The Hockey Schtick writes: A new paper published in a journal called “Climate Risk Management” claims a ridiculous degree of “certainty” of 99.999% that global warming over the past 25 years is man-made. The claim is made based upon climate models already falsified at confidence levels of 98%+.
According to the authors,
“there is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing an unbroken sequence of 304 months [25.3 years] (our analysis extends to June 2010) with mean surface temperature exceeding the 20th century average.”
Fundamental problems with this claim [which is basically the falsified IPCC attribution claim of 95% certainty on steroids] include:
There is no statistical difference between the rate of warming over the 27 years from 1917-1944 and the 25 years from 1975/1976 to 2000:
- Not being able to address the attribution of change in the early 20th century to my mind precludes any highly confident attribution of change in the late 20th century.” – Judith Curry
- “climate models are not fit for the purpose of detection and attribution of climate change on decadal to multidecadal timescales.” -Judith Curry
- Statistically significant global warming of the surface stopped 19 years ago and in the troposphere [which climate models claim should warm faster than the surface] global warming stopped 16-26 years ago
- Over 40 excuses for the 18-19 year “pause” in surface warming indicate that natural climate variability is far greater than climate models simulate, and is capable of overwhelming any climate influence of CO2
- Much of the warming of the past 25 years may be artificial due to urban heat island effects and extensive up-justing of temperature records long after the fact
- The paper uses climate models falsified at confidence levels exceeding 98%, thus the assumptions and conclusions derived from models are invalid
- The models also did not predict the 18-19 year “pause” in global warming, thus are not valid to determine attribution to natural vs. anthropogenic causes
- Climate models are also unable to simulate natural warming during prior interglacials, which were warmer than the present, another reason why they cannot be used to rule out that the past 25 years of warming is unnatural or man-made
- Additionally, climate models do not properly simulate solar amplification mechanisms, ocean oscillations, convection, clouds, atmospheric circulations, gravity waves, etc. and thus cannot be used to exclude these natural factors as potential causes of warming
- The model used by the paper assumes only solar total irradiance adequately describes solar forcing of climate, ignoring large changes in the solar spectrum and solar amplification mechanisms. In addition, a simple integral of solar activity does explain most of the known climate change over the past 400 years.
“Why is the period 1940-1970 significantly warmer than say 1880-1910? Is it the sun? Is it a longer period ocean oscillation? Could the same processes causing the early 20th century warming be contributing to the late 20th century warming? Not only don’t we know the answer to these questions, but no one even seems to be asking them!” -Judith Curry
Thus, this new paper is not even wrong with 99.999% certainty
 |
| Assumed climate model forcings for CO2, solar TSI, Southern Oscillation Index [SOI] and volcanic. |
The paper:
A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes
Philip Kokic, Steven Crimp, Mark Howden DOI: 10.1016/j.crm.2014.03.002,
“The claim is made based upon climate models already falsified at confidence levels of 98%+.”
No the claim is not based on GCMs. reread the paper
First an example: Look at what david evans does. He creates a model of temperature based on
the data and solar. Look what Scafetta does. he creates a model based on solar and other factors.
Very simply the authors took the data and created a model based on.
1. solar
2. Ghg
3. SOI
4. Volcanos
This is not a Physical model like a GCM,!! but rather an empirical model based on forcings and temperature. structurally its no different than what scafetta or Evans have done, or callendar in 1938
Then, they set GHG to zero and ran a bootstrap.
It has nothing to do with GCMs.
it is unconvincing for other reasons.!!!
Look, if you build a model using GHG to model the temperature and then set GHG to zero
and run a bootstrap YOU BETTER FIND that the model cant predict temperature.
To see how empty it is Scaffetta could do the same thing and run his model without the sun and prove
that it was the sun that dunnit
In other words once you build the model T = f(sun, GHG, SOI, Volcano) you’ve already shown what you
need to show: the temperature can be explained in these terms. The problem is you can build
many models of temperature that dont include these variables.
GCMs are not first principle physical models.
That’s what they want to be when they grow up, though.
Typhoon.
1. you seem to have assumed that I claimed they were. WRONG.
2. Depending on the module some of the GCMs are first principles. In some modules they are not.
So, first you attribute an argument to me that I didnt make, and second you attribute an argument I wouldnt make. read the model source code, comment less.
“Then, they set GHG to zero and ran a bootstrap”
——————
Maybe you right to state the above, but from my point of view is a little different than as simply as you put it.
They set a GHG to zero and run a bootstrap, so they estimate the GHG influence or its impact.
They do not seem to only set GHG to zero, they seem to “then set the anthropogenic GHG to zero and set GHG only to natural amount”.
From all this seems they have estimated a low influence of the whole GHG on climate, and a part of that dedicated to the Anthropogenic GHG.
From what they done, the GHG stands outside the possibility of being the cause of the warming, and the anthropogenic part only adds very little on top of the average warming and allows for less cooling periods to be observed.
So, no much difference there between natural and the so much claimed anthropogenic warming, in other words difference not significant enough to be considered other then null, close to a 99.999% of no any sign of AGW.
Again I maybe wrong, but that how it seems to me.
cheers
you agree then that the post is wrong when it asserts that they use GCM models.
Even for a journal called “Climate Risk Management”, this level of nonsense is amazing.
Do these quacks not know that the CAGW ship is sinking fast or do they not care? They must be close to retirement.
The famous UAH graph starting off in 1979 graph shows the lowest temperature since 1985 in 1992 during the so called “Mt. Pinatubo cooling” with – 0,48 C. (Basis-years are 1981 to 2010)
Can someone please calculate the average temperature of 20th century on this basis. I postulate their claim is falsified in 1992 already ?
By the way, shortly before they start off their analysis with year 1985 the lowest temperature showed -0,61 C.
It’s called begging the question.
Well, the authors’ affiliations are Spain and France. Mine is Iowa.
I want global warming and if man is making it, I’d like man to make more of it.
Lots more of it.
The earth is too damned cold.
The irony of anthropogenic climate change might be that the cold regions warm-up, thereby requiring less burning of fossil fuel for heating, thereby ‘saving the planet’. (My comment, like AGW itself, is a joke)
99.999% – so they are saying there’s a chance they could be wrong, right?
A high level of certainty that we found the AMO:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1980/mean:120/to:2010
As the name says, Anthropogenic climate change, if it were real, would be 100% attributable to humans.
The majority of “other” climate change is caused by humans too …mainly by manipulating, cherry-picking and homogenizing historical weather data to prop up simplistic propaganda.
Minor if any warming for 15-17 years. Wonderful MAMA Nature and her cycles with the sun, water vapor, oceans and volcanoes when she blows her top, and opens methane holes when she has gas – as her home the Earth tilts on its axis. Search:
“natural-tilts-earths-axis-ice-ages-harvard-geophysicist”
You use arguments thoroughly debunked by thousands of scientists over decades of research to try to debunk this new paper…if any of what you say is true, why is nobody publishing? There’s a fortune to be made by disproving anthropogenic climate change, but nobody can do it.
It’s pathetic how desperate you people are to shirk responsibility.
– – – – – – – – –
Kevin Regnault,
The essential question is why would anyone interested in the use of applied reasoning, which is the natural capacity of all people, want restriction in the open public debate / dialog on the subject of the our Earth Atmosphere System (EAS)? No rational person would want a restriction in applied reasoning by anyone. When we see some in the science community suggesting there should not be public debate / dialog with applied reasoning then a big red flag is raised that those scientists are not rational. It is irrational behavior when we see often some CAGW hypothesis supporting scientists claiming there should be no dialog / debate or saying that there cannot be a dialog / debate with critics.
You say in your above comment that there is a silence of those critical of the observationally challenged CAGW hypothesis. Your position does not withstand the existence of a body of work that shows the most significant observations of nature do not substantiate the CAGW hypothesis and in some cases even invalidate the CAGW hypothesis.
John
Kevin,
1) That is not how science works.
2) If you look at what is being claimed in this paper, this is fools using statistics to prove that the sun is only half as bright as it use to be. There is simply no way to ‘prove’ what they claim from the data they used. In all reality, what they’ve really done is prove to the 99.999% confidence interval that the GCM’s used in their study are failed.
3) Where, exactly, do you think this ‘fortune’ in disproving CAGW will come from? You think the feds continue to pump money into climate science if there’s no imminent danger? Do you think “Big Oil” has some continued interest in the climate, once it’s realized that CO2 plays a fairly limited role in average global surface temp? Let me guess, you are of the opinion that Big Oil is funding all the skeptics, in spite of the fact no one can show any significant funding on the skeptic side at all.
Here’s a thought; If we understood the climate, their study, instead of proving to 99.999% certainty that warming in the last 25 years (sic) is entirely “man made”, would have instead proven that their models are right on track with current surface temp data. They aren’t. They have at least 39 reasons why, but until their models become skillful they are not science.
Here’s the final hint; for CAGW to be science, it has to be proven. One needs to falsify the null hypothesis, which has not yet been done for the CAGW theory. If they can do that, they’ve got my attention. Not one of these scientists predicted the current hiatus in warming, none of them can fully explain it now, to the exclusion of natural variability. No matter how shrill they become, the science does not currently support any alarm. And never did.
Climate scientists are the experts in their field. 97% of any group of experts says something, I believe them. Does any climate denier honestly believe they know more than people who have spent their whole careers on the topic? Climate deniers are also perfectly happy to accept the science that gives them the quality of life they know now, e.g. modern medicine, electricity, transport, technology, communication – but they don’t accept climate science? Why do you accept that science of everything else but not the climate scientists? Makes no sense.
And you accept it “Hook, line, and sinker” disregarding evidence to the contrary.
“97% of any group of experts says something, I believe them”
1) Its not 97%, more like 2%. Look under the hood – they polled 10,257 scientists, of which 3,146 responded. Of those 3,146 only 77 agreed. So they “redefined” their definition of scientist to weed out the 3,067 scientists who were skeptical and presto! they had 77 of 79 (97%) agreeing with their theory. So thats where this 97% number you’ve put so much blind faith in has come from. The actual number should be either 77 of 10,257 (0.7%) or 77 of 3,146 (2.4%). So your statement should be:
“if 2% of any group of experts says something, I believe them”
2) even if your 97% were true, its still not science. Science is not consensus, we don’t adopt theories based on which ones are the most popular. And you should be embarassed that you were so easily manipulated by the “consensus” claim. At the very least, you could be less arrogant in your ignorance.
robertkoz,
100.0% of Scientologists also ‘say someething’, and they are experts in their field. Do you believe them, too?
Fred Haynie is right. You blindly accept whatever feeds your confirmation bias. The fact is that there are no empirical measurements of the fraction of a degree of global warming supposedly caused by human emissions. There are none, Robert. Do you want to take a guess why there are no such measurements? Do you think maybe the runaway global warming scare might be nonsense? That is what Planet Earth is telling us.
Kevin Regnault,
Here is an argument that has never been ‘debunked’: global warming has stopped. It hasn’t stopped for a few months, or for a couple of years. Global warming has been stopped since around 1997 — almost twenty years.
When you say “debunked”, keep that in mind. That applies in spades to your catastrophic AGW scare. It is real world evidence, and it trumps every paper to the contrary ever written.
Looking at the global CO2 and temperature records over geologic time it is obvious to a casual observer that increasing temperature causes increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around. If increasing CO2 causes increasing temperature as the IPCC postulates, the system would have spun out of control, which it didn’t, so that is not the case. Which also explains why temperature is relatively stable while CO2 is rapidly rising due to human activity.
Ever more fantastically unrealistic and out of tune with reality and observed facts, the IPCC steamroller of lies and deception just keeps on going, powered by the UN and billions of taxpayer’s money. World is warming, yes, has been so since 10 000 b.C. But that is not news.