go to any lengths to deny the evidence against that position.
For instance, the final draft of the Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC’s Working Group 1 concerns itself with observations of the climate and how it might change in future. Within minutes of it being released, skeptics had noted that a key figure, which compared predicted temperatures to measurements, had been drastically altered after the second draft had been approved.
In the second draft, the observations lay below the lowest range in the predictions, and seemed to be getting further from the predictions as time went by. In the final version, the measurements had been pushed up and the predictions had been pushed sideways and Voila! the revised measurements now fell within the range of the changed predictions. Really! Grown men did this! Consciously! And honestly thought that no-one would notice.
That’s the trouble with calling people names. Before you know where you are, you have convinced yourself that they are stupid, too.
And there were lots of similar examples. In the Summary for Policy Makers, the scientists had said “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” The politicians did not like this, so they added a juicy version “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Suddenly “more than half” had morphed into “dominant cause.” That way, no one might be left with the idea that the scientists had actually said there was a reasonable chance that quite a lot of the warming was entirely natural.
My own contribution concerned the warming of the upper troposphere. In the previous Assessment Report, the IPCC had said “Upper-tropospheric warming reaches a maximum in the tropics and is seen even in the early-century time period. The pattern is very similar over the three periods, consistent with the rapid adjustment of the atmosphere to the forcing. These changes are simulated with good consistency among the models.” They even had a figure (WG1 Figure 10.7) to show just what they meant:
These are sections through the atmosphere, from the South Pole on the left to the North Pole on the right. Instead of altitude they give the pressure in ‘hectoPascals” which is sort of unfamiliar to most people, but 400 is around 8km up and 200 around 12km. “Good consistency” is shown by the stippling – Stippling denotes regions where the multi-model ensemble mean divided by the multi-model standard deviation exceeds 1.0 (in magnitude) reads the caption.
You can clearly see the flattened ‘bubble’ getting hotter as the century goes by. The models predict that, in that region, the atmosphere should warm at about 0.6 degrees Centigrade per decade, far faster than on the surface of the Earth.
Weather balloons have flown into that region for 60 years. Airliners have carried commuters at those altitudes for 40. The temperature can be inferred from satellite measurements. None of these methods have managed to find any evidence of warming at anything like 0.6 degrees Centigrade per decade. The thermometers suggest slight cooling; the satellites slight warming.
This huge discrepancy between model and measurement has been the subject of intense discussion since the 2007 Assessment. When I reviewed the first draft of the latest report, I said “Heh! You haven’t mentioned the problem!” Along came the second draft – same difficulty. This time I read out to the IPCC the actual papers from the peer-reviewed literature that they should have been using: –
Allen, Robert J. and Sherwood, Steven C. (2008) Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geosci 1 (6), 399- 403, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo208;
Lanzante, John R., Melissa Free, 2008: Comparison of Radiosonde and GCM Vertical Temperature Trend Profiles: Effects of Dataset Choice and Data Homogenization. J. Climate, 21, 5417–5435. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2287.1;
Singer, S Fred, (2011). Lack of Consistency Between Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends Energy & Environment, 22, 375-406 DOI – 10.1260/0958-305X.22.4.375 ;
Douglass, D. H., Christy, J. R., Pearson, B. D. and Singer, S. F. (2008), A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. Int. J. Climatol., 28: 1693–1701. doi: 10.1002/joc.1651
Titchner, Holly A., P. W. Thorne, M. P. McCarthy, S. F. B. Tett, L. Haimberger, D. E. Parker, 2009: Critically Reassessing Tropospheric Temperature Trends from Radiosondes Using Realistic Validation Experiments. J. Climate, 22, 465–485. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2419.1
(I mean, how pedantic do you have to be?)
I concluded my review saying “not even the satellite data comes near the predictions that were made in AR4 – the discrepancy between ALL the data and the models is wide. This debate MUST be reflected in the text.” So the IPCC had been told where to look – it is their job to review the peer-reviewed literature – and had been told that there was a debate because the measurements disagreed with the models. What did they do?
Nothing! Absolutely nothing (apart from quoting Titchner in a different context). The Summary for Policy Makers says:
“It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed since the mid-20th century. More complete observations allow greater confidence in estimates of tropospheric temperature changes in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere than elsewhere. There is medium confidence in the rate of warming and its vertical structure in the Northern Hemisphere extra-tropical troposphere and low confidence elsewhere.”
Section 2.4.4 says:
“In summary, assessment of the large body of studies comparing various long-term radiosonde and MSU products since AR4 is hampered by dataset version changes, and inherent data uncertainties. These factors substantially limit the ability to draw robust and consistent inferences from such studies about the true longterm trends or the value of different data products.”
So the data were apparently wrong!
There is a Table 2.8 headed:
“Trend estimates and 90% confidence intervals (Box 2.2) for radiosonde and MSU dataset global average values over the radiosonde (1958–2012) and satellite periods (1979–2012). LT indicates Lower Troposphere, MT indicates Mid Troposphere and LS indicates Lower Stratosphere”
Notice that? No Upper Troposphere – none, silence! Likewise, there is a Figure 2.24 which shows some Lower Troposphere trends, but is equally silent on the Upper Troposphere.
And that is the full extent of the discussion of the problem in the latest Report. The previous Assessment made a great song and dance about warming in the intratropical upper troposphere, the present Assessment completely avoids the issue.
Now you could well ask “So what?” The significance is that this goes to the heart of the physics on which all the models used to make predictions are based. If you have watched “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” you will have seen the critic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, speaking about how the Upper Troposphere should be warming. The physics of the atmosphere, as generally understood by all scientists of whatever global warming persuasion, require it should be warming faster than the surface of the earth. There is consensus – but the data show the consensus to be wrong.
Therefore the models are wrong. It only takes one clearcut observation to destroy the integrity of a scientific thesis. The physics underlying all the models is wrong – and we don’t know why. Moreover, the IPCC is demonstrably skirting the issue, telling us that “the observations substantially limit the ability to draw robust and consistent inferences.” What utter nonsense!
By any measure, the IPCC and its supporters are the true denialists, but it would be wrong of me to use such a word to describe them. So let’s just say they are attempting to deceive, and have done with it.
===============================================================
Professor Philip Lloyd is from the Energy Institute, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town S.A.
Lying, liars or deceit? None is a description of which I would be proud if I was an IPCC scientist.
Well put.
I eagerly await the MSM to become aware of this inconvenient measurement.
Kurt in Switzerland
Outrageous! Dr. Frankenstein seems like a very ethical scientist compared with the IPCC charlatans.
The word denier is a quai-religious term. It infers that that you fail to believe, and that you do not belong to a group of believers. It is a really strange word to use in a debate about science.
What is the science behind why the upper troposphere should be warming? Please point me, thanks!
Found it, thanks…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/
I forgot to mention – thank you for the troposphere explanation – it is a subject I hardly understand so it is useful to have this simple description of the physics
‘[So let’s just say they are attempting to deceive, and have done with it.’
In other words the IPCC continue to work in their normal way , a fully ‘political’ organisation whose first priority is to ensure that IPCC keeps existing and that those that enable this get the ‘answers they need’ Its standard UN practice we see at work here and nothing to do with ‘science’ at all.
Projection (calling us deniers) is what the left is all about. It’s also what liars do when they know they’re lying and do it to try and deflect away from their own lie.
Nah, it harshes the message and no one on the IPCC wants to be the bearer of bad news. They all know the theory is incomplete and they are simply waiting for a big El Nino or Volcano to bail them out. If in five or ten years it gets colder they will just revise the forcings downward again. Time is on their side and they are just playing the odds. There is absolutely zero reason for anyone to upset the gravy train.
Thanks, Philip.
OP — ” It implies that they are close to the Holocaust deniers, and so are clearly beyond the pale.”
To be sure, this is the precise intent when it gained popularity. But it’s worth noting that if you disagreed that Dachau was a death camp 20 years ago — you were a Holocaust Denier, and thus a fan of genocide and Fascist Economics. Probably had a signed copy of Mein Kampf stuffed away somewhere, in fact. But not long after that the ‘settled science’ of the history of the Holocaust decided that the shower heads at Dachau were faked for propaganda. Every statement that anyone is a ‘denier of X’ is predicated on “Because, damnit.”
It is a confession that the accuser has no proof on offer for their position. For if they did, they could simply hand it to you. At which point, you would accept the proof unless you were wholly irrational. But “Because, I believe that…” or “Because lots of people believe that…” or “Because the Top Men believe that…” have never been valid proof of a claim.
Not that there’s anything wrong with Ad Homs in general. Nothing makes a good polemic quite like the color commentary included with it. And poetry would be terribly boring without allusion or analogy. But an Ad Hom is not an argument, and cannot carry one. Even if it is useful for humor or ridicule when presented with an argument.
But when the Ad Hom carries the argument, it is done so as there is no proof available for the accusers Deeply Held Faith. For if they had any, they would hardly need to avoid its presentation.
This article is different to the familiar response of climate change skeptics to the ‘denier’ label. The usual argument (eloquently defended by Anthony, Joanne and others) goes like this:
1. Questioning the Nazi holocaust is beyond the pale
2. Questioning the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is good
3. Therefore, attempting to discredit the latter by amalgamating it with the former by using the term ‘climate change denier’ is unfair. Boo-hoo.
Philip Lloyd has a different take:
1. Questioning the Nazi holocaust is beyond the pale
2. Questioning the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is good
3. Those who defend this hypothesis are more accurately described as ‘deniers’
James Hansen, climate guru, apparently unaware of the US Constitution, called for the prosecution of ‘global warming deniers’ in front of Congress. Similarly, the U.S. Greenpeace website explicitly denies climate change denial is covered by freedom of speech: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets/faq/
Some German greens campaigned for climate change denial to be listed alongside holocaust denial, and therefore made an imprisonable offense. The response of the climate change skeptics was predictable: WE’RE not like holocaust deniers! Don’t make US illegal!
There are two issues here. One is whether it is acceptable to defend a particular hypothesis, and the other is whether it is true. It is crucial not to get the two mixed up.
I don’t defend climate change skeptics against slander and potential persecution because I think they are probably right, although I DO think they are probably right. It is the same with ‘holocaust deniers’, whom I happen to think are probably wrong. Defense of their freedom should be completely independent of how wrong you think they are. Defending climate skeptics against the D-word (denier, denialist) by complaining that it amalgamates them with skeptics about the German holocaust is illogical, and it also waves a white flag at the opponents of freedom.
Was it Humpty Dumpty who said:-
“When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean. No More. No less” ?
Someone will get their words come back and bite them, I suggest!
Auto.
Based on nothing more than this totally corrupted IPCC “climate science” and at the urging and insistence of the carpet baggers and weepy hand wringers of global warming alarmism, a billion dollars a day of the mankind’s treasure and resources is being splurged, expended and completely destroyed on combatting the non existent anthropogenic global warming
And all for absolutely no measurable let alone perceivable results except the increasing pauperisation of a rapidly increasing number of earth’s citizens.
Let alone is there any proof at all of any perceivable benefits arising from this immense expenditure of wealth and resources for either mankind or the global climate or both..
http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2013/
Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2013
[quote]
The Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2013 finds that global climate finance flows have plateaued at USD 359 billion, or around USD 1 billion per day – far below even the most conservative estimates of investment needs. On one hand, there is some cause for optimism: Although private
[ end]
Stephen, thank you for posting the TEDx video. I like his comment about “remaining agnostic and rephrase the question” even though it feels like cheating. What we see from the IPCC is a refusal to be agnostic, and hide the cheating part. He does it on purpose to test his theory and admits the cheating. They do not, and call it fact.
…By any measure, the IPCC and its supporters are the true denialists…
Unfortunately, Professor, It’s not only the IPCC. All the professional scientific establishment, bodies like the APS and the Royal Society, endorse the IPCC. If a lot of scientists don’t like this, I wonder what it is they’re doing about it?
It is so widely known now and on so many levels that they are not only wrong but constantly forging results to be negative and anti-fossil fuels, anti-industrialization, anti-civilization and anti-human – I’m amazed that any of them can look into a camera and dare to so openly lie, and not find themselves immediately surrounded by an angry crowd.
They are on a super rich banquet of a meal-ticket with this, but when this comes crashing down – and it will – it’s likely to bring the whole of the UN with it. I would like to see that very much, the UN is the nest from which all this sprung, generation after generation. However, have any of these charlatans thought of that?
As they’re all about prediction and projection, how about they run some of those models and take a look at their own future in the short and long term. Not a pretty sight.
If they want to save their skins, sooner or later they’ll have to let go of the cash. Sooner or later, too, there’ll be a race to see who can dob in his or her mates first. They’ll be throwing each other to the wolves.
If any of these guys are reading this, please look around you at your comrades, each one in it for the money, in it to bring down capitalism and destroy the economy, each one willing to cheat and lie and steal so long as it serves the Cause. Do you trust them? Really? Which one of them is going to throw YOU under a bus to save his or her own neck or dodge doing time?
This is going to get very, very ugly.
If you all were to drop the game and slink away, somehow pretending that this whole global warming thing had never happened – everybody might make it. But if the good citizens of the Earth have to tear it down, and the UN too, everything will be out in the open, including all the tricks and cheating, all the emails, all the conniving. People will be held accountable and if they are looking at serving serious time, they’ll be squealing like piglets and pointing at anyone or anything that moves. Someone is going to be left holding the baby. Will it be you?
If we go back to the 60s and the creation of systems science by people like Kenneth Boulding, their books make it clear that this modeling is simply an excuse for social planning. The idea is very similar to what UK sociologist Anthony Giddens again said in the 90s: “it doesn’t really matter if the model or image of the system created is wrong as long as it alters human and social behavior in the ways politically desired.”
The IPCC models come out of the same desire and with the same purpose. Sociologist Daniel Bell in the 60s said “we need a political rationale to justify the desired planned society” and systems thinking would fit the bill. In all of these aspirations we have a scientifically false model of the current physical world being created to justify using the social sciences, including especially pedagogy and education, to actually change the future nature of society and how the economy works.
We will keep spinning our wheels until we accept this is not actually a hard, physical science legitimate debate.
Snakes on a train.
“The physics underlying all the models is wrong – and we don’t know why”.
Could it be because you are missing the bleeding obvious? How much of a GHE could be expected to be associated with a greenhouse which has no roof, or walls?
@ A. D. Everard (re: insightfully pointed mene, mene, tekel upharsin (Daniel) denouncement at 1:33pm, today) Go, A. D.!
#(:))
You may be “off the grid,” A. D., but you are right ON TARGET. “‘A house divided…,'” (Jeshua) is going to fall.
Repent — or devour one another, O Envirostalinist Snakes. If you plan to repent, you had best be quick about it; you have become a stench in the nostrils (Isaiah).
You keep trying to ram your Cult of Climastrology garbage religion down our throats, you science f1ends, so I gave you a little taste of mine.
You, the false prophets, versus God, the Creator of the Universe, lol.
You may win a few battles, but, in the end,
TRUTH will win the war.
The true denialists?
The word denial entered the English language in 1914 via Brill’s translation of Sigmund Freud’s “The psychopathology of everyday life” and specifically referred to the “unconscious suppression of discomforting realisations”.
It’s interesting that it’s application to individuals who were skeptical about aspects of the IPCC’s authoritative position on the certainty of its findings about the risk of anthropogenic climate change was popularised by a psychologist (Lewandowsky), clearly as an ad hominem slur.
Warmists avoid the predicted “hot spot” like the plague. They know it represents falsification of their speculation.
Plus over 16 years of a surface temperature standstill means the models a bad. Not fit for the purpose – i.e their “what if”s to 2100. Well “what if” we continued to chuck out our co2? We expect a global surface temperature standstill? “What if” it continues for 10 more years? “What then?”
Steven Mosher says:
November 9, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Off course totally off topic, but well worth spending 12 minutes watching .
Hey, a few years back I posted a comment on the Guardian where I said (paraphrase):
Why did I have 97% confidence to enable me to make this statement? Climate change, because the climate always changes. As it stands today co2 is a flutist in an orchestra dominated by a heavy metal natural climate change band. 🙂
It’s still our fault.
Steven Mosher, I am not about to use my PAID FOR bandwidth watching your posted video. Can you please in future let us know what’s there? It’s like someone posting a link with no comment, but worse.
A true denier denies that his(her) knowledge is limited.
@ Steven Mosher says:
November 9, 2013 at 1:06 pm
————————–
Does that video have some relevance to this thread (in which case could you illuminate?) or did you post the wrong link by mistake?
Let’s get this denier thing straight.
1) I accept that co2 is a greenhouse gas, in fact I insist it is.
2) I accept that co2 warming is logarithmic not linear.
3) I accept that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor. [IPCC – 2007: WGI]
4) I accept natural climate change is stronger than we previously thought!
5) I accept no global surface warming for at least 16 years.
6) I accept the holocaust occurred, in fact I insist on this as a well documented fact.
7) I accept that tens of thousands die each year in the UK due to cold (excess winter deaths).
There are a lot of things I accept in life, but tow things I cannot yet accept are the missing hotspot and the missing feedback loop water vapor amplification without signs. Am I a denier of non-observations? I guess these two things make me a denier of no evidence.
Oooops!
“There are a lot of things I accept in life, but TWO things I cannot yet accept…….”
“The true denialists are those who believe in global warming, and who will go to any lengths to deny the evidence against that position.”. So you include your host here then? After all, the belief that CO2 must do some warming ‘against all the evidence’ is there.
Robin says: @ November 9, 2013 at 1:34 pm
…The IPCC models come out of the same desire and with the same purpose. Sociologist Daniel Bell in the 60s said “we need a political rationale to justify the desired planned society” and systems thinking would fit the bill. In all of these aspirations we have a scientifically false model of the current physical world being created to justify using the social sciences, including especially pedagogy and education, to actually change the future nature of society and how the economy works.
We will keep spinning our wheels until we accept this is not actually a hard, physical science legitimate debate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you Robin,
I use to hate history, philosophy, politics and economics but if we ignore them, they are going to bite us in the butt. They hope of course that we are all so specialized, so busy just living, we will ignore all the bits and pieces and pointers and never add them up. Without the political and philosophical background we are all chasing our tails. Because they WILL NOT debate the science, they WILL NOT allow an alternate view in the news. This is because “The Science” was always the camouflage for the real agenda, the annihilation of the Middle Class. In this desire the Marxists and the World Elite are joined at the hip. This is something most people refuse to accept. They think ‘Capitalists’ are opposed to Socialism or Marxism or Communism. See E.M. Smith’s (ChiefIO) explanation of why this is just not true: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/forget-gen-x-now-its-generation-hot/#comment-14483
The “The Third Way” that EM mentions is a favorite of Anthony Giddens former head of the London School of Economics and Bill Clinton. He has another good article – isms, ocracies and ologies http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/isms-ocracies-and-ologie/
If you understand the actual goal, wiping out the middle class who are an ongoing threat to the wealthy, and the tools, Marxism and CAGW, then a lot of the ‘idiocy’ in government today makes sense such as the collection of DNA from all babies born in the UK and many if not all babies and other individuals (those arrested) in the USA. A necessity for determining what genes cause antisocial behavior and what babies might have those genes. Of course there has also been much work done identifying the genetic component of the tendency towards various illnesses. One wonders if there is a large data base linking the DNA to the child and what he says on facebook….
Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdern, in the book Ecoscience, he co-authored in 1977, made it very clear he believed in rigid control of the breeding of humans. SEE: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
According to wikipedia: ”denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth.”
Exactly what reality am I denying?
Are computer model projections reality or fantasy?
Is the tropical tropospheric hotspot reality or fantasy?
Is stratospheric cooling since 1995 reality or fantasy?
Is the earlier projections of 0.3 degrees C per decade global average temperature increase over the last decade and a half reality or fantasy?
Are the billions of climate refugees’ reality or fantasy?
Is the CO2 dominated global climate reality or fantasy?
Are the projected future costs of adapting to a projected future climate reality or fantasy?
Is the Maldives conducting it’s affairs below water reality or fantasy?
Is the cost of mitigating climate change being something only the fossil fuel interests will have to endure reality or fantasy?
Is the well organized and funded denial machine reality or fantasy?
@ilma630
Would that be the host whose reputation and legendary complacency depends on the theory that CO2 definitely causes surface warming, but has no idea of the magnitude of that effect? It should be possible to be a little bit pregnant with error bars that wide.
John West: “Exactly what reality am I denying?”
The Testimonials. And how dare you question your betters?
/flees
Jquip says:November 9, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Quite likely and rightfully so – and long before that, actually. If you’re interested in learning about the history of Dachau and other death camps (as opposed to the fictions of faux historian, David Irving and his ilk), you could start at:
http://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1158576
Be sure to let me know if you need any further references.
Jimbo says:
November 9, 2013 at 3:35 pm
I don’t think that natural climate change is stronger than skeptics thought, but is much worse than CACA advocates previously thought. They’re now having to embrace it to explain observations, much as Young Earth creationists have to embrace extremely rapid evolution to explain how the numerous present species could have arisen in just 4500 years from the “kinds” on Noah’s Ark, which must have been something between families & orders to have a chance of fitting on the boat (although even that level won’t do it; but a kind has to be less than a Linnaean order, since both ravens & doves were aboard).
Twattsup says: @ November 9, 2013 at 4:36 pm
@ilma630
Would that be the host whose reputation and legendary complacency depends on the theory that CO2 definitely causes surface warming, but has no idea of the magnitude of that effect? It should be possible to be a little bit pregnant with error bars that wide.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In science admitting you do not know is sometimes the beginning of acquiring knew knowledge. Without “I wonder” and “I do not know”, civilization would not exist.
BTW How old are you twelve?
Let’s try re-punctuating that for proper effect, shall we?
Thank you Professor Philip Lloyd, I cannot improve on your words but I will highlight one statement:
The physics underlying all the models is wrong – and we don’t know why. Moreover, the IPCC is demonstrably skirting the issue, telling us that “the observations substantially limit the ability to draw robust and consistent inferences.” What utter nonsense!
How true. And the way they are approaching the atmospheric physics they will never be able to explain why temperatures never continued to follow co2 concentrations upward as expected, but they will continue to try, with further adjustments. Keep your eyes on the pea.
Here’s my thread arguing that it’s a fantasy: In my Notes From Skull Island I list nearly 20 things that we climate contrarians (“skeptic” is too mild a term) would be doing differently, including more ads, if we were in fact well organized and well funded:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/
The IPCC denies science. If the science is done correctly it appears that it is the sun, or more specifically, the magnetic field from sunspots. The time-integral of sunspot numbers as a proxy (appropriately reduced by thermal radiation from the planet) plus net ocean oscillations calculates average global temperatures since 1895 with 90% accuracy (correlation coefficient = 0.95). Demonstrated at http://danpangburn.blogspot.com/
Robin said @ November 9, 2013 at 1:34 pm
And it’s not using systems thinking that leads us to discover unintended consequences from our actions.
As the man who taught me this (agriculturalist Jim Wilson) said (and I paraphrase here) we seem to spend an awful amount of resources rescuing people from the river without ever going upstream to see who, or what is making them fall in the water. Your quote could be inferred to denigrate systems thinking; The Git believes that without a systematic approach we are doomed to rinse and repeat our many mistakes.
Jim’s excellent book here and yes, I am remiss in not reviewing it yet. But then Amazon Books didn’t exist when I purchased it.
http://www.amazon.com/Changing-Agriculture-Introduction-Systems-Thinking/dp/0864174896
@_Jim @Gail Combs
Jim – you spared her the ‘knew’ atrocity, when she meant ‘new’, as in ‘knew knowledge’.
The epitome of her unintended irony went unnoticed by her.
“In science admitting you do not know …
“Science”. From the latin stem “scio”, which means “I know”. So she knows what she doesn’t know. I have to accept that I don’t know what I don’t know.
kYeah. I’m ktwelve.
When I took on a senior lecturer regarding a historical hypothesis, he and the author of a book announced me and another could be likened to holocaust deniers, JFK assassination conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers. However, someone in the audience questioned this description, and he backed off the holocaust deniers, saying well no one died of course in this comparison. I was an on going graduate of this university, and I tell you now I just passed my second degree. Anyway, I passed. Well it is their job, not mine, eh?
Talking about the lecture, remember and I think I am right, Earth is hurtling through space at abut 65K per second I believe, wouldn’t this also affect our energy? I would like someone who knows more about this to explain.
@Gail Combs (Gail combs what? The suspense is electrifying).
Just to point out that admitting there is something that you do not know, yet choosing to believe in it anyway, does not intersect science at any point. You are describing faith, or activism for a cause. Neither has a place in science.
Sincerely,
Twattsup (Age 12)
Hilary Ostrov – “Quite likely and rightfully so – and long before that, actually.”
You have to work hard to miss the point so thoroughly. I applaud your efforts.
The Pompous Git says:
November 9, 2013 at 5:54 pm
As a farmer [ ret ] an interesting comment above.
I have done my very small bit to change agriculture and have had a role in initiating another possible / potential project which might one day hopefully / possibly involve some significant changes to the way we do some herbicide resistant weed control here in southern Australian agriculture.
Systems thinking as described by yourself seems to be the sometimes called “conceptual thinking” or more colloquially “a big picture man” or thinker.
Conceptual thinking / systems thinking; where the entire situation to be analysed is seen as a whole and then the pattern is broken down into the individual parts of the whole which are then analysed as to their structure and how and where they fit into making up the whole.
Not a very common entirely natural attribute at all so I am led to believe and i suspect very difficult to learn to do thoroughly as most of anybody’s basic thought patterns and situation analysis patterns are probably already ingrained at birth.
Was told by a psychologist many years , er!, decades ago that I was a conceptual thinker and a big picture man for what that is worth which is probably not much..
From Mindwerx;
http://www.mindwerx.com/blogs/bill-jarrard/2012/10/08/conceptual-thinking
Conceptual thinking – the ability to:
* see the ‘big picture’ and better understanding of the context
* perceive and imagine, predict and hypothesize, and to conclude and reflect.
* understand how things are ‘associated and connected’ to:
* identify the systems at play and their interrelationships
* make informed predictions of the future
* plan to achieve the optimum outcome.
Conceptual thinkers are fascinated by concepts, ideas, relationships and philosophies. They ask lots of questions and deliberately think things through.
Interesting angle on denial – they are denying the facts they do not like. Given the 123 peer reviewed papers they ignored, I think the good Professor had got a great point.
“pdxrod says: November 9, 2013 at 1:23 pm”
^+1
If we don’t believe in free speech for those we don’t agree with then we don’t believe in free speech.
Mosh. Thanks for the video. Great to see that type of thinking in action. Come up with a theory and refine it based on observations of reality. What a concept.
I’ve always loved Einstein for the simple fact that he was honest about his work calling the cosmological constant “the greatest blunder of my life”. He may have been wrong about that or right. Time will tell.
If the normal process of science had not been interrupted by the climate wars, the response to multiple connected paradoxes (an observation or analysis result which is physically impossible if the hypothesis and its related mechanisms are correct) is for multiple review papers to be written that summarize the observations and theory to clarify the implications of the paradoxes and along with proposed high level alternative hypotheses to resolve the paradoxes. The fact that the predicted tropospheric warming is not observed indicates that there is at least one fundamental error in the general circulation models.
Lindzen and Choi’s finding that the tropical region resists (negative feedback) forcing changes by increasing or decreasing cloud cover in the tropics could explain the fact that the predicted hot spot troposphere at 8 km to 10 km above the surface of the planet, does not physically occur, which falsifies CAGW as there is no amplification of the forcing. The tropical tropospheric hot spot is predicted to occur as the general circulation models assumed planetary cloud cover either stays the same or decreases when the planet warms. As there is more water vapor in the atmosphere when the planet warms if planetary cloud does not increase or decrease, the increase in water vapour causes the planet to warm due to the greenhouse effect of the water (positive feedback).
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
There are however other paradoxes (the latitude warming paradox, the cyclic warming and cooling paradox, the cause follows the effect paradox, the lack of correlation paradox, and so on). The paradoxes indicate that the CO2 mechanism saturates, which is a paradox, something that is not possible if the assumptions concerning the atmosphere and the modeling of the CO2 mechanism is correct. It follows as there are a group of logically connected paradoxes that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years, not caused the increased in atmospheric CO2 and was caused by the same mechanism that caused past warming and cooling cycles (solar magnetic cycle changes). The CO2 greenhouse mechanism has been confirmed in laboratory experiments; however the laboratory experiments must be extrapolated to the general atmospheric modeling which requires assumptions and simplifications.
This paper notes for six out of seven times in the recent past planetary temperature rises and then CO2 increases; `The cause follows the effect paradox.` The same paper notes a second paradox (note the two paradoxes are independent, the Realclimate blog ignored `the cause follows the effect paradox` and did not consider the implications of the heat hiding in the ocean observation from the standpoint of CO2 sources and sinks) , the increase in atmospheric CO2 does not track anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The second paradox would be explained by increased mixing of deep ocean waters with surface waters which will then dampen both temperature increases and CO2 increases. i.e. If heat is hiding in the ocean, then the ocean can absorb significantly more anthropogenic or volcanic emitted CO2 which works to stabilize atmospheric CO2. As the ocean holds 32 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, anthropogenic CO2 emissions has a very small effect. The majority of the increases in atmospheric CO2 increases in the last 70 years therefore are from increases in ocean temperature rather than anthropogenic CO2.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
…As cause always must precede effect, this observation demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur. As the theoretical initial temperature effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 must materialize first in the troposphere, and then subsequently at the planet surface (land and ocean), our diagrams 2–8 reveal that the common notion of globally dominant temperature controls exercised by atmospheric CO2 is in need of reassessment. Empirical observations indicate that changes in temperature generally are driving changes in atmospheric CO2, and not the other way around….
…A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and it remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply reflects the gradual warming of the oceans, as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al., 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011). ….
ROM: “They ask lots of questions and deliberately think things through.”
Put differently, Systems Thinkers understand what Ceteris Paribus means.
@ ROM
I spent several years training adults and based my approach on Kolb’s work having been introduced to it in a train-the-trainer type course I had undertaken. There’s an illustration of the Kolb Cycle from Jim’s book here:
http://www.sturmsoft.com/Writing/Images/kolb_cycle.jpg
Kolb provided what was called a Learning Style Inventory that was designed to reveal where your strengths lie in the learning quadrant. Knowing what learning style is favoured by particular individuals enables far more effective training. It also helps when building problem-solving teams. You can build more effective teams with a balance between individuals haviung different learning style preferences.
Systems thinking goes a step beyond Kolb. Once you have gone through the four processes you are ready to repeat the process. Jim called this the Hawksbury Spiral.
There’s more about Kolb’s educational theorising here:
http://www.jcu.edu.au/wiledpack/modules/fsl/JCU_090344.html
Apropos weed-control, I have acquired some acetic acid that I intend to use around the farm. It will be interesting to see how effective it proves. Or not…
Jquip said @ November 9, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Sad, but true. When I said to Mrs Git: “I love you, ceteris paribus” she slapped me…
Git: “she slapped me…”
Thanks for that. Funniest thing I’ve read in ages.
The mean over the standard deviation being less than one is not a suitable criteria of consistency by any definition.
Two standard deviations either side of a mean is supposed to cover most variations. So if I have a mean of say 1000 and a standard deviation of 900 this means that most of my variability will be accounted for between -800 and 2800. Under what schema is this good consistency?
Thanks for the explanation Pompous Git,
I’ve still got a hell of a lot of learning to do and so many interesting things to follow up on but at 75 years old, not much time left to do it in unfortunately.
So, the atmospheric tail does not wag the oceanic dog, as I’ve been telling anyone who’ll listen for the last 5 years.
Does Willis still think it’s the atmospheric greenhouse radiative effect which “does the heavy lifting” ?
Jimbo says:
November 9, 2013 at 3:35 pm – Thanks Jimbo – I have added this useful summary to my juicy titbit file which I get out and use to bait Guardian readers when their views on CAGW get on my nerves.
Twattsup says:
November 9, 2013 at 6:17 pm
@Gail Combs (Gail combs what? The suspense is electrifying).
Just to point out that admitting there is something that you do not know, yet choosing to believe in it anyway, does not intersect science at any point. You are describing faith, or activism for a cause. Neither has a place in science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nice bit of twisting my words. No where did I use the word faith or believe. Heck I am an agnostic so when I used the words “Do not know” and “I wonder”
So in your definition of science those two concepts have no place.
P.S. My spelling problems are the result of an experiment run on the kids in my school. We were never taught to read using phonetics which really messed up my ability to spell and to read out loud. They used something they called the “See and Say Method” For me it is word to concept without any verbalization. I read very very fast but my spelling, pronunciation and editing abilities stink.
As you can see it messed-up other people too:
It is, I think, close to the Look and Say Teaching Method although they never used flashcards on us. The method is still used today and the results are not good.
At a personal level, calling someone by objectionable names is simply poor self-control. When the name calling becomes semi-official policy, it’s the start of dehumanising the opposition.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/the-nigger-word/
Pointman
As noted in my comment above, related to the tropical tropospheric lack of warming paradox, is the latitudinal temperature anomaly. The latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox is the fact that the majority of the observed warming in the last 70 years is in high latitudinal regions rather than in the tropics and the high latitude Northern hemispheric warming is four times as much as the tropics and twice as much as the earth as a whole.
The latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox is the fact that latitudinal pattern of warming does match the pattern of warming that would occur if the increase in temperature was caused by the CO2 mechanism. Base on how the CO2 mechanisms works the entire planet should have warmed with the majority of the warming occurring in the tropics. As noted above that is not what is observed. The amount of CO2 warming is logarithmically proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (which after a 12 month delay is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere) and the actual forcing is proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the latitude in question prior to the CO2 increase. As the planet is warmer in the tropics than at higher latitudes, there is more long wave radiation emitted to space in the tropics than at higher latitudes, therefore the majority of the warming due to CO2 warming should have occur in the tropics. As noted in the paper linked to below that is not what is observed.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
3.2 Latitude effect
We have examined the temperature anomalies at the various latitudes enumerated above for three data sets: HadCRUT3v, and MSU_LT from UAH and from RSS. All show similar behavior. However, as explained above, we only present the results from MSU_LT_UAH. Figure 2 shows the UAH_LT anomalies for NoExtropics, Tropics, SoExtropics and Global. The average trends over the range 1979-2007 are 0.28, 0.08, 0.06 and 0.14 ºK/decade respectively. If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 (William: CO2 is after a lag of 12 months evenly distributed in the atmosphere) a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels (2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].
Comments:
1. The temperature latitudinal paradox and a second temperature anomaly ‘the Greenland/Antarctic ice sheet polar see-saw paradox’ are explained by nuances in the actual mechanism that caused the majority of warming in the last 70 years, solar magnetic cycle changes. Support for this assertion is the past cyclic warming and cooling paradox which is the fact there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleorecord that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes and that match the latitudinal pattern of warming observed in the last 70 years.
2. The following is a link to a complete draft copy of the paper noted in my above comment. In addition to the paradox that the increase in atmospheric CO2 occurs after the rise in temperature (cause follows rather than leads effect paradox) there is a CO2 latitudinal paradox, where the increase in atmospheric CO2 starts in the Southern hemisphere and moves to the Northern hemisphere which does not make sense as the majority of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are in the Northern hemisphere.
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
Pompous Git – I liked your link on the theory of learning by Kolb – will try to put his ideas into my head and practice them. Now I have to look up the meaning of Ceteris Paribus !
I think that once an argument descends into name calling, and the name calling is from the other side, you have won.
Thanks Anthony
Sigh, As I said my editing skills stink.
Heck I am an agnostic so when I used the words “Do not know” and “I wonder” I mean exactly that and nothing else.
Could CO2 have an effect on the climate? Possibly since the physics is there in that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb and then transmit IR (infra-red) energy in all directions. However the net effect depends on what the rest of the system is doing.
Here is the analysis made by a chem engineer on the system response to CO2 http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/05/the-science-of-why-the-theory-of-global-warming-is-incorrect/
…..
As far as what Gail combs it is equines. I will be out curry combing them as soon as the sun is up and after I feed water and hay everything.
Gail Combs said @ November 10, 2013 at 2:20 am
Gail, you have nothing to apologise for. The Git is sometimes a professional pedant; he edits people’s words to weed out typos and grammaticals in their books. Errors from editing one’s own words are next to impossible to eliminate; you will always read what you thought you wrote. And even professional editors make mistakes. Never mind that we are talking blog comments here… Grrrr…
“John Edmondson says:
November 10, 2013 at 2:16 am
I think that once an argument descends into name calling, and the name calling is from the other side, you have won.
Thanks Anthony”
If only it was that simple! Slinging mud is a really effective tool to use after you have lost an argument, it really muddies things up, which allows one to escape you admitting you have lost. It is however the method of fools and cads, and in the end the mud slingers will be the losers because they have not moved themselves up to a new level of understanding, and eventually they are left behind. Michael Mann is a good example of this process working it way to a logical conclusion and outcome.
@Gail Combs
Just goes to show we are all different. I was taught to read the same way as you. My jaw hit the floor when I first heard my kids doing the phonics thing. I couldn’t see what was wrong with the way I was taught reading, but phonics worked for them.
Nobody that teaches by that method can explain to me why phonics starts with “ph”. Ffs.
Your horses are fortunate to have such a nice owner.
@Twattsup & @Gail Combs. There’s not a lot in the way of logic in either English grammar or spelling. It’s all fig leafs over the inexcusable. It’s the mongrel language you’d expect when an old Teutonic language collides with proto-French, courtesy of William the Conqueror, resulting in a bi-lingual country for two centuries. The definite article definitely means nothing since nouns don’t have genders and there’s always two ways of constructing a verb driven sentence. eg I’m going to go – Je vais aller in French, I will go – Ich werde gehen in German.
It’s a wonderful field for linguistic archaeology. eg. Chair mutated from the same root word that became chaise, stool from Stuhl, which means a chair in present German. The conquers had chairs but the subjugated Saxons had nothing but stools. Incidentally, the continuous tenses, the inging in going are unique to English, with a tiny and precise equivalent in Spanish.
Because of that double skeleton, English is a very easy language to learn but very hard to be accomplished in.
Pointman
This article makes some important points, but I question the inclusion of the statement, ” … The physics underlying all the models is wrong – and we don’t know why”
Surely this is a hostage to warmist fortune?
The physics of the universe is independent of human existence. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, and does so irrespective of Albert Einstein, so it is probably more accurate to say that our understanding of the physics is either imperfect or incorrect
As a wise Englishman once said …
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves …”
The real climate denier – one who wrongly believes greenhouse gases cause weather – is also a real Flat Earther, someone who cannot see the powerful outside forcing of Earth weather by the solar wind and magnetic linkages.
You mean, like “alarmists”?
And…For good reason. In the original version, the models had been aligned to agree with the temperature in one single year, 1990. As Bob Tisdale demonstrated (see Figure 7 here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/26/tamino-resorts-to-childish-attempts-at-humor-but-offers-nothing-of-value ), the temperature in 1990 was about 0.07 C above the trendline. So, if one wants to align the models and the data correctly, one does need to shift the models and data relative to each other so that the models are about 0.07 C higher than the data for that one year.
Even Richard Lindzen himself disagrees with you. He argues that the model prediction is based on such basic physics that he expects that the models are right and the data are wrong in this case. (The only difference being that he blames the surface data in the tropics, whereas most other scientists think the surface data there is more reliable than the data at altitude.)
The observations are far from clearcut in this case. That a better understanding of the discrepancy between models and data would be useful is undoubtedly true. That this shows the models to be wrong on this particular issue is not true.
Here is the relevant quote from Lindzen (http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/):
Just wondering .. does the Git differentiate between ‘normal’ errors (e,g, typos, a missing comma) that we all make from time to time, and quite literal, actual, bona fide, recognizable when seen “hair-on-fire”-type posting?
HAIR ON FIRE: 1) A sense of hair-raising urgency; a figure of speech that describes a person in a state of extreme agitation, one stage above ‘wild-eyed’ and just below ‘freaked out, totally out of control.’ The experience is associated with the adjective ‘hair-raising’ but is far more emphatic. Its central semantic element is the dramatic visibility of the upset person’s demeanor. 2) To exhibit excited enthusiasm.
.
joeldshore argues
(1) that the adjustment to the IPCC SOD Figure 1.4 was made because “the temperature in 1990 was about 0.07 C above the trendline. So, if one wants to align the models and the data correctly, one does need to shift the models and data relative to each other so that the models are about 0.07 C higher than the data for that one year.” Fine, except that if the models had been moved higher, the discrepancy between the models and measurements would have been greater, not less as actually occurred. Is he claiming that the IPCC accidentally moved the models the wrong way?
(2) that the observations of warming in the intratropical upper troposphere “are far from clearcut in this case. That a better understanding of the discrepancy between models and data would be useful is undoubtedly true. That this shows the models to be wrong on this particular issue is not true.” The models, whose outputs are shown in FAR WG1 Figure 10.7, consistently predicted a warming of the order of 0.6 deg C per decade. Thus, in the 60-odd years of radiosonde data, there should have been a warming of about 3.6 deg C in total. Instead, there appears to have been a slight cooling. I would contend that a gap of this magnitude is unlikely to arise from experimental errors, particularly when the independent measurements from satellite data confirm the gap in most respects.
I did not employ “warmists” – indeed, the closing words of my contribution were carefully chosen to make it clear that I avoid labels as far as possible. It was necessary to use “denialists” in developing my argument, but that was because many of those who subscribe to the AGW thesis characterize me and other skeptics as “denialists”
_Jim said @ November 10, 2013 at 11:14 am
I would not classify Gail’s posting that there are things she doesn’t know as a “hair-on-fire”-type posting. Rather the reverse. The Git knows, for example that he does not know how to fly a helicopter. Hence he is vanishingly unlikely to climb into one and attempt to fly it.
As for typos, some of the biggest are the hardest to spot. Like a headline in one inch type including “BMI” rather than “IBM”. Small ones can also be devastating, like an unfortunate hyphenation leading to the trashing of an entire print-run of a popular magazine.
In the instance of blog comments, we should all exercise The Principle of Charity. And yes, I overreact from time to time also.
Professor Lloyd:
You repeatedly state that the IPCC climate models make predictions. However, a “prediction” is an extrapolation to the outcome of an event and as no such events underlie these models there can be no predictions from them.
Worse than Hair On Fire…
On the use of the english language and the linguistic cesspits thereof.
The classic WW2 headline in an English regional rag.
“Eighth Army push bottles up Germans”
ROM,
The Brits aren’t the only ones who write bad headlines. From U.S. newspapers:
Include Your Children when Baking Cookies
Something Went Wrong in Jet Crash, Expert Says
Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers
Iraqi Head Seeks Arms
Prostitutes Appeal to Pope
Panda Mating Fails; Vetrinarian Takes Over
Teacher Strikes Idle Kids
Obama Wins on Budget, But More Lies Ahead
Plane too Close to Ground, Crash Probe Told
Miners Refuse to Work After Death
Two Sisters Reunited After 18 Years in Checkout Counter
If Strike Isn’t Settled Quickly, It May Last a While
Kids Make Nutritious Snacks
Chef Throws His Heart Into Helping Feed Needy
Local School Dropouts Cut in Half
☺
@dbstealey – when I had time, I use to run a weekly feature of headlines like that. My favorite (and one of the most frequent) was “_____ Greater than thought”, which I always found amusing – who is measuring thought?
Philip Lloyd says:
Sorry, I said “higher than the data” but meant “lower than the data”. Clearly, if the trendline lies below that one data point, the models have to be shifted lower in order to start on the trendline.
Your numbers sound too large here. I don’t think the models would have predicted 0.6 C per decade of warming over 60-years. There are, however, known to be some rather large artifacts in the radiosonde data due to changes in how they shield the thermometers over time, as I recall (better shielding leading to an artificial cooling artifact). The two different satellite data analyses still don’t even agree with each other very well for the tropics, let alone with the radiosondes. The disagreement was even worse until some errors were corrected a few years ago in the UAH analysis.
The corrections that have had to be made in the UAH analysis over the years is in fact evidence of how the data for the long term trends is subject to a multitude of errors and uncertainties. Note, however, that the temperature fluctuations over timescales of months to a couple of years are not subject to large errors…and these fluctuations show the expected tropical tropospheric amplification (i.e., the temperature fluctuations at altitude are larger than at the surface).
So, in other words, theory and data agree where the data is known to be reliable and only disagree in the multidecadal trends that are known to be subject to various artifacts. This is another reason why there is the belief that the data still has some remaining problems.
Glad to hear that you are consistent in your avoidance of labeling, but you might notice that others around here are not so.
OT, but having been at UCT and having taught a course in Marine Geology at the University of the Western Cape in the eighties, I’m intrigued. Is the Cape Peninsula University of Technology any relation?
joeldshore says “I said “higher than the data” but meant “lower than the data”. ” I’m glad he made that mistake, and not the IPCC. I still cannot follow the need to make any shift, however – let alone the need to cover such an important diagram with a mess of spaghetti.
He also said “Your numbers sound too large here.” Please just study the referenced Figure, which I reproduced in my essay. There is a scale at the bottom. 2011-2030 gives the hotspot at 1.5 to 2 deg C, 2080-2099 gives the hotspot at 4.5 to 5 deg C – and the hotspot is larger. 69 year gap means a difference of about 3 deg C. Do you really want me to believe that hundreds of measurements over 60 years with a thermometer really cannot detect a change of this magnitude. I may be a skeptic, but I also have some faith in actual measurements – particularly when confirmed by an indirect method.
For Keith’s benefit, the Cape Peninsula University of Technology grew out of the old Cape Technikon by the amalgamation of five separate campuses and is now the largest tertiary educational institution in the Western Cape.
Will the term ‘Deceivists’ ever be commonly used to describe these political scientists? Probably not…. It sounds just horrible in speech. What is better? Alarmists and Warmists doesn’t quite capture the deception and dishonesty they conceal.
Philip Lloyd,
Pay no attention to joelshore, who says:
“Glad to hear that you are consistent in your avoidance of labeling, but you might notice that others around here are not so.”
…this, from the guy who constantly labels those he disagrees with as “ideologues”.
The true Climate Change Deniers are the ones who deny that climate is always changing.
They point to a degree temperature increase since the Little Ice Age as something unusual and therefore man-made.
They see some tiny warming and slightly less extent of NH sea-ice since the cold 1960’s and 1970’s as unusual and therefore man-made.
They see the multi-kiloyear decreasing sea-levels finally slowing down and declare it unusual and therefore man-made.
Everything around them is seen as an anomaly because they believe we live on a static Earth, a veritable unchanging Garden of Eden that can only be spoiled by man. It is their religion. Eveything they see is evidence that their green world is under attack from man.
And all it takes to spread such a religion is a prophet like Mann sandpapering away the historical record of warm and cold periods and smoothing the past into a hockey stick for the true-believers to begin clamoring for Witch-dunkings and human sacrifices. All of the legendary excesses of the dark ages make perfect sense now, no more thumbing our noses at those uncivilized barbarians. We have the very same barbarians at our gate, right here, right now.
For them to turn the phrase “denier” around onto us is one of the greatest tricks the devil has yet accomplished.
@ philjourdan
As a philosopher, I can think of nothing greater than thought 🙂
Philip Lloyd says:
Okay, let me give you an example: Suppose I told you that the climate models if used to predict the seasonal cycle here in Rochester predict that the temperature on July 15 will be on average about 25 C higher than on January 15. Suppose you try to use that information to see what the models predict the average temperature for July 15. However, suppose you use data for January 15, 1990 and it just so happens that January 15, 1990 was an unusually balmy day in Rochester where the temperature averaged about 13 C (rather than the more usual, say, -3 C. So, if you aligned the models starting on that day in 1990, you would incorrectly say that the models forecast an average July temperature in Rochester of 38 C…which would make Rochester summers hotter than the tropics.
The point is that we should not align the models to one particular day. We should align them to an average day in January if we want to see what they predict in July.
That’s the future. You can’t just extrapolate the future back into the past assuming that temperatures would expected to have risen as much in the last 69 years as they are expected to rise in the next 69 years! In fact, you can look in the IPCC AR4 report to get a REAL estimate of what the models predict for the rise in the upper tropospheric tropics temperatures for the 109 year period from 1890 to 1999 (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-1.html)…and the value looks to be somewhere between 0.8 and 1.0 C per century, or roughly 1 C for that whole 109 year period. This is a far cry from your estimate of 3.6 C over the last 69 years.
Joel
There are flaws in both your arguments. You have not explained why a key graph, that went unchanged through three scientific reviews, was changed at the last moment in the final draft that was not subjected to review.
The IPCC did the extrapolation into the future, not me. Then, as we know, the impact of CO2 drops off logarithmically with concentration, and the concentration has risen rapidly over the past 60 years. It follows that predictions of the future 60 years are likely to provide a conservative picture of what happened in the past 60.
All you have succeeded in doing in pointing to Fig 9.1 is to show that the IPCC models are completely inconsistent. Moreover, you quote the past 109 years, overlooking the fact that the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere has been highly non-linear, so we can essentially neglect any impact pre 1950. Then your estimate for the upper atmosphere warming is so close to the surface warming, that you have effectively demonstrated that the thesis, that the upper intratropical troposphere should be warming much faster than the surface, is indeed wrong. I think my classical education would indicate I should say QED at this point.
No, it does not follow at all. The CO2 concentration has been rising (and under the scenerios in question continues to rise) exponentially from the pre-industrial concentration. Under such a situation, it is absolutely not correct to claim that the predictions of the future 60 years provide a conservative picture of what happened in the last 60. Not even close. [Note that some people have claimed that an exponential rise in concentration and a logarithmic dependence on temperature rise on concentration means that the dependence of temperature rise on time should be linear because log and exp are inverse functions. However, that exponential rise is really of the form C = C_0 + C_1*exp(A*t) where C_0 is the preindustrial concentration and that baseline means that in fact the dependence of temperature on time will be considerably faster than linear, only approaching linearity when the CO2 concentration is much (e.g., several times) greater than the preindustrial concentration.]
Irrelevant. Even if you assume all of that ~1 C temperature increase in the upper troposphere should have occurred after 1950, it is still WAY smaller than the 3.6 C that you claimed.
Speaking of inconsistent arguments, we are talking here of the warming predicted by the models and you are the one that is claiming that the models predict much more warming at altitude than at the surface and that this is inconsistent with observations that show otherwise. So, in fact, if it turns out that the models do not predict the intratropical troposphere to be increasing much faster than the surface, then there is no inconsistency with those observations.
Just to be help things along, I’ll help explain this apparent paradox: The models predict a significant difference between the temperature rise at the surface and at altitude in the tropics. However, they also predict that the surface temperatures warm less in the tropics than outside of the tropics. So, if you compare the GLOBAL surface temperature rise to the temperature rise at altitude just in the tropics, the difference between them is not so great.
Waving your hands around widely and raising irrelevant objections does not demonstrate anything except that you would rather engage in this sort of argumentation instead of just simply admitting that your claim that the models say the tropical tropospheric temperatures should have risen by 3.6 C is nowhere even close to accurate.