I have some work to do today that will take me away from being online, so it seemed like a good time for an open thread.
All topics within the bounds of the WUWT commenting policy are fair game. Of recent interest is Mann’s paper on Scientific American and this image (click to enlarge) with his forecast:
…and Lewandowsky’s Recursive Fury getting flushed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Help me, Obi Wan Mannobi, you’re our only false hope?”
🙂
I might be wrong but the Scientific American illustration looks like cooling towers sending up steam. Admittedly water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but if that is just steam I’m not sure how the images relate to the topic of the paper.
Can’t resist. On that graph, that ‘faux pause’ of Mann’s is just one of his and the warmist herd’s many faux pas. If any image should warn us not to engage with the warmist vocabulary of ‘the pause’ that is it!
I also can’t understand how, if the historical mean temperature going back to 1850 is being represented by that white line, why the x axis for pre-industrial temperatures is as low as it is. I’d like to have a hint as to how they managed to identify the global temperatures to that degree of accuracy prior to 1850. Historically, the world system of meteorological stations (with very spotty coverage) was not put into place until the 1830s, so that gives a very short timeline for the world average temperatures to have been registered as low as these climate ‘scientists’ have apparently figured.
I thought Michael Mann had lost all credibility as a climate scientist.
How come he is allowed to write an article in Scientific American?
Is it only on WUWT that he has no credibility?
2 degrees more and we’re all gonna’ fry?
Roman optimum anyone? Anyone? Eemian? Hello? Scientific American? Mann? Hello?
(What’s the emoticon for a primal scream?)
Michael Mann’s new forecast provides an opportunity to check how the previous global warming forecasts are doing versus the actual temperatures to date (as well as add one other to the list of predictions).
Basically, we have wasted billions of dollars with these models.
http://s23.postimg.org/fbw6reefv/IPCC_Warming_Forecasts_vs_Actual_Feb14.png
When are they going to admit that cutting GHG in any measurable amount is simply not going to happen? I would take them more seriously if they made an all-out push to get lots of nuclear power stations built and on-line. It time to start an I’d like it warmer movement.
Yes, the “pause”, a phenomena based on real, observed data, is “faux”; the steaming pile smeared across the page and obtained through dubious modeling, that’s all fact.
Only in climate science…
Michael D says:
March 21, 2014 at 12:13 pm
I spotted this interesting question from Ulric Lyons…..
“”THE ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE EFFECT is predominately due to water vapour.
During the day time, an arid desert in the tropics where there is less atmospheric water vapour, the surface temperature is higher, and the near surface air warms more than in a humid land location in the tropics.
So what happened to the supposed radiative advantage to the surface from the greenhouse effect of the water vapour?
“”
and
“”So the atmospheric greenhouse effect from water vapour is in reality spatio-temporal heat redistribution. The night time, and high latitudes warm at the expense of daytime warming. It is not a radiative amplifier of any sort as it reduces daytime surface temperatures, and can only forward heat to the night time and high latitudes by means of its heat capacity.””
What gives?
What happened to the graph showing “increase in temperature due to increase of CO2” being a logorithmic curve?
Garbage In… GREEN Garbage Out!
So a rise of 2 C between 2036 to 2046. Hmmmm, well if that happens, we will still be one degree shy as to what the global temperature was in the Eemian interglacial, 125,000 years ago. And that was accomplished without an abundance of atmospheric CO2. I wonder how that happened, eh?
At least Mann recognizes the “recent” slow down in the rate of global warming – now that is quite the admission from “the Mann” who rewrote climate history by setting the bottom temperature of the Little Ice Age to go back thousands of years as the norm, just so the modern warming period would look like the blade on a hockey stick so that such a rise could be designated “unprecedented.”
What happened to the climategate 3.0 release? Is there a specific reason why Watts et al aren’t releasing any of the remaining emails?
His stick is drooping…..
A lot of the jargon in climatology couldn’t be more misleading if it was designed that way.
One example is “Climate Sensitivity”. Global average temperature does not equal climate.
What examples do others have?
“global warming will rise 2 degrees Celsius by 2036”
What does that even mean? Shouldn’t it read “global temperatures will rise by 2 degrees…”? And 2 degrees from what starting point?
Mann can’t even write basic English… Sci Am can’t edit their articles. This what you get when 8th graders have control.
What a marooon….
Did anyone look at that graph? Looks like what happened to the MWP also happened to the 1998 El Nino!
Late ice growth this year in the Arctic. Although ice is below historic mean values, ice growth has still not clearly reached the peak 2 or more weeks after the peak mean values.
While on the topic of the Arctic, does anybody have a reason for the positive sea temperature anomaly around Svalbard? It has been there all year.
How the worldwide campaign against nuclear power that started in the 1950s was the platform for the radical left move to use the Green movement to advance its agenda. A summary of the account written by the late John Grover in Australia. http://www.the-rathouse.com/2011/Grover-Power.html
For copies of the book and others by John Grover http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=John+Grover&sortby=93&sts=t
Jordan says:
March 21, 2014 at 1:21 pm
Maybe the newly discovered volcanoes in that area have been more active than usual:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/hot-times-near-svalbard-volcanic-range-discovered/
===================================================================
Are the average outputs of the climate models referred to as “composites”? If so maybe should refer to them as “compost” instead?
I used to love reading Scientific American.
The comments on Lewandowsky’s blog post at ShapingTomorrowsWorld are worth reading, especially the one where Richard Betts of the UKMO ended an argument:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf1.html#3187
milodonharlani says:
March 21, 2014 at 1:30 pm
I did wonder about volcanic activity, but a couple of things leave doubt.
One thing is that the region in that WUWT article doesn’t seem to match well with the region of the highest temperature anomaly.
Another is the absence of reporting of recent events … surely there would be a lot of seismic activity showing up around Svalbard?
But still curious to hear if anybody here can shed some light on it.