![CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1.jpg?resize=720%2C648)
COLLEGE PARK, Md. — An analysis of changes to the climate that occur over several decades suggests that these changes are happening faster than historical levels and are starting to speed up. The Earth is now entering a period of changing climate that will likely be faster than what’s occurred naturally over the last thousand years, according to a new paper in Nature Climate Change, committing people to live through and adapt to a warming world.
In this study, interdisciplinary scientist Steve Smith and colleagues at the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory examined historical and projected changes over decades rather than centuries to determine the temperature trends that will be felt by humans alive today.
“We focused on changes over 40-year periods, which is similar to the lifetime of houses and human-built infrastructure such as buildings and roads,” said lead author Smith. “In the near term, we’re going to have to adapt to these changes.”
See CMIP run
Overall, the Earth is getting warmer due to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. But the rise is not smooth — temperatures bob up and down. Although natural changes in temperature have long been studied, less well-understood is how quickly temperatures changed in the past and will change in the future over time scales relevant to society, such as over a person’s lifetime. A better grasp of how fast the climate might change could help decision-makers better prepare for its impacts.
To examine rates of change, Smith and colleagues at the Joint Global Change Research Institute, a collaboration between PNNL and the University of Maryland in College Park, turned to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. The CMIP combines simulations from over two-dozen climate models from around the world to compare model results.
All the CMIP models used the same data for past and future greenhouse gas concentrations, pollutant emissions, and changes to how land is used, which can emit or take in greenhouse gases. The more models in agreement, the more confidence in the results.
The team calculated how fast temperatures changed between 1850 and 1930, a period when people started keeping records but when the amount of fossil fuel gases collecting in the atmosphere was low. They compared these rates to temperatures reconstructed from natural sources of climate information, such as from tree rings, corals and ice cores, for the past 2,000 years.
Taken together, the shorter time period simulations were similar to the reconstructions over a longer time period, suggesting the models reflected reality well.
While there was little average global temperature increase in this early time period, Earth’s temperature fluctuated due to natural variability. Rates of change over 40-year periods in North America and Europe rose and fell as much as 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. The computer models and the reconstructions largely agreed on these rates of natural variability, indicating the models provide a good representation of trends over a 40-year scale.
Now versus then
Then the team performed a similar analysis using CMIP but calculated 40-year rates of change between 1971 to 2020. They found the average rate of change over North America, for example, to be about 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade, higher than can be accounted for by natural variability. The CMIP models show that, at the present time, most world regions are almost completely outside the natural range for rates of change.
The team also examined how the rates of change would be affected in possible scenarios of future emissions [link to RCP release http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=779]. Climate change picked up speed in the next 40 years in all cases, even in scenarios with lower rates of future greenhouse gas emissions. A scenario where greenhouse gas emissions remained high resulted in high rates of change throughout the rest of this century.
Still, the researchers can’t say exactly what impact faster rising temperatures will have on the Earth and its inhabitants.
“In these climate model simulations, the world is just now starting to enter into a new place, where rates of temperature change are consistently larger than historical values over 40-year time spans,” said Smith. “We need to better understand what the effects of this will be and how to prepare for them.”
###
This work was supported by the Department of Energy Office of Science.
Reference: Steven J. Smith, James Edmonds, Corinne A Hartin, Anupriya Mundra, and Katherine Calvin. Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change, Nature Climate Change March 9, 2015, doi: 10.1038/nclimate2552.
Climate variation has not changed at all over the 350 years of CET.
Proof: recent temperature trends are not abnormal
However, I’ve now started look at HADCRUT4 and am seriously thinking there is a pattern suggesting marked cooling peaking around 2030.
So when I saw that above graph with a peak around 2030 I nearly split my coffee I laughed so much.
You have to factor in that they are making claims about a “pause” that they simultaneously claim does not exist…
The pause that simultaneously does and does not exist is Schroedinger’s Pause.
Shouldn’t that be Schroedinger’s paws?
Ghost
+4 [four paws!]
Auto – with a grin!
Mann-O-Pause….
Thank you that was brilliant.
Just what I needed.
Which IS sometimes correlated with hot flashes. . .
..and the inability to have a civil debate.
Do they ever say why the rate of change flattens out and goes negative around 2030?
Is that when CO2 goes back to 350ppm?
Must be, eh?
No, that when they plan to retire, they’ll be scot free with a pension
So the slope from 1986 to 1991 is actually less than what it is from 2010 to 2015,despite the fact that the curves are steeper.
It’s the “rock climber effect” where that 40 degree slope is actually the average of a whole bunch of offset 20 ft high 90 degree steps, none of which you can actually climb.
Yes I’ve got the gist of it now !
g
Maybe these morons can contrive a simulated fix for their simulated world and leave the rest of us alone. Right now I’m simulating interest as I get on with reality.
As some genius summarized:
18 years of no warming is much faster than experts expected only a decade ago…
Yeah, but something’s suckin’ up that warming and when it spits it out again we’ll get the ol’ double whammo! Our grandchildren (who moved to the tropics for the weather) will not see snow. It’ll be hot where it’s supposed to be cold and cold everywhere else! That’s what the sin of being people brings! The Earth will purge itself of us, unless we enslave the masses to fight climate change! We have passed the point of no return (and have become hopelessly neurotic)!
…How am I doing?
{:-o
Steven J. Smith, James Edmonds, Corinne A Hartin, Anupriya Mundra, and Katherine Calvin
Names to remember? I think not.
Did they analyse the relative contribution of ‘adjustments’ ?
Do you think they were off their medication?
Five people in a ‘team’ and all they have to do is run a spreadsheet and press ‘update links’ once the sums are done by the computer model. They didn’t go out into the field and measure anything, nor even write any ‘cutting edge’ new model if I read this correctly. Just update links once the compuker finishes the number crunching.
So while one post graduate does that, what are the other four people doing? Sitting around repacking the bong or brewing up a new pot of herbal tea now and then?
What is written on the toilet walls above the bog rolls at Northwest laboratories? “Climate Science papers; please take one”?
Delusions of adequacy.
Compuker is right…
No, don’t underestimate them. They’re playing ‘Call of Duty’ or ‘Halo.’
oh yeah..remember them. cos chances are theyll be quoted by msm as experts sometime soon.
we need to know who the nutters are.
self defence.
First they say, “these changes are happening faster than historical levels and are starting to speed up.” Then they say, “The Earth is now entering a period of changing climate that will likely be faster than what’s occurred naturally over the last thousand years…” Which is it? These changes are happening, or will likely be faster? Either they are already happening, or they’re not. Then they gave it away:
“In these climate model simulations, the world is just now starting to enter into a new place, where rates of temperature change are consistently larger than historical values over 40-year time spans,” said Smith.
They are talking “model simulations” not real observations. It hasn’t happened yet, but they changed the “likely” to happen to “are happening” just to give it more impact. Apparently, it’s okay now for scientists (or their press agents) to lie for the cause.
Your writing demonstrates surprise.
Of that I am surprised.
Louis,
Here, just read the abstract: Anthropogenically driven climate changes, which are expected to impact human and natural systems, are often expressed in terms of global-mean temperature1. The rate of climate change over multi-decadal scales is also important, with faster rates of change resulting in less time for human and natural systems to adapt2. We find that present trends in greenhouse-gas and aerosol emissions are now moving the Earth system into a regime in terms of multi-decadal rates of change that are unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years. The rate of global-mean temperature increase in the CMIP5 (ref. 3) archive over 40-year periods increases to 0.25 ± 0.05 °C (1σ) per decade by 2020, an average greater than peak rates of change during the previous one to two millennia. Regional rates of change in Europe, North America and the Arctic are higher than the global average. Research on the impacts of such near-term rates of change is urgently needed.
The way I’d say it is that the 40-year rate of change is already faster than any time in the past 1,000 years and expected to increase in the future.
Models are how they’re estimating the future rates, yes. Difficult to observe the future before it happens.
Here’s the link to the supplemental, which lists the 13 or so NH proxy reconsctructions used, and notes that HADCRUT4 was part of the analysis.
No it is not, but — speaking of weasel words — “apparently” you find it ok for you to not read things carefully, and then just make up whatever you want to believe about it.
Real bright, Gates, ya’ forgot the link to the supplemental: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nclimate2552-s1.pdf
Gates
You reveal yourself as the typical , confused global warmer, having difficulty distinguishing between GCM’s and reality.
This sort of confusion is the hallmark of all of the global warmers, who always are referring to the product of flawed models as if that represented reality.
They say ” the model tells us..” and proceed from there. Then they wonder why skeptics can’t see what is so obvious to them.
mpainter,
I repeat:
Here’s the link to the supplemental …
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nclimate2552-s1.pdf
… which lists the 13 or so NH proxy reconsctructions used, and notes that HADCRUT4 was part of the analysis.
Once again you “reveal” that you stop reading when you see the word “model”. Here is another, extremely clear-cut example:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/21/surprise-sea-water-salinity-matters-to-sea-level-on-long-time-scales/#comment-1795250
mpainter: Shun the whole paper, yessir.
“A suite of climate models tell us….”
Who needs to go any further than this?
Note the subthread you are responding to, my rebuttal to Bob, who said “Climate models are the reference? Oy.”: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/21/surprise-sea-water-salinity-matters-to-sea-level-on-long-time-scales/#comment-1795037
For your next bit: the “observations” are not reality.
YOUR inability or unwillingness to parse plain English — which clearly distinguishes between observation and model output — is the evident confusion here, rendering your chosen belief unassailable. Repeat for emphasis:
mpainter: Shun the whole paper, yessir.
“A suite of climate models tell us….”
Who needs to go any further than this?
No need to go any further when one has already decided what to believe, is there.
It’s the voice of the Mysterons all over again.
years ago a female friend of mine said she really fancied Captain Black, freaked me out a bit.
I fancied Snow White. No, really.
Only one thing is more unpredictable than weather, and that is the mind of the female.
1.5C temperature rise from 1971 to 2020 (0.3C per decade for 5 decades).
GISS and NCDC are gonna’ have to get busy. We need some SERIOUS temperature adjustments over the next 5 years!
With the sun past peak and beginning to slow down, they are going to need some serious adjustments to cover up the soon to come cooling.
It is not yet April 1st. Modelled ‘climate change’ is what’s happening faster than observations.
As Fred Singer: “Successive IPCC summaries have claimed increasing certainty [from 50% in 1996, rising to >95% in 2013] about a human cause of global warming — even as the disparity between observations and IPCC models continues to grow year by year –now for more than 18 years.
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
Thanks for that
Roy Spencer has something to say: Even Though Warming Has Stopped, it Keeps Getting Worse?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/even-though-warming-has-stopped-it-keeps-getting-worse/
http://img.vavel.com/south-park-1667608288.jpg
[Please add a few words of explanation when posting links. ~mod.]
Oops … sorry about that. (I assume everyone here is twelve, like me.)
This is from the comedy series “South Park.” You’re looking at Eric Cartman, lost to the real world in a virtual-reality device produced by Oculus. The implication here is that cAGW alarmists are lost in the virtual world of their mathematical models.
I got that Max…which really worries me as I have not watched much South Park!
What is “South Park’ Is that near Central park or north of it ( it seems to be the way these people in the AGW crowd think to me)
Funny… despite providing some context, your explanation didn’t really contribute to my understanding the meaning of the picture of Cartman lost in his virtual reality world.
Don’t underestimate these guys. I think they see the writing on the wall as far as global warming goes, and they know it. People are weary of being told to ignore their lying eyes and believe the world is burning. I’d bet the next scare tactic push will be ocean acidification. NOAAs 2016 budget shows a 248.8% increase for “Integrated Ocean Acidification”, which I assume is these guys: http://www.goa-on.org/GOA-ON.html
with the coral at Bikini Atoll, ( where man does not go) growing like a forest and in pristine condition, that is going to be a hard one to convince that so called acidification is having much effect.
You must be mistaken. Isn’t that where they did the nuke testing? How could coral be thriving only 57 years after detonating 23 atom bombs. And those were the real kind of atom bombs, not the SkS make-believe kind. Just kidding. Corals are like cockroaches, only pretty.
RH … you’re right. Ever notice that you never see people enamoured with kelp stands … organising dive holidays with the seals ?
Naw
I think they’ll formally try to let the UN take over all the earth’s water.
Our EPA is close already here in the US.
Maybe if they fund enough monkey’s with keyboards…………………..
If we fund a billion climate modelers each running a billion models, which will occur first, an accurate climate model or the complete works of William Shakespeare?
Monkeys with crayons have a better chance at achieving climate model skill than the biased, circular logic used by the human climate modellers.
All these models assume the troposphere is in radiative equilibrium, when actually it is in convective equilibrium, unaffected by fluctuations in greenhouse gasses.
This is something I have been considering. Do you have any references or links you could share?
Bart, Clive Best discusses this at length:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=6305
One comment on Best’s article. The atmosphere is actually opaque to IR in the water bands. A very small amount of water vapor should suffice to establish the lapse rate, and water vapor exists in large excess. I am proposing that once the lapse rate is established the atmosphere becomes insensitive to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, water vapor, CO2, or anything else, and that this explains the “pause” of recent years in spite of continually increasing CO2 concentrations.
Thanks. I think you are onto something, and my thoughts are similar. I think that, at some point, the convective exchange dominates, and radiative exchanges become, at best, second order influences.
Doesn’t convection require a breeze?
At night there isn’t weather coming through, my winds usually drop after dark to nothing, start up again once the Sun starts heating things up. This will be location specific, but if you are a ways from the coast I’ve read this is somewhat common. So night time cooling under those conditions is radiative, right?
Maybe, but there’s always some convection going on, and the mean over the entire surface at any time is, I expect, quite a lot.
A key point here, I think, is that convective cooling will actually increase with increasing GHG, as there are more radiators then to pick up the heat convected to the upper levels of the atmosphere and send it out to space. This could nullify, or even overwhelm, the warming effect at the surface which is due to decrease in radiation to space from increased radiative impedance between the ground and space.
Bottom line: increasing GHG could either increase, or decrease, or have no net effect on surface temperatures, depending on the rate of convection to the upper levels of the atmosphere where the radiators reside. My money is on “insignificant net effect” based on the fact that there is no apparent cause and effect relationship between levels of CO2 and surface temperatures.
“occurred naturally over the last thousand years”
Nice of them to exclude the Mideival Warm Period.
MarkW,
They started right about at the peak if Moberg (2005) is one you trust:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/imoberg2005.png
Seems the MWP was just as warm, if not warmer, than today according to that graph.
That’s an inconvenient truth, isn’t it?0
david smith,
As I posted previously, the Holocene maximum looks to have been even higher than the MWP:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Especially considering the upper extreme of the 1-sigma envelope bracketing the mean estimate, it was FAR warmer 5,000 years ago than it was at the bottom of the LIA between 1300 and 1870 CE. I don’t see anything inconvenient about that at all, because I’m very much in touch with the fact that CO2 is not discussed in literature as the ONLY radiative forcing affecting the system. The Sun goes a long way toward a plausible physical cause for the LIA …
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itsi_wls_ann.png
… as well as much of the subsequent trend upward leading into the Industrial Revolution. But not all. The proposed explanation for the Holocene maxium is orbitally-driven insolation at high northen latitudes a la Milankovitch orbital parameters …
http://stout.hampshire.edu/~ejr09/Vavrus_InsolationTrends.jpeg
… which neatly explains the 10,000 year decline from the Holocene max. The comparison to previous interglacials is striking, the falloff in insolation has not been as steep as in previous ones, going a long way toward explaining the relatively long period of stable temps during the Holocene — something which I take as a hint as to the success we as a species have enjoyed.
What that chart does not show, but implies, is that insolation is leveling of and poised for a moderate increase. I know from other plots that it will be gradual, and not exceed the Holocene max — IOW, I don’t consider it a warming threat, nor do I think it explains the “recovery” from the LIA. The reversal hasn’t happened yet, and it would be too gradual to explain the insolation increase over decades and centuries shown by various reconstructions of solar output itself.
“Why the MWP?” you ask. “Surely anthro CO2 didn’t diddit.” [1] Right, good question. Again, speaking of the Sun, and courtesy of the rocket whizzes at NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2003/01/15/17jan_solcon_resources/eddy_strip.gif
The delta-14C reconstruction is the one I find compelling evidence for a MWP. Here’s the text from the NASA webpage about this image:
Above: Inferred variations in solar intensity (red and green lines) over the last 900 years appear to be related to the severity of winters in London and Paris. The red line is deduced from the abundance of a heavy form of carbon (carbon-14) in tree rings. This “isotope” of carbon is formed in the upper atmosphere when incoming cosmic rays smash into carbon dioxide molecules. When the Sun’s activity is low, its weakened magnetic field lets more cosmic rays into the solar system, so carbon-14 abundances go up. (Notice on the graph that the scale for carbon-14 is upside down.) This image by scientist John Eddy is based on an earlier one that appeared in Science, 192, 1189 (1976).
Researchers still aren’t sure how small changes in the Sun’s output nudge Earth’s climate in one direction or another. To find the answer, they need to monitor our climate and keep a finger on the Sun’s “pulse” for many decades running.
“Consistency in this data record is crucial,” says Alexandre Joukoff, a scientist at the Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium who studies the solar constant. “Gaps or flaws in the record undermine our ability to use statistics to draw strong conclusions about phenomena such as Earth’s climate.”
To sum up:
1) Not even NASA is trying to hide the MWP, much less the IPCC, or anyone else save perhaps ignorant or dishonest politicians, journalists and yes, unfortunately some activists.
2) That the past was warmer despite CO2 concentrations is not “inconvenient”. We know these things because good science IS being done, and that science is providing explanations which attempt to take as many knowns into consideration as possible, and constantly looking for others.
3) Understanding the entire system is the only way to seperate out our influence from things, such as the Sun, that we could not possibly have any direct influence over. That’s GOOD science. It’s BAD science and poor logic to argue that “because natural variability, human influence is impossible”. Physics is not so mutually exclusive.
——————
[1] I’ve seen rumblings in literature that agriculture and other human activities going back several thousands of years may have had some effect. I’m somewhat dubious, but wouldn’t rule it out either.
I’d say it’s REALLY BAD science to say that despite there having been greater and much steeper temp increases (and decreases) in the past that were from natural causes, this current (very slight) increase must be from man and his eeevil see-oh-toos. It’s pure supposition. I could go around saying that the increasing price of beer is the reason for the latest temp rise – it’s a hypothesis that is just as weak as the evil see-oh-toos idea.
BTW I love the marcott graph with the nasty red line slapped on the end. Laughable!
David Smith,
Well let’s see. Repeating the original argument without modification or further substantiation, using qualifiers instead of quantifiers when the data are staring you in the face, and ending with a feeble critique about the colors on the plot.
I think I’ll stick with my definition of good science. Thanks for playing.
Make grants payable to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory…before it’s too late.
The models do work; you just have to know how to
cherry-pickselect the correct time periods you use, then plug in the “greenhouse warming” factor (because, what else could be “heating up” the planet?), and presto chango, manmade climate change. Simples!They got rid of the Medieval Warm Period by announcing it wasn’t global based on nearly zero information.
And this reminds me of the Red Queen in Through the Looking Glass. Remember when she yells at Alice to go faster and faster and…they are going nowhere?
“Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”
emsnews,
Nope, MWP and LIA are still there:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Holocene still looks like spaghetti:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Marcott (2013) still makes the MWP look cold:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
But weren’t we talking about rate?
Brandon, your proxy model graphics are meaningless for decadal variation…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/09/laughable-modeling-study-claims-in-the-middle-of-the-pause-climate-is-starting-to-change-faster/#comment-1879234
David A,
I posted those to rebut the untruth that the MWP has been made to disappear. Try reading what I write.
The previous warm periods have been greatly watered down, and the IPCC ignores much peer reviewed evidence, both before the CAGW proxy studies and after, that they should not have been.
I also mentioned this because your graphics have surface record tails on them, composed of daily resolution, and this conflation of less then 100 year resolution with daily resolution is a piss poor graphic, (especially the scary red stick) likely to give a wrong impression to most laymen.
David A,
Confronted with evidence that the MWP has not been “disappeaed” from the corpus of publicly available information, you move the goalposts …
… ascribe motive …
… and claim correct knowledge without producing a shred of evidence to support your assertions.
For the grand finale, you play the “if it looks scary it must be false” fallacy:
I really like the “if it says something I don’t want it to say, it must be piss poor” tack. You can’t be arsed to comment on the information contained in the plot, no sir. With all the hand-waving you’re doing, it’s a wonder you can even type. Are you dictating?
So Brandon, you must agree that Mikey Mann’s hokey schtick is rubbish because it ‘dissapeared’ the MWP. Yes?
david smith,
Here’s Moberg (2005):
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/imoberg2005.png
And Mann (2009):
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inh_mann.png
This plot contains both, plus several others, including more from Mann:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
The distinguishing difference between Mannian and Mobergian reconstructions are that Moberg’s 2005 reconstruction implies, to my eyes, a higher climate sensitivity. Another feature is that Mann’s reconstructions tend to NOT show a runup to the MWP, whereas Moberg shows lower temps rising into the MWP and then falling off into a deeper LIA.
Which reconstruction is most correct I cannot determine from just eyballing the charts, nor would I. For if I did, all I would be doing is saying, “I like the way that one looks better, so that’s the one I’m going to believe”. Which would be motivated reasoning. That’s a no-no.
Mann doesn’t disappear the MWP, it’s still there. Whether Moberg is correct and Mann isn’t is something I do not know, for I have no way of knowing other than what’s published in literature. What I can say with certainty is that both studies are “wrong”, because no measurement of such a large system will ever be pefectly “correct”. All are estimates, because that is all that scientists — who are finite humans same as everyone else — are able to do. It would be nice if they were omniscient, but they’re not.
Accepting these irrefutable truths is the best way I know how to live in reality. What about you?
David A,
Brandon says, “Confronted with evidence that the MWP has not been “disappeaed” from the corpus of publicly available information, you move the goalposts …=========================================================
Bradon, please I never moved any goalposts. Mann disappeared the MWP. His work was described as indefensible by his own team of hockeystick creators. They had to slowly add back in the MWP because the climate models were running so far off the rails from reality, they needed more power to natural variation to keep CO2 alive.
====================================================================
Brandon qutes me, The previous warm periods have been greatly watered down …
Brandons asks, … ascribe motive …
================================================================
Brandon stop trolling. I have given you long and linked work on the disparate motives of CAGW climate scientist. Social science has well established, peer pressure, monetary survival, confirmation bias, political power, post normal science corruption, and several other recognized social science motivations for what is known as CAGW.
The fact that you AGAIN ask a two word question to something that books have been written about, is nothing more then rank trolling.
=============================================
Brandon quotes me further… and the IPCC ignores much peer reviewed evidence …
Randon acuses… and claim correct knowledge without producing a shred of evidence to support your assertions.
========================================================
Wow Brandon, you are a troll.. I have previously quoted studies and given you peer reviewed links to the NIPCC reports and CO2 science ,and other peer referenced studies by PHD scientists. The fact that you ignore them, and throw out false accusations reflects on you.
=================================================================
Brandon continues…”For the grand finale, you play the “if it looks scary it must be false” fallacy:
And then quotes me, “I also mentioned this because your graphics have surface record tails on them, composed of daily resolution, and this conflation of less then 100 year resolution with daily resolution is a piss poor graphic, (especially the scary red stick) likely to give a wrong impression to most laymen.
And then Brandon comments..”I really like the “if it says something I don’t want it to say, it must be piss poor” tack. You can’t be arsed to comment on the information contained in the plot, no sir. With all the hand-waving you’re doing, it’s a wonder you can even type. Are you dictating?”
========================================================================
O my gosh Brandon, your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. Here is the graphic plot you supplied. Clearly my comments were cogent and not hand waving in the least.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Now Brandon, see the blue multi proxy with nothing less than 100 year resolution line, with error bars for the less than 100 year resolution line? See the red daily resolution global T anomaly line (Now so you know, the shaded error bars are based on the less then 100 year resolution, and do not pertain to the daily and annual resolution of the red line, or to multi dcadal resolution either. Now do yourself a favor and read up on the evidence for the MWP as well as the peer reviewed science the IPCC missed. I have given you numerous links.
David A,
Can’t miss ’em. The 1-sigma error range is about 0.2 degrees C.
Really can’t miss that becaue
1) It’s red.
2) The mean estimate ranges just over 0.8 degrees C, which is what, 4 — four! — standard deviations of the proxy record.
Irony. And no, I don’t suffer content-free foolishness such as yours gladly. Deal with it, or make better arguments. Your choice.
Brandon, that chart is rubbish, there is no valid way to merge proxy temps with the modern temp record, it is propaganda meant for those who don’t know better.
Brandon it is not so difficult. The error margin for the proxies is a smoothed error margin as well. Decadal signs within that could easily far exceed the error margins. In the words of your heroes, they know [trimmed] about anything less then 100 year resolution.
[Cut that kind of language yourself. We should have to do it for the rest of us. .mod]
Dear Mod, thank you. However please be aware that that was in quotes because it was from one of Mann’s co-workers. It is an historic quote I have given Brandon before, and goes straight to the heart of the matter regarding mixing proxies and error bars. Brandon likes to say he listens to these scientists. His listening is very selective.
David A,
Pesky error bars. So distracting. Where’s Willis when I need him?
Wouldn’t it be cheeper for the world to send the uneducated back to school to learn Basic Math, Geology, Physic and Chemistry?
or else:
When will they ever learn?
Wouldn’t it be cheaper for the world to send the uneducated back to school to learn Basic Math, Geology, Physic and Chemistry?
or else:
When will they ever learn?
Why? Liberal Arts degrees are much easier.
Sometimes not. I became systemprogrammer 1971, studied math and geography(including geology) as well as Theories of Science in those not to mention studying History, Religion and others subjects afterwards. The hardest was History….
Having to read, understand and be able to use Theories of science on medieval texts + a lot of other texts in more than three languages (as I had to for D-level – academic essay same level as Master) isn’t easy when you have to read more than 200 pages each week, at least.
Once I had to read, understand and be able to reflect the text re. French(!) Medieval females economy inheriting small companies in Paris in 1200’s. I don’t have a problem with modern French, but having to read more than 200 pages in Medieval French apart from studies made in 1900’s, from one week to the next isn’t easy. Understanding string-theory is a piece of cake compared to that!
Math is logic. Medieval handwritten text digitialized or not isn’t…..
Norah
To add to the Pete Seeger query
Where have all the scientists gone
long time passing
Where have all the scientists gone
long time ago
where have all the scientists gone
Gone Climate Grant Crazy everyone.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
And how about some Mr Dylan?
Come gather ’round Scientists
Wherever you roam
And admit that the sea waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be sweating to the bone.
If your World and Universe to you
Is worth savin’
Then you better start climate alarmin’
Or you’ll sink like a stone
For the temperatures they are a-changin’
Come everyday scientists throughout the land
And don’t criticise what you can’t understand
Infallible Climate Scientists are
Beyond your command.
The whole world is rapidly heating
Please get out of the new world
if you can’t fudge a dodgy model
For the temperatures
they are a-chaa aaay aaay ging
BTW
Schroedinger’s Pause
Schroedinger’s Paws
4 paws
Mann-o- Pause
gets The Climate Comedy Gold Award for the Month. So Far.
Papers such as the above certainly give such awards a run for their money
And Ghost of Big Jim. In regards to your Snow White comment. Please go to your
nearest university and give yourself up to the On Campus PTP (Proper Thought Police).
Do not Run or Hide. Resistance is futile.
We know where you Blog!
“Laughable modeling study…”??? No, it is the dirge of what used to be known as “Science.”
Jeez – what do you guys make houses out of? Suger cubes?
I can spell – I just can’t type. ;(
really, my place (oldish for this part of New England) is a young 4+ of those 40 year periods
“what do you guys make houses out of? Suger cubes?”
Nope, they’re all OSB now. Slightly less durable than a sugar cube, but doesn’t sweeten nearly as well.
As some builders say, “The road to Hell is paved with OSB”
No joke. The newest “green” materials are just awful. So much of what is tagged “green” these days is actually, in the aggregate, considering energy usage and pollution for manufacture as well as life cycle costs, worse for the environment and less functional than what it replaces.
I designed and helped build our house using SIP panels in the walls and roof. The SIP panels are two OSB panels with layer of styrofoam in between them. I have a picture in a book on SIP panels, which shows a SIP panel supported at both ends on cement blocks and two men and an elephant standing on the panel. It bows some, but it doesn’t break. I believe the OSB panels are considered about the same strength as plywood. I also believe that at least some of the buildings in Antarctica are constructed out of SIP panels as well as some of the new construction in Japan, because the SIP panels/buildings perform so well in earth quake prone areas. I don’t know how green they are, but they are pretty neat.
You beat me too it but what they said was
“We focused on changes over 40-year periods, which is similar to the lifetime of houses and human-built infrastructure such as buildings and roads,” said lead author Smith. “In the near term, we’re going to have to adapt to these changes.”
What about bridges and sewage systems etc.
Where ignorance is bliss tis a folly to be wise?
They don’t get out much do they? I live in a (still sturdy) house built around 1870. The road it’s on goes back way beyond that. Can I assume that the Pacific Northwest area is parvenu?
I watched a T&V program with a name like; “After Humans ” which went through the gory details of what happens after human life on earth is extinguished.
Surprisingly they actually showed photographs of abandoned this and abandoned that, which showed man made structures actually being devoured by nature, including when it comes to that New York’s Manhattan City.
Basically steel and concrete decompose extremely rapidly in the scheme of things, WITHOUT HUMAN MAINTENANCE .
So will basically all be gone in about 1,000 years after the last meddling human stops tinkering with climate data. Well maybe the pyramids will still be there but may be buried in the sand, but pretty much everything else goes.
Seeing what Mother Gaia did to Machu Pichu or Angkor Wat, or other Mayan sites, and it will all be taken care of in due time.
Have you seen what strangling vines do to totally immense trees, given enough time ??
g
George, I find it fascinating to see what nature has done to Pripyat and the exclusion zone around Chernobyl in a relatively short time of abandonment. Elena Filatova has an excellent photo journal of this at:
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/plutosrealmproject14a.jpg
Nature swallows up the follies of mankind.
“george e. smith
March 9, 2015 at 1:10 pm
I watched a T&V program with a name like; “After Humans ” which went through the gory details of what happens after human life on earth is extinguished.”
Yes, regularly repeated here in Australia, on state funded SBS, along with the climate change alarmist message. Quite comical in fact. Pets going hungry, nuclear power stations exploding etc etc etc etc.
My house was built in of wood in 1932 … still going strong!
I believe those are the days when a 2 x 4 was actually 2″ x 4″ instead of 1.5″ x 3.5″
Isn’t Climate Change™ supposed to bring bigger and nastier termites?
AW … the timber has become very hard with age … the termites would need to be nuclear powered. 😉
My thought’s exactly, “Only 40 years for a house?!” My house is 70 and in fantastic shape. I once visited a buddy from grad school at his ancestral home in Italy and it was over 500 years old. Granted, wood-frame houses (the majority in the U.S.) have to be maintained and repaired if/when things happen, but many are still going strong after 100 years and should easily last another 100 if maintained.
Oh, but I forgot about Global Warming. All the houses will cook, and get brittle and crispy. We’re doomed. Quick, simulate a solution!
The case for climate alarm is dying, people have just heard enough. As this happens the alarmist claims get wilder and wilder. What is really sad is the taxpayer dollars being spent on junk science like this.
This is nothing to do with science any more. It’s just religion, pure and simple.
Look at the names cited in the references.
Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2552.html
And the name of their institution: “Affiliations Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory”. They have dropped anthropogenic and warming and climate and weather, and just generalized whatever they do to “change”. Well, maybe their new institution now includes diapers and oil and coins.
“The more models in agreement, the more confidence in the results.”
Just incredible that the models are verified with each other and not actual observation!? The only thing more disturbing than the failure in basic science and logic is the fact that taxpayers money is taken from them to pay for this without any recourse.
Time to end zero accountability, government-sponsored “science”
“The more models in agreement, the more confidence in the results.”
That was the one phrase that made my stomach turn. I just find it impossible to add the word ‘science’ to climate. Total, utter crooks. Not idiots. These people know what sh!t they are producing but just don’t care. They see it as getting back some of the tax THEY have paid.
Tempted to email them saying we have developed 32 models which are in very good agreement that they do shoddy, pseudo-science, so we are highly confident of that result.
+1
Dave in Canmore,
Yes.
No, that really would be dumb. Try reading further down:
The team calculated how fast temperatures changed between 1850 and 1930, a period when people started keeping records but when the amount of fossil fuel gases collecting in the atmosphere was low. They compared these rates to temperatures reconstructed from natural sources of climate information, such as from tree rings, corals and ice cores, for the past 2,000 years.
To be fair, the PR team look to have muffed the time period studied … I believe it should be past 1,000 years, not 2,000.
And plow that money into literacy skills.
Nope. You cannot mix disparate proxy. Most proxies have very poor decadal resolution, Ice cores at best have nothing less then 100 year resolution. Proxies to determine decadal trend is a poor idea to start, but hey given adequate parameter tuners, it can say whatever they want.
As, shoot I cannot remember which CAGW proponent it was, but he said words to the affect of we should just pool our best proxy record together in one paper, keep Michael Mann out, and in the end “we would still know “fuck-all” about less then 100 year resolution”, and we should publish, retire, and not leave a forwarding address.
Up through the early part of the IPCC their own documents showed trends equal to the 1979 to 1998 run up.
Here was a N.H. drop of .7 C plus in 30 years. Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.” The two decade run up to the 1940 peak was over .3 C per decade.
I simply choose to take the CAGW proponents at their word. They clearly were disturbed by the 1940s blip. They stated it would be “GOOD” to remove the blip. They have been ever sense. They talked about the “cause” and changing the peer review process if necessary.
Beyond that the predictive ability and therefore policy implications of climate models should be based on future forecasting, not hind casting to vague proxies. Here the models fail completely.
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
What is the 28 year trend of RSS?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/last:312/plot/rss/last:312/trend/plot/rss/last:312/trend/detrend:0.3222544/plot/rss/last:312/trend/detrend:-0.3222544/plot/rss/from:1996.65/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.65/trend/detrend:0.20096/plot/rss/from:1996.65/trend/detrend:-0.20096
Let us see again after the AMO reverses…
Here is the link to the below pasted Bill Illis comment.
Sometimes they cool the past in large jumps, but often .01 degrees at a time, a death to any real history by 1000 cuts.
Here are the changes made to GISS temperatures on just one day this February. Yellow is the new temperature assumption and strikeout is the previous number. Almost every single monthly temperature record from 1880 to 1950 was adjusted down by 0.01C.
I mean every freaking month is history suddenly got 0.01C colder. What the heck changed that made the records in 1880 0.01C colder. Did the old thermometer readers screw up that bad?
http://s2.postimg.org/eclux0yl5/GISS_Global_Adjustments_Feb_14_2015.png
GISS’ data comes from the NCDC so the NCDC carried out the same adjustments. They have been doing this every month since about 1999. So 16 years times 12 months/year times -0.01C of adjustments each month equals -1.92C of fake adjustments.
Lots of opportunity to create a fake warming signal. In fact, by now it is clear that 1880 was so cold that all of the crops failed and all of the animals froze and all of the human race starved to death or froze to death and we went extinct. 135 years ago today.
end of Bills post.
=============================================
Brandon, here is how you can verify these changes….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/06/can-adjustments-right-a-wrong/#comment-1877500
Brandon, I will give you one thing, the models are informative. We are informed by their 97% wrongness in the SAME direction. This informs us that some fundamental aspect of their physics is wrong Occam’s razor would indicate that they are fundamentally wrong in CO2 climate sensitivity.
David A,
Been going on for a long time: We use a multiproxy network consisting of widely distributed high-quality annual-resolution proxy climate indicators, individually collected and formerly analysed by many palaeoclimate researchers (details and references are available: see Supplementary Information). The network includes (Fig. 1a) the collection of annual-resolution dendroclimatic, ice core, ice melt, and long historical records used by Bradley and Jones 6 combined with other coral, ice core, dendroclimatic, and long instrumental records. ~Mann, et al. (1998)
MBH98 weren’t the first to use the multi-proxy approach either. Your argument really doesn’t make sense to me because all these data form the entirety of what we think we know about past climactic changes. In my mind, the best science is done when multiple lines of evidence converge on same answer. In the case of multiple proxies I understand that they serve as checks against each other, strengths of one offset weaknesses of others, etc. I don’t pretend to understand all of it.
I do know from my own number crunching that figuring out rates of change on proxy data for sub-century timescales is a bitch, so I am reading the supplemental for this paper with a great deal of interest.
They even tossed in a borehole study for you: Pollack, H.N., and J.E. Smerdon, 2004: Borehole climate reconstructions: Spatial structure and hemispheric averages. J. Geophys. Res., 109 (D11), D11106, doi:10.1029/2003JD004163
Dunno if you know, but he updated it about a week ago: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/02/on-natural-climate-variability-and-climate-models/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation.png
His choice of baseline and zero-year remain … creative:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i_B5dDr7jz8/VPO2oxQbQII/AAAAAAAAAW8/ObX8s9Bw4s4/s1600/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation%2Brebaselined.png
Dr Roy is right, they under estimated natural temperature dynamics, cranked sensitivity to Co2 up to compensate for what they didn’t know (the PDO for instant), and now models run way to hot.
And surface temps agree with this, without all of thecreative edits to the data.
Brandon, please pick up the logical connection in consecutive sentences.
What I said…”Nope. You cannot mix disparate proxy. Most proxies have very poor decadal resolution, Ice cores at best have nothing less then 100 year resolution. Proxies to determine decadal trend is a poor idea to start,”
Your out of context comment…“
Quoting me. Nope. You cannot mix disparate proxy.
Brandon says… Been going on for a long time:
===============================================
Brandon the team proxies of climate science are well known. After much criticism from rational skeptics, they, in those emails, admitted amongst themselves that many of the skeptic criticisms were valid. (Mann was the exception to this.) (Climate Audit has many good posts on this)
In the mid 2000s talking about their best team effort at a proxy history, using all the proxies in this report, they said they would know “fuck-all” about decadal variation. Proxies can work to a degree but the decadal error bars are far bigger then the smoothed error bars.
Brandon, that is not an updated Dr. Spencer chart you showed, it is a different chart, and shows the broken models across the board. The one I showed you is mid tropospheric and if updated to this month, the flaws in the models continue to grow. 18 to 26 years now for this.
Brandon, why do you mention bore-holes. Bore-hole temperatures are only sensitive to climate variations at multi-decadal or longer time scales due to the attenuation by the diffusion process.
David A,
I do data for a living, and you would not believe how badly it can get b0rked up by careless lusers, bad code, horrible data governance policies. You bet your ass I’ve written routines to reconcile accounts and make balancing journal entries. One place had what appeared to be an entirely separate set of books for the same business entities, turns out that they didn’t know how to use the system properly, and those entries were part of their consolidation process for doing quarterly and annual financials. “But they don’t tie to each other,” I challenged. “We know that … we manually balance them in a spreadsheet, which is part of our audit package,” I was assured. Somewhat.
As much a wizard as I am at that job, I can’t look at those temperature data and tell you why those adjustments were made. I don’t know enough about it. I suggest reading the vast array of papers on the topic, or send someone at GISS an enquiry if you really wish to know. Bill Illis already has his answer: Lots of opportunity to create a fake warming signal. In fact, by now it is clear that 1880 was so cold that all of the crops failed and all of the animals froze and all of the human race starved to death or froze to death and we went extinct.
It’s not that I’m not skeptical about these sort of things, but it does occur to me that it would be desirable to get the models to match the faked temperature records a little better, and on that note: tweaking the model output would be a heck of a lot easier to do, don’t you think? That, and data-fakers tend not to preserve the raw data, publish papers telling you how they fudged it or release the source code for the algorithms that do it so that any Tom, Dick or Harry can download the whole kit and kaboodle and go through it with a fine-tooth comb themselves.
Do as you will, of course. I’m just saying there are more interesting things to discuss than fantastically implausible conspiracy theories. Like the science itself. I think it’s incredibly fascinating.
David A,
All models are always wrong. I don’t particularly care that one is mid-tropospheric and the other is surface — they’re both going to be wrong, else they wouldn’t be models.
My gripe, which you’ve ignored, is that Spencer has manufactured on the order of a 0.08 K discrepancy between observation and model ensemble projection simply because he doesn’t use the 1986-2005 reference period as published by the IPCC. That may sound like peanuts until you consider that the standard deviation of the model-actual residual for 5-year running means from 1860 through 2005 is 0.077 K.
IOW, he’s making the CMIP5 ensemble look nearly a whole standard deviation worse than it is.
His caption, “Agreement in early years between climate models and observations led modellers to believe their assumed forcings (mostly CO2) and climate sensitivity were correct …” is egregiously wrong for two reasons I can think of off the top of my head:
1) Sensitivity is an emergent property of the model output, not a parametrized input. They are not “tuned” by dialling in some desired forcing for CO2. Here’s a reference: http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/klockedaniel/Mauritsen_tuning_6.pdf
2) “Early observations” include further back than 1983 as Spencer would have you believe: http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/getting_started_CMIP5_experiment.html
Long-term (century-scale) climate experiments include
Baseline paleoclimatic, preindustrial (pre-1850), and historical (post-1850) climate simulations (Table 3);
Future projections of climates associated with different atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) scenarios specified by several “representative concentration pathways” (RCPs) (Table 4);
Coupled carbon-climate [i.e. “Earth System Model (ESM)”] simulations of historical and future climates (Table 5);
Experiments for diagnosing the model representations of selected climate mechanisms (Table 6);
Simulations designed to facilitate climate-change detection and attribution studies (Table 7).
David A,
Yes, that’s why I mentioned them.
The 1986-2005 reference period as published by the IPCC is a living breathing document. They change the baseline.
?w=700
The models diverge from the observations at any time, every time they are run from the present to forward. Saying, ” all models diverge” is a very weak statement. The idea is to improve the models, to learn from the errors. When the errors all run in one direction, way to warm, then in any other field you would understand you have something fundamentally wrong.
Instead the IPCC and climate science is attempting to adjust the data to match the models. The records of climategate are clear, and in context. If you studied them you would see that scientist do not speak that way. If you study the IPCC you will see they use the projected harms from the ensemble mean of consistently wrong in ONE direction models (meaning the purposely choose a model mean further away from the observations then their best, but still to warm model runs) to predict future harms. This is piss poor science.
It is akin to an altimeter manufacture, knowing his altimeters all tell the pilot the plane is 1000 feet higher then it is, to go ahead and fly over the mountains anyway, and to trust his altimeter.
The data formerly showed .3 per decades shifts, warm and cold in this century. They have changed that. My links to the consistent .01 degree adjustment shifts in the past have no explanation. No station changes, no instrument changes, no TOBS changes are responsible for this. Making an analogy to the stock market is irrelevant nonsense. These changes happen regularly without explanation. This is not science. It is setting science back. The political aspects of monetary influence, peer pressure, confirmation bias, and political pressure, are well known and studied features and it does not take a conspiracy nut to understand these corrupting influences.
The fact that a great deal of excellent peer reviewed literature is ignored by the IPCC is a shame, but not surprising. If you wish to better understand the political influence on CAGW science, study the book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” Then you will begin to comprehend climate gate, the IPCC using articles from the WWF and Greenpeace, while ignoring peer reviewed science, etc.
Brandon says, “His caption, “Agreement in early years between climate models and observations led modellers to believe their assumed forcings (mostly CO2) and climate sensitivity were correct …” is egregiously wrong for two reasons I can think of off the top of my head:
1) Sensitivity is an emergent property of the model output, not a parametrized input. They are not “tuned” by dialling in some desired forcing for CO2. Here’s a reference:”
==================================================================================
Climate sensitivity “emerges” in the models based on CO2 sensitivity. Based on the physics of CO2 sensitivity including the positive feed backs based on their best understanding of the physics. This is consistent in all the model runs, influenced disparately depending on other assumptions in the models, ocean cycles, particulates etc. To pretend that the reported physics of climate sensitivity are not in the models is arm waving. Changing this one factor, would greatly improve the climate models.
David A commented on
I believe the key area they used to jack up warming is the effect of humidity very near the surface, I believe they allow for super saturation of water vapor (ie over 100% rel humidity), this isn’t likely a real physical effect.
I will note that, while monitoring Tsky with an IR thermometer and comparing the cooling rate through the night, I have seen humidity rise into the upper 80% or higher, and the cooling rate slows, but it doesn’t super saturate, it condenses out as dew and or fog.
David A,
Excellent comments. You know the issue very well, indeed. Thanks.
Thank you guys, And yes Mio the feedback of water vapor is a part of “climate sensitivity” where all feedbacks are supposedly incorporated. There is so much evidence against this. Water Vapor, even in clear sky conditions greatly reduces surface insolation.
Brandon dismisses the influence of political goals in the field of climate science. He forgets that CAGW is the poster child of “Post Normal Science” which by definition is the comingling of science with politics. The child from that union is the IPCC.
David A,
The RCPs for the CMIP5 model runs used in AR5 begin in 2006. Hence the 1986-2005 reference period. Do you get it now?
No, it’s 100% true. Until you recognize that claiming the models are broken because they diverge from observation is a useless argument (because you’ll always be able to make it), you will continue to have useless input in this debate on this topic.
No kidding, genius. Tell me something nobody knows.
David A contradicts himself. Can he figure out how?
Brandon quotes me.
“The models diverge from the observations at any time, every time they are run from the present to forward.”
Brandon says, “The RCPs for the CMIP5 model runs used in AR5 begin in 2006. Hence the 1986-2005 reference period. Do you get it now?
=================================================
It matters not what the base line is, nor does the initialization, nor does the hind cast. Models, to be useful, must have predictive ability. When they all run off the rails in the same direction, they fail Yes, the error is teaching them something, unless they are climate scientist.
Brandon quotes me…
“Saying, ” all models diverge” is a very weak statement.”
Brandon says, “No, it’s 100% true. Until you recognize that claiming the models are broken because they diverge from observation is a useless argument (because you’ll always be able to make it), you will continue to have useless input in this debate on this topic.”
Brandon quotes me again…”The idea is to improve the models, to learn from the errors.”
Brandon bloviates,
No kidding, genius. Tell me something nobody knows.
===================================================
Poor lass, and I am beginning to think you to be quite young, because if you had an iota of classical training your would not make such inane logical blunders.
Yes, all models have some error. That is irrelevant to what I am saying. If I run a computer model of the physics behind an altimeter, it will likely have some extremely small divergence from the realties it encounters.
However the climate models do not have hemi/demi/semi/minute errors.
“The climate models are akin to an altimeter manufacture, knowing his altimeters all tell the pilots their plane is 1000 feet higher then it is, to go ahead and fly over the mountains anyway, and to trust their altimeter, even though the manufacture knows all the altimeters read wrong in the same direction, and will cause the plane to crash into the mountains.
Both the above analogy and below are what you failed to read, as you consistently quote me out of context.
I must repeat myself, because you learn slowly. I will make caps of the cogent facts you missed.
“If you study the IPCC you will see they use the projected harms from the ENSEMBLE MEAN of consistently wrong in ONE direction models (MEANING THEY PURPOSEFULLY CHOOSE A MODEL MEAN FURTHER AWAY FROM THE OBSERVATIONS, RATHER THAN USE THEIR BEST MODEL RUNS.
THEN, FROM THE ENSEMBLE MEAN OF CONSITENTLY WRONG MODELS, NOT OBSERVATIONS, THEY PREDICT FUTURE CLIMATE AND SPECULATIVE HARMS. (Just like the bad altimeter manufacturer.)
So clearly Brandon you need to tell the IPCC “the idea is to improve the models, to learn from the errors.” because clearly they ignore their errors, and treat the known to be wrong in one direction ensemble mean as reality.
For a detailed and technical work up of this try this link.
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/guest_comments_gcms_and_global_warming_prof_robert_g_brown_duke_university-115271
David A,
I’m talking about how the comparisons are presented, wrongly, by Spencer …
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i_B5dDr7jz8/VPO2oxQbQII/AAAAAAAAAW8/ObX8s9Bw4s4/s1600/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation%2Brebaselined.png
… by choosing a five year baseline zeroed at 1983 when the projection portion of those model runs begins all the way out in 2006. As usual, you change the subject.
If you’re looking for an AOGCM to tell you if it will rain on August 28, 2035 at 6:34 PM in Toronto, you’re gonna be able to call them junk forever.
Odd argument, since the CMIP5 ensemble misses on either side of the observations over the course of the instrumental record.
I do study the IPCC. The models are not “consistently wrong” in “ONE direction” only:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fRV6ymzCb7A/VQCAQnsE63I/AAAAAAAAAYQ/SDw5lXjU4GA/s1600/CMIP5%2Bto%2BGISS%2BNov%2B2014%2B12mo%2BMA.png
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
Ya, they pretty much all run way to warm, and only the forward projection portion is relevant to public policy, and that is where they are very bad, in a consistent and informative way.
You really should read the links I posted giving the detailed commentary.
In honor of pi day (3.14.15), I’m surprised they didn’t mention that they rounded pi to 1,000,000 digits for all their calculations, thereby increasing the accuracy of their models by 1,000,000 times.
However the IPCC is a changeable breathable document.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/clip_image022.jpg
However the are not even adequate fortune tellers
Brandon quotes me…
“Models, to be useful, must have predictive ability.”
————————————————
Brandon bloviates nonsense while ignoring my cogent related comments which were not , of course quoted by him…
“If you’re looking for an AOGCM to tell you if it will rain on August 28, 2035 at 6:34 PM in Toronto, you’re gonna be able to call them junk forever.”
=================================================================
What I actually said
“Yes, all models have some error. That is irrelevant to what I am saying. If I run a computer model of the physics behind an altimeter, it will likely have some extremely small divergence from the realties it encounters.
However the climate models do not have hemi/demi/semi/minute errors.
“The climate models are akin to an altimeter manufacture, knowing his altimeters all tell the pilots their plane is 1000 feet higher then it is, to go ahead and fly over the mountains anyway, and to trust their altimeter, even though the manufacture knows all the altimeters read wrong in the same direction, and will cause the plane to crash into the mountains.
Both the above analogy and below are what you failed to read, as you consistently quote me out of context.
I must repeat myself, because you learn slowly. I will make caps of the cogent facts you missed.
“If you study the IPCC you will see they use the projected harms from the ENSEMBLE MEAN of consistently wrong in ONE direction models (MEANING THEY PURPOSEFULLY CHOOSE A MODEL MEAN FURTHER AWAY FROM THE OBSERVATIONS, RATHER THAN USE THEIR BEST MODEL RUNS.)
How long will this first stage of grief over the loss of man-bear-pig last for the warming cultists?
.2 degreesper decade up and down is natural, but .3 degrees per decade up and down is unnantural and frientghtning and will destroy Earth. Hmmmm what are the error bars for the .2 degrees per decade? It’s worse than we thought.
Around 1733 to 1740 there was a change of -0.33C/decade change in Central England Temperature.
We adapted to these ‘temperature changes’ a very long time ago.
A few days ago it was reported that a 2.8 million hominid jawbone was found in the Afar Depression – Ethiopia.
It is a land of terrible heat, sulphur, salt and lava.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/afar-depression/morell-text
If you repeat a falsehood loud enough and often enough, some people will believe it.
Even those doing the repeating
There is no pause. You need 30 years to find a climate trend. BTW, global warming theory does not depend on computer models. The theory was first advanced by Svante August Arrhenius in 1896. The first digital computer was, perhaps, the ABC machine of 1937, and the first computer climate model was Plass’s column model of 1956, if I’m not mistaken.
The suggestion that climate scientists don’t know basic math, physics, chemistry, etc. is a little unlikely, if you think about it. Any time you think an entire field of science is wrong because of something simple and obvious that all its practitioners missed, it is more likely that whatever you’re thinking is simple and obvious is not so at all. Example: “If evolution is true, why are there still apes?”
Please don’t be daft. The pause is the discrepancy between the climate models and the actual climate.
No serious person disputes the existence of the pause or tries to claim that the models predicted ti.
Scottish Sceptic,
are you trying to redefine the “pause”? The pause traditionally referred to the slowdown in the average global surface temperature for the last 15 years or so.
The IPCC AR5 report uses the term “hiatus” not “pause” to describe the slowdown. I think they make it pretty clear what they are talking about.
BP Levenson,
Where are you getting your misinformation from? Even the IPCC admits to the “pause”.
You seem to be fairly new here. I advise you to just lurk for a while, until you’re up to speed. Otherwise you will get ripped to shreds with comments like that.
While you’re lurking, study this for a while.
dbs: Where are you getting your misinformation from? Even the IPCC admits to the “pause”.
BPL: I don’t. As I said, you need 30 years to tell a climate trend. That was decided, from empirical evidence, by the World Meteorological Organization back in 1935. Do you know how to tell when you have an adequate sample size for a trend?
Barton Paul is an sks troll. I’m actually surprised he’d venture into the lions den.
BP Leverson:
You are a rather dim upstairs. The WMO was founded in 1950, as an agency of the UN.
Oh, yes, BP, the website of the WMO is where I got this information.
How laughable, 30 years to get a trend.
So how come CAGW was based on warming from 1985 to 2005 at the most then?
Or can’t you read a graph?
A period that was no different to the one earlier in the Century.
Barton Paul Levenson: “Do you know how to tell when you have an adequate sample size for a trend?”
2000 is too short, hm? Well, then how about 1860: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1860
There is a sinusoidal up and down with a slight increase over that time span. Funny, though, how most scientists reject the idea that 30 years is a good reference point and instead start looking at 1979 and forward, instead of either the whole data set or even just the whole of the reliable data set and instead concentrate on the last tiny portion.
The theory of CAGW is hinged on the relationship of CO2 and Temperatures. Without both moving in lockstep, CAGW has been disproven. CO2 has increased readily over this same time frame, but in the last 15-18 years, temperatures have not increased readily. In proper science, they would have found a mechanism outside of CO2 as the dominant driver and moved on with actual science. Instead, political and commercial interests have intervened to keep the broken record playing the same 12 seconds of the same 48s. “We will burn by 2100. We must change the world’s social structure to avert this.”
On top of that, recent research suggests that the “warming” of the 1980s and 1990s may have been because of marked differences between the old-style mercury and new-style electronic temperature measurement devices: http://www.hager-meteo.de/aktuelle%20berichte.htm
A lot more research is needed before you can decide that we are warming. All of the Sky Is Falling reports by both sensationalist media and those that stand to benefit by government spending on all of this “social conversion” is extremely premature, since we stopped bothering with actual science around the Second Assessment Report from the IPCC.
Remember you said this. No future claims from you for anything climate related of LESS than 30 years! LOL.
The WMO was founded in 1950.
The 30 years for climate is understood by me but what would falsify the models? According to two sources 15 years and 17 years. We are into the 18th year of no surface warming. NULL POINT.
” Do you know how to tell when you have an adequate sample size for a trend?”
Yes. You perform a statistical analysis to determine the autocorrelation and distribution of the data, verifying that it fits a stationary model. Then, you compute the likelihood of the statistic you have identified given those statistics.
You, or your sources, have clearly not done any of this. If you had, you would be taking into account the ~6 decade cyclical correlation in the data, and would never, ever, suggest that 30 years was enough to evaluate the statistical significance of a trend in the face of that.
Oh look a new Warmist Troll.
Very brave coming on here, believing that he can tell us what to think.
ACO: Oh look a new Warmist Troll.
Very brave coming on here, believing that he can tell us what to think.
BPL: Who is that trip-trapping upon my bridge?
He’s usually giving Tamino a little [snip. Sorry, that’s a no-no. ~mod.]
Don’t feed the troll.
Would be great if we could actually welcome dissenting views on here and have some genuine debate with them. Ad hominem treatment of people with opposing views doesn’t fit to well with the notion of authentic scepticism. The collision of opinion can only benefit us . . The idea that the “pause” might be too short to tell us anything significant – though hardly original – seems worthy of serious consideration to me.
jim hogg,
I’m with you. I’ve seen nothing in BPL’s comment that was out of line. He’s not trolling, but he’s clearly been fed misinformation. If he’s an SkS reader, that would fully explain it. Instead of being skeptical of their ‘carbon’ scare like a good skeptic should, he’s swallowed their Narrative hook, line, and sinker.
Mr. Levenson should accept the widely-held “consensus”: global warming stopped, anywhere from ten to 18+ years ago, depending on the database used. Even the IPCC now admits to the “pause” [which means that global warming has stopped; same-same].
That fact has thrown the alarmist crowd into fits of consternation. Nobody predicted that global warming would stop! The almost universal consensus was that global warming would either continue as usual, or it would accelerate. Instead, it stopped completely.
As I pointed out above, Dr. Phil Jones himself was the one who designated “fifteen years” [his words] as the time necessary to establish whether global warming has stopped. It has now been longer than that. As CO2 continues to rise, global warming should be accelerating. But it’s not.
This is what irritates scientific skeptics so much: if and when facts change, skeptics will change their minds. But not the climate alarmist crowd! Instead, they dig in their heels, and cherry-pick any factoid that might rescue their man-made global warming [MMGW] conjecture. But they rescue it at the expense of their credibility. Their confirmation bias is unassailable, and their minds are closed tight to new information.
And what happens if/when global warming remains in stasis after twenty years? After thirty years? Will folks like Levenson come up with ever more incredible excuses?
So I have a question for Mr. Levenson:
At what point will you admit that you were flat wrong in your MMGW conjecture?
Pick a date. Take a stand! Because constantly pushing your time frame out is religion, not science.
There’s your challenge, Mr. Levenson. At what year will you admit that you were wrong all along? Or will you never admit it?
Now be kind, obviously a new entry into the climastrologist arena with a bent toward personal theories like 30 years required to disprove AGW. Unfortunately at present unable to provide sane reasoning, code, modeling or math to backup.
Definitely a pause and most climate scientists confirm that. There are scores of studies that explain or account for the pause, these written by those who embrace AGW.
Also, 30 years to make a climate trend? Where did you get that? No AGW type would agree with you.
Stealey gave you good advice.
He got from the climate means. Each Met off uses a different ‘climate’ period to fiddle their data. That period is usually 30yrs. As has already been mentioned, Santer et al proposed 15 yrs later to become 17 yrs and no doubt soon to become 20 yrs as the point at which climate modelers ‘would have to rethink their models’. Sadly, no such luck§ Too much big oil money at stake.
Thirty years to make trend means we have seen no warming trends (a twentynine year warming trend does not count as a trend). Our sci-fi writer will have trouble convincing his comrades in the movement of his point of view.
Stephen Richards,
Let’s start with what Santer, et al. (2011) actually says:
We compare global-scale changes in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) with model simulations of forced and unforced TLT changes. While previous work has focused on a single period of record, we select analysis timescales ranging from 10 to 32 years, and then compare all possible observed TLT trends on each timescale with corresponding multi-model distributions of forced and unforced trends. We use observed estimates of the signal component of TLT changes and model estimates of climate noise to calculate timescale-dependent signal-to-noise ratios (S/N). These ratios are small (less than 1) on the 10-year timescale, increasing to more than 3.9 for 32-year trends. This large change in S/N is primarily due to a decrease in the amplitude of internally generated variability with increasing trend length. Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.
It should be blindingly obvious to any thinking person generally familiar with statistics that when looking for a weak long-term signal in the midst of a bunch of high-amplitude “noise”, the more samples over a longer period of time the better.
Also note that it is not strictly required to find a signal only on rising or falling segments of some trend. In fact, it’s quite nice when multiple cycles with many signals are available to do the detection:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png
The sawtooth pattern of rising and falling temperatures is a signature effect of a system which is disposed to move more rapidly in one direction than the other. Very clearly, over the past 800 kyrs the planet prefers to warm up more quickly than it cools even when the orbitally-driven insolation cycles are symmetric. The lag of CO2 behind temperature AFTER an insolation peak is a really big hint that it, and IR active species like water vapor and methane work as advertized by 19th century physicists …
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif
… they reduce the rate of heat loss from the system even as other forcings are dropping off the cliff. Such as the aforementioned 60-ish year cycle of internal variability:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MW_NJp28Udc/VNS3EAEqpOI/AAAAAAAAAUs/hjhuLZFkdoM/s1600/hadcrut4%2Bhiatuses.png
Each successive cycle cools less rapidly than the one previously — AND — very much like in the Antarctica ice core records, the rate of warming on the upside of the internal variability cycle is a bit steeper and goes a tad higher than the one previously.
mod, dangit, I missed the closing italics tag if you’d be so kind.
mp: Also, 30 years to make a climate trend? Where did you get that? No AGW type would agree with you.
BPL: As I said, that’s what the WMO (or its predecessor, as someone pointed out the modern name dates from 1950) decided in 1935. The way you find the proper period is by taking the standard deviation of a number of consecutive time series points starting from the present. When the figure stabilizes (maximizes), you’ve reached an adequate sample size. For mean global annual temperature the figure is actually 45 years, but they decided to go with 2/3 of that for arcane statistical reasons.
The reason I say there’s no pause is as follows. In statistics, to see whether a trend exists in time series data, you don’t just compare the beginning and end points. You need to use all the points. In fact, you need to regress your series against time and see if the slope is statistically significant. That’s what Phil Jones meant when he said there was no “statistically significant” warming for 15 years. If you make it 20 years, the slope does cross the threshold of significance, and if, as I do, you use all 165 years of data, the slope is significant at orders of magnitude past the 99.9% confidence level.
If you look at the history of temperature for the last century and a half, you’ll see that there have been many such “pauses.” They are statistical artifacts. What you want to look at is the overall trend, and that is upward–and accelerating.
Barton Paul Levenson commented
BPL, are you a statistician? If you are I’d love to get your help with the temp data I’m working with.
But, you mentioned slope, This:
http://www.science20.com/sites/all/modules/author_gallery/uploads/543663916-global.png
Is the slope of about 90 million daily station records, that I average the day over day difference between min and max temps, then calculated the slope of this average from spring to fall, and fall to spring. Which captures the rate the worlds temp stations evolve during the year, both as it warms and as it cools, for min, mean, and max temps as specified in the NCDC Global Summary of Days data.
Oh I see. That explains why the Warmist illuminati have come up with 66 -and- counting excuses for “the pause” (which is actually a halt, but you can’t tell Believers that).
Wouldn’t “Warmist Illusionati” be a better term?
People like Barton Paul Levenson insist there is no pause. They have convinced themselves that there is no pause even when the likes of Trenberth say there is a pause. You have to wonder about the mental state of some Warmists, you really do.
“The theory was first advanced by Svante August Arrhenius in 1896.”
… ,discarded by mainstream science for decades only to be resurrected by green scientivists in the 1990’s. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere evolves with temperature, not the other way around. While the theory has already failed again, only an extended period of decline in temperature with a concomitant decline in the rate of increase of CO2 concentration will finally convince latter-day cargo-cultists. Whether that happens is largely a matter of pot luck unfortunately.
BPL: “The theory was first advanced by Svante August Arrhenius in 1896.”
AJB: discarded by mainstream science for decades only to be resurrected by green scientivists in the 1990’s. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere evolves with temperature, not the other way around.
BPL: Well, no. Angstrom and Koch thought they had disproved it by the “saturation” argument they advanced in 1901, but high-altitude observations during World War II shot that down. The theory was revived mainly by the work of Gilbert Plass in the 1950s, quickly backed up by findings by Hans Suess, Roger Revelle, and others. That global warming was a serious short-term problem became evident in the late 1980s.
And in 1966 Revelle wrote “People’s attitude toward the rise of CO2 should probably contain more curiosity than apprehension.”
Then you say: “That global warming was a serious short-term problem became evident in the late 1980s”
Evidenced by what? The temperature went up and CO2 followed; no evidence of causality. However during the temperature “hiatus” period the rate of increase of CO2 has also flat lined, despite accelerated use of fossil fuels. CO2 concentration does indeed appear to evolve as the integral of temperature, lagged on a wide range of timescales. Not the other way around.
Please don’t come back with mass-balance arguments, you don’t have isotopic data for the 96% of annual CO2 exchange from natural sources and sinks. Whichever way you cut it, the current underlying positive trend cannot be due entirely to the 4% human induced CO2 contribution.
It’s good to see that your are going against the consensus! LOL. 1975 to 1998 was less than 30 years too!
Ok That’s pretty comprehensive, but Levenson will not be handing you the cigar. He needs 50 yrs of cooling before he gives up his religion.
Stephen,
I occasionally update the quotes to include the most recent hiatus quotes. I also include the earliest references I can find – from Phil Jones. It shows that in 2009 at least one of their number had their eyes on the no warming trend and thought it important enough to say 15 years of no warming before getting worried. Obviously Barton Paul Levenson disagrees with Jones. What Barton Paul Levenson needs to ask himself is why Jones would be concerned about worry? Shouldn’t Jones be happy? These things convince me that we are dealing with a bunch of rent seekers.
Wrong about what? Here is something that the climastrologists are wrong about – surface warming projections, the central line is where the IPCC thought it would go, and it hasn’t. WRONG!
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
No, not “ all its practitioners” only a select group. Your logic seems to be that “I believe this and many climate scientists also believe it therefore what we believe is the entire field of this science.” Lousy logic and also quite wrong. Contrary to what you may have heard, there is a very wide range of QUALIFIED scientific opinion on this topic. If you believe the “97%” business or that this is “settled” then you are sadly uninformed and a willing victim of blatant propaganda.
BTW, are you in fact, Barton Paul Levenson, SF writer? Your English here is impeccable so I will assume so, but logic and research, not so much. That or perhaps you’re here to spread more propaganda. Good luck with that one.
Mr. Layman here.
30 years? Shouldn’t that be at least 60 years just to get a baseline then multiples of 60 years to actually get a climate trend?
But you’re running from what the models “projected” (going all the way back to Hansen) and what has actually been observed. The models are melting.
Do you do any target shooting? If your sight is off the tiniest bit, you’ll miss the bullseye no matter how steady your aim is. The further away the target, the further from the bullseye.
Bugger, and here I was thinking I’d lived through two (and a bit) climate cycles.
Dear Barton,
Thanks so much for sharing. It is truly appreciated.
Babsy
BPL, I think you’ll find there’s a bit more to it than that. Thanks for the laugh though anyway.
The need for 30 years didn’t seem to bother Hanson much. After a 40 year cooling trend, he testified to congress about a warming trend less than 10 years in.
If it’s good enough for Hanson, it’s good enough for me.
Because nothing says SCIENCE! quite as well as a good old double standard.
By the 1950’s they had precise measurements of atmosphere CO2 and enough data to project a global trend. By the 1960’s they had calculated the experimental radiative forcing of CO2 to exquisite precision using computers.
Knowing all the basic items that every modern Alarmists cites as the foundation of Global Warming ideology, in 1965 the alarmists released a report that made several predictions. First, global CO2 levels would rise 25% by the year 2000. They nailed this, even underpredicting it a bit. Second, that this would cause temperatures to rise by 7 degrees. Third, this would cause sea levels to rise by 10 feet, putting NYC and DC underwater. They did include some hand-waving style text to say that this was not the only possibility, but when they talked to policy makers, the alarmist numbers ended up in the report written by Daniel Patrick Moynihan now found in the Nixon White house archives.
Not only this, after making this prediction, they then went on to predict what would happen after the year 2000. They said that it would take roughly 200 years to melt down all the major glaciers on earth, raising sea levels by an additional 200 feet. They didn’t give any “error bars” for this prediction, suggesting it was they best guess. By my math, that comes out to another 1 foot per year of sea level rise after the year 2000. So not in 2015 they predicted that sea levels would be 25 feet higher, due to a runaway greenhouse effect.
By my count 1965 -> 2015 is more than your 30 year window, so I guess you will now accept that the foundations of Global Warming science have in fact been scientifically falsified due to their utter failure to predict either temperatures or sea levels, despite good estimation of atmospheric CO2.
Below is the reality. What incompetent fools they are. They in addition have no clue about the historical climatic record.
http://coacheshotseat.com/coacheshotseatblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/GreenlandIceCores15000.png
You reckon temps today are just slightly above the Little Ice Age??
Here’s the reality…
http://s12.postimg.org/o8fm48rm5/gisp2.jpg
Good!
From GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L21501: 2011
The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is −29.9°C. The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in
the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001–2010).
That ridiculous graph comes from SkS.
The Greenland temperature hasn’t reach the levels recorded in the late ‘30s before human influence could have been a factor.
Why doesn’t your silly graph show that?
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_Greenland_files/image023.gif
Martin; ZERO of the peaks in your long term trend show multi decadal variability. Their resolution is at best 100 years, during which time they easily could have been one to two degrees warmer for some decades.
I will not look for the quote now, but in the climate gate emails the conclusion was that if they (THE “TEAM” WORKING FOR THE “CAUSE”) did their very best proxy, ignored Michael Mann defending the indefensible, they would still know “fuck-all” about less then 100 year variability, and they should then publish and retire.
That chart just looks faked. As if somebody spliced an incompatible temperature source onto the tail-end of an ice-core temperature series.
Please identify your source.
Martin says. “You reckon temps today are just slightly above the Little Ice Age??
Here’s the reality…
===================================
Martin, it is poor science to link a daily resolution thermometer to a study with no resolutions finer then 100 years. Your graph tells us nothing about decadal flux.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/09/laughable-modeling-study-claims-in-the-middle-of-the-pause-climate-is-starting-to-change-faster/#comment-1879234
We are so lucky that we are this time! (2015)
Some idiots liked it better in 1810.
But, But….Greenland is not the world
The past 100 years has been one of the MOST stable climatic periods over the past 20,000 years! They are uninformed fools.
That’s the irony…the global warming establishment uses the most stable and coldest period of the entire interglacial (the little ice age) as one way to show how “unusual” this completely normal/harmless level of variation is.
“Taken together, the shorter time period simulations were similar to the reconstructions over a longer time period, suggesting the models reflected reality well.”
Written by Susan Bauer, radiochemist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (http://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4171) where the money used to be in nuclear science, but the climate of incentives is always changing, and Mary Beckman, science writer with a point of view (https://twitter.com/sciwriter). But of course neither would ever let economic or political considerations affect her scientific and/or journalistic judgment. Only knuckle-dragging denialists do that.
ROFLMAO
I can “model” last week’s lottery numbers pretty darn well if I can just run the historical record through my “reanalysis machine. What does that tell me about my skill in hitting next week’s numbers?
Correction: My Susan Bauer link was to an article she wrote about radiochemist Sue Clark, not herelf. Susan Bauer is in the Marketing Department (?!) of the PNNL. Almost as bad, when you think about it.
“.. suggesting the models reflected reality well.” + http://www.pnl.gov/news/images/photos/20150306114807782.png
Define “well”? In 2005 that chart shows a global rate of 0.2 per decade while reality shows it is virtually zero.
“This work was supported by the Department of Energy Office of Science.”
Because oil money corrupts, but gub’mint money does not.
Or something.
MM: In 2005 that chart shows a global rate of 0.2 per decade
BPL: You can’t really use one year to tell what’s happening in a decade. For that matter, you can’t use a decade to tell what’s happening in climate, which normally requires a minimum sample size of 30 years.
” which normally requires a minimum sample size of 30 years.”
Did it warm for 30 years?
Exactly.
The IPCC was founded in 1988 because of a warming trend of less than thirty years.
Barton Paul Levenson clearly thinks that the founding of the IPCC and the accompanying alarm about the magnitude of CO2’s effect was based on an error.
So we can find common ground.
Wasn’t it the eminent climate scientist Dr Ben Santer who said it was 17yrs?
Arch-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones said that 15 years is sufficient.
I wrote: ” In 2005 that chart shows a global rate of 0.2 per decade”
Barton Paul Levenson – “You can’t really use one year to tell what’s happening in a decade. For that matter, you can’t use a decade to tell what’s happening in climate, which normally requires a minimum sample size of 30 years.”
I’m not using one year (and who said 30 years? , Santer said 17). But okay, OLS rates per decade 1995 to 2015, HadCRUT3 OLS =.07, HadCRUT4=.09, UAH =0.10, RSS= 0.03 Average = 0.072 … the model is saying a rate roughly 3X of reality even using your 30 year number! Fail …
“You can’t really use one year to tell what’s happening in a decade. For that matter, you can’t use a decade to tell what’s happening in climate, which normally requires a minimum sample size of 30 years.”
You can’t use any rigid timeframe. The climate system is fundamentally chaotic and evolves over timescales from hours to millennia. What you should be tracking is rate of change on a basis that eliminates known regularity like seasons.
Your 30 years was plucked out of thin air. Its origins are in “climate normals” as used for weather forecasting to provide a backdrop against which to say things like “it’s about normal for the time of year”. Beyond that it has no meaning. You cannot average chaos or apply linear regression over some fixed timescale and pretend it has predictive skill. Chaotic evolution following random events is not noise.
Ask instead what the 1991 Pinatubo and Hudson eruptions might have to do with the 1998 El Nino.
Why don’t we just ask Barton to share his technical analysis supporting his 30-year stuff?
I’m sure he’d by glad to share it with us. Otherwise, we might think he plucked it out of thin air.
CJ: Why don’t we just ask Barton to share his technical analysis supporting his 30-year stuff?
I’m sure he’d by glad to share it with us. Otherwise, we might think he plucked it out of thin air.
BPL: Gladly. Start here:
http://bartonlevenson.com/30Years.html
http://bartonlevenson.com/NoWarming15Years.html
Laughable. Don’t you think it rather odd that the SD plot has the same major inflection points as the sample plot? I guess there’s one born every minute, the SD for that is a straight line 🙂
Here you go Barty, please update your noddy WEB page accordingly:
http://www.climate4you.com/NormalClimateNormalPeriod.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data
“A better grasp of how fast the climate might change could help decision-makers better prepare for its impacts.”
And just how many of these “decision -makers” have asked for such a study or will even read it?
So what was the point of this study?
Next year’s money.
Seems odd to me that PNNL are studying climate change. Do you folks know why PNL was established, in essence? To spend $billions studying the migration of the Hanford Site’s underground radioactive plumes towards the Columbia River. Of course the supercomputers and collection of eggheads there must justify their existence, I suppose, by saving the planet. (I happened to once do some contract work in PNLs computer lab, so the veil was lifted slightly, as it were.)
Some good work has come out of the PNNL but the search for grant money seems to have corrupted this institution as well. Sadly, the powers at PNNL have convinced our local paper to stop printing any editorials from the unbelievers. Only one side of the story in this town!
The great Pacific is getting ready to chastise us, just you wait and see. The missing heat is hiding beneath the Garbage Patch, lying in wait. Thermal runaway will start any day now! /sarc
In all seriousness, yes, the great Pacific will chastise us but it won’t have a whit to do with heat, missing or otherwise.
“Overall, the Earth is getting warmer due to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. But the rise is not smooth — temperatures bob up and down.”
When the bobbing up and down stopped after the big El Niño in 1998, the proposed CO2-caused rise was overwhelmed by “natural” causes, not man-made causes.
Then natural causes are at least as powerful as man-made causes.
And, it looks like these natural cooling causes are against us; cool is bad, very bad.
“They compared these rates to temperatures reconstructed from natural sources of climate information, such as from tree rings, corals and ice cores…”
Note the “such as.” Can we rule out the possibility that they used proxies (including some corals) that record only decadal averages and filter out short term temperature variability? If so, their paper is “worse than we thought.”
“proxies (including some corals) that record only decadal averages ” or averages over even longer periods. Tree rings integrate climatic influences over several decades. And nobody has proved so far that tree rings measure temperature and only temperature with the precision of better than 10 degrees.
IOW: Dendrochronology =/= Dendroclimastology
“The Earth is now entering a period of changing climate that will likely be faster than what’s occurred naturally over the last thousand years,”
Wait, wait, so we are JUST NOW entering that period? Because several times in the past, the alarmists claimed that climate was ALREADY changing faster than what’s occurred naturally over the last thousand years. Was that just a lie?
The climate scientists are aware the planet cyclically warms and cools. They are also aware that a senior Nature editor was fired for attempting to publish a paper comparing past cyclic warming to current warming. Question asked in the rejected paper. Does the current global warming reflect a natural cycle? If the answer is yes, cooling is possible.
Climate scientists are also aware that a paper that used a standard analysis technique (standard analysis in other fields of science, climate science due to climate wars has its own special unwritten rules) indicates the climate models are fundamentally flawed and they are aware that the leading climate journals would not publish the fact, that a basic analysis technique supports the assertion that the climate models are fundamentally flawed. Lesson learned: Papers that support CAWG are published, papers that support the assertion that there is no CAWG (planet resists rather than amplifies forcing) and that there are fundamental errors in the general circulation models are suppressed and/or ignored.
The general circulation models (GCM) in question do not currently match reality which indicates there is one or more fundamental problems with the models.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/are-climate-modelers-scientists/
7K YBP we narrowly averted an extinction event. At such a low level of CO2, if any or a combination of the other photosynthesis factors (light, T, etc) were to be impeded, an extinction would happen for sure.
How we know they’re full of it: ” The more models in agreement, the more confidence in the results.”
1) Why are they using 1979-1983 average as the baseline? That’s a pretty narrow window.
2) Why does the plot stop at 2012 ?
Good questions Michael.
Perhaps nothing important has happened since 2012?
/cynic /sarc
Recently read Ayn Rand’s ” The Fountainhead”. There’s one part of it where the fascist/socialist/totalitarian antagonist pronounces that to achieve “selflessness” one must stop “thinking and just feel…”
That pretty wells sums up the whole Alarmist cause to me…. Don’t think… just feel….
Trouble with that (for the alarmist cause) is that we’re all beginning to feel colder.
If you want a really scary thought, look at what Robin says regarding Common Core’s impact on America’s children: http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/ “Don’t Think, Feel” is a pretty good condensation of the philosophy.
@ spetzer ( and I wish everybody would reply with that : @ … name ) I read that; That is one scary subject Glad I am not going to school any more and my grandchildren are not in the public system either.
“Barton Paul Levenson March 9, 2015 at 10:35
BPL: You can’t really use one year to tell what’s happening in a decade. For that matter, you can’t use a decade to tell what’s happening in climate, which normally requires a minimum sample size of 30 years.”
Hello Barton
I agree with you that it is much better to look at longer periods to get a view of what is happening..
Here is the temperature record from 1850, which does indeed show an ongoing positive trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2013/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2010/trend/offset:0.4/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2010/trend/offset:-0.4/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2010/scale:0.00001/offset:-2
The record shows a long term warming trend of about 0.05C per decade, which would give us about a 0.5C increase for the 21st century, which I find it hard to believe that anyone would find alarming.
Alarmists and the IPCC seem to believe that something dramatic and catastrophic occurred round about 1950 when Man and his actions perturbed the climate .
What exactly do you find alarming about this temperature record?
Perhaps cognitive dissonance is at work here? If so, I find it helps if you verbalise exactly what it is about the actual factual temperature record that you find so alarming and then to write it down for future reference
Also try to convince the rest of us that something really did happen around about 1950 that is visible in the factual record to you but apparently not to the rest of us.
Perhaps you will discover that it is not the actual facts that alarms you, but the speculations of others.
Did the speculators prediction that the temperature trend of the 21st century would be 4-5 times that of the 20th century alarm you? I suppose it would if your fears are largely based on ‘faith’ in their speculations and not the observed facts to date.
It might further help if you could write down what facts would cause you to change your mind about CAGW. If you cannot think of any then you are no longer dealing in science and just have faith.
There are innumerable examples of speculators predictions being wrong.
Did the speculators predictions about Antarctic sea ice quoted in the IPCC report alarm you?
“A reduction in Antarctic sea ice volume of about 25-45% is predicted for a doubling of CO2, with sea ice retreating fairly evenly around the continent (Gordon and O’Farrell, 1997). This CSIRO model assumes a 1% yr-1 compounding increase of CO2, corresponding to global warming of 2.1°C. Using a similar but modified model that has a higher albedo feedback and predicted global warming of 2.8°C, Wu et al. (1999) calculate a reduction in mean sea-ice extent of nearly two degrees of latitude, corresponding to 45% of sea-ice volume. These estimates do not represent the equilibrium state, and sea ice can be expected to shrink further, even if GHGs are stabilized.”
When this prediction turned out to be spectacularly wrong and Antarctic sea ice actually significantly increased did it shake your ‘faith’ at all? Or did you implicitly believe the speculators ‘past posted’ explanations that they actually knew this was going to happen all along?
What about the 2009 peer reviewed and published paper by those well regarded NASA and GISS speculators Lean and Rind, which talked about ‘the pause’.
They assured us that actually temperatures were going to suddenly increase dramatically over the next five years at a rate far in excess of what the models had predicted. This caused the Guardian to print the following headline and story.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study
Of course it turned out to be complete bollocks but hey ho, there is always another grant to be obtained, paper to be written and approved of by speculator peers, always another newspaper headline to be supplied. I see the Guardian is currently running another big alarmist speculation campaign. Perhaps someone should ask them to explain why they have published complete bollocks like this in the past.
Perhaps we shouldn’t disturb their ‘faith’ too much though, they could have a collective breakdown if that happened.
By the way do you still believe that the temperature trend as actually observed and not speculated about will lead to the destruction of mankind in the next thirty to forty years? I believe you have predicted many times that mans food production will collapse by about 2050 and that more than 90% of the worlds population will die off due to starvation and wars.
Of course since you started making these predictions world food production has continued to increase but still I don’t like to spoil a good tale!
Alan
The one good thing about idiots such as Levenson is that they very entertaining.
The sad thing is that he is a good example of the average joe public.
Well now, Stephen, they do give us some comic relief from the otherwise droll sciencey stuff here.
/grin
Climate scientist as the data shows time and time again (which has been posted yet again today ) refuse to acknowledge the data because does back up their asinine AGW THEORY.
perhaps the DOE has hired the ex Iraqi information minister of gulf war 2 fame to disseminate their information?
Here is more data which shows the REALITY of the state of the climate and the trend of the climate since the Holocene Optimum some 8000 years ago. In a word the temperatures are in a DOWN TREND.
More data which shows since the Holocene Optimum from around 8000BC , through the present day Modern Warm Period( which ended in 1998) the temperature trend throughout this time in the Holocene, has been in a slow gradual down trend(despite an overall increase in CO2, my first chart ), punctuated with periods of warmth. Each successive warm period being a little less warm then the one proceeding it.
My reasoning for the data showing this gradual cooling trend during the Holocene ,is Milankovitch Cycles were highly favorable for warming 10000 years ago or 8000 BC, and have since been in a cooling cycle. Superimposed on this gradual cooling cycle has been solar variability which has worked sometimes in concert and sometimes in opposition to the overall gradual cooling trend , Milankovitch Cycles have been promoting.
Then again this is only data which AGW enthusiast ignore if it does not fit into their scheme of things. I am going to send just one more item of data and rest my case.
http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg
Barton Paul Levenson March 9, 2015 at 10:34 am:
“Do you know how to tell when you have an adequate sample size for a trend?”
So far as climate change is concerned this gentleman is right to ask this question imv. Those who are justifiably sceptical of the AGW “science”/knowledge, should perhaps be sceptical of their own beliefs too. We don’t know if the “pause” disproves the AGW thesis or not. It might just be a wee bit too early to tell . . The climate “system” is, for us at this moment, unfathomably complex, and our focussed awareness of it is incredibly brief. Neither side of the debate is even close to having all the answers. Question everything might be a sensible approach. And calling the guy “dim” because his opinion differs from the “consensus” on here doesn’t look too clever . .
jim hogg
March 9, 2015 at 12:31 pm
We don’t know if the “pause” disproves the AGW thesis or not.
Well, that may be correct Jim, just as the warming in the 1990’s didn’t prove AGW.
However, the fact remains: we haven’t found anything that proves the AGW concept either.
And the burden of proof is on them.
What is clear is the CAGW (AGW if you prefer) hypothesis did not account for “the pause”.
Time for them to go back to the drawing board and leave my wallet alone.
Jim Hogg
The problem with “questioning everything” is there’s a whole lot of everything (probably an infinite amount of everything; I’m worried this estimate might be wrong…).
Seems to me the scientific method offers a pretty good way out of this mess by requiring proponents of a theory to (1) state the theory; (2) predict something falsifiable based on the theory; (3) sit around for a while to see what various collections of accurate & real (not model) data say about the predictions.
Jim,if you want to sit around worrying about everything, go right ahead; just don’t take my tax dollars to fund such a solipsistic scheme.
Pretty dim to make a public assertion that he can provide only ludicrous support for, as in his claim concerning the WMO. See my comment above.
With all the data presented today and in the past how could any one take AGW theory seriously? If you still do it amounts to the blind following the blind.
SDP
Warmest could care less what educated skeptics think.
The target audience is the 80%+ of the population that cannot or will not perform critical thinking. The real danger is the follow-on group of politicians who are more than willing to use the confusion to raise taxes and increase their control of your life.
“All the CMIP models used the same data for past and future greenhouse gas concentrations, pollutant emissions, and changes to how land is used, which can emit or take in greenhouse gases. The more models in agreement, the more confidence in the results.”
Well, the more CMIP models in agreement, the more confident we can be that the methodology of those models is incorrect since they don’t model this planets observations.
So they gone down the normal route of climate ‘science’ of heads you lose tails I win , by claiming it warming and its not warming .
Which brings to the old question that never seem to be able to answer , what would disprove the theory ?
Still given all the cereal packets these people they must get through , in order to collect all the special coupons in order to get their Phd’s , its unlikely they will live that long so there may be hope for change in the long term.
Indeed. Your question. What would disprove the theory? Most of what we get here is “is temperature rising or not? And it goes on and on and on. Nobody tries to answer your question.
The issue is: is CO2 an important element (amount all other elements on the planet contributing to temperature) responsible for increasing in temperature?
If it is, we should think about reducing using fossil fuels, although their use contributes only a small fraction of the total CO2 in the cycle there is an undeniable increase in atmospheric CO2, that in part at least must be due to burning fossil fuels. Fair enough.
I don’t think I know “what would disprove the theory” except for two things: TIME and Mother Nature.
So when did CO2 start increasing due to, at least in part, burning of fossil fuels. About 1950 or so, maybe a little bit later. We are very fortunate to have absolutely excellent measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii and also very fortunate that CO2 concentrations measured at this site are, within 5% or so, representative or world wide atmospheric concentrations. Easy for you to get. If you go to this site you will get nice plots of CO2 (and tables) of results from 1959 to now and you can get the data on a monthly basis as well as yearly basis. Quite nice to see a continuous yearly increase in CO2. Never a decrease from 1959 to now and this will make statistical analysis very easy, since in time series analysis you can then use yearly CO2 concentrations to replace increasing years, obviously always increasing on the X axis(and to check this just plot CO2 concentration vs. year as already done at Mauna Loa) and furthermore you can even use the monthly data since they reflect nicely the growing seasons within each year with such great reproducibility. Well, great we have one very reliable and I think the most important variable to answer your question.
Now we need the other variable: temperature.
Is it increasing, decreasing or staying just about the same. Many data sets available. Pick your own with all the arguments for and against, not pretty. Certainly not with the same reliability as CO2 measurements. But this is what we have.
So some clever people at
climate4you.com
decided to give it a try to answer your question. No BS.
As you can see from the graphic presentation below you should be able to get your answer. So, TIME did bring answers for the past. Only Mother Nature can bring answers for the future. There is absolutely NO credible way to predict the future. The graph shows it. NO?
You can also go to their site to read their discussion of the findings but I don’t want to add it (or add mine) before you look at the graphic presentation.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20VersusCO2.gif
rd50/knr re disproving the theory.
The CO2/temp anomaly curve has a definite shape and the variance is surprisingly constant. However, it is clear that if CO2 was “THE control knob” there would not logically be a down curve at the beginning and essentially a flattened section at the high end (in reality, with all the fiddling with temperature to try to kill the pause, the real numbers are probably cooling temperatures at the top end – you can be sure the way this curve ends at the top is the strongest uptrend that the warming faith can get away with). Your point is an interesting one that you can substitute CO2 for time on the abscissa. Possibly there is something else we could put on the abscissa that increases with time (with some pauses as at the beginning and end of this curve)- it is not a unique solution to put CO2 growth as the principal variable.
In any case, to answer the question about disproving the theory, we are in a period that must be close to doing this (a sign is the growing number of CAGW proponent scientists that have been afflicted with chronic depression because of implications of the pause [although they blame something else – classic psychological “D”nial].
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/11/depressed-climate-scientists-advised-to-use-f-word/
If CO2 continues to rise at the healthy rate it has been, and the temperature refuses to rise in coming years after 18 years of pause, presto, the theory has been roundly falsified. This is because the longer the pause lasts, the more weighty is some factor other than CO2. Eventually, the CO2 connection is relegated to a minor or zero place in it all and natural variability is the prime driver of climate (we will then finally get around to investigating what causes “natural” variability). Hey if climate scientists are falling ill with the pause, their psyches are already telling them the theory is falsified.
rd50
So, why did global temperatures rise between 1650 and 1950? Because we know that rise was NOT due to CO2 changes.
If we have added 30% of man’s CO2 releases between 1996 and 2015, why has the temperature been constant for 18 years?
Why did the global average temperatures rise between 1880 and 1945 at the same rate and over the same interval as when man was releasing significant amounts of CO2?
Artificially restricting energy development and artificially and deliberately raising energy prices and starving people to lives of shortened squalor in unheated, unlit dung-fueled open rooms to try to restrict CO2 release – which will not reduce future but beneficial temperature increases anyway – if they are even going to occur at all – condemns billions to increased poverty, and condemns millions of innocents to to an early death. Why do you want that future?
To Gary Pearse.
I share your conclusions and remarks.
To RACookPE1978
I find it strange that you are accusing me of wanting the future you described.
I have no interest in answering your questions.
The question is: is the IPCC correct?
Does not look like it.
rd50
No, the IPCC (and Obama’s EPA and NASA-GISS, NOAA and CNN) are not correct.
They have the money and the power, and are desperate for more of both, but they are not correct.
I don’t think I know “what would disprove the theory”
But I know why that has became the case , becasue they had to change form claims of ‘warming ‘ is proof therefore lack of warming is disproof ,to claims of ‘anything ‘ is proof becasue of the total failure of their claims to reflect reality . Never forget the very need for ‘missing heat’ came about that because of good science but because of the total failure of the models to actual predict to any extent worth a dam.
The heads I win tails you lose approach , has no place in science , that it has become such a common feather within climate ‘science’ show how much more like a religion. where such notions of anything is proof and therefore its not possible to have disproof , it is than any real science. That the professional working in the area feel no problem with using totally unscientific terms like ‘denier’ merely adds to the view that here it is the strength of belief not the strength of evdainced that really matters .
In short the question “what would disprove the theory” cannot be answered because then the claims can be judge as if they are true or not .
Very sad seeing where politics driven science is going. The worst of it is the idiots who are making costly decisions based on the politically driven science.
Tim
The idiots ARE NOT “…making costly decisions based on the politically driven science….”.
Politicians are genetically predisposed to make dangerous decisions all on their own (loss of liberty & freedom) – they simply are using the convenient goof-ball theory of the moment to hid their intentions (a lot of these crooks probably know full well warming claims are laughable).
Gathering money & power has historically been an end unto itself.
‘All the CMIP models used the same data for past and future greenhouse gas concentrations’
If all models used the same data, wouldn’t you expect them all to come up with the same answer?
Nature Climate Change is a political journal obviously an editorial decision.
When you remember its journal that exist to promote ‘AGW’ , you can see why such ‘research’ will always find favour in it .
Ze model ! Ze model !
Ha ha
I have a model, built by an accomplished PhD, (myself), that says I have a bridge across the Everglades that’s worth $52,000,000, U.S. But I’ll let it go to the first governmental unit that will offer $1,200,000.
The fact that the climate has stopped changing is stark evidence supporting the climate change alarmists claims – the climate has indeed changed. And even though it is what they wish would happen, the fact that it has happened without reworking the world order and the bankruptcy of the western world is driving them batschtick crazy. It was never supposed to end this way. It does nothing to placate them to know that Obama delivered on his promise to stop the seas from rising (by doing exactly nothing, but give credit where credit is due because his was the right solution).
“..They compared these rates to temperatures reconstructed from natural sources of climate information, such as from tree rings, corals and ice cores, for the past 2,000 years….”
This sounds like something out of a “… interdisciplinary scientist Steve Smith…” Now what kind of a scientist would call himself that? First it would have to be someone who believes the term enhances what his field of study was. I’m going for Psychology 101 statistics student. It reminds me of an old monologue by Bob Newhart where he has a pilot talking to the passengers …oh, I dunno, about 20-30,000ft…and the airline is the such and such “… airline and sash and door company…” Like how interdisciplinary is this dude.
This is nonsense.
http://www.science20.com/sites/all/modules/author_gallery/uploads/543663916-global.png
this a chart of the daily rate of change from spring to fall, and fall to spring.
This is the annual average of the daily day to day difference for both min and max, which both come from exactly the same stations.
http://www.science20.com/sites/all/modules/author_gallery/uploads/1871094542-global.png
Oops
What is the source of the above chart?
David A commented
I created it from the NCDC’s global summary of days data
I’ve written about how it started a number of times here
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds
and as I mentioned I’ve published all my data and code, well the slope stuff is new and I haven’t gotten all the things finished I’m working on. I’m in the process of adding a calculation of solar forcing for each station, so I’ll have the energy evolution as well as temp, and I’ll be able to look at how the system responded.
“A better grasp of how fast the climate might change could help decision-makers better prepare for its impacts.”
I grew up in a country of individuals who took care of themselves. They were the decision makers.
Prepare for impacts of might change? A contrived proposition.
Perhaps they wrote the report saying we are in a period of accelerating warming because they know temperature records are always being adjusted, and they are always adjusted to show more warming. So in 20 years this pause we are in will probably end up being a period of accelerating global warming. Remember how when the 20th century ended the temperature record of the 80s and 90s didn’t show any significant warming, now the the 80s and 90s are a hockey stick rise according to the climate records. The final word on the temperature record of the last 20 years has not been spoken, not by a long shot. The climate is like the golden rule, he who controls the temperature record, makes the rules on what the climate was.
““In these climate model simulations, the world is just now starting to enter into a new place, where rates of temperature change are consistently larger than historical values over 40-year time spans,” said Smith. “We need to better understand what the effects of this will be and how to prepare for them.”
Yes, oh clueless one. IF you lived in a world of models. But you live in the real world that has consistently kicked the ass of most of the models.
I quote:
“The Earth is now entering a period of changing climate that will likely be faster than what’s occurred naturally over the last thousand years.”
Why should I believe this? There is no science here, just pseudo-science. The article is clearly motivated by a desire to wipe out the hiatus but a nonsensical claim about accelerated warning will not do it.
I don’t suppose that it has occurred to them that if 90 models give different results, then at least 89 of them are wrong, since they consider a 0.02C difference to be significant. Even if one them happens to be right it is probably “the broken clock effect” rather than superior predictive power.
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
If you don’t understand basic facts re. Earth’s natural forces, such as Erosion for example regarding erosion effect on corall atolls,
then of course there always is a problem…. 🙂 pause or no pause…..
Same laughable modeling “theory” probably is behind the forgotten Erosion problem the Alarmists and the Modelling so called scholars never have understood…. 🙂
t
“The more models in agreement, the more confidence in the results.” Say no more.
Patience, patience folks. Wait and let nature show you what’s going on.
It appears to me that the latest year noted on the graph is 2012, and the most recent complete year is 2014. This leads me to think that the points for 2012 are for the five complete years 2010-2014, AKA 2010.00 to 2015.00. As in, the full year of 2012 is the center year of five years averaged into the data for the last year plotted on the graph.
So, I wonder why the start point in the graph is 1983 instead of 1981, considering that the UAH dataset’s first full year is 1979.
Also, I see the UAH and HadCRUT4 plots doing noticeable jumps in response to events of 1998, 2008, 2010, and 2003-replacing-1998 as if these years were the latest as opposed to the center of 5 years being considered. So why do these plots appear to end with 2012 instead of 2014?
I am getting worried about Barton, has anybody heard from him lately? No serious send him an e-mail to make sure he is OK.
I have just read an item in the World Nuclear News 26 Feb15 (of all places) which has the following text in the intro para: “Scientists have FOR THE FIRST TIME (my caps) actually observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface. They attributed this upward trend to rising emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.”
So the science wasn’t settled after all??? At least not until now??? Can someone tell me what the hell this article refers to in the context of “Conventional Wisdom”. This is supposed to appear in Nature online soon.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-scientists-witness-greenhouse-effect-2602154.html
Covered by WUWT here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/almost-30-years-after-hansens-1988-alarm-on-global-warming-a-claim-of-confirmation-on-co2-forcing/
Hamish Grant commented
Everyone in the world should read this, 0.2W/M^2/decade let me put this in perspective.
Clear skies when it’s low humidity whether because its cold, dry or both, are very cold. I live N41 W81, and frequently measured -70F temps over the last month(the cold nights were below -80F, but it was -10F out). Yesterday was nice, ~56F Sunny most of the day, the sky was ~ -63F, adding 0.2 Watt/Meter Sq changes that -63F to wait for it -62.84F, a whole difference of 0.16F difference in the temperature of the sky (what the surface radiates to).
Now, it got cloudy during the night, and it was cloudy this morning. My IR thermometer measured the clouds at 31F (near 90F warmer than clear sky temps), that 0.2W/M^2 added to the clouds? 31.08F, an astounding 0.08F per decade, and this isn’t surface temp influence, this is the difference in the surface temp the surface radiates to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL, we’re all going to die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What fracking fools.
Oh, in case you didn’t follow along, water/clouds had a 90F difference in Sky temp vs 0.16F per decade for Co2
Well that practically guarantees a certain result doesn’t it.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/03/09/deterioration-of-ancient-mummies-may-be-caused-by-climate-change.html
The Mummies dun it.
regards
I do agree with these guys for most of what they claim.
The climate change has been a rapid change from 1850 to 2000, and it will be even more rapid for the next 150 years after the 2000.
But I totally disagree with their AGW projections.
These projections are a lot exaggerated.
But considering that they have a product, and the certainty that it will not sell unless put under the AGW label, then I think there is no much I myself will feel like complaining…
But I must say, that totally disregarding and rubbishing it only because of the crazy AGW projections, may just be not so wise.
Cheers
Define “the climate change.”
Tell us where on earth a climate has changed in 150 years.
Gamecock
A global warming, ~0.8C warming of the last 150 years is not just climate change, but a rapid one, that is why all the furore about.
I leave the definition of it to you.
Once upon a time same line of approach as yours, arguing through the definition, was used to junk the Darwin’s work…………..in the point that what exactly was the definition of “species”.
No good, no good at all.
Cheers
I repeat a comment I have made previously – stop showing graphs like the first one in this article with the CMIP 5 results WITHOUT SHOWING THE DATE THE MODEL WAS RUN. Using graphs like the first one in this article might lead some to think the models had some validity as in the early years as they appear to track reality. However, if the models were run sometime after 2008 (as I believe was true for CMIP 5) all the graph shows is that the models were OK in hindcasting. These types of graphs should have a bright vertical red line on the year the models were prepared with a legend explaining that line.
Found this this morning.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-could-hit-rates-unseen-in-1-000-years/
I used to subscribe to that magazine – back when it was honest.
Could – translate to might not. Not so scary.
One question I’ve always had with charts like the first one of the different model runs very actual temps. Where all the model runs started in 1983? Or did the model runs start in say 1995 and the data from 1983 to 1995 just back testing the models? For whatever reason, the models seems to work well for the first 10-15 years. I’m just wondering whether that early data is curve fitted or is that really what the models were predicting in 1983? Thanks.
Could be the proverbial monkey at the typewriter effect – with perhaps a few Pavlovian “adjustments” thrown in. Lots of behavioral conditioning can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2014_R&Dbudget_climate.pdf
democritus commented
Since they “know” all of the historical forcing except aerosols, it is my understanding that they use aerosols to adjust the results to match reality. Now I also understand that we have better aerosol data for the last decade or longer, which is narrowing the amount of curve fitting they can do with aerosols the last decade of longer.
Which is that the period the models really start going off the rails isn’t it?
They just make it up as they go along! Imagine if company directors engaged in such misleading and deceptive conduct?
sure OT; but an example of greens direct aggressive approach on a states bases:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/energy-tax-reform-runs-out-of-steam/41308670
Regards – Hans
‘The more models in agreement, the more confidence
in the results.’
Yah. The more hyperventilation, the nearer greens kingdoms come.
Who’s looking for.
Hans
‘The team also examined how the
rates of change would be
affected in possible scenarios of
future emissions.’
So they tried real running models to unsecure reality.
bet who won.
Everyone has their own favorite climate model, and as an inveterate lukewarmer with a quirky take on things, here is mine:
Beta Blocker’s “Parallel Offset Universe” Climate Model
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/ag108/Beta-Blocker/GMT/BBs-Parallel-Offset-Universe-Climate-Model–2100ppx_zps7iczicmy.png
The model contains three ‘GMT Year 2100’ scenarios — #1, #2 and #3:
Scenario #1: The ‘Heavy Duty Apocalypse’ Scenario, +3C by 2100:
Global warming suddenly returns with a vengeance in 2016 and progresses upward at a steady rate of + 0.35 C per decade, producing a rise of 3.0 C by the year 2100.
Scenario #2: The ‘Moderated Heavy Duty Apocalypse’ Scenario, +2C by 2100:
Global warming returns at moderate levels until 2060, but then turns upward with a vengeance in 2061 progressing at a steady rate of + 0.35 C per decade, producing a total rise of 2.0 C by the year 2100.
Scenario #3: The ‘Past Patterns Repeat Themselves’ Scenario, +1C by 2100:
The past pattern of trends, each of which consists of a period of moderate upward rise in GMT followed by a period of dramatic slowdown which lasts approximately twenty-five years, is extrapolated into the 2016-2100 timeframe, producing a total rise of 1.0 C by the year 2100.
The basis of the model is that each succeeding GMT Year 2100 scenario is a “parallel offset” version of its predecessor scenario with modifications depending upon what kinds of assumptions are being made. The period of 2016 through 2100 is therefore a “parallel offset universe” relative to the period of 1860 through 2015.
No other calculations, assumptions, or analysis other than what can be seen directly on the illustration, or what can be directly deduced from the information contained on the illustration, has gone into producing this climate model.
Beta Blocker
March 10, 2015 at 1:40 pm
Hello Beta.
I must say, I like your model, even as it been an AGW model.
One good thing I myself see there is the rate of change. As far as I can tell the rate seems to me correct (more or less as per scenario 3).
But in the other hand, as I am not a lukewarmer as you, but actually some one that could be considered as a lukenatural, someone who tries to look at climate change and its rate of change by the natural angle, I must say that actually when the rate of change is somehow right the direction is completely wrong.
The climate change will go in the opposite direction, towards the cooling, more or less at the same rates as described by you in scenario 3, up to 2150..
All this in accordance with the CO2 emission increment.
So in a case of an imagined model as from a lukenatural, you will see there a rate ~0.07C per decade towards cooling from 2000 to 2025 and then the rate of cooling increasing as same as per your model scenario 3 rate change,,,,,,,,, with a result of a ~ 1.0C cooling by 2100 from the year 2000.
cheers
Hello whiten.
My perspective on AGW predictions is that GMT trends as plotted in five-year running means must decline steadily for a period of from 30 to 50 years before the climate science community ever retreats from its basic narrative that: 1) most global warming post-1950 is man made; and that 2) any pauses which occur in post-1950 warming are a result of some combination of man-made and natural factors which are temporarily affecting the climate system’s basic rate of GHG-driven warming.
As long as the trend in peak hottest years which occur every four or five years is up — regardless of how small is the upward trend — the climate science community’s basic AGW narrative will not be abandoned; and those who push AGW as a central tenant of 21st Century environmentalism will not be deterred from using the topic of climate change as an argument for making fundamental changes in America’s economic system, Europe’s economic system, and eventually the global economic system.
What one should get out of my simplistic graphical climate model is that even if the basic climate system is indeed GHG-driven, the presence of systematic pauses in the long-term rate of warming, regardless of their source, can have significant impacts on where GMT finally ends up after the passage of a century. I think that a 1C rise in GMT is the more likely situation, all things considered. But this is something which is much more an opinion than it is a true estimate or a true projection.
Eighty-five years from now, our great grandchildren will be sifting through the iconography of The Great AGW Debate of the Early 21st Century to compare what climate scientists and their critics were each predicting would happen between 2015 and 2100, with what actually did happen. If our great grandchildren run across Beta Blocker’s “Parallel Offset Universe” Climate Model from the year 2015, they might well say to themselves, “For someone who had no formal qualifications in climate science, this guy had something useful to say about the topic.”
Beta Blocker
March 11, 2015 at 9:08 am
Thank you for the reply.
You say:
“……they might well say to themselves, “For someone who had no formal qualifications in climate science, this guy had something useful to say about the topic.””
———–
I do not know about your qualification in climate science as you to do not know about mine, but whatever the case, in my reply to you is plainly and clearly shown that I do acknowledge and appreciate that actual something useful you say and show about the topic, the increasing of the rate of climate change.
Is basically what these other guys are saying in their study.
The problem though is when that rate is applied only in an AGW scenario, as in your and these other guys case, and completely ignoring the high possibility that.climate change has been, is still and could very well continue to be completely natural.
The rate change as per this topic is not an hypothesis, is a result of analyses, if I am not wrong, that is what it is.
While this rate change will actually increase or not as the analysis in question show, that is something else.
But when considered, the inability to even contemplate it in the prospect of a natural climate change, the total lack of consideration in that angle, is not quite scientific,at least not by my metrics.
In a previous comment of mine I clearly stated that I can not complain about these guys, as they have a product to sell, and the only way for that to happen is by the AGW attached label.
I did not and am not complaining even in your case, as you clearly explained your approach angle as of that of a lukewarmer.
You have your right owned, especially through your honesty and good manners in this case, to propagate and uphold your own view point and understanding in this given topic.
The difference between me and guys like you is that I do understand and have and still do contemplate the AGW,, even that I have already reached a conclusion that means AGW is just a FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION, when guys like you can not even be able to contemplate the possibility of climate change been just as it always was, completely natural.
One more thing, just for the sake of the argument as we got this far.
As a lukenatural, I see one very disturbing thing, hopefully I am wrong, but I can’t help it and think that we all including me, will learn one day in a very very very hard way that increment of GHG, greenhose effect, RF do not mean only warming but also mean cooling and some times that cooling could be a very very harsh way to it.
Thank you again for your time
cheers
Whiten, I find it difficult to believe that dramatically increased levels of CO2 don’t have some effect on the earth’s global mean temperature. That being said, the next question is, “How much effect?”
For myself, I think GMT will rise about 1C between 2015 and the year 2100. The implication here is that the debate over AGW will not be settled even by the year 2100. It’s too valuable an arguing point for environmental and social activists. However, for those would like to offer their own temperature projection for the Year 2100, I suggest that you might find that Beta Blocker’s CET Pattern Picker is a useful tool for your needs:
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/ag108/Beta-Blocker/CET/Beta-Blockers-CET-Pattern-Picker_zps1cfe566d.png
Here’s how the CET Pattern Picker works:
1: Using the top half of the Beta Blocker form, study the pattern of trends in Central England Temperature (CET) between 1659 and 2007.
2: Using CET trends as proxies for GMT trends, make your best guess as to where you think GMT will go between 2007 and 2100.
3: Linearize your predicted series of rising/falling trend patterns into a single 2007-2100 trend line.
4: Using the bottom half of the Beta Blocker form, summarize the reasoning behind your guess.
5: Add additional pages containing more detailed reasoning and analysis, as little or as much as you see necessary.
6: Give your completed form and your supplementary documentation to your friends for peer review.
7: If your friends like your prediction, submit your analysis to your favorite climate science journal.
8: If your friends don’t like your prediction:
— Challenge them to write their own peer-reviewed climate science paper.
— Hand them a blank copy of the Beta Blocker CET Pattern Picker form.
Hello again Beta Blocker.
Sorry for coming back to you with a reply so late, but for what is worth.
As I said, I do understand AGW and the man made hypothesis, even when actually not accepting that as a proper and possible.
In the same time I do understand why is difficult for you to believe the lack of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially when some one like me actually is showing you a case, a scenario, of much higher effect or impact of RF in atmospherebut than in the case of AGW man made hypothesis.
1C cooling of atmosphere during a dramatical CO2 emission trend from somewhere of 370ppm to 470ppm is a much more significant effect of RF than in the case of a supposed warming of 1C under the same RF condition.
That was the basics of our exchange. You do not have to accept as proper and possible my point made about the natural climate change, you simply need to contemplate it and understand it in the basics of it.
The selectin from my previous reply to you, the selection you refer to in your last reply to me, shows what the problem may be.
No where in our exchange thus far you can find a point where I said, claimed or implied that the actual dramatical CO2 emission thus far and in the same dramatical trend as up to now has had no any effect and will continue to have no any effect in the atmosphere and climate.
Actually the contrary was the case as put Forward in the context of natural climate change.
Is not my fault I think, that you consider the possibility of natural climate change only in the context of an RF with no effect in the atmosphere, either when the increase of RF dramatical or not.
It could be I guess the side effect of the climate wars entrenching, where one side is completely obsessed and addicted with exaggeration and inflating of the warming effect of RF,,,,,,,,,, and the other side is phobic to any RF effect in climate and atmosphere,……….. I think……:-)
Sorry again for such a late reply,,,,,,,,,,,and thanks again,,,,,appreciated
Cheers
Salvatore, my original comment starts here,
Repeating the graphical illustration:
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/ag108/Beta-Blocker/GMT/BBs-Parallel-Offset-Universe-Climate-Model–2100ppx_zps7iczicmy.png
The above illustration is completely self-contained; i.e., there is nothing on it which can’t be inferred or deduced from something else that is also contained in the illustration.
For example, for Beta Blocker Scenario #1, the rise of GMT of + 0.35 C per decade is nothing more than a line which starts at 2016 and which is drawn graphically parallel to the rate of increase in CO2 which occurs in the post 2016 timeframe. Scenario #1’s basic assumption is that “GMT follows CO2 from Year 2016 forward.”
Beta Blocker Scenario #2 parallels Scenario #1 but delays the start of the strong upward rise in GMT through use of an intermediate slower rate of warming 2025-2060 that is also common to Scenario #3. Scenario #2’s basic assumption is that “GMT follows CO2 but with occasional pauses.”
Beta Blocker Scenario #3 is simply the repeated pattern of upward rise of GMT in the 1860-2015 timeframe, as measured by HadCRUT4, which is reflected into the 2016-2100 timeframe, but with adjustments to account for an apparent small increase in the historical general upward rise in GMT which occurred between 1970 and 2000. Scenario #1’s basic assumption is that past patterns in the rise of GMT prior to 2015 will repeat themselves, but with a slight upward turn as the 21st century progresses.
That’s it. That’s all there is to it. (What could be more simple, eh?)
However, you cannot say that my projections ignore the historical climatic record completely, or that these projections will not be correct due to that basic fact. The official HadCRUT4 surface temperature record from 1860 to 2014 is shown on the illustration, plus the extrapolation of its basic upward pattern into the 2016-2100 timeframe for Beta Blocker Scenario #3.
All three Beta Blocker scenarios for Year 2100 — #1 (+3C); #2 (+2C); and #3 (+3C) — lie within the IPCC AR5 model boundary range; which it should also be noted, allows the trend in GMT in the 2000-2030 timeframe to remain essentially flat while still remaining within the error margins of the IPCC AR5 projections.
If I’m still around in the year 2031, I will take some time to update the above illustration to reflect the very latest HadCRUT numbers published through 2030, including whatever adjusted numbers the Hadley Centre might publish for the period of 1860 through 2015.
Oops, that second to last line in the above comment should read:
“The more models in agreement, the more confidence in the results.”
The fewer realities in agreement, the less confidence in the results.
How many realities are there? One.
How many in agreement? None.
Science; done right.
David A,
That would be CO2 forcing you’re talking about. Climate sensitivity is often expressed in terms or the system response to CO2 forcing, net feedbacks, which is called equilibrium climate sensitivity, or ECS. However, climate sensitivity can be, and is used, to refer to the system response to ANY external forcing: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
Introduction, with ECS expressed as an explicit function of response to CO2 forcing:
When the radiation balance of the Earth is perturbed, the global surface temperature will warm and adjust to a new equilibrium state. But by how much? The answer to this seemingly basic but important question turns out to be a tricky one. It is determined by a number termed equilibrium climate sensitivity, the global mean surface warming in response to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration after the system has reached a new steady state. Climate sensitivity cannot be measured directly, but it can be estimated from comprehensive climate models. It can also be estimated from climate change over the twentieth century or from short-term climate variations such as volcanic eruptions, both of which were observed instrumentally, and from climate changes over the Earth’s history that have been reconstructed from palaeoclimatic data. Many model-simulated aspects of climate change scale approximately linearly with climate sensitivity, which is therefore sometimes seen as the ‘magic number’ of a model. This view is too simplistic and misses many important spatial and temporal aspects of climate change. Nevertheless, climate sensitivity is the largest source of uncertainty in projections of climate change beyond a few decades 1–3 and is therefore an important diagnostic in climate modelling 4,5.
My emphasis, from which it could not be any more clear to me that we do not know what the true response to CO2 forcing will be. ERGO, sensitivity is not dialled into the models according to some memo from Soros or Gore — something one might have expected to have found in the emails stolen from U. of E. Anglia, but are notably absent, yes?
The IPCC itself publishes a RANGE, which as of AR5 stands at 1.5-4.5 K/2xCO2. This is because the GCMs return different values in their response to the exact same past observed CO2 levels, and projected future levels as used as modelling assumptions by each RCP scenario.
The paper continues by describing the more general case of forcings, and system response (sensitivity) to them:
The concept of radiative forcing, feedbacks and temperature response is illustrated in Fig. 1. Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, aerosol precursors and other substances, as well as natural changes in solar irradiance and volcanic eruptions, affect the amount of radiation that is reflected, transmitted and absorbed by the atmosphere. This externally imposed (naturally or human-induced) energy imbalance on the system, such as the increased long-wave absorption caused by the emission of anthropogenic CO2, is termed radiative forcing (∆F). In a simple global energy balance model, the difference between these (positive) radiative perturbations ∆F and the increased outgoing long-wave radiation that is assumed to be proportional to the surface warming ∆T leads to an increased heat flux ∆Q in the system, such that ∆Q = ∆F − λ∆ T (1) Heat is taken up largely by the ocean, which leads to increasing ocean temperatures 6.
The changes in outgoing long-wave radiation that balance the change in forcing are influenced by climate feedbacks. For a constant forcing, the system eventually approaches a new equilibrium where the heat uptake ∆Q is zero and the radiative forcing is balanced by additional emitted long-wave radiation. Terminology varies, but commonly the ratio of forcing and equilibrium temperature change λ = ∆F/∆T is defined as the climate feedback parameter (in Wm−2 °C−1), its inverse S ′ = 1/λ = ∆T/∆F the climate sensitivity parameter (in °C W − 1 m 2 ) and S = ∆T 2 × CO2 the equilibrium climate sensitivity, the equilibrium global average temperature change for a doubling (usually relative to pre-industrial) of the atmospheric CO 2 concentration, which corresponds to a long-wave forcing of about 3.7 W m − 2 (ref. 7).
My emphasis again: terminology varies. Annoying, and the source of much evident confusion on top of general confusion, or in your case, what I suspect to be deliberate misunderstanding. (How do YOU like it when others appeal to motive, hmmm?)
Attempting to set aside the polemic for a moment, the key takeaway is this relationship …
λ = ∆F/∆T
… often used to quantify the equilbrium response to ANY forcing. For the record, the canonical value usually used is 0.8 Wm−2 °C−1, though I’ve seen values as low as 0.7. 0.75 is also common. The copypasta is getting longish here, but I want to finish this section because it ties things together into a more complete thought:
The beauty of this simple conceptual model of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (equation (1)) is that the equilibrium warming is proportional to the radiative forcing and is readily computed as a function of the current CO 2 relative to the pre-industrial CO 2 : ∆ T = S ln(CO2 /CO2( t =1750) )/ln2. The total forcing is assumed to be the sum of all individual forcings. The sensitivity S can also be phrased as 8–10 S = ∆ T0 /(1 − f ) (2) where f is the feedback factor amplifying (if 0 < f < 1) or damping the initial blackbody response of ∆ T0 = 1.2 °C for a CO2 doubling. The total feedback can be phrased as the sum of all individual feedbacks 9 (see Fig. 2; examples of feedbacks are increases in the greenhouse gas water vapour with warming; other feedbacks are associated with changes in lapse rate, albedo and clouds). To first order, the feedbacks are independent of T, yielding a climate sensitivity that is constant over time and similar between many forcings. The global temperature response from different forcings is therefore approximately additive 11 . However, detailed studies find that some feedbacks will change with the climate state 12–14 , which means that the assumption of a linear feedback term λ∆ T is valid only for perturbations of a few degrees. There is a difference in the sensitivity to radiative forcing for different forcing mechanisms which has been phrased as their ‘efficacy’ 7,15. These effects are represented poorly or not at all in simple climate models 16. A more detailed discussion of the concepts and the history is given in refs 5, 7, 17–20.
Note that the concept of climate sensitivity does not quantify carbon-cycle feedbacks; it measures only the equilibrium surface response to a specified CO 2 forcing. The timescale for reaching equilibrium is a few decades to centuries and increases strongly with sensitivity 21 . The transient climate response (TCR, defined as the warming at the point of CO 2 doubling in a model simulation in which CO 2 increases at 1% yr − 1 ) is a measure of the rate of warming while climate change is evolving, and it therefore depends on the ocean heat uptake ∆ Q . The dependence of TCR on sensitivity decreases for high sensitivities 9,22,23.
The bolding is again mine. It’s been argued by some — not that I would name names — that all models are poor, even the non-simple ones. My response to that is that the climate system is unarguably complex, and simple, naive, willfully ignorant arguments about the very complex models used to project what it might do in the future if all other assumptions are correct — which they’ll never be — is stupidly simplistic.
Smart people who persist in over-simplifying the argument this way are being extremely dishonest. Don’t be that guy.
@Brandon,
I can show the response to daily warming?
This is the measured temperature response at global stations which had at least 360 days of both min and max temp for a year, yesterday’s rising temps are averaged as Rising, and last nights falling temps are Falling.
Stations will not be included if they fail to take enough reading, so there’s no guarantee each year has the same stations, but on a year by year the differences is the direct response in surface temps after a day of solar warming, and almost every year (49 out of 73) it cools more at night than it warmed during the day.
“Year” 9999 is the average of all years, 60 million samples.
9999 17.80549016 17.80964193 -0.004151764 69864812
If you round to 0.01, there’s pretty much no difference between daily warming and nightly cooling measured by the worlds weather stations. None, zip, nada.
[html code “pre” inserted around columns to generate text fields. .mod]
Mi Cro,
I plotted the above, and the trends for all three series show sensitivity to number of observations, same as I’ve noted in the past. The fact that you’re working in absolute temps is one likely culprit. Think about it. If 5 stations are added to the equator, and all else remains equal, it will skew the global average hot for that period.
Brandon Gates commented
Did you misunderstand this
I’m telling you right here, you can’t plot it as a trend because the stations are not going to be the same.
What I’m trying to point out is that for that year, the stations I included had the most complete set of measurements taken that year of all of the stations collecting data. All you can compare is the difference between the average annual daily rising anomaly, and the following night’s falling anomaly. Adding 5 stations at the equator would only add whatever the daily range of temp was that year, tropical would be far narrower than a deserts temp range.
Mi Cro,
Ok, we agree on that much. I genuinely don’t understand how to interpret the results. Warmist brain damage from having thoroughly drunk the Kool-Aid of extant methods for anomaly calculation with a mind toward the collective trend which comes from them, perhaps. I’m looking for multi-decadal trends when I think about climate, not intra-annual or inter-annual weather variability.
That instinct I understand, but I’ve thought for a that a potential strength of your approach is that it doesn’t necessarily require long-running station records to work.
The only way I know around that is to take a weighted mean. If you’re doing an arithmetic mean, and I believe you are just from having plotted the results for all three series and regressing them against the year-to-year change in number of observations, you’re not going to get a meaninful long-term trend. Which leaves me at a total loss as to how to interpret your results.
One thing I think I screwed up in my previous reply: the RISING and FALLING series looked like absolute temps in Celsius to me, but they’re not. They’re the change in min to max, and max to min from the previous day in degrees F, and as such, are a form of anomaly. Correct?
“One thing I think I screwed up in my previous reply: the RISING and FALLING series looked like absolute temps in Celsius to me, but they’re not. They’re the change in min to max, and max to min from the previous day in degrees F, and as such, are a form of anomaly. Correct?”
Correct.
Consider each year it’s own trend comparison, where you compare rising to falling, well over half cooling is larger than warming. And collectively cooling is larger than warming.
Brandon, I am well aware that the climate models are used for public policy, Your comment indicates you perhaps understand that they should not be.
Explaining how complex they are does not mean that the model runs are not informative. They are. Yes there are two primary issues here which you can be more simply stated as the direct climate sensitivity to doubling CO2, and then the feedbacks from that response, which also happen to be the feedbacks from any systemic warming. (By the way, there are over 30 papers expressing a lower climate sensitivity then the IPCC.)
However, do not throw out science 101 with the bathwater. Taking the modeled mean of an ensemble of models all running wrong in the same direction, and using that as a basis for future projections and consequential harms, is a gross violation of basic science.
Beta Blocker’s climate model /prediction ignores the historical climatic record completely and will not be correct due to that basic fact.
Salvatore, my response is placed underneath my original comment which starts here, Ditto for your second commentary.
The climate over the last 150 years has been one of the most stable climate periods over the last 20000 years.
So long as our orbit around the sun stays stable we are OK, but if it changes our temps will drop and drop. Yes Salvatore, more warmth and more rain. Those jokers must have a crystal ball and it’s cracked. Study our orbit and that will dictate more. If the info is available.