Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
How should responsible Global Warming Skeptics respond to opinions from intelligent members of the general public who have been perplexed by the Warmists and Alarmists?
We should reply in a strictly fact-based way, using official sources — being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter. Here is my shot at it.
At a recent meeting of a local discussion group a well-spoken retired teacher presented a list of important issues that, in his opinion, have received less coverage by the media than they deserve. “Climate Change” was on his list.
He said it was unfortunate that the main proponent of human-caused “Global Warning” was a prominent Democrat (former VP Al Gore), because that led to the issue becoming politicized, with his fellow Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other. He speculated that had a leading Republican promoted the same issue, the reaction would probably be the reverse.
He then raised several points, citing the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other expert sources. He said that Global Warming is really happening, with a rise of over 0.7⁰C, and we humans are the main cause due to our massive use of fossil fuels that generate atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas that warms the Earth.
During the discussion period I agreed that global warming is real, that atmospheric CO2 undoubtedly causes some warming, and that some of the increased CO2 is certainly due to human actions. However, I pointed out that, although atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise, and at an accelerating rate, global temperatures have not statistically increased for at least 15 years. Therefore, while CO2 levels have definitely caused some of the warming, and rising CO2 is mostly caused by human activities, CO2 cannot be the main cause.
The presenter assured me that he respected my opinions, but, while he was not a scientist, he was relying on scientists and scientific organizations that had studied the issue. He then read a few quotes, including one that said human actions were likely to lead to a “tipping point” where the ice caps melt and there is runaway warming on a catastrophic scale.
I have prepared the following strictly fact-based response, using sources the presenter himself mentioned and being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter.
1- It is undoubtedly true that average surface temperatures have increased significantly since 1880. Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming. [The image below is the latest GISS Global Temperature Index anomaly. The black squares indicate the mean temperature anomaly for each 12-month calendar year. The thick red line indicates the mean temperature anomaly smoothed over 60 months (five years). This graphic shows a net increase of about 0.8⁰C (about 1.5⁰F) since 1880. While I think “data adjustments” have increased the apparent warming by a few tenths of a degree, I accept that warming since 1880 is at least 0.5⁰C (about 1⁰F)]
2- Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen steadily, and the rate of increase has doubled since reliable CO2 data from Mauna Loa became available around 1959. [The image below is the latest NOAA ESRL Atmospheric CO2 showing an increase of about 1 ppm/year in the 1960’s and about 2 ppm/year in the 2000’s. The current rise is approaching 3 ppm/year as the current level is approaches 400 ppm. The pre-industrial level is estimated to have been about 280 ppm.]
3- When compared to actual polar satellite temperature observations, the IPCC climate models have predicted way too much warming, particularly after 1998. [The image below is the latest RSS Global temperature anomaly since about 1979 when good global temperature data from polar orbiting satellites became available. Note how, from 1999 to the present, the actual observations of temperature (thick black line) consistently fall below the yellow band (IPCC climate model prediction range with supposed 5% to 95% probability).]
|
Original Caption (Verbatim) “Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Again, after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.“] (my bold)
|
Please note that, according to the actual RSS polar satellite temperature observations (thick black line), there has been absolutely no net warming after 1998. Indeed, 2013 is about 0.6⁰C (more than 1⁰F) cooler than the middle of the predicted range, and even 0.3⁰C (more than 0.5⁰F) cooler than the lower edge of the predicted range. Also note that the thick black line falls well below the yellow band, which indicates that the statistical 5% to 95% confidence level claimed for the IPCC climate models is not valid. Over the most recent 15-year period, actual satellite temperature observations have consistently been cooler than the central prediction of the IPCC climate models, by from 0.2⁰C to 0.8⁰C (about 0.4⁰F to 1.5⁰F).
4- According to the NASA GISS Global Temperature Index, when smoothed over a calendar year, there has been no net warming for 15 years. Even when smoothed over a longer period of five years, there has been no net warming for seven years. [The image below is a close-up of the upper right corner of the first image in this posting.]
|
[The black squares represent the temperature anomaly for each given calendar year (12 month average). Note that 1998 is warmer than 2013, indicating no net warming for 15 years. The thick red line represents the 5-year running mean (smoothed over 5 years which is 60 months). Note that 2003 is at the same temperature as 2010, indicating no net warming for at least seven years using the most conservative smoothing period.]
|
CONCLUSIONS
All of the above facts and data come directly from official, government-sponsored climate research organizations. I have provide web links so anyone can check them his- or herself. If any reader thinks I have distorted or misrepresented any of the above material I will appreciate it if he or she posts a comment to this blog detailing any objections.
The following conclusions involve some speculation on my part.
a- Politicization of the issue. I agree that “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” have been way over-politicized. Had the main proponent been a Republican, positions might have been reversed. However, I cannot imagine any Republican of similar national prominence to a former VP falling for the idea that we humans are responsible for the majority of the warming we have experienced, or that the warming process is likely to lead to global catastrophe. And, even if he or she, in a weak moment years ago, went along with the initial dire predictions, any reasonable and responsible politician (of either party) would understand that the absolute disconnect between actual temperature observations and predictions of IPCC climate models invalidates the idea of human-caused catastrophic climate change, and reverse their positions.
b- Activists in the catastrophic climate change industry purposely misrepresent the views of responsible Skeptics by making a number of false claims:
- FALSE CLAIM – Skeptics do not believe the basic science of the Atmospheric “greenhouse” effect.
- RESPONSE – We do accept that water vapor, CO2, and other ‘greenhouse” gases are responsible for the Earth being around 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be if there were no “greenhouse”gases in the Atmosphere. However, based on the failure of the IPCC climate models to comport with actual temperature observations for at least 15 years, we question the IPCC position that doubling of CO2 will warm the Earth surface by 1.5⁰C to 4.5⁰C (3⁰F to 8⁰F). For example, I believe the true value (called “climate sensitivity”) is only a half or a third of what the IPCC claims. Therefore, if Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise, which is most likely given the rapid development of China, India and other countries, that will not result in any catastrophic “tipping point”. As a Global Community, we have quite a bit to worry about, and Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is nowhere near the top ranks.
- FALSE CLAIM – Skeptics do not believe the Earth surface has warmed significantly since 1880.
- RESPONSE – We do accept that average global surface temperatures have increased by at least 0.5⁰C (1⁰F) since pre-industrial times. Many of us think that the thermometer record is somewhat unreliable. It is a matter of official record that, in recent decades, old temperature data prior to the 1970’s have been adjusted down by as much as 0.3⁰C (0.5⁰F) and data after the 1970’s adjusted up, which has increased claimed net warming by a few tenths of a degree. NASA GISS and other official record-keepers say these “data adjustments” are valid, but many of us think they are self-serving. However, we could be wrong, and the net warming since 1880 might be as much as 0.8⁰C (1.5⁰F).
- FALSE CLAIM – Skeptics do not believe that human activities have any part in causing the warming.
- RESPONSE – We do accept that unprecedented burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, and some changes in land use, are responsible for a significant fraction of the actual warming. However, based on comparison of actual temperature observations with IPCC climate models, I am convinced that the majority of warming is due to natural causes and processes not under human control or influence.
PS: When I sent a draft of this posting to my retired teacher friend, he courteously thanked me for my thoughtful and considerate message, and admitted he did not completely understand climate change. However, he said he still trusts what he believes are the overwhelming number of scientists who have examined the evidence and reached a conclusion.
Ira
Whilst there is much to commend in this post, there are a number of stark errors, by which I mean pure scientific errors (as opposed to being a correct representation of your own belief). For example, you state:
“RESPONSE – We do accept that water vapor, CO2, and other ‘greenhouse” gases are responsible for the Earth being around 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be if there were no “greenhouse”gases in the Atmosphere.”
The figure of 33 degC is pure conjecture. I would suggest that the dominant reason why the Earth is (allegedly) some 33 degC warmer is due to the distributions of land and ocean masses. It is easy to test this. Consider the Earth as being entirely land between say 50S through to 50N with no oceans or lakes whatsoever in that region, and oceans only at high latitude. What would be the temperature of planet Earth?
What one would see is desert through 40S to 40N, there would be little or no rainfall, and hence high daytime temps and low night time temps. Deserts typically have an average temp of just over 20degC say 22 to 24 degC. Now compare that to the average which we see on planet Earth as it is today, equitorial and tropical ocean 30 degC plus, sub tropical land masses (which are not deserts) having an average temperarture of over 30degC.
If oceans were only at high latitude above 50S, above 50N, the polar ice caps would be greatly extended since the energy/heat which today is being absorbed in the equitorial and tropical oceans and which is distributed polewards would no longer be distributed polewards. The equitorial and tropical oceans could theoretically be well over 40 degC whereas in practice they are only about 30degC (or slightly over) and the additional 10degC is being distributed polewards on the conveyor belt currents warming high latitude oceans (rather than further warming the equitorial and tropical ocean itself).
In this scenario one would not see the gulf stream around the UK and Iceland, polar ice would engulf Scotland, at least in the winter months.
The temperature on planet Earth would be very different. What dictates the temperature is not some theoretical radiative budget but rather natural real life processes and the fact that the planet is a water world (which acts as huge heat sinks and which pump heat all over the planet) , and the distribution of land masses and oceans.
You state:
“During the discussion period I agreed that global warming is real, that atmospheric CO2 undoubtedly causes some warming, and that some of the increased CO2 is certainly due to human actions.”
Again, that is an unscientific statement. We do not “undoubtedly” know that CO2 causes some warming. The earliest that such a statement could be made is when we know what caused (i) the Holocene Optimum, (ii) the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods, (iii) the late 1690s to 1730s warming seen in CET (iv) the say 1860 to 1875 warming, (v) the 1920 to 1940 warming: and (vi) the reason for thepost 1998 ‘pause’. When all this can be explained and when we are in a position to rule out whatever caused those events as being the cause of the late 1970s warming, then it may be possible to say CO2 causes some warming, but even in that scenario, it probably could not be said that CO2 undoubtedly causes some warming, but rather that CO2 may well cause some warming, or probably causes some warming.
As matters stand, there is no empirical observational evidence that backs the claim that CO2 causes warming in real life atmospheric conditions.
I am not saying that it does not, merely that factually there is no empirical observational evidence that backs the claim that CO2 causes warming in real life atmospheric conditions.
richard verney 12:54am: “The figure of 33 degC is pure conjecture.”
Not purely. The figure is from measurements by thermometer field at earth surface and now earth satellite field at their orbit. The measurements of the approx. 33 degC difference are then confirmed by reasoned basic 1st principle text book analysis.
I agree. The 33K is simply based on the actual estimated mean global surface temp – ~288K – minus the BB temperature of Earth as seen from space, based on the average IR flux measured (240 W/m^2) – ~255K. This is a fair starting point.
“Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming.”
How much have human activities contributed to the non warming over the past 2 decades?
Where’s the EVIDENCE?
Perhaps temperatures would have been falling instead of holding steady?
We should reply in a strictly fact-based way, using official sources — being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter.
Spot on Ira. No guesses, no approximations, no flannel.
So, no ” humans are responsible” w/o evidence. No global warming w/o evidence, No global cooling w/o evidence.
I guess that leaves ,no climatology. Just right.
What explains the drops in the “5% to 95%” confidence range of the simulations (shown in yellow) around 1983 and 1992? Without these the discrepancy between observed facts and models would be even greater.
AND why does the 5 to 95% range seem to widen post 2000, when surely the evidence post 2000 should be more certain and of better quality, and our understanding post 2000 should be better such that one would expect a narrowing in the band post 2000?
What you call “false claims” are in fact willful PR firm tutored slander. And the word “fraud” does not occur in your summary. As long as you stick to just facts, you lose, since laypeople have to rely on authority to for the interpretation of such rather technically involved facts. But real, exposed fraud is simply undeniable. In the last year the central hockey stick team is widely promoted two completely brazen frauds any school kid can fully understand, the Marcott 2013 bladless input data hockey stick and the Cook 97% consensus study that claimed to omit psychology papers but in fact included them. But you are not going to help expose that fraud. Well why not? Politeness is not the persuasive and normal human response to being loudly slandered by Enron level scammers. The proper response is animated anger and direct in your fact challenge, using strong and accusatory words. But skeptics don’t do that on average, so they put very little political and ethical pressure on working scientists to speak up.
Obviously, Science by Consensus is still alive and well and in most believers’ minds trumps any actual understanding of the matter.
Ira
You use a land ocean temperature index to 1880.
Can we do a reality check here whilst you tell me how we measured the still largely unexplored world in order to come up with a global LAND temperature index? (which largely ignores the SH) . Mind you the land temperatures almost assumes respectability when we look at our belief that we had a good handle on the virtually unknown global ocean temperatures much before the 1950’s, other than in very narrow and well defined trade routes such as those sailed by the merchant ships.
I wrote about the lack of rigour in SST’s here.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/27/unknown-and-uncertain-sea-surface-temperatures/
We set far too much store in our belief that we know with such certainty historic global data on everything from land to ocean temperatures and Arctic ice to rainfall amounts. Much of it is speculation derived from such things as tree rings, moss and boreholes, or sailors throwing buckets over the side of a ship.
tonyb
Dear Ira
You have made a massive blunder. In your temperature chart that starts in 1880, you have failed to show that any possible CO2 induced warming could only have started around 1950 as humans had not yet put much CO2 into the atmosphere as well as the lag time for any response to additional radiative forcing. Since you ask for fact based official data, have a look through the CO2 reference page on this site for the data that will confirm my statement.
With this information, you can now show that the warming that occurred prior to 1950 has a similar warming rate as the accepted date range of modern, possible human caused warming. That information may be the tipping point needed to convince your non-skeptic audience that maybe the skeptics are right after all.
Lastly, why use 5 year smoothing? you lose the last 5 years of data, as that can’t be included in the smoothing.
Actually, I think you lose the last 2.5 years of data when you do a 5 year smoothing. I guess I don’t know everything… yet.
Excellent post.
But you should have asked your retired teacher friend, “why the name change”?
It’s also important to place the CAGW scam in its wider context, Ira, the financial & political aspects are more important than the scientific, IMO.
I’m an artist, not a scientist, & frankly much of the science goes whoosh, straight over my head, but a couple of years ago I set out to look into the CAGW issue, & it’s a minefield.
I found that the IPCC is a political organisation, masquerading as a scientific one. The IPCC looks ONLY at CO2 as the engine of climate change, & that is preposterous. The IPCC won’t look at the variable sun, ocean oscillations, Earth’s variable orbit. These are not in its remit. IPCC has been set up to find CO2 is the cause, it’s a rigged game.
& has been from the start.
Hansen’s televised speech to Congress, which kicked this thing into high profile public view, June 1988, was fixed for traditionally the hottest day of the year, in the middle of a heatwave. Just to make sure of dramatic TV, Hansen & Senator Tim Wirth had sabotaged Congress’ air conditioning.
This is detailed in Michael Crichton’s excellent book, State of Fear, along with much else.
This scam is funded through inflating poor peoples heating bills & collects $360 billion per year, & politicians like the multi-millionaire Gore profit, as well as the 1%s on the stock market, through Cap & Trade.
The “Greens”, like the WWF & Greenpeace like to present themselves as poorly funded Davids battling the Evil Goliath Big Oil.
They are Communist fronts.
& most well funded : http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mainstream-media-dont-know-big-green-has-deeper-pockets-than-big-oil-/article/2548405
Behind the whole CAGW farce is a drive for bigger Govt & more Govt control, leading to One World Govt, & a vastly reduced human population, ostensibly to “sustainable” levels. This is code for easily controllable levels. Google : Lord Monckton and Globalist Death Plan for Humanity.
It seems as though your friend has two problems :
1) He defers to what he believes is an overwhelming consensus of scientists, although he is unlikely to be able to specifiy which scientists and why he thinks them all to be in agreement. In agreement about what? A good counterpoint would be the total lack of consensus with respect to the “pause.” How can anyone claim to understand climate/climate change if they can’t figure out the “pause.” So exactly why does he still have any confidence in those scientists? There have been dozens of theories about the lack of warming – not even remotely close to any consensus, and none of them with any persuasive evidence.
2) He obviously greatly fears a “tipping point” and runaway warming. You might start out by pointing out times in the past when the Earth was much warmer and had much less ice – so what happened to reverse that ? I believe WUWT has had some articles that dealt with runaway warming and why it never happened, or could happen.
There were also articles that dealt with what I believe was one of his main fears – melting ice releasing methane ( a short lived GG) – and showed that very little methane released this way actually managed to get into the atmosphere. In general, point to the empirical evidence that casts doubt upon all of the
predicted positive feedback meachanisms (humidity, for example, where 100 year’s of data show no
evidence of an increase due to the warming that has occurred). Also ask him, as a simple research task, to produce any evidence of those positive feeback mechanisms and point out that no one believes CO2 alone can do much- global warmists arguments depend entirely on net positive feedbacks. Very large net positive
feedbacks.
Finally, the fact that if climate sensitivity to CO2 is at the low end of estimates, we are close to an asymptote and further additions of CO2 to the atmosphere will have practically no effect.
Actually, I’m not even sure one would accomplish anything with that friend – he obviously
considers himself incapable of evaluating evidence and coming to a conclusion and also incapable of defending any conclusion he might reach. I don’t believe his opinion has any relevance.
I can’t feel too superior to Dr. Glicksein’s teacher friend, because I, too, have been hoodwinked by scientists. And if circumstances hadn’t forced me to put a lot of effort into investigating some of the instances, I would never have known it.
Science is too important to be left to the scientists. But most of us laymen lack the time and/or ability to investigate for ourselves what scientists say. In a large percentage of the times I’ve actually been able to investigate, I’ve found the scientists wrong. (I include skeptical scientists in this, too; the Brown-Eschenbach law comes to mind.)
The sad fact is that we laymen will always fall prey to scientists because there just aren’t enough hours in the day for a layman really to examine everything scientists say.
Think segmentation.
People’s views about global warming (climate change) cover the spectrum from fervent belief to outright denial and all points in between. A single post (or book, or TV program) can’t convince everyone, so it’s important to be clear about the target audience. Ira’s post will do well in adding to the ranks of the agnostics. It doesn’t require a ‘position’, it only requires that the audience takes the facts at face value. Then they can decide for themselves. But it does require that the audience invest some time in looking so it helps if they are already somewhat suspicious of the worst claims of the alarmists.
For that reason I also like billkerr2013’s comment (at 9.19pm).
First it’s simple (great for cocktail conversations when you have, maybe, ten seconds). Second it’s explanatory rather than missionary. Third, there’s a chance it leads to more questions. That’s all we can hope for.
After all it’s questions, and not certainty, that we have.
So WHO is politicizing it? he introduces politics from the outset. He is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Oh, and just a major kudos to Anthony and gang for how quotes are now displayed. Much, much easier to read and they stand out very well! Outstanding changes to your site Sir Anthony!
Trusting the consensus, without knowing why, is like what I saw on an older episode of “Brain Games” last night, one guy standing in a line to nowhere on the street in Vegas, he had trouble getting someone to stand in line with him, but eventually convinced a couple people to stand in the line to nowhere, pretty soon large crowds started lining up in the line to nowhere, as the line (consensus) got bigger it attracted more people faster and faster Thats what trusting the consensus means. Tell your teacher friend as fallible humans we are all standing in lines to nowhere, but the trick is to stand in as few of those lines as possible.
“We should reply in a strictly fact-based way, using official sources […]”
I strongly disagree.
Bureaucratic thought-policing is the problem, not the solution.
Official sources do NOT admit the truth. (They won’t even go near it.)
Lukewarmists are the problem. In the spirit of political compromise, they interpolate between fact (nature) & fiction (models based on false assumptions). The truth is thus excluded from posturing because it’s too far from the center. For those actually prioritizing truth, there’s no good strategy because the context is so corrupted by lukewarmist devotion to social compromise.
Ira,
If I remember an earlier guide to the perplexed correctly, Maimonides required his reader to be conversant with the scriptures. That your teacher clearly isn’t may explain his inability to accept your clear explanation.
And also, he doesn’t want to.
j ferguson: Congrats on being the first in this thread (as far as I can tell) to recognize that the Title I chose for my posting is from the great 12th Century rabbi, Moses Maimonides.
Good point about being familiar with the underlying material before you can be sure about which opinions to accept and formulate your own.
Ira
“Note that 1998 is warmer than 2013, indicating no net warming for 15 years.”
______________
Not too sure about that. Just because 1998 was warmer than 2013 it doesn’t follow that there’s been no net warming over the whole period.
Linear regression of the annual mean GISS best estimate data shows net warming of around 0.06C/dec between 1998 and 2013. Not much, but it’s still there and needs to be acknowledged if we’re being “strictly fact-based”: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2014/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2014/trend
DavidR
I supported the use of end point temperatures in my above post here. I commend you to read it and – if you then disagree – to dispute it.
Richard
richardscourtney
Thank you for your response. I have now read your previous comment on end point temperatures in which you state:
“Are you really trying to claim that there was net warming between two times when the earlier time was measured to be the warmest of the two?”
The trend between the two endpoints, if of sufficient duration, provides predictive information about the long term general direction of the data. End point analysis has no predictive value, it just draws a line between some past point and the latest point and says ‘warmer’ or ‘colder’.
Yes, 2013 is colder than 1998; but since 1998 there have been two years that were warmer than 1998 and the underlying trend suggests that there are likely to be more record high temperatures in future years.
Using your body temperature analogy, I’d say that you were fluctuating in and out of a fever, the trend of which currently suggests that your long term condition is more likely to worsen than improve over time.
DavidR
Thankyou for tyour argument.
You say
Yes, but so what!?
The disputed phrase made no prediction. It said
It does indicate that.
Now, you say trend analysis provides predictive information. True, but only for limited future time and only if the assumed trend is correct. You want to use a linear trend and I asked why linear and not some other curve: you have not addressed that. Please note that a linear trend from 1970 to 1998 would not indicate temperatures since 1998.
And you conclude saying
Your assertion about “a fever” is without merit unless you can provide evidence that those “two years” had higher temperature than existed in the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods. And you do not define what you mean by “worsen”. Do you have some idea as to what would be the Earth’s ‘best’ temperature?
And there is certainly no indication that “there are likely to be more record high temperatures in future years” although it is certain that previously not measured high and low temperatures will occur if you wait sufficient time.
At issue is how to present clear and accurate information about the global warming scare to the general public. That is provided by the statement
and I have yet to see any reason to not use it.
Richard
DavidR says:
…the underlying trend suggests that there are likely to be more record high temperatures in future years.
The trend says no such thing. There has been no global warming for almost twenty years. Global warming has stopped, throwing the alarminst camp into fits of consternation. They are now regrouping, and have invented more than fifty excuses for why global warming stopped many years ago.
It is all BS. Now they are claiming that they could have predicted the “pause”. Nonsense. If theat were true, then they could predict just when global warming will resume. If it does. Or if global cooling does not commence.
They will not face reality. They refuse to admit what everyone here can clearly see: they were WRONG. It is as simple as that.
But they are rent-seeking scientists riding the grant gravy train, so they will not admit that they were wrong. They are not honest at all, are they?
@ur momisugly dbstealey –
If, like a warmist, one defines ‘predict’ as ‘observe in the past’, then it is absolutely possible for them to predict when the warming will resume, or when significant cooling will commence. You’ll just have to wait until after it happens for them to be able to make that particular prediction.
richardscourtney
I agree that if we simply take 1998 as a start point and 2013 as an end point, ignoring all that happened in between, then it is right to say that there was no net warming. In fact, it’s right to say that there was net cooling of -0.02 C (GISS).
My argument is that this doesn’t tell us anything of any great substance. Anyone could pick a cool year in GISS, such as 2008, and claim that there has been net warming because 2013 was warmer than 2008. That’s true too, in as far as it goes; but it is also a rather trivial observation.
Also, if 2014 or 2015 turn out to be warmer than 1998 in GISS, which is a possibility if El Nino conditions arise, then ‘end point’ analysis requires us to state that there was net warming between 1998 and 2014/15; just as there was net warming between 1998 and 2005 and 1998 and 2010. True, but again not very useful.
I return to the point, which you appear to accept but regard as insignificant, that end point analysis robs us of the predictive value provided by the long term data. In my view, this is the main benefit of regression analysis.
You say there is “no indication” of future record warm temperatures: regression analysis of the data disagrees with you there. The period 1998-2013 in GISS (and all data sets except RSS) points in a direction that suggests future warm records are more likely to be set than future cool records over the near term.
David.
DavidR
We are discussing how to provide clear and factual information to the general public.
That is achieved by making the statement
It is not relevant if “we” are told “anything of substance” (whatever you mean by that).
There is no “predictive value” in regression analysis because – as I repeatedly pointed out – its ‘prediction’ depends on the curve (i.e. the model) one attempts to regress. Simply, if you don’t know the curve – and ‘the pause’ demonstrates nobody does – then regression analysis is a guess about the future. You keep saying you want to use a linear model, and you have repeatedly refused to answer why you want to use that model, but ‘the pause’ shows that a linear model is wrong. Nobody knows the model to be applied.
Anyway, we are discussing how to provide clear and factual information to the general public.
The “predictive value” assertion is merely a method to bamboozle the public. It is the same misrepresentation as the climate model predictions: the only thing we know about those predictions is that they are wrong and we don’t know how they are wrong and how much they are wrong.
We do NOT know the future and you can choose whatever version of chicken entrails you want to use to delude yourself into thinking you do.
Back in 2000 at a briefing at the US Congress it was claimed to me that, “The IPCC doesn’t make predictions”. I replied, “You say the IPCC doesn’t make predictions. The IPCC says it is going to warm. I call that a prediction.”
Now, I call it a failed prediction.
Richard
DavidR: I don’t think my retired teacher friend would be impressed by a plot of linear regression. Like the Sheldon character on my favorite show “The Big Bang Theory” when he tries to explain science to the Penny character, you are not helping a non-scientist to understand.
Besides, the graphic clearly shows that, between 1998 and 2013 there have been several excursions both up and down.
Bottom line: If I weigh less now than I did in 1986, I can truthfully say there is no NET weight gain over that period.
Ira
Ira,
I see the logic in your position and accept that 0.60 is indeed lower than 0.62. I also agree with your observation that the graphic clearly shows fluctuations over time between 1998 and 2013.
My argument is that while you may weigh less now than you did in 1998, fluctuations in your weight aren’t likely to stop in 2013. Is there any way to predict which way it might go in the next 15 years?
With end point analysis the answer is a straight ‘no’. With regression analysis the trend shows that, while you may be lighter now than you were in 2013, you’ve had a tendency to ‘put it on’ a little over the past 15 years. Over two fairly recent years you were even heavier than you were in 1998.
Regression analysis suggests that your recent weight loss may be temporary, because the linear trend between 1998 and 2013 is upward. It may turn out to be wrong; but regression analysis is based on sound methods and, in my view, gives us a slight advantage over end point analysis in these situations.
David.
What “perplexed” me about global warming was the big snow storm in Oct of last year that hit South Dakota. It wiped out thousands of cattle. (Anyone remember that?) It went by with little notice in the MSM. That’s when I started paying a little more attention. Now…it looks like another dumping of snow is coming for those folks up north in a few days.
Nice read Ira….Thanks
“…. IPCC CMIP-5 simulations are therefore not valid because observations have been well outside the 5% to 95% confidence range for 15 years running.”
_______________________
CMIP5 near-term projections are predicated on a range of surface temperature data, not on a single satellite lower troposphere data set. The official observational data used is the average of HadCRUT4, GISS and NOAA base lined to the 1986–2011 period, as shown in AR5 (WGI) Figure 11.6: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-9.jpg
Observations to 2013 are outside 90% of model runs on the cool side, but still within the full model range. If/when observations stray outside the model range or remain outside the 90% range for more than 10% of observations (annual is used) the model ensemble will become invalid. At the moment, the CMIP5 model ensemble is not invalid, and a “strictly fact-based” response shouldn’t be claiming that it is.
DavidR:
You are correct that some of the official data sets (HadCRUT4 and GISS …) tend to show slightly higher temperatures than RSS (and UAH) satellite-based observations.
Do you think that, for the period from 1998 through 2013, terrestrial thermometer data sets are better indicators of changes in Global temperature ANOMALIES than satellite observations? If so, I would love to see your argument.
In any case, you do say that:
So, if we set the confidence limits a bit more conservatively before we rely on the CMIP-5 and other official Global Warming projections to spend recklessly on questionable fixes for a supposed problem that may not exist, we can say the CMIP-5 model ensemble is not valid.
Ira
Ira Glickstein, PhD,
“Do you think that, for the period from 1998 through 2013, terrestrial thermometer data sets are better indicators of changes in Global temperature ANOMALIES than satellite observations? If so, I would love to see your argument.”
___________________
The fact that the two main satellite data sets in use disagree about the rate and direction of lower troposphere temperature change between 1998 and 2013 is hardly a ringing endorsement of the superiority of satellite data. RSS cooled at a rate of -0.04C/dec and UAH warmed at 0.06C/dec.
In fact, UAH is in much better agreement with the surface data sets: HadCRUT4 (0.05 C/dec); NOAA (0.04 C/dec); and GISS (0.07 C/dec) than it is with RSS for that period. So I might reverse the question and ask you why you have such faith in the satellite record between 1998 and 2013 when its 2 main producers flatly disagree with one another?
DavidR
Global warming has stopped.
The stop was more than 15 years ago and – according to NOAA in 2008 – the models “rule out” that such a “pause” could occur.
Reality has done what the models “rule out”.
In other words, reality has demonstrated that the models cannot and do not predict and/or project present and future climate. Live with it.
Richard
richardscourtney
“Global warming has stopped. The stop was more than 15 years ago…”
__________________________
Four out of the five main global temperature data sets, the exception being RSS satellite data, show a ‘best estimate’ warming rate above 0.05 C/dec over the past 15 years. This includes UAH satellite data by the way, which shows the most warming of all over the past 15 years (0.13 C/dec).
” according to NOAA in 2008 – the models “rule out” that such a “pause” could occur.
Reality has done what the models “rule out”.”
__________________________
As I’ve pointed out above, according to the ‘best estimate’ data from most of the global data producers, there is no such pause. The warming isn’t statistically significant, but I don’t think anyone has claimed that it should be over a period as short as 15 years.
David.
David says… “As I’ve pointed out above, according to the ‘best estimate’ data from most of the global data producers, there is no such pause. The warming isn’t statistically significant, but I don’t think anyone has claimed that it should be over a period as short as 15 years.”
=======================================
By this time we should be well into the feedbacks presented by the models, and yes, the warming should be statistically significant over this period of time. A 90 to 97 percent failure rate is nothing to base public policy on.
If natural variables of a moderate or neutral ENSO, (La Nada vs a super El Nino) and a still warm AMO allow such a change, then it is highly likely that the failed models have a C.S. to Co2 that is way to high. There is a great deal of peer reviewed work in the scientific journals that indicate this to be true.
The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
– Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye
+0.5 °C
Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
– Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick
* Reply to Robert G. Watts’ “Discussion of ‘Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'”
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
– Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick
+0.3 °C
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
– Sherwood B. Idso
+0.4 °C
Revised 21st century temperature projections (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis
+1.9 °C
Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
– Stephen E. Schwartz
* Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system” (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D15, August 2008)
– Stephen E. Schwartz
+1.9 °C
Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 4, February 2008)
– Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann
* Reply to comment by Andrey Ganopolski and Thomas Schneider von Deimling on “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 23, December 2008)
– Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann
+1.3-2.3 °C
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy
+1.1 °C
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications (PDF)
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi
+0.7 °C
Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum (PDF)
(Science, Volume 334, Number 6061, pp. 1385-1388, November 2011)
– Andreas Schmittner et al.
+1.7-2.6 °C
Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 21, pp. 5521-5537, Novmeber 2011)
– Lauren E. Padilla, Geoffrey K. Vallis, Clarence W. Rowley
+1.6 °C
Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 1, January 2012)
– N. P. Gillett et al.
+1.3-1.8 °C
Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content (PDF)
(Environmetrics, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 253–271, May 2012)
– Magne Aldrin et. al.
+1.9 °C
Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models
(Climate Dynamics, April 2013)
– Troy Masters
+1.98 °C
A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 40, Issue 11-12,pp. 2651-2670, June 2013)
– J. H. van Hateren
+1.7-2.3 °C
An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity
(Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp. 7414-7429, October 2013)
– Nicholas Lewis
+1.6 °C
The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp. 229-237, February 2014)
– Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell
+1.3 °C
A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 276, pp. 80-84, March 2014)
– Craig Loehle
+1.99 °C
David A
That is blatant falsehood.
ALL THE DATA SETS SHOW THAT GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED.
Your red herring is pure trolling.
Please explain why published excuses for ‘the pause’ now total 52.
Richard
Ouch
It was David R and NOT David A.
Sincere apologies. It was a typo and not an insult. Sorry.
Richard
There have been prominent Republicans who have pushed the Catastrophic Global Warming meme. McCain and Romney to name two. You can’t get much more prominent than the last two Republican presidential nominees.
Dr. Glickstein, Perhaps you could send your friend some articles detailing the many problems with the claims that a vast majority of scientists support the catastrophic view of global warming.
“The Earth’s surface has warmed significantly since 1880. ” No big surprise there since that was the end of the LIA.