Open Letter to U.S. Senators Ted Cruz, James Inhofe and Marco Rubio

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

UPDATE: See the correction to the number of models under the heading of REDUNDANCY: WHY ARE TAXPAYERS FUNDING 5 CLIMATE MODELS IN THE U.S.?

###

Date: April 14, 2015

Subject: Questions about Climate Model-Based Science

From: Bob Tisdale – Independent Climate Researcher

To: The Honorable Ted Cruz, James Inhofe and Marco Rubio

Dear Senators Cruz, Inhofe and Rubio:

I am writing you as chairs of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and of the Committee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. I am an independent researcher who studies global warming and climate change, and I am probably best known for my articles at the science weblog WattsUpWithThat, where I would be considered an investigative reporter.

I have a few very basic questions for you about climate model-based science. They are:

  • Why are taxpayers funding climate model-based research when those models are not simulating Earth’s climate?
  • Why are taxpayers funding climate model-based research when each new generation of climate models provides the same basic answers?
  • Redundancy: why are taxpayers funding 5 climate models in the U.S.?
  • Why aren’t climate models providing the answers we need?
    • Example: Why didn’t the consensus of regional climate models predict the timing, extent and duration of the Californian drought?

I have discussed and provided support for those concerns in the following.

Note: I began this letter a couple of months ago, back when it was announced that you would be chairs of those committees. Two of you are now running for President. Even with that in mind, I hope that you and your staffs will consider these questions.

WHY ARE TAXPAYERS FUNDING CLIMATE MODEL-BASED RESEARCH WHEN THOSE CLIMATE MODELS ARE NOT SIMULATING EARTH’S CLIMATE?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on climate models to attribute global warming and climate change to emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and to simulate how climate might change in the future based on estimates of future emissions. But climate models are not simulating Earth’s climate as it exists now, has existed in the past, or might exist in the future. The climate science community understands this well, but few persons outside of that close-knit group have the faintest idea that climate models are not simulating Earth’s climate.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) was very open about those simple facts more than 7 years ago, and there haven’t been leaps in climate modeling progress since then. Dr. Trenberth’s 2007 article Predictions of Climate at the Nature.com blog exposed many critical weaknesses in the climate models used by the IPCC for simulating past and future climate on Earth. Dr. Trenberth’s article was filled with extraordinary quotes, including:

…none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.

In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.

Those are powerful statements. If you were to read Dr. Trenberth’s blog post in its entirety, you’ll find those quotes were reinforced by much of the remaining text. Occasionally, Trenberth interjected what could be considered global warming dogma to temper the critical aspects.

One of Dr. Trenberth’s statements stands out as self-deception:

The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity.

Seven years later, with the slowdown in surface warming and the missing ocean heat, everyone knows the “current projection method” does not work. The climate science community has known all along that Earth’s climate is chaotic and non-linear. In fact, the IPCC stated in their 2001 Third Assessment Report, under the heading of Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles (my boldface):

In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

On that webpage, the IPCC then goes on to use this statement as their reasoning for large ensembles of models, illogically assuming that a collection of wrong models provides a right answer.

It was only a matter of time until their “current projection method” failed. And it didn’t take long. If the “current projection method” had worked, the climate-science community would presently not be scrambling to come up with excuses for the slow-down in global surface temperature warming and the missing heat in the oceans.

Let’s expand on what Dr. Trenberth had written in support of the bullet-point quotes above. He wrote:

None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.

Not surprisingly, naturally occurring and sunlight-fueled El Niño and La Niña processes and longer-term modes of natural variability like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are now being blamed for suppressing global surface warming. On the other hand, it is seldom discussed that:

  • those modes of natural variability enhance global warming, too, and,
  • the climate model projections of future climate are aligned with the naturally enhanced warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century.

Both of those factors suggest that climate model projections of future global warming may be two times too high.

Because climate models cannot simulate modes of natural variability that enhance or suppress global warming, reliance on those models as they exist today for the study of global warming and climate change would be similar to physicians having to rely on computer models of the human body that cannot simulate respiration, digestion, circulation, etc.

Simply put, climate models are virtual reality. They are no more real than the computer-generated imagery (CGI) of King Kong or dinosaurs or space aliens in movies.

Let’s rephrase what the climate scientists are in reality telling us with their climate models projections: (1) if emissions of manmade greenhouse gases increase as projected by the numerous future scenarios, and (2) if Earth’s climate responds to those increases in manmade greenhouse gases as simulated by the climate models, then (3) climate might change as simulated by the models, but (4) the climate science community understands very well that Earth’s climate does NOT respond to those increases in manmade greenhouse gases as simulated by the climate models.

Makes one wonder why they make the effort…other than to satisfy the wants of the political entities funding climate science.

Note: In a postscript to this letter, I’ve included a few examples of model-data comparisons from my past blog posts, which show how poorly climate models simulate surface temperatures, precipitation and sea ice.

WHY ARE TAXPAYERS FUNDING CLIMATE MODEL-BASED RESEARCH WHEN EACH NEW GENERATION OF CLIMATE MODELS PROVIDES THE SAME BASIC ANSWERS?

IPCC-related climate model-based research provides the same basic answers today as they did 2+ decades ago. From the IPCC’s first assessment report in 1990 to their fifth assessment report in 2013, there have been few changes in the climate model-based projections of global surface temperatures caused by assumed future increases in emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide). As additional examples, all five reports fundamentally also told us:

(1) Sea levels will continue to rise regardless of whether we cease or slow our emissions of greenhouse gases…and there are still wide ranges of uncertainties with best-case scenarios overlapping with worst-case ones.

(2) Glaciers and ice sheets will melt, providing their mass contribution to rising sea levels…but that is simply a continuation of the melting that has been occurring since the end of the last ice age, when temperatures rose to the point that ice on land melted. Glaciers and ice sheets will continue to melt until the temperatures drop and we head toward the next ice age. And that continued melting of glaciers and ice sheets will, of course, add to rising sea levels.

(3) Some regions of the globe will experience drought, others floods…but even the current “state-of-the-art” climate models cannot tell us where or when those floods or droughts will occur because they still cannot simulate the annual, decadal and multidecadal variations in coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that impact precipitation globally. I’ll expand on this in an upcoming section.

The United States has been investing billions of dollars in climate model-based science over the past 2 decades. Yet the reports keep telling us the same thing, over and over: temperatures will warm, sea levels will rise, etc. They’re not furnishing anything new of value and haven’t for some time.

REDUNDANCY: WHY ARE TAXPAYERS FUNDING 5 4 CLIMATE MODELS IN THE U.S.?

Of the twenty-six climate modeling groups around the globe that provided model outputs for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 5th Assessment Report, five four are in the U.S.:

  • NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
  • NASA Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO)
  • National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) [See correction that follows.]
  • NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)
  • National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NSF-DOE-NCAR) [See correction that follows.]

See the CMIP5 Climate Model Intercomparison Project webpage here.

None of the models are simulating climate as it exists. Does the U.S. need 5 4 climate models and support staff for models that are simulating climate on a virtual planet that bears little relation to the one we inhabit?

Correction: I was notified of the following by blogger Ken Gregory in a comment here.

There were only 4 U.S. climate modeling groups that submitted model outputs to the CMIP5 archive. The CCSM4 model from NCAR is a subset of the CESM1 from NSF-DOE-NCAR. The CCSM4 model is now frozen, and all future updates will be made to CESM1.

Thanks, Ken. [End Note]

WHY AREN’T CLIMATE MODELS PROVIDING THE ANSWERS WE NEED?

After multiple decades of climate modeling efforts, the climate science community has not produced models that are capable of providing the answers we need and deserve. There is a very simple reason for this: The focus of the climate science community.

Under the direction of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the political entities that fund climate science, the focus of climate research has been on human-induced global warming and climate change, not natural variability. Yet it is naturally occurring, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that determine when and where surface temperatures and precipitation will increase and where they won’t.

We always have to keep in mind that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political entity, not a scientific one. Their sole role is to assemble scientific papers that support a political agenda. Nothing more, nothing less.

The IPCC begins the opening paragraphs of its History webpage (my boldface):

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.

Thus, the IPCC was founded to write reports. Granted, they are very detailed reports, so burdensome that few persons read them in their entirety. Most people only read the Summaries for Policymakers…the language of which is agreed to by politicians during week-long meetings.

Also from that quote above, we can see that the language of the IPCC reports was intended to support an international climate-change treaty.

That treaty is known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It was signed in 1992, a year after the IPCC’s First Assessment Report. That timing is very odd, because the results of that first report were inconclusive, inasmuch as the climate science community could not differentiate between natural and anthropogenic contributions. This put the U.N. in a precarious position. They had a treaty in place to limit emissions of greenhouse gases but it was without scientific support. Thus, each subsequent politically motivated report had to increase the IPCC’s certainty that greenhouse gases were the primary factor driving global warming. Otherwise the UNFCCC was dead.

A few clarifications:

A copy of the UNFCCC is available here. Under the heading of Article 2 – Objective, the UNFCCC identifies its goal as limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases (my boldface):

The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

Because the objective of the UNFCCC treaty was to limit the emissions of manmade greenhouse gases, and because the goal of the IPCC was to prepare reports that supported the treaty, it safe to say the IPCC’s sole role is simply to write scientific reports that support a politically motivated want to limit greenhouse gas emissions. I underlined the word want for a reason. Because climate models are still not simulating climate as it exists on the planet, the IPCC has never truly established there is a need to limit emissions.

Later in the opening paragraph of the IPCC’s History webpage, they state (my boldface and caps):

Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of HUMAN-INDUCED climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The fact that the IPCC has focused all of their efforts on “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” is very important. The IPCC has never realistically tried to determine if natural factors could have caused most of the warming the Earth has experienced over the past century. For decades, they’ve worn blinders that blocked their views of everything other than the possible impacts of carbon dioxide. The role of the IPCC has always been to prepare reports that support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. As a result, that’s where all of the research money goes. The decision to only study human-induced global warming is a political choice, not a scientific one.

As a result of that political choice, there is little scientific research that attempts to determine how much of the warming we’ve experienced is attributable to natural factors. We know this is fact because the current generation of climate models—the most complex climate models to date—still cannot simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that can cause Earth’s surfaces (and the oceans to depth) to warm for multidecadal periods or stop that warming.

EXAMPLE: WHY DIDN’T THE CONSENSUS OF REGIONAL CLIMATE MODELS PREDICT TIMING, EXTENT AND DURATION OF THE CALIFORNIA DROUGHT?

Climate modelling groups have been heading in a new direction for a number of years: regional climate models. See the NASA webpage Regional Climate Models Evaluation System for an overview. They, of course, at that website they try to paint a rosy picture, without being very open about the uncertainties caused by naturally occurring chaotic factors.

We’ve become used to seeing wide ranges of uncertainties from global climate models. With shorter-term regional climate models, those uncertainties are even greater, because ocean-atmosphere processes, which are beyond the capabilities of climate models, have such wide ranges of influences on regional climate.

Regardless of whether they are regional climate models or global climate models, as mentioned earlier, climate models in general are still not capable of simulating coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that dictate annual, multiyear, decadal and multidecadal changes in global and regional temperature and precipitation. As noted above, Dr. Trenberth stated that climate models still do not include a few modes of natural variability: El Niño/La Niña, Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. There are many other modes of natural variability that are beyond the capabilities of climate models, and those factors also have strong impacts on regional short-term climate.

Now, let me clarify one point. I wrote above that climate models still do not include modes of natural variability like El Niño events. It’s not that they exclude a feature that they can simply select from a menu and add to the next model run. The models can’t simulate them properly. There are numerous peer-reviewed papers that document those failings.

Even the most basic interrelationship between the trade winds and the sea surface temperatures of the tropical Pacific (where El Niño events take place) are beyond the capabilities of climate models. (Discovered in the 1960s, that interrelationship is called Bjerknes Feedback. The 2012 study by Bellenger et al. ENSO representation in climate models: from CMIP3 to CMIP5 confirms that sad fact.)

Why didn’t a consensus of regional climate models tell us that California would show no surface warming for 2.5 decades (from 1986 to 2011) as do the data? Why didn’t they tell us that a ridge of high pressure would form a few years ago northwest of California over the eastern North Pacific…and continue to persist today? That an area of warm sea surface temperatures would also form in that part of the North Pacific…an area that grew so warm it was the dominant reason for the reportedly record-high global surface temperatures in 2014? That the ridge of high pressure (now known as the “ridiculously resilient ridge”) and elevated sea surface temperatures (now known as “the blob”) in the northeast North Pacific would cause the recent record-high surface temperatures in California, along with the lower-than-normal precipitation? That the “ridiculously resilient ridge” and “the blob” would cause near record low temperatures last winter in the Northeast?

(See Bond et al. (2015) Causes and Impacts of the 2014 Warm Anomaly in the NE Pacific and Hartmann (2015) Pacific sea surface temperature and the winter of 2014, and their press release ‘Warm blob’ in Pacific Ocean linked to weird weather across the U.S. Also see Johnstone and Mantua (2014) Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change, 1900–2012.)

There’s a very simple reason why regional climate models did not tell us all those things would happen. Climate models don’t predict weather, and the factors that are driving the drought and warm temperatures in California are weather events…persistent ones, but weather events nonetheless. On the other hand, weather models have limited value beyond a few days…a week at best.

Are there regional climate models that can reliably predict:

  • How long the California drought will last?
  • When the drought there might reappear?
  • What parts of the country will be plagued by drought next?

No.

Will short-term regional climate models have any value in the future?

Not until they can predict chaotic coupled ocean-atmosphere processes in the Pacific and the North Atlantic and their interrelated, even more chaotic, sea level pressure-based phenomena known as the North Pacific Index and North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation, etc.

Let’s continue to use California as an example. Until the regional climate models can predict chaotic ocean-atmosphere processes years in advance in parts of the globe that are remote to California, those models could only tell us what might happen in California if El Niño events dominated for a period, or what might happen if La Niña events dominated, or might occur if there was a shift in the related Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or North Pacific Index, or Arctic Oscillation, etc…with all of those “might happens” having large ranges of uncertainties because of their compounding effects. The uncertainties are so large that they offer little value for future planning.

Then again, there can and will be, as we’ve recently seen, totally unexpected happenings like the “ridiculously resilient ridge” and “the blob” to destroy those forecasts.

Climate models are not close to being able to answer the questions we need answered, and it is unlikely they will have those capabilities until such time that they can forecast chaos…years and decades into the future. And the likelihood of that is nil.

CLOSING

Under the direction of the IPCC and the political agencies that fund it, climate science has only focused on supporting international treaties to limit emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Climate modeling has been constrained by that focus, leaving us with models that have no relationship to the world in which we live. It is time to change that focus to enable climate modeling groups to study the true contribution of natural variability to global warming and climate change without fear of losing their funding. If we are going to be able to adapt to climate change, regardless of whether it is manmade or natural, the climate science community needs a much better grasp of how climate on Earth actually works, not how it works in models.

I hope you and your staffs will be able to investigate those questions and others over your terms as chairs of climate science-related committees and subcommittees.

If you have any questions or if you need any further information, please have staff members leave a comment on any thread at my blog ClimateObservations.

Sincerely,

Bob Tisdale

PS: The following are a collection of blog posts that illustrate how poorly climate models simulate surface temperatures, precipitation, and sea ice.

We also discussed and illustrated climate models and the modes of natural variability called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation in the post Questions the Mainstream Media Should Be Asking the IPCC.

As I’ve noted numerous time in the past, climate models at present have no value other than to illustrate how poorly they perform.

Advertisements

389 thoughts on “Open Letter to U.S. Senators Ted Cruz, James Inhofe and Marco Rubio

  1. Presidential campaign started also on WUWT.
    Makes sense. After loosing the scientific debate, all that is left for WUWT is the political debate and the only chance you have seems to be in the US.
    Good luck in your political campaign.

    • Hi, Daniel. Are you a new troll here at WUWT? I don’t recall seeing your name before.
      Thank you for your contribution. It clearly illustrates that you are not capable of addressing the subject matter of the post.
      Have a nice day.

      • Daniel’s play is the role of agitator and disrupter. He has been too successful on a number of threads.Two modest proposals: first, readers ignore him; second, moderator allows him two or three rants and then imposes a “curfew” for the balance of the thread.

      • i wish i could convince the ticket guy at the horse race place to use the modeling system when taking my bets. Then every horse would be a big winner..every time! I can just tell them I’m using the ethical system of the IPCC. He will be sure to pay me off. thanks guys

      • Yes, Bob.
        Sock puppet danny boy started posting recently along with a number of other trolls, many of which used to haunt JoNova. As you have noticed, danny child has absolutely refused logic, scientific method and all science.
        Let danny spout nonsense all by himself. He has dug himself deep into pits a number of times already.

      • Hi Bob. Excellent letter and I hope many more read it. It’s very thorough and goes straight to the heart of the issue. I’ve bookmarked it (I’m getting quite a collection now).
        One of the drawbacks to threaded posts is that it allows trolls to dominate early comments – I suspect one or more of them are using more than one name to look as though there are many. Their “voice” and tone is mostly the same. I’ve noticed a few new name space-fillers and enticers of comments, presumably deliberately done to derail the thread and distract from the meat of the article. If he/she/they goes on long enough, maybe readers will give up before getting to where the proper discussion of the issues takes place.
        This tactic used to annoy me, but now I find it an interesting and amusing indication of alarmist fear. The louder they squawk and the more they crowd in, the more obvious they are.
        That said, I agree with Richard T. Allowing the little band a handful of comments and then reining them in would cut down the lengthy “conversation” that clogs the opening section of comments.

      • My mother often said “When someone exposes themselves to you, The best thing you can do is “Point and Laugh at them” as ridicule is often the best medicine”
        https://looneytunes09.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/free-vector-laughing-and-pointing-emoticon_133428_laughing_and_pointing_emoticon.jpg

        Daniel
        April 14, 2015 at 3:51 am
        Presidential campaign started also on WUWT.
        Makes sense. After loosing the scientific debate, all that is left for WUWT is the political debate and the only chance you have seems to be in the US.
        Good luck in your political campaign.

      • Well known (troll) names just result in scrolling down to the next rational post. I end up ignoring Daniel’s posts and all posts related to it so it becomes senseless to respond since a lot of people are likely doing the same. Daniel must employ a ‘bot’ since he has made the first comment a number of times. And if no one reads this … LOL

      • ” Daniel must employ a ‘bot’ since he has made the first comment a number of times.”
        yeah, that can be the only logical explanation…….

      • Thanks Bob, comprehensive as usual. But you forgot to menting the political reason for the IPCC, that is Agenda 21, the wish to have a single world communist government.

      • “that is Agenda 21, the wish to have a single world communist government.”
        LOL you really believe the goal of A21 is to have a world communist government?
        i think that is a bit too much sonpisracy theory even for WUWT.

      • Actually not communist but rather socialist (30.1 Transforming Social Systems) with a slight Marxist bent for government in control of the people rather than people in control of the government

    • After loosing the scientific debate
      Why, yes. While all your side has done is squeeze it.
      Halcyon days.

    • Er, did you read the article? It’s all about the science.
      The models don’t work. They aren’t set up to start running on the real world.
      They are tuned on a naturally warming period and so read high.
      They don’t predict the weather anyway – which is what matters.
      The scientific debate has been won by the realists because reality bit. It’s not a political issue – subjective – as you seem to think. It’s about observations vs theory.
      If you really think the science of newsworthy climate change still has a leg to stand on – try disputing the article.

      • When he has a problem with the science, why post on WUWT and adressing it to anti science presidential candidates? Why not debate it in the scientific literature with experts?

      • Because the science isn’t disputed. Read the article. He quotes Trenberth and the IPCC
        The models don’t work. That’s the mainstream view.
        How can you debate in the literature saying, “Yes, we all know that’s right. The models don’t work. Agreed.”
        It’s the wider public – including those funding and scrutinising the science – who need to be informed.

      • No. That the models dont work is not the mainstream view in this field.
        But you got the dishonesty it takes to win the political debate.

      • people debate this topic everyday on blogs run by people on both sides of the issue Daniel. There aren’t really any valid points to be made scientifically from the warmers. They seem to be centered around the “consensus’ and what “might ” happen.

      • Again with the first post! Again with misinformation! Congratulations, Daniel. You didn’t read the post, but way to go, anyway.
        By the way, you have once again demonstrated that YOU are the last person who should be commenting about honesty. But good job, anyway- you drew a response from several readers. Feel better, now?

      • You can also just read the model projections of the past 30 years and then look at the climatic observation. That is all available in hard print. That is not something we need consensus on. Anybody can look at that and make their own graphs and percentages of accuracy. They do not work. Not even close. Saying that most people believe the models work is worthless information. That is like saying most people think swimming after eating a meal is dangerous.

      • Daniel, it appears you are misinformed and so think I ma deceiving you. That is a mistake.
        Here let me quote the IPCC AR5. This is the mainstream science I was talking about. You can find it in Box 9.2 (on page 772 in my copy).

        Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus. There is medium confidence that the GMST trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some CMIP5 models overestimating the response to increasing GHG and other anthropogenic forcing. The CMIP5 model trend in ERF shows no apparent bias against the AR5 best estimate over 1998–2012. However, confidence in this assessment of CMIP5 ERF trend is low, primarily because of the uncertainties in model aerosol forcing and processes, which through spatial heterogeneity might well cause an undetected global mean ERF trend error even in the absence of a trend in the global mean aerosol loading.

        They don’t work see. And mainstream science doesn’t know why uncertainty in model aerosol forcing and processes. That’s pretty much everything that they aren’t sure of.
        Also from Box 9.2 (page 769)

        During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a), whereas during the 15-year period ending in 1998, it lies above 93 out of 114 modelled trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1b; HadCRUT4 ensemble-mean trend 0.26°C per decade, CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.16°C per decade).

        93 out of 114 is 80% of the models reading hot. this isn’t a random error that can be cancelled out. The models are systematically wrong. They guess hot.
        I’m not deceiving you. The IPCC agrees with me. The models don’t work.
        That’s mainstream science from the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis (WG1)’

      • More haste, less speed.
        I should have said (as well as other typos)
        They don’t work, see. And mainstream science doesn’t know why. “Uncertainty in model aerosol forcing and processes”, that’s pretty much everything that they aren’t sure of.
        I’m really not telling lies here. This is the mainstream science view of the climate models

      • “They don’t work see.”
        that is not what the IPCC AR5 said. not even the part you quoted.
        “The ability of climate models to simulate surface temperature
        has improved in many, though not all, important aspects rel

        ative to the generation of models assessed in the AR4.
        There
        continues to be
        very high confidence
        1
        that models reproduce observed
        large-scale mean surface temperature patterns (pattern correlation of
        ~0.99), though systematic errors of several degrees are found in some
        regions, particularly over high topography, near the ice edge in the
        North Atlantic, and over regions of ocean upwelling near the equa

        tor. ”
        https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
        IPCC AR5 shows your claim wrong.
        the mainstream position is NOT that the models don’t work.

      • Wow, Daniel–I’ve seldom seen such a display of stupidity and misunderstanding!
        Does someone pay you to make an abject fool of yourself, or are you so brainwashed in unreality you’re willing to make a laughingstock of yourself in front of the whole world?
        You’ve left me just shaking my head.
        But what’s especially egregious is your application of the “anti-science” term because Republicans ARE addressing the science! It’s the Democrats and idiots like you who are lying about the whole subject.
        Nefarious describes both your actions and your motives. Look the term “nefarious” up and ponder the implications, Daniel.
        Oh, and have a good day!

      • The ability of climate models to simulate surface temperature has improved in many, though not all, important aspects relative to the generation of models assessed in the AR4

        They didn’t work when AR4 came out either and they still don’t. They may have improved but as they don’t know what the forcings are they don’t know how. “Better” does not mean “good enough”.

        There continues to be very high confidence that models reproduce observed large-scale mean surface temperature patterns (pattern correlation of ~0.99), though systematic errors of several degrees are found in some regions, particularly over high topography, near the ice edge in the North Atlantic, and over regions of ocean upwelling near the equator.

        Well OK, they get that the poles are colder than the equator but they are out by several degrees. You are aware that this whole debate is about a less than 1°C increase in temperature in a century? That is not a win for the models.
        Just saying that “However, confidence in this assessment of CMIP5 ERF trend is low, primarily because of the uncertainties in model aerosol forcing and processes, which through spatial heterogeneity might well cause an undetected global mean ERF trend error even in the absence of a trend in the global mean aerosol loading.” doesn’t mean “the models doesn’t work”… does not make that true. It means exactly that.
        Reading comprehension skills should be employed.
        You accused me of dishonesty. You’ve been shown you were wrong. Mistakes happen, but do back down now.
        The models are accepted as not working by the IPCC – that’s mainstream science.

      • “They didn’t work when AR4 came out either and they still don’t. They may have improved but as they don’t know what the forcings are they don’t know how. “Better” does not mean “good enough”.”
        that is not what AR5 said.
        “Well OK, they get that the poles are colder than the equator but they are out by several degrees. You are aware that this whole debate is about a less than 1°C increase in temperature in a century? That is not a win for the models. ”
        not what the report said.
        you made a false claim, you have been misled by Bob’s quotemining.
        so much for your sceptical skills…..
        and because you are so convinced by this nonsense, you even use your very own quotemining to mislead people.
        nice job…..
        it is simply NOt mainstream in the field that the models do NOT work.
        that is your interpretation.

      • You say quote-mining.
        I say quoting.
        You quote the IPCC and I address the points to show that your interpretation is incorrect.
        -Improvement is not reaching an acceptable level (and nor is improvement really proven).
        -Getting the hot and cold in the right places but being out by twice as much as the world has warmed in a century does not prove the models work. Quite the reverse.
        You do not address my quotes and just say I’m misinterpreting the words. But you don’t, or can’t dispute my interpretation.
        Instead you say I’ve been misled by the article. Remember I began this by challenging you to discuss the article – you couldn’t find fault with that either so you just waved it away as political. Wrongly.
        Daniel, you have not put a logical case worth responding to so far. And you have been quite insulting with it. That is understandable, you are clearly new to scientific debate.
        But for now let us agree to disagree.

      • “Improvement is not reaching an acceptable level ”
        that is your interpretation, that is not the mainstream view.
        why are you guys even trying to make such a laughable claim?
        why not sust say, you don0t think that the models work. but to claim that the mainstream view, including the vie of the IPCC is that the models don’t work is just another of those easely debunked claims.
        on YT there are 100’s of deniers running aroudn with such lousy myths that are easely debunked. and they get their ass kicked all over YT….
        because you guys are lousy at inventing myths.

      • Good, it’s all about the science. The latest examination of the fit between model predictions and global temperatures was published in Nature by Marotzke and Forster (2015). Their conclusion, “Here we analyse simulations and observations of GMST from 1900 to 2012, and show that the distribution of simulated 15-year trends shows no systematic bias against the observations….The claim
        that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded.”
        Until there is a peer-reviewed publication that refutes their analysis, the best science indicates the model predictions are correct.

      • “Well, of course…If it is on Youtube it must be true because it is on Youtube”
        are they fake reps? or what is your point, what is not true about them?

      • M Courtney, I just want you to know that your logic clearly shows through, and Daniels does not, as he is utterly lacking logic.

      • Oh Danny boy, the quotes, the quotes are calling
        From REP to DEM on down from either side
        The warming’s come, with trees and flowers growing
        ‘Tis you, ’tis you must go and we must bide.
        Tell us Oh Danny’o,
        How should we quote a source wi’out bein accused of Quote Minin?

      • Luke,
        Marotzke and Forster (2015) is not science, although it might be “climate science”, which is manifestly not the same thing but more akin to “political practice”.

        • If you think there is a problem with the science in Marotzke and Forste then I suggest you submit a rebuttal to the journal. That is how science progresses.

        • I see. So you are one of those who believes that the all editors of scientific journals somehow lose their objectivity when it comes to climate change but are fine with every other branch of science. I am not sure how your brain resolves that cognitive dissonance but good luck with that!

      • Nic also cites the assessment of U. of Edinburgh’s Prof. Gordon Hughes, which includes these “pithy comments about the Marotzke and Forster paper”:
        The statistical methods used in the paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics.
        All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.
        The paper is methodologically unsound and provides spurious results. No useful, valid inferences can be drawn from it. I believe that the authors should withdraw the paper.
        Other statistical analyses are mentioned in this post:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/06/fatally-flawed-marotzke-climate-science-paper-should-be-withdrawn/

        • Marotzke and Forster replied to Nic’s comments and concluded they have no merit. The bottom line is blog posts do not advance science. Peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals do.

      • J. Peter,
        Clearly that is not the case, since they haven’t done so with the execrable Marotzke mess, panned by every independent statistician who has had the stomach to look at it. Unless Nature has done so & I missed it.
        As so many statisticians have said, the paper is so bad that it should be withdrawn by Nature, not just attacked in letters to the editor.

      • Luke,
        Explain please why blog posts don’t advance science but agenda-pushing, anti-scientific business enterprises like Nature do. Thanks.
        Marotzke’s reply to Nic was pathetic. Did you read it?
        It’s not just Nic, but world-leading statisticians with endowed chairs at top universities who have called BS on Marotzke. So why hasn’t Nature, which you hold in such high esteem, deigned to publish any of these analyses? Because of such bogus, rigged, pal-review or non-review, already well known but blatantly exposed by the Climategate emails, science needs blogs to progress. Nature is among the worst offenders.

      • J. Peter,
        Do you really not see your logical fallacy?
        That one blog post strikes you as not advancing science hardly invalidates the utility of all posts on science blogs.
        Many distinguished scientists find blogs at least as valuable as so-called peer-reviewed journals. A number of them in fact comment & post on this one.
        Other respected scientists are best known for their popular blogs.
        Sorry, but you’re really out of the loop on 21st century science.

      • J. Peter,
        Science advanced marvelously before there were any journals, but it’s not an either/or situation.
        IMO blogs are superior to journals because anyone can be a reviewer, not just pals of the editor & authors. There is IMO no important difference between the owner of a blog choosing what to publish & the editor of a journal. The significant distinction is that the reviewers aren’t selected by the editor or his or her staff. Open review is the best.
        Journals have been in on the CACA scam, so have covered themselves with shame & well-deserved opprobrium.

    • Daniel, the “political” part of the debate is coming from the alarmist. The facts are just not being discussed by the other side. The search for facts is what needs to be done here.
      From a very layman’s point of view, I want the truth to come out and if it is man’s fault then let’s fix it now for my kids and future grand kids BUT if the argument is based on models that are not set up properly and we get junk data from those models then we should see this for what it is and fix the models. The earth has been around for billions of years, man had been around for a very small fraction of that time. We are not capable of the change to the climate in such a short time. It’s time we all step back and find the truth.

    • @Daniel
      Please provide a coherent and detailed scientific explanation of how the debate has been won. Thank you in advance.

    • Daniel, you can’t spell either … what you can’t be bothered to understand is that your side lost the scientific debate a long time ago … all you have are money interests and politics …

      • “what you can’t be bothered to understand is that your side lost the scientific debate a long time ago”
        funny how not a single scientific isntitution on the planet rejects AGW…….

        • It’s a plucky band of giant fossil fuel companies and powerful right wing politicians fighting a noble battle against grass-roots organizations and an evil cabal which includes pretty much all scientists. Oh, and the evidence of our senses. Classic David v Goliath stuff.

      • Organizations can not think, have opinions, hold positions, etc. If your entire argument is that a non-cognitive thing “holds a position” then you clearly have no credible argument. What these organizations CAN do is have some administrators write up an opinion so that herpaderps who are easily confused and incapable of reading any of the pertinent literature on a subject have something to cite.

      • “If your entire argument is that a non-cognitive thing “holds a position” then you clearly have no credible argument.”
        no, it is just funny how “warmers” lost the scientific debate, yet that is not reflected in the Scientific literature, not in the Scientific reports from scientific organisations, not from scientific institutions, the curriculum , not the universities, not the polls among experts…..
        the only ones that are aware of this are the anti science blogs, conspiracy theory websites and WUWT together with a few tabloids….
        how come?

      • “funny how not a single scientific isntitution on the planet rejects AGW”
        From the June 2013 issue of “The Australian Geologist”,
        http://www.gsa.org.au/pdfdocuments/TAG%27s/TAG%20167WEB.pdf
        from page 12, 53% of the members of the Geological Society of Australia
        DISAGREED with the statement endorsing strong action to reduce fossil fuel emissions. OBVIOUSLY there’s no 97% consensus.

        • From a self-described “informal” poll conducted by two guys – of 626 geologists (*not* climate scientists) who responded out of a total group of around 2200, and who are principally employed by the fossil fuel industry, just over half apparently don’t agree with a statement that we should take strong action on greenhouse gases. Compelling evidence indeed.

      • This is not the issue at hand. You simply avoid what is important.
        Here is what is important:
        1. We have observed a small amount of surface warming over the years.
        2. This has been blamed on an increase in atmospheric CO2 due to fossil fuels burning.
        3. So we must stop burning fossil fuels.
        If indeed the small amount of surface warming is due to our burning fossil fuels there should be a correlation between the increase in temperature and the increase in atmospheric CO2.
        So, find such a relationship in the IPCC reports. Not there. IPCC cannot support this cause-effect relationship.
        Plots of CO2 atmospheric concentrations measured at Mauna Loa since 1958 and any of the surface temperature collections since the same date are widely available from various sources and available on the internet. They basically show 3 separate time periods:
        1. From 1958 to about 1978 there is a slight decrease in temperature while CO2 was increasing.
        2. From about 1978 to 1998 there is a nice correlation between the increase in CO2 and increase in temperature, so a good reason to start investigating a possible cause-effect relationship.
        3.From 1998 to now CO2 continued to increase as during 1978 to 1998. However, no more increase in surface temperature.
        So you can continue all you want nitpicking IPCC reports. You are simply wasting your time.

      • “OBVIOUSLY there’s no 97% consensus.”
        the consensus is about experts on the topic that actually published in the scinetific literature on this topic.
        i doubt that the 2000 geologists all published in the scinetific literature on this topic.

        • Kuhn

          the consensus is about experts on the topic that actually published in the scinetific (sic) literature on this topic.

          Wrong. Dead wrong.
          AS the climategate email showed, the CAGW self-selected community of Government-paid bureaucrats (er, “scientists”) delberately worked to eliminate editors they opposed, and supported editors and “peer-reviewers” who favored their commitments and views. The 97% “consensus” was derived by selecting only 2 answers from 77 government-paid scientists from 13,500 who were surveyed with 5 questions on climate change – both of which answers, by the way, I do agree with.
          Or you could use the 23 papers out of some 11,300 papers on climate change that actually analyzed the assumptions and equations behind the predictions of future warming. The other 11,277 papers? They only estimated what “might” happen to subject “wxyz1234” IF global average temperatures actually did increase over the next 85 years. That does NOT offer any proof or consensus of anything other fund-raising and paper-writing-for-fun-and-profit.

      • “AS the climategate email showed, the CAGW self-selected community of Government-paid bureaucrats (er, “scientists”) delberately worked to eliminate editors they opposed, and supported editors and “peer-reviewers” who favored their commitments and views.”
        what? you think all the major scientific journals have conspired ? Expelled?
        first biology, now climatology?
        ” The 97% “consensus” was derived by selecting only 2 answers from 77 government-paid scientists from 13,500 who were surveyed with 5 questions on climate change – both of which answers, by the way, I do agree with.”
        what?
        http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf
        you really like conspiracy theories,

      • Boy, have you have got the company line down, begging the question, are you a professional troll or just a lemming? You don’t seem to have time for a day-job. And yes – warmers can’t hold their own jocks in a debate, that’s why they avoid it at all cost. Your entire argument is ‘simply everyone says so-consensus’ – monkey-see-monkey-do tripe being pushed by maybe the most corrupt fund-raising organization on the planet – basically a bullying tactic very common with your type, and one of the first propaganda points established by the fraudsters that you unquestioningly represent. The fact is, some of us have been watching this BS for twenty-five years and more. You either have no clue about science, the scientific community – making you a fool – or else your just one of the ‘Team’ – in which case you are a liar. Go run back under your bridge little troll.

        • No, AGW proponents avoid debates with “skeptics” for the same reason biologists avoid debates with creationists, and geographers don’t have debates with the Flat Earth Society. You can’t have a rational argument with someone whose worldview is firmly based in the irrational.

      • Harry,
        CACA advocates don’t debate because they know they’ll lose.
        If you imagine that there is some evidence in support of the repeatedly falsified hypothesis that global warming (or whatever is the slogan of the day) since 1950 has been primarily caused by human activity, & that this has been bad & will be catastrophically worse in future, by all means please trot it out. The IPCC has not been able to do so, but apparently you think you can.
        It’s impossible even to say with any level of statistical significance what the sign of human activity might be, ie either net cooling or warming effect, let alone how negligible or important any such effect might have been compared with other causes of “climate change”.

      • There have been lots of highly publicized debates between biologists and other science advocates on the one hand and creationists on the other. For that matter, there have been court cases.
        Biologists aren’t afraid of debating creationists, because they know they’ll win. Warmunistas, OTOH, won’t debate because they’re afraid of being made to appear fools by their scientific betters, like Lindzen.
        No surprise that Hairy Flasher’s delusions are growing ever more paranoid and divorced from reality.

      • Daniel Kuhn
        In response to M Courtney quoting the IPCC AR5 verbatim and summarising that quote you say in total

        “The IPCC agrees with me. ”
        why does their AR5 contradict you then?

        It does not.
        The IPCC DOES agree with him and he proved that by quoting the IPCC verbatim and citing (as you never do) where the IPXCC says it.
        As you usually do when shown to be completely wrong, you have again replied with a blatant lie and an untrue assertion of dishonesty.
        I yet again request that you slither back under your bridge because you are wasting far, far too much space on WUWT threads.
        Richard

      • Troll posting as Daniel Kuhn
        RACookPE1978 wrote

        AS the climategate email showed, the CAGW self-selected community of Government-paid bureaucrats (er, “scientists”) delberately worked to eliminate editors they opposed, and supported editors and “peer-reviewers” who favored their commitments and views.

        and you replied by pretending he wrote

        what? you think all the major scientific journals have conspired ? Expelled?
        first biology, now climatology?

        So, your only response to a factual statement is to complain that RACookPE1978 wrote something he did not.
        You often respond to inconvenient facts with such misrepresentations and straw men.
        I now write to ask you a question because I am curious.
        Do you persistently lie about what others write because you enjoy providing lies or do you do it for some other reason; e.g. you are a payed troll?
        Richard

      • so then what is the claim here? that the climatology community is so powerfull that they are able to influence or even decide who gets to be editor and who not on the most respected scientific journals on the planet?
        and all that was concldued based on a few emails?
        must make you extremely angry that climategate 1.0 – 3.0 did not convince many people that there is something fishy going on in the scinetific community….

      • the accusations of me being dishoest are so cute.
        this from the guys that want to claim that the IPCC position is “the models don’t work”
        just because the ARs point out flaws in the models and discrepansies between modeled and observed.
        you just ignore the parts where the same AR points out things were the models do show skill. and just quotemine the parts you like and then just lie about the IPCC’s position……
        lucky you guys are the only ones that get fooled by such nonsense.
        considering how many alleged nails you drove in that covin…. people still listen more to science than blogs when it comes to climatology.
        you guys stand no chance agaisnt science.

    • Don’t make the mistake I did and think this is a science website. It’s all politics, all the time.

      • This was a science thread. Daniel jumped in at the start and thread-jacked it on to politics.
        Understandable really. The science presented is sound and widely accepted.
        The models are not fit for policy making purposes.
        So claim it’s political and pretend the world is as you are comfortable with. Sigh.
        It needn’t all be politics – but don’t blame the site for not banning those who make it so. Daniel’s on your side, after all.

      • I havent seen either of you guys present anything scientifically or even logically valid. You seem to be drawn to the more political articles. Then you complain that it shouldn’t be about politics. This website is full of intelligent people discussing the Science in detail. The problem is that there really isn’t any evidence of human caused climate change so propaganda, politics and fraud are things that need to be addressed
        M

      • As an economist with a fair knowledge of the science and of the public policy issues associated with climate change, I would disagree that this site is all about politics. It is almost always about science and about the related issue of climate modelling. What is distinctly lacking from this site most of the time is a discussion of the policy advice that has been offered by the adherents of CAGW. The IPCC has recommended, and many governments have accepted, that global emissions of greenhouse gases should be reduced to 60 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050. In consideration of the “special challenges” faced by the developing countries, the IPCC has recommended that the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) should reduce their emissions by 80 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050. Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency, the pre-eminent source of analysis and projections on world energy supply, demand and emissions, has projected that global emissions will rise by 40 per cent to 2040, with over 90 per cent of that emissions growth occurring in the developing countries, and mainly in Asia. In that context, an 80 per cent reduction in emissions is frankly impossible in economic, technological and
        political terms. Yet adherents of CAGW are so adamant that their view of the science and their attempts at modelling the climate are right that they continue (very successfully, unfortunately) to lobby the public and governments to take increasingly draconian measures to reduce emissions in the OECD. The arrogance of that position is manifested further in the attacks that adherents make of all who dissent from their views. Is it any wonder that the debate has become political?

      • Luke,
        Peer-review in its modern form is a fairly recent development, but has now been perverted in many disciplines, but worst in the totally corrupt alternative universe of “climate science”. Read the history of the now prestigious journal Science, for instance:
        http://archives.aaas.org/exhibit/maturing3.php
        Philip Abelson, editor of Science from 1962-84, improved efficiency of the journal’s review process & brought its publication practices up to (then) date.
        Of course, the Transactions of the RS has been around since 1665, but it didn’t practice anything like modern (now post-modern) peer-review until much more recently.

      • Sorry. This comment should have gone below in reply to Luke @ April 16, 2015 at 2:34 pm.

    • After loosing the scientific debate
      ===========
      From what I’ve seen, folks like Gore, Gavin and Mann appear afraid to debate, and go out of their way to avoid debate. Instead they use politicians and judges to gag their opponents.

      • LOL a debate on TV….. really? that is what you understand under a scientific debate?
        you think a TV debate would be a good place to have a scientific debate?

      • You are right Daniel as the IPCC knows the best place to run their science is off the books and off the air. Having a recorded scientific debate? what an absurd idea. This needs to be in secret because the issue has nothing to do with science.

      • Charlie
        a written debate, like in teh scientific literature for example is much better.
        if one claims something and provides a supporting study, the other side can read it and respond accordingly.
        on TV such a debate is not possible.

      • Wrong Daniel something recorded in video is the best. Written climate debates are simply climate journalism and let’s just say imaginative artistic license is the normal there. Have you done any research or do you just enjoy your tribal political bickering and tired debunked talking points?

      • Once again Daniel you fail to understand what science is about.
        The last time there was a “debate” about Global Warming Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton and others debated Gavin Schmidt and others.
        Before the debate the audience was polled – the Global Warming Proponents had a clear lead with the audience. After the debate, 15% of the audience changed sides, giving the skeptics a narrow victory. The Global Warming Proponents will no longer debate – they do not want the publicity of losing.
        However, what you fail to understand is that just because the Global Warming Skeptics won the debate does not prove that their science was correct.
        What is wrong with the climate models is that their predictions, when compared to ACTUAL measured data, are wrong. Too often, they infill their data sets with data derived from (wrong) models, treating them as if the were actual values.

      • @ Daniel Kuhn – what, so now you are going to define where a legitimate “debate” should take place? Especially since there is far more scientific literature than you are willing to admit that contradicts the notion that we are in a catastrophic AGW mode. You are so full of it. A TV debate can be useful, whether or not you like it. Stop playing intellectual arbiter.

      • decades of research, decades of datacollecting, reconstructions 1000’s of years back, expertise from many different fields of science….
        and you want a TV debate…. really?
        only look at Salby video thread and how even those that reject “CAGW?” cannot easely find out if salby is right or not.
        and that is only one subtopic in the whole AGW topic….
        no, a TV debate is surely not the right format.

      • TV debate is really the only viable option, as publishing in PEER (PAL) reviewed literature as a source of debate would only work if the reviewers weren’t truly biased. Many journals simply toss submissions that don’t toe the line. Numerous editors refuse to reply to or print editorial comments that differ from their own CAGW viewpoints or those of the now viewed “Accepted” science standpoint. True Debate therefore, can’t happen in Scientific Literature as those considering the Science to be Settled will not post anything unsettling.
        Reconstructions by Proxy Data is only suppositions on data interpretation by educated individuals. It is, by nature, a poor stand in for true data which is why the error bars get larger the farther back in time you go with Proxy Data. Proxy Data isn’t Temperature Data which is why the Medieval Warm Period disappeared from the reconstruction period.
        Debate by literary posting would also take far longer (years) than direct debate.
        The ONLY true form of debate is face to face so TV is in fact the Best solution. If you can find a willing opponent
        But enough debate about debate for now…Lunch is over so I will temporarily yield the follr to the Master Debater

        Daniel Kuhn
        April 15, 2015 at 3:52 am
        decades of research, decades of datacollecting, reconstructions 1000’s of years back, expertise from many different fields of science….
        and you want a TV debate…. really?
        only look at Salby video thread and how even those that reject “CAGW?” cannot easely find out if salby is right or not.
        and that is only one subtopic in the whole AGW topic….
        no, a TV debate is surely not the right format.

        • Peer review by experts in a particular discipline chosen by knowledgeable editors is a model that has worked for over a century and has lead to rapid advances in science. Do you have problems with all editors of scientific journals or just those dealing with climate science? If the latter, how do you keep that cognitive dissonance from making your head explode?

          • Luke

            Do you have problems with all editors of scientific journals or just those dealing with climate science? If the latter, how do you keep that cognitive dissonance from making your head explode?

            If $25,000.00 one-time to the Heartland Institute buys a skeptical scientist forever for that think tank, how many Big Government self-selected “scientists” can you buy for 120 billion in Big Government spending for editors, labs, universities, pal-reviwers, overseas conferences, overseas trips to get arrested protesting cola-fired plants, libraries (which are the only institutions that buy the papers that the editors select, and NASA-GISS bureaucrats?
            Yes, the Big Government political pressure and its peer-pressure from Big Media, Big Finance, and Big Academia to receive that 120 billion dollars is corrupting.

      • Luke
        April 16, 2015 at 2:34 pm
        Einstein famously took umbrage at his submissions being reviewed.
        Please see above for my comments on the fairly brief history of peer-review & its more recent descent into pal-review.

    • Yes, Daniel is the new troll. Especially disgusting one judging by his comments. I don’t know why he is tolerated. If he would at least try to debate and discuss, but he just attacks. Perhaps the mods haven’t noticed him yet.

      • “No, AGW proponents avoid debates with “skeptics” for the same reason biologists avoid debates with creationists, and geographers don’t have debates with the Flat Earth Society. You can’t have a rational argument with someone whose worldview is firmly based in the irrational.”
        You nailed it Harry.

        • Siberian (agreeing with Glenn999)

          “No, AGW proponents avoid debates with “skeptics” for the same reason biologists avoid debates with creationists, and geographers don’t have debates with the Flat Earth Society. You can’t have a rational argument with someone whose worldview is firmly based in the irrational.”

          True, so true. Flat-earth diagramming Big Government-paid self-selected “scientists” have their personal and budgetary and self-interest and salaries all religiously involved in their denial of the actual measurements and calculations showing CGAW is a false religious principle. Hence, they refuse to expose their errors to scrutiny and correction, but rather, stand in front of B0g Government shills and propagandists.

      • “Wrong Daniel something recorded in video is the best. ”
        ooh the TV generation
        Your words Daniel, I just about peed myself laughing after you keep bringing up UT.

      • So if you think oil and coal are EVIL, stop hypocirtically using a computer , washer and dryer, and start living ling the Amish.

      • Max Sargent, your comment strikes me as a deceptive set up for a faith based sales pitch. Your absolute certainty is the stuff of sermons and partisan rants. Do you know anybody who doesn’t understand that humans affect Earth’s climate? I don’t. Is there a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, or a whatever, who doesn’t intuitively realize humans obviously affect their local environment, and local environment obviously affects the global environment. Welcome to Gaia, Max.
        Both sides of the political and science forces that are fractionalizing climate science are funded by fossil fuel investors. That includes pension funds, annuity retirement funds, mutual funds, any any other investment you might personally have.
        Why soul;d we be upset about them “lining their pockets? Whether they are public or private, profit or non-profit, communist or capitalist, those employment organizations that we call businesses that fail to regularly “line their pockets” with a profit or an increase charitable donations are on an extinction path. It’s called evolutionary reality..
        Back to your apparent absolute scientific certainty regarding mankind’s emissions of CO2, I highly recommend watching the video of Professor Murry Salby’s excellent March 15th London lecture in the link below. His research has the potential to change everything, but he cannot publish it for peer review until Australia’s Macquarie University releases his research files.
        We should all be raising responsible hell about a disgusting elitist academic attack on Salby. He has courageously turned his personal plight into what history may very well regard as a stunning scientific masterpiece.
        Salby’s lecture is here:

        Learn more about Salby’s struggle with censorship here:
        http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/12/censorship-climate-sceptics-culled-from-universities/

      • Republicans, like anyone else, will only “admit to man-made climate change” when there is evidence supporting the repeatedly falsified hypothesis that humans are primarily responsible for whatever climatic warming or cooling has actually been observed since c. 1950.
        At present, no such evidence exists. Indeed all the available real evidence plainly shows that humans have not been the main cause of “climate change”.

    • Daniel seems to have lost the ability to use the word “lose” and the word “loose” in a sentence. Perhaps that is because he was typing frantically, intent on being the first poster, yet again.
      Bob’s stuff takes so long to read and digest that clearly Daniel didn’t. Unfortunately the Senators will not either. How about a few bullet points, Bob, what Senators like to call an Executive Summary? I repeat my offer to help with this.

      • Dittos.
        The Senators don’t have time to read this, and the staffers don’t have the inclination to.

      • Michael Moon and Mike McMillan
        I don’t know about the other two but Sen. Inhofe has read studied and digested much longer information from me (although my information was not unsolicited).
        I am sure he is capable of encouraging the other two to read Tisdale’s letter, too.
        Richard

    • What you fail to understand is that many here, myself included actually come from the side of the Democrats. Up until I discovered that we had been lied to about so-called manmade global warming/climate change/chaos/disruption/weather, I was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. But the lie is so huge, and so damaging to democratic principles and to humanity itself that the issue supercedes all others. Undoubtedly, it has changed me politically. I will never again trust the Democrats, and will consider myself an Independent from now on. Make no mistake, Daniel. The days of the ideology (which is all it is) of Warmism are numbered. You are fighting a lost cause, and one wonders why. Either you are getting paid to, or you are an idiot. My guess would be the latter.

      • “The days of the ideology (which is all it is) of Warmism are numbered”
        yeah, deniers have been saying so since years.

      • btw, how is it ideology to accept AGW and think that Co2 emissions are a problem for future generations?
        how is that in any way ideology? that is what most experts think, and the evidence that has been presented is very convincing.
        what ideology is that?
        is science an ideology ?

      • Bruce Cobb wrote: “The days of the ideology (which is all it is) of Warmism are numbered.” Unfortunately…..the Premier of Ontario has not heard this and Monday committed her province (and the people and companies therein) to a cap-and-trade regime, to go along with (the madness in) Quebec and California. I can’t think of any reason other than political advantage and personal belief (like Obama in the USA). But, unfortunately, contrary to the words of Bruce, it indicates that warmism and ideology are very powerful when combined with political power. After all, what lawyer (which is what most of our elected representatives are) knows anything about science?
        Ian M

      • Daniel Kuhn
        April 14, 2015 at 7:13 am
        “what ideology is that?
        is science an ideology ?”
        ———————
        What do you think Daniel?
        What will your answer to these questions you pose will be?
        These do not seem rhetorical to me.
        Please do tell,,,,,, a question exist due to the answer……you made that question, please try to answer.
        By the way I am sure you are not a troll and you seem not to belong to any side….am I right?
        cheers

      • Whiten.
        mostly i get accused of being a communist or socialist or liberal, or just leftist.
        and i must hate capitalism as i accept AGW.
        “By the way I am sure you are not a troll and you seem not to belong to any side….am I right?”
        well the consensus here seems to be that i am a warmist. is that one side?

      • Daniel Kuhn
        April 14, 2015 at 12:42 pm
        Hello Daniel 🙂
        Thanks for the reply, appreciated.
        “well the consensus here seems to be that i am a warmist. is that one side?”
        It seems that you do not have a problem with that at all,,,,,,,,, even it seems to me that you enjoying it a lot :-).
        But to be honest I was more interested in your answer to your own questions about science and ideology.
        You do not have to answer…….if you feel like not very comfortable with it…
        Thanks again for your reply.
        cheers

    • Learn to spell “losing”.
      As to CAGW- it’s obviously a political issue, not a scientific issue. What actual science issues, palaeontology, astronomy, geology, result in governments telling people how to live their lives?

      • And poof… Danny goes away after posting a picture that even he can understand. Nice work.

      • See. Even the unscientific method of comparing projections to observations without accounting for the unpredictable factors like TSI and PDO timing shows that some models even projected less warming. Even less than UAH which is always cooler as it takes higher altitudes into account than lanbased datasets.
        Bzw who said the models are perfect?

      • Oh boy. You really think this is the first time i see Spencers graph, just because i am not fooled by Spencers approach.
        There is a reason he published it on his website and not in the scientific literature.

        • Envious. You’re making a nice salary, but not sharing with the poor folks whose lives are being ruined by the CAGW religion, nor those being taxed to pay your wages. 8<)

      • I don’t even understand the logic behind that last one liner, “paranoid?” Is that simply diversion just like half of your other posts?
        My working hypothesis on your mental state has now changed to that you suffer from narcissistic personality disorder AND you are paid to troll. I guess this line of work suits you, cheers. Still, seek help, you’ll be better off in the long run.
        https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

      • mmhh i really need to apply for such a troll job. someone would really pay me just to post here what i would post anyway?
        how much does that pay?

      • @RW. The Climate Change Lobby now has a problem. Most of the people who came through the US public school system in the last 20 years have been indoctrinated with the Global Warming Mantra.
        The problem is that they have never seen this “Global Warming” or its consequences.
        So now that Global Warming has gone out the window and been replaced by Climate Change, many are unable to adjust – they need to be de-programmed and re-programmed. This is not any easy task. As a result,identification of “Climate Change” as a serious prioblem has dropped below 50%. From a scientific point of view this does not matter. Whether something is happening or not does not depend strongly on how many people believe it. However, it does matter to politicians.,

      • You, Daniel, are the quack. Posing as some smug expert on science and the issue of climate change.

      • “So now that Global Warming has gone out the window and been replaced by Climate Change”
        LOL, now is 1988?

    • Daniel. “After loosing the scientific debate”.
      This one phrase indicates that you have no idea what science is. Debate, unlike politics, has no place in science. Science is about knowledge – facts.
      The reason that Global Warming models are wrong is not because some scientists have an opinion that they are wrong, but rather that they produce predictions that are false.
      You will still get idiots, particularly politicians, arguing that the models that predicted catastrophic warming that never occurred are actually correct, even though they have been wrong for almost two decades.

      • Daniel: You have to observe the data in reality – not in a model.. AGW or even Climate Change is not disputed. The question is how much, and whether it is beneficial. The Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming has already been falsified.
        You see to be the inventor of a new category of Climate Change-
        Anthropo-illogical Global Warming.

      • “You have to observe the data in reality – not in a model..”
        sure, how else would it be an observed fact.
        a combination of measurements lets you observe that fact.
        “The question is how much, and whether it is beneficial. ”
        most likely not beneficial and we are the dominant cause since 1950.
        “The Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming has already been falsified.”
        catastrophic?
        “You see to be the inventor of a new category of Climate Change-
        Anthropo-illogical Global Warming.”
        Clowns college?

      • There is not a shred of evidence supporting the baseless assertion that whatever warming has occurred since 1950 is primarily man-made.
        Higher CO2 so far as clearly been beneficial. The planet has greened. That’s a good thing. What harm do you imagine has occurred from increased plant food to offset this benefit?

      • “There is not a shred of evidence supporting the baseless assertion that whatever warming has occurred since 1950 is primarily man-made.”
        LOL. and here i was told on WUWT they are not deniers, they accept AGW…. you evidently don’t
        so why do you reject the evidence? what do you think is not ok with the evidence?

      • Daniel K sez:
        like the observed fact AGW?
        AGW has never been observed. DK adds:
        … measurements lets you observe that fact.
        Danny me boi, there are no measurements of AGW. I have been asking readers to post even one empirical, testable measurement quantifying the fraction of AGW, out of total global warming, for several years now. I’ve asked that dozens of times. But not one person has ever posted a measurement of AGW.
        I personally think that AGW probably exists. But it is simply too small to measure. Otherwise, we would have measurements quantifying AGW… duh.
        So by your own comment you falsify your position. Of course, if you have a verifiable, testable measurement quantifying the percentage of AGW out of all global warming, produce it. Post it here. You will be the first, and on the short list for a Nobel Prize.
        Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke.

      • “I personally think that AGW probably exists. But it is simply too small to measure. Otherwise, we would have measurements quantifying AGW… duh.”
        so if it were “larger”. how would you measure it ?

    • Just finally seizing the initiative after turning the tide of the false religion of “warmism”…….
      The evidence is there, you just refuse to open your eyes. After all, 97% of nobody believing in a false hypothesis can only be viewed as “faith”…..

      • It’s worse than that. There is no common hypothesis upon which to base any agreement. No citation. Your guess is as good as mine as to what they are in agreement upon. It seems the media is just as confused.

    • Hi Daniel! That’s it? Is that all you Warmists can come up with? Trolling? I enjoy WUWT because they have FACTS. You don’t. You only troll. I think that covers it perfectly.
      The response of you Warmists to all the uncomfortable FACTS is … trolling.
      Thank you for making that obvious.

      • Yeah, Daniel, you keep telling yourself that. You keep believing in Authority and computer programs and you keep avoiding the real data. Everything is fine, keep believing.

      • Daniel, you BELIEVE whatever you were told but you never evaluated the FACTS. You can’t respond to this discussion with REAL, applicable facts and real, logical arguments because you’ve never evaluated and studied the subject for yourself.
        All you know is “Appeal to Authority” but you can’t think or evaluate for yourself. Unlike you, I don’t BELIEVE anything, not from you Warmists and not from skeptics. I only trust what I can evaluate for myself based on the most raw data I can find. I embrace questions and look for answers.
        You defend Authority without thinking because you’ve been told that’s “good”. You attack ALL who question your precious Authority because you’ve been told that’s “good”. No Daniel, that’s anti-science at its worst.

      • “Daniel, you BELIEVE whatever you were told but you never evaluated the FACTS. You can’t respond to this discussion with REAL, applicable facts and real, logical arguments because you’ve never evaluated and studied the subject for yourself. ”
        LOL, off course you need to believe that everyone that accepts AGW, has never done any research into it…
        i mean else i would know about WUWT , Climate depot, climate etc , hockeyschtick , realscience etc etc etc…
        and if i know them, off course i would know that this AGW thing is a huge hoax and that actually a mini ice age is comming yadda yadda yadda….
        when the science is so evidently faked, how lousy must you guys be to still fail to convince the majority even in the US…..

    • Suggest that readers from Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas who agree with Bob Tisdale email and/or tweet your respective senator:
      FL: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
      OK: http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
      TX: http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=email_senator
      Tell them you are in agreement with the letter that was recently sent to them by Bob Tisdale.
      Enough of such responses will almost certainly impel the senators to read and consider what Bob wrote.

    • The scientific debate has never been had. When a cabal of researchers prevent novel and opposing views from being published and get editors fired when one has the temerity to allow an article through that questions the orthodoxy, no debate has occurred.
      Your comments are those of a half-witted child that comes home from school claiming the teacher said the sky is green, when your own eyes would have told you it is blue. Appeals to authority make one feel safe, but throughout history, the authorities have been wrong on almost every issue. Only when science was allowed to argue with competing theories have advances been made.

      • Oh Danny Boyoh,
        If you don’t believe in some form of creation then you must be a steady stater infinite universe devotee

    • You kind of remind me of a smart ass little brother trying to provoke an older sibling in order to get them in trouble – lot’s of snark, lots of cheek, little substance, and fully deserving of the bloody nose he runs to mom with. This is why Lefty-types tend to congregate around guys like John Stewart.

      • Could not agree more just ignore him every one he is what we used to call an “agitator”, I guess these days “troll” is the new word, as I said ignore him please.

    • Um, Daniel, nobody “looses” the scientific debate simply because YOU pronounce them the loser. You are, as we say in Texas, all hat, no cattle. Both debates can proceed apace without your help thank you very much. And calling all of your political opponents “anti-science” is just a pose for your lack of knowledge and intellect.

      • “Now get in the corner and stare at it for 10 minutes. And quit talking to yourself!”
        atleast 2 models are below observation.
        and this without even accounting for real TSI, Aerosolsm PDO timing etc etc…..
        btw, what modeloutput was used? the 2 meter above ground one? why compare it to a satellite dataset then? oooh right, casting doubt is the goal,

      • Daniel Kuhn
        You say

        “Now get in the corner and stare at it for 10 minutes. And quit talking to yourself!”
        atleast 2 models are below observation.
        and this without even accounting for real TSI, Aerosolsm PDO timing etc etc…..
        btw, what modeloutput was used? the 2 meter above ground one? why compare it to a satellite dataset then? oooh right, casting doubt is the goal,

        No. You are providing an example of the ‘Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy’.
        Obviously, there is no possibility of you understanding logical fallacies so I refer you to my post that provides this recent explanation of its being used as you have used it.
        And you have repeatedly demonstrated that you lack the intellectual capacity to click a mouse to obtain information so I copy that post to here.

        Michael 2:
        In addition to your magic trick I draw your attention to a trick used by scammers.
        A set of, say 4, different investment plans is devised.
        Each investment plan is sent to, say 4000, random people.
        At a later date one (or more) of the plans has provided a very good return.
        Those who were sent the ‘successful’ plan are now sent a report of its ‘success’ together with another investment plan. These new investment plans are another 4 different investment plans so 4 groups each of 1000 people each obtains one of these second plans.
        Again, at a later date one (or more) of the second plans has provided a very good return.
        Those who were sent the ‘successful’ second plan are now sent a report of its ‘success’ together with a third investment plan. These new investment plans are another 4 different investment plans so 4 groups each of 250 people each obtain one of them.
        Yet again, at a later date one (or more) of the third plans has provided a very good return.
        Those who were sent the ‘successful’ third plan are now sent a report of its ‘success’ together with an offer to invest $10,000 in the next investment plan which uses the astonishingly accurate prediction method that has apparently been successful three times without fail.
        If 100 of the 250 targeted people invests then the scammers gain an income of $1,000,000.
        This is, in fact, the same ploy as is used when the ‘best’ climate models are selected after the event.
        Richard

        Richard

    • Oh, Daniel, you are so clearly a recent product of the flawed indoctrination, oops, I mean educational system.
      You can’t even distinguish between loosing, and losing.
      And that is just for starters….

  2. Spot on Bob Tisdale: absolutely bloody SPOT ON !
    That should give the “bed-wetters” something to think about.
    Very Many thanks indeed.

  3. Thanks Bob. Let us just hope junior staff read it and put it before these guys. Unfortunately the chances of this happening are slim, but eventually sense will prevail thanks to your effort and the ongoing effort of others.

  4. I wish we could get this whole thing out of the hands of politics. This is a scientific question, and only science can answer it. Politics just poisons the debate and slows down the science. The greatest “advances” I have made are always from cordial discourse with those with whom I fundamentally disagree.

    • No amount of scientific evidence will prove the baseless claims of the Warmunistas. Why? Because they are ideological in nature. WUWT should continue to provide articles with respect to the science, but in reality, the real battle lies elsewhere.

  5. Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
    Excellent post by Bob Tisdale that covers the key questions that need answering in the funding of climate research. One point that no sane person could argue with:
    “If we are going to be able to adapt to climate change, regardless of whether it is manmade or natural, the climate science community needs a much better grasp of how climate on Earth actually works, not how it works in models.”
    No private corporation would survive based on the abysmal return on investment offered by the current climate models. Worse, governments everywhere are squandering resources that would be better spent on adapting in practical ways to the climate change that we can see all around us today.

  6. C’mon Bob. You are against modeling??? HOW THE HECK ARE WE GOING TO GET BETTER WITHOUT RESEARCHING AND DEVELOPING BETTER SIMULATIONS AND PROJECTIONS? The problem is not modelling and model research Bob, its people who, because they have no real world experience in how the atmosphere works ( ie, have to make forecasts where you get fired if wrong) then take the models as gospel and in a religious fervor, force them down our throats. That is the problem. But funding research and trying to develop better models AS TOOLS to aid in forecasts is exactly what we should be doing
    If I did not know and respect you the way I do, I would look at this as anti science. The real travesty is that people believe, because THEY CANT FORECAST SOMETHING, that they have an answer and then are so arrogant they force it down others throat. That we can agree on

    • Yes l have to agree with Joe on this.
      lf you are not happy with the work been done. Then you should blame the workman, not the tools.

    • Joe, when I first read,
      “•Why are taxpayers funding climate model-based research when those models are not simulating Earth’s climate?”
      I had a little bit of the same reaction you did. However, I then focused on, “when those models are not simulating Earth’s climate?”
      In reading the rest of the post I found this position well supported, in that the IPCC uses the modeled mean of wrong in one direction models to “forecast” future harms. So Bob is in no way making an “I hate models ” in general statement.

      • Joe B, an off topic question Regarding the Calif. drought; the current SST pattern in the NH pacific does not appear to match a negative PDO, which is what a warm dry SW US pattern is based on. Yet we are dry anyway with the RRR blocking.
        Do you see the PDO moving soon to a more normal negative pattern, with cooler waters along the Calif. coast, and if so a less extreme dryness (still dryer then a positive PDO, but less then the current drought) then produced by the RRR?

    • Joe, in his ‘Closing’ statement, he quite clearly says that he just wants scientists to be given the chance to create better models without losing their funding. i.e. he wants scientists to be able to be sceptical, without punitive action being taken against them. Observation is better than models, but if we must have models, then let them be programmed correctly.

      • That was my interpretation as well.
        Poorly constructed models have no place in climate/weather forecasting, but well constructed ones an be very useful.

    • Joe – I read it differently. The models they have developed so far are useless. That’s not an attack on modelling, it’s an attack on a particular set of useless models.

      • I would disagree that the models are useless. They are being used improperly would be more accurate. It is the use that they are put to that makes them appear worthless.
        A sledge hammer is a useful tool, in the right application, but it has little value if you are building a circuit board.
        The fact that the tools are ill suited to the task required does not address the question as to whether more money should be spent on them. If it is to develop better tools, it is money well spent. If it is money spent to produce yet another sledge hammer, then it is wasted.
        I think Bob and Joe (as well as quite a few WUWT denizens) would agree:
        Are climate models useful? Yes.
        Are climate models useful for long term predictions? No.
        Should money be allocated to develop better models? Yes.
        Should money be allocated to develop yet another model that works on the same basic parameters as the current models. No.

      • Mike. They key problem is not that the climate models are broken – it is that they can not be fixed. Freeman Dyson’s talk explains why in a simply but unequivocable way. Christopher Essex’s talk is much more technical, but really hammers the nail in the coffin. However, you need to understand fluid dynamics and numerical solutions to differential equations to appreciate his talk.

    • Howdy Joe, Mr. Bastardi,
      I am impressed with the current state of modern weather forecasting and look forward to any improvements, in future. However, I also realize that weather model outputs begin to fail after a handful of days and looking beyond a couple of weeks in future, are about as accurate as the old Farmer’s Almanac.
      I don’t think you guys are going to improve much with long- range forecasting, nor do I think that climate models will ever approach “accurate, precise” predictions, either. Why? Because of the work of Edward Lorenz, way back in the early 60’s.

      • I’ve read where today’s forecast is 80% accurate; tomorrow’s is 60%; the day after is 40%, so by 5 days out it’s merely a guess. That’s why Weather.com added a 5-day forecast a while back. Before that, they were offering a 10-day forecast and the last 5 days of that was pretty much worthless.

    • Joe, If a weather forecast model was consistently wrong, you’d stop trusting it. Nobody would buy it.
      You might keep working on it if it was salvageable. But if it continued to never be accurate, you’d use a different model.
      You don’t have the luxury of claiming today’s forecast will it be right next year. It’s got to be right (or close enough to actual events) to be salable and trustworthy.
      Not to put words in Bob’s mouth, but I think his point is that, when it comes to climate models their “forecast” have been way off yet some still find a to reason to buy (sell?) them….And we’re footing the bill.

    • Yep . It’s this determined watermelon idiocy which has given modeling a bad name . Computational models are essential for understanding complex phenomena .
      That’s why I keep pressing for creation of an open APL level planetary model : http://cosy.com/y14/CoSyNL201410.html#Need . Such languages can express the physics in efficiently executable form as or more succinctly and completely than the notation in any traditional physics text .
      Simply calculating the temperature of a gray ball in our orbit explains 97% of our temperature . Adding the computation for arbitrary spectra shows that Jame Hansen’s claim that Venus is a “runaway greenhouse” is quantitatively absurd by an order of magnitude .
      Coming at this insanity as a quantitatively competent layman , I’m more interested in quantitatively understanding the physics step by step in the classical analytical method of physics . Let me know that I can compute the temperature distribution in a radiantly heated cat’s eye marble before I worry about dynamics .
      I have yet to see anything approaching a quantitative explication of our estimated 3% over the gray body temperature in our orbit , and I see no chance of explaining the ~ 0.3% variation over recent centuries until I can quantitatively explain the 3% to at least 4 decimal places .

  7. Excellent again Bob.
    The bad part is that the three politicians won’t ever see or read your letter.
    At “best”, some junior staffer will skim it and if it doesn’t match with what ever polling data they currently have, won’t get it to their boss.

  8. Serious question: Are these funded models public? How can we look at them?
    Thanks in Advance,
    Mike

  9. Bob,
    I would like to have your permission use much of this letter to communicate with another political body.
    Is it OK with you?

  10. Science and logic are not political. Movements such as environmentalism are political. The left hijacked this debate because they took it on as the political “cash cow” environmental issue of our times. If environmentalism was solely based in science I would be on board with greenpeace and the Epa and everybody else. There is racism ideology, sexism ideology, partisanism and economic political ideologies tied into all these groups. Just take an eco-feminism course in college if you want your head to do mental gymnastics.ou are left to decipher the insane fabricated history and ecology and the supposed role of gender in protecting the planet from men..well let’s be honest here.”white men.” I had to stop being liberal when they started believing their own bs. I had to stop being an environmentalist when the science became secondary to emotional tribal ideologies.based on folklore and myth.

  11. Good luck with this, Bob. I’ll support it.
    I’ve been thinking about how to involve presidential candidates and other influential people in matters of climate and I suspect that addressing models, IPCC etc. while important for sure, doesn’t get directly to issues they can understand with clarity – they’re not scientists or engineers.
    My question is instead: what are your visions for energy production that can move US businesses and economy forward?
    They will only address matters that return votes or support.
    I have others about EPA and “CO2 pollution”, but also think those delve into arguable arenas they may not care to address due to an increasingly ignorant public.
    Thanks for your work.

    • Bubba Cow – Spot on. The Senators are concerned with issues of the United States of America, period (and their political lives). To Mr. Tisdale – Great (if verbose) technical synthesis of where we are at; a recommendation if I may? Being that you address US Senators, and the imposition of (fiat or otherwise) environmental law is through the US Environmental Protection Agency here in the good ole US of A, and further given that the EPA Endangerment Finding for “Carbon Dioxide as Air Pollution” (therefore subject to EPA regulation) – was based upon the ‘preponderance’ of evidence found in the IPCC report(s) – therein lies your tie from IPCC (an international body) to the EPA (a USA body). I fear that without this critical tie from the global to the national, this will be read but not fully understood? Just one man’s opinion.
      Overall, great work if difficult to read due to the vast amount of information.
      Regards,

  12. @Charlie
    +1
    Bingo. For all of us who love science and love the study of the universe we live in, we are fighting a battle on two distinct fronts.
    The first front and the tip of our spear has to be political rhetoric that digs deep into the flesh of the phony “science” peddlers that conspire to deceive and defraud the taxpaying public. It’s clear from the emails released by the whistle blower inside CRU that fraud is taking place and it is aided and abetted by a political movement designed to fleece taxpayer funds from the treasury.
    The second front is education of the general public about the true nature of science. WUWT is by far one of the best resources to educate yourself on the history and science of earths atmosphere. The general public needs to know that a perfectly valid answer from scientists and engineers on many different questions is “we don’t know”. Only a con man would say “the science is settled”.
    I recommend we keep these two battle fronts in mind when considering comments from those of us on the same side of the war. Let’s not fight ourselves when we see sharp rhetoric aimed against the con men and their thieving conspirators. We’re on the same side, just engaged in battle on different sections of the front line.

  13. Bob (or anyone else), would you like to comment on this thought about climate models: The models work on a very large number of small space-time slices, and from them build the ‘bigger picture’. My thought is that by using this bottom-up method the models must be more accurate at a regional level than at the global level because they, as it were, go through the regional to reach the global. But the models are useless at the regional level eg. the CA drought), so surely they must be even more useless at the global level?

    • mike.. the science isn’t there to make such predictions in climate. The climate modelers and other warmists have the tactic of making things sound way more complicated then they need to be. This way they can keep people from trying to understand the science. The models are trying to predict proxies to fill in a hypothesis. The climatic observation of these proxies has never supported the hypothesis. The temperatures, tropospheric hot spots,more warming in the troposphere, or eve sea level have not been a match or even close. The latest sea level measurements show a spike recently but I for one think they are not reliable. if there was total transparency in the raw data and methodology maybe, but there isn’t and the other proxies haven’t budged or acted in correspondence to what such a raise in sea level would logically need..

      • Agree, but I should have made it clear that I was working off the theoretical premise that the models work: If the models work at all, then because they are bottom up they must be better for regional than for global.

      • Mike Jonas:
        You say

        Agree, but I should have made it clear that I was working off the theoretical premise that the models work: If the models work at all, then because they are bottom up they must be better for regional than for global.

        Yes, and I used the same assumption to assess if the ‘aerosol fix’ was a proper correction for the Hadley Centre model having run hot.
        (ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).
        The model’s degree of excess warming was indicated by how much the model ran hot so that magnitude of cooling was input and was spatially distributed according to estimated spatial distribution of anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) aerosols notably oxides of sulphur and nitrogen. If the aerosol cooling was the problem then this input of cooling should have improved the comparison of spatial distribution of temperature changes measured and modeled over the twentieth century. In fact, it increased the disagreement; for example the model indicated most cooling where most warming had happened, and indicated most warming where most cooling had happened.
        Clearly, the aerosols were NOT the cause of the model ‘running hot’. However, this fix was adopted for each other model but each model used a different fix. This arbitrary selection of different aerosol effect magnitude for each model was acceptable because the true magnitude is not known.
        in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
        (ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
        Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.
        Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen here.
        Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:

        Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.

        It shows that
        (a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^2 to 2.02 W/m^2
        but
        (b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^2 to -0.60 W/m^2.
        In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
        So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
        As you say, “If the models work at all, then because they are bottom up they must be better for regional than for global”, but are they worse for regional than for global and this confirms that they don’t work at all.
        Richard

  14. When I was a kid i believed in santa and when i was told at age 8 there was no santa ,it took we a number of years to come to that santa was not real , but it was a lot of fun in believing In him , but as far as global warming goes it is no fun believing in global warming just ask the people who believe in santa .

  15. Bob writes:
    “…when those models are not simulating Earth’s climate”
    But if you were to read the Wikipedia entry concerning the dataset produced by the two temperature satellite systems, as these politicians might, one would be left with the impression that this data has now been “error corrected” to line up with the models. Yes it is Wikipedia and some of the reference links don’t work, but what sources or info can be cited to dispel the impression this entry leaves?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Comparison_with_other_data_and_models
    RBG

    • It seems to me this article goes out of its way to avoid visually displaying the data from the latest, corrected surface and satellite datasets. I’m sure that the display of this data will “clarify” what this article is trying to say.

  16. Bob, once again another excellent post, I think what you said about the IPCC and the “want” to control CO2 as opposed to a demonstrable “need” is probably the crux of the whole thing, since there has been no warming for over 18 years. The fact that there are over ninety models with all of them exaggerating the global temperatures can only help your case.

  17. Am afraid the only thing that will change the politicians views on AGW.
    ls if they fear it becomes a vote loser for them, which explains all the spin you get from them. About “How they must save the planet”.

  18. The fundamental error here is that it perpetuates the old canard that “models are not accurate”. The models have been surprisingly accurate even as far back as 1999 (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/nclimate1763/metrics/news) and continue to be so. It’s *possible* that the author and most commenters aren’t just politically motivated, and actually don’t understand how models work or are interpreted, so I will give y’all the benefit of the doubt.
    The reason why you’re losing this fight is because unless you’re nuts or wearing politi-goggles, you can now see climate change happening with your own eyes.

    • this is an example of the cognitive dissonance we are up against like this poster just portrayed. When anybody can find past modeling projections and then the climatic observation to see how accurate models are. They are total misses for more than have the observation period. That is not that hard to do. I have no idea when people say things like this if they have done the research unless they don’t care about facts or science. i good good rule of thumb is to stay away from climate journalism,,even Nasa and Noaa journalism. Just read theghard data and real studies.

    • As I pointed out above that is not a mainstream view.
      The Pause has been going on for 15 years. Since the 1999 is about the same time.
      To quote the IPCC again.

      Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus.

      Sir Harry Flashman, you are promoting loony fringe beliefs.
      The models do not work. They do not work for the purposes of making policy (the subject of this article).
      And you have picked a timeframe for which that statement is indisputably true.

      • “The models do not work.” The key point is not that the models don’t work, it is that they CAN”T work. They will NEVER work. Listen to the Freeman Dyson and Christopher Essex talks on WUWT.

        • You can watch videos or you could look at the science.
          The latest examination of the fit between model predictions and global temperatures was published in Nature by Marotzke and Forster (2015). Their conclusion, “Here we analyse simulations and observations of GMST from 1900 to 2012, and show that the distribution of simulated 15-year trends shows no systematic bias against the observations….The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded.”
          Until there is a peer-reviewed publication that refutes their analysis, the best science indicates the models are doing a good job of predicting global temperatures.

      • Luke read the real date and real studies. No offense but nature magazine is just journalism. Environmental journalism is not reliable on this issue. That source is not impressing anybody

      • Wow Charlie you are revealing your lack of knowledge about the scientific literature. Nature is one of the most prestigious science journals in the world. It is a peer-reviewed scientific journal and it’s impact factor (number of scientific citations per article published) is higher than Science. Take a look at the article, you will see it is pure science, not an environmental magazine.

      • Luke:
        Read this – you might change your mind about the quality of the peer review process in Nature.
        “Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation.
        Stefan Rahmstorf, Jason E. Box, Georg Feulner, Michael E. Mann, Alexander Robinson, Scott Rutherford & Erik J. Schaffernicht”.

    • Sir Harry Flashman no one doubts that the climate can change. The real issue here is that it is claimed to be man made.

    • Sir Harry Flashman April 14, 2015 at 6:15 am
      The fundamental error here is that it perpetuates the old canard that “models are not accurate”. The models have been surprisingly accurate even as far back as 1999

      Really? Just about every model run produces results that are increasingly departing from observed reality. So much that they now vary by more than 2 S.D.s from observed gast data – even further from satellite data. On the other hand, they are useful in showing that the modelers don’t have a clue about climate processes on this planet

    • Sir Harry, you are imcorrect. The models did NOT work up to 1999, even with parameter tuning. Theynrun hot now because they were tuned (from 1975 to 2005 per the CMIP5 ‘experimental protocol’ ) to a period with natural warming attributed wrongly attributed to CO2. For several concrete examples drawn from CMIP5, and an explanationnas to why these models cannot ‘work’ even in theory, see essay Models all the way Down in ebook Blowing Smoke. The book also contains several other examples of provably false journal articles in addition to the one you reference.

    • Sir Harry
      Your last sentence is beyond stupid. Of course we can see climate change happening with our own eyes. The climate is always changing! If your eyes are open you will see it. The Global temperature on the other hand is not changing very much if any for the last 18 years 4 months. Also keep in mind that the total warming is only 0.79 degrees C over the last 153 years. Hardly catastrophic.

    • Skeptics aren’t losing, Flasher. Public support for the fantasy of catastrophic man-made global warming has never been lower than now. The GOP controls both houses of Congress. Australian and Canadian PMs rightly consider Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism to be a crock.
      The models cannot possibly be “accurate”, since their assumptions are false, and, no surprise, they’ve in fact been shown ever more ludicrously inaccurate year after year. They are worse than worthless GIGO.

      • The fossil fuel companies, their paid political shills, and their useful idiots have done a great PR job, I’ll give you that. But since it’s becoming evident to pretty much everyone that it’s NOT climate business as usual, just as predicted, it’s not a battle you’re going to win. Not everyone is that delusional.

      • There is not the least shred of evidence that anything climatic in the past century is other than business as usual. Hence, your delusion is sure to be shown preposterous, as the past two decades have already demonstrated, as of course did the cooling from the late ’40s to ’70s, despite steadily rising CO2.

        • The latest examination of the fit between model predictions and global temperatures was published in Nature by Marotzke and Forster (2015). Their conclusion, “Here we analyse simulations and observations of GMST from 1900 to 2012, and show that the distribution of simulated 15-year trends shows no systematic bias against the observations….The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded.”
          Until there is a peer-reviewed publication that refutes their analysis, the best science indicates the models are doing a good job of predicting global temperature.

      • Harry,
        Which fossil fuel companies do you imagine have persuaded the public that CACA is a crock? No such campaign exists & would be superfluous anyway, since nature has so conclusively made the skeptics’ case.
        Quite the opposite. Most if not all energy companies are on the lucrative CACA bandwagon for as long as the political scam is in their shareholders’ interests.

      • Wow Harry,
        How many already disproven CAGW talking points can you throw out in one sentence! Except for the coal industry, every other sector of the fossil fuel business has positioned themselves to make a killing off of INSANE CO2 policies put forth by government. It isn’t in their best interest to stop this train wreck, so they aren’t funding skeptics to say anything, and in fact, are funding most of the CAGW research labs to very high levels.
        As for the “not climate business as usual”, I have to ask, Are you out of your teens? All of the events we see in climate right now have happened before in my lifetime. There is no change in any of the large patterns that haven’t changed before. California has had droughts before, Boston has had blizzards before, England has had floods before, on and on. There has been no increase in severity of weather events! There has been an increase in the reported damages from time to time, but that is because we have more structures in areas that are subject to severe weather damage. Apparently there has been an increase in people who can believe 6 impossible things before breakfast though.

      • Yirgach: Not sure where you came up with that whopper of a lie. The paper focuses on comparing data to models. Take a look at Figure 1. The black circles are the observed trend based on the data, the colors the probability distribution of the models. Figures 1b and 1c also provide the observed trend (black vertical line). Don’t rely on WattsUp articles, take a look at the actual paper and form your own ideas.

    • SHF;
      Even a model airplane requires solid physics to fly. It will fall out of the sky or self destructs if they are wrong.
      AGW’s physics are wrong as demonstrated by the models which all fail (fail to fly).
      Prediction being the next to last stage of the falsification process requires that we look at the real world and compare the model to the real world. Without exception, all current modeling fails 100% of the time. The physics are wrong so the models crash and burn…
      I wouldn’t employe you to build model airplanes for me with your fantasy physics.

  19. These two lines are at the heart of the matter:
    … climate models are virtual reality. They are no more real than the computer-generated imagery … in movies. [Bob Tisdale]
    None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state … [Kevin Trenberth]

  20. The reason the models don’t work and Trenberth can’t find his “missing heat”is so simple its not funny.The models assume that the atmosphere/ocean interaction obeys the laws of thermodynamics. This is not the case. No heat passes from the atmosphere into the ocean. I don’t know how but surface tension blocks it totally. You can not heat a gas such as co2 and have that heat affect the ocean in any way. Don’t believe me get a heat gun and try it.
    If the ocean obeyed the laws of thermodynamics places like Sydney nsw which regularly has temperatures of mid thirties the ocean would be mid thirties but the trouble is cyclones start at 26.5degs. The ocean only accepts radiation from the sun, nothing in addition. For this reason AGW is complete nonsense and there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas.

  21. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state … [Kevin Trenberth]
    So they are wrong for the whole world to see, compounded errors and all!

  22. Should mention the IPCC to the MIT folks for an Ignominious Award ‘For Excellence In Irreproducible Results’.
    Ha ha.

  23. The Irish Mail on Sunday (September 12, 2010) published a Quote of The Week by Michael O’Leary, head of Ryanair, which is still relevant today. Michael O’Leary carefully weighed up the evidence on global warming with the following gem:
    “It is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the f****** weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the f****** global temperatures will be in 100 year’s time. It’s horse****.”

    • ““It is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the f****** weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the f****** global temperatures will be in 100 year’s time. It’s horse****.””
      he really is that ignorant? he think Meteorologists make climate preojections? and he thinks Climatologists think the models are absolutely precise?…..
      sounds like he is getting his science from blogs…..

      • Kuhn

        he think Meteorologists make climate preojections? (sic) and he thinks Climatologists think the models are absolutely precise?…..

        Odd. The self-selected climastrologists refuse to produce error bars on their projections for the next 85 years – when they cannot even predict 15 years from their latest models run even 2 years ago. See, the climatrologists DO make great publicity off of 0.001 changes in temperature records – when even that record has less than a 38% chance of being correct. And, most of America’s meteorologists – who DO KNOW weather and climate trends – oppose their Washington-based bureaucratic society’s political claims and advertisements.

      • “most of America’s meteorologists – who DO KNOW weather and climate trends”
        yeah, like most biologists – who DO KNOW God – reject that hell based evilution…..
        dream on

  24. No. Also the Federal Government in Washington is funding the Climate Modellers. Aka NASA and NOAA (CM2 Global Coupled Climate Models (CM2.X), Hansen and others) .
    To cut those fundings ist a good thing. When science don´t work, we must cut down the donate by the states taxpayers and bring them to the level of other intransparent science like “cold fusion”. But so far, to untertake no mistake, “cold fusion” is working better than ” climate modelling” according to novel results.
    The climate modellers can make an application in the future, if they trump up modells which are working really good.

  25. Bob Tisdale:
    Nice article. Thank you for writing it! However.
    That article is an absolutely horrid letter to leading senator chairs!
    All of that rather slow reading and obtuse detail guarantees that the senators will never read it.
    At best they will designate some staff assistant to summarize.
    At worst, some letter opener and forwarder will send it to someone who’ll grab one or two opinions and include them as part of a recent poll. Sorry, at that level they’re not collected as facts, but opinions.
    Please consider writing a short succinct very direct letter.
    Sadly, attachments will likely be discarded once the letter is opened; but still attach the details. Do include in the letter, as a footnote, links to the details online. That way anybody that might receive the letter as an assignment can quickly find and read the details.

  26. “btw, how is it ideology to accept AGW and think that Co2 emissions are a problem for future generations?”
    This word, “Accept.” This is a word that, in this context, would be more appropriately used at a Revival Meeting as one staggers up to the front row and “Accepts Jesus.”
    Science is not anything to be Accepted. Science is something to be understood, debated on its merits, studied, and never ever Accepted. The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three Scientists who discovered Dark Energy. Well, this week in 2015 their research has been blown up, those Type IA Supernovas turn out not to be identical after all and so cannot measure the speed of distant galaxies, bye-bye Dark Energy. So, Daniel, whenever someone tells you “The Science Is Settled,” put your hand over your wallet because you are being conned…

  27. I would love to know exactly what is occurring today that would convince Flashman that the climate is changing rapidly and causing all sorts of problems. I’m 62 years old. I have been an outdoorsman for at least 54 of those years, which requires one to be aware of the weather/climate. In my world, the climate has not changed enough to be noticed. If I didn’t have the MSM and folks like Flashman telling me about how bad climate change is at the moment, I would never have noticed. Not a scientific post, just an observation about reality. Models are not reality. Again, what is it about the climate that has become so dire. Specifics please. And we all know the stats show that fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, pine beetles, malaria, etc., etc. have not gotten any worse.

    • I looked at the work at your site on this issue. Interesting.
      Hadcrut 4 vs. Series 32 comparison graph. Good relationship from 1930 to now but not so good from 1850 to 1929.
      Any idea why?

      • Nice catch. Notice that the model is not able to project cooling, only warming, or perhaps flat. In the World Class TTA study, it appeared that (at least in Europe), Little Ice Age effects continued until 1900 or so. I think those earlier cooler records are not reproduced by the model.
        Remember, this was the best of the 42 models; it did quite well, compared to most all of the others.

      • Thank you for your answer.
        I don’t like going before 1958 since this is the beginning of reliable monthly/yearly CO2 atmospheric concentrations. Your answer reminds me of being skeptical about the yearly “annual global temperature” values of the past. So many elements have changed, capable of affecting these values.
        It will be interesting to see if this particular model continues to tract 2010-2020. If so, it would be 90 years of good correlation between actual and model.

    • Thank you Dr Svalgaard.
      I note this quote,

      “We too quickly turn to the policy implications of our work and forget the basic science,” adds Bjorn Stevens, a director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, and a co-author of the Nature Geoscience paper. Although climate scientists agree on the basics — for example, climate change is primarily the result of human activity — large uncertainties persist in ‘climate sensitivity’, the increase in average global temperature caused by a given rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide.

      Even those who think that the climate doesn’t change except primarily by the hand of man… even they accept that the basic science isn’t ready for use in policy making.
      The models do not work.

      • “We don’t need the models to know what the past looks like.”
        Correct. You ‘adjusted’ the historical data to suit your hypothetical and political needs!
        Then declared the original, unadjusted data no longer exists. Oopsey!

      • “Climate scientists agree” that “climate change is primarily the result of human activity?”
        This confirms the assessment of a meteorologist quoted in a 1976 NYTimes article about global cooling, who said said of climate scientists: “some of their stuff is right out of fantasy land.”

      • “Even those who think that the climate doesn’t change except primarily by the hand of man”
        what exactly do you mean with “doesn’t change except primarily by the hand of man”
        since 1950. or in general?

      • Mac the Knife,

        You ‘adjusted’ the historical data to suit your hypothetical and political needs!

        Then why didn’t “I” adjust it and/or the models to obtain a far more convincing fit?

        Oopsey!

        I know right? Pretty stupid of “me”.

  28. Bob:
    IMHO, the most interesting articles recently on WUWT were talks by Christopher Essex, Freeman Dyson and Murry Salby.
    The first two insist that it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce Climate Models that have any predictive power beyond a few days.
    Murry Salby suggests that “the magic molecule” (man-made) CO2 does not exist for more than 10 years in the atmosphere before it is re-absorbed and that the effects of man-made CO2 on climate are grossly exaggerated.
    Dyson also brings up the the important point that CO2 increase has produced benefits that are both measurable and irrefutable. even while global temperature increase has stalled.
    So my question is why are we spending all this money on climate change models if we know in advance that they can not be made to work?

    • “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
      Upton Sinclair

  29. Bob, my regrets that disruption tactics were used to derail the discussion. Those who come here with their minds full of themselves have little room left to absorb what is going on. I hope that you get meaningful responses from all three candidates. It may be a truly cold day in “the formerly American sector of the UN Empire” (hell) by the time the admission is made that the consensus was based upon incomplete information.

    • Please feel free to pass along my limerick on sustainability:
      If you like your energy sustainable,
      You must first make the climate trainable.
      When the wind blows just right,
      And the sun shines all night,
      I think that it might be attainable!
      “Tom”

    • And please, bob, if you get their attention, ask for a REconsensus of the present scientific community on the anthropogenic causality of the observed data over the decades since they last opined om this issue.

  30. Bob Tisdale: “I am an independent researcher [except for the biases I have established in my data presentations with the support of my undisclosed financial backers and current employer] who studies [without any basic understanding of the scientific principles behind] global warming and climate change [since I never have been formally trained on the subject of global atmospheric climate dynamics or even basic physics]…”
    What are these politicians going to say when questioned? “I am not a scientist but according to this other non-scientist, Bob Tisdale who never discloses (for some unknown, hidden reason) his work experience and background on any of his published material and blog sites, we really think everyone else should believe what we say because…”
    In other words, its just the blind leading the blind.

  31. Why do you answer to that Daniel?
    I enjoy reading WUWT but I’m tired being forced to skip nearly every second comment. I suppose he wants to destroy the discussion.
    So – please – ignore him.

    • Trolls are handy to the extent that they allow those commenting many golden opportunities to trot out the realities presented by WUWT and other sites that can be used as mini refresher courses for those behind in the discussions (best done as precisely as possible to limit wasted verbiage). An example concerning climate modelers is here:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/are-climate-modelers-scientists/
      Article provides examples of all of the following concerning climate modelers:
      * They neither respect nor understand the distinction between accuracy and precision.
      * They understand nothing of the meaning or method of propagated error.
      * They think physical error bars mean the model itself is oscillating between the uncertainty
      extremes. (I kid you not.)
      * They don’t understand the meaning of physical error.
      * They don’t understand the importance of a unique result.
      Bottom line? Climate modelers are not scientists. Climate modeling is not a branch of physical science. Climate modelers are unequipped to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.

      • BFL:
        Not to the current crop of doofus’s bombing the threads with nonsense.
        These sad versions of sock puppets use any rumor, suspicion, no matter how false or inconsequential to claim solid science as rebutted.
        They then pretend, since they must know, that none of their CAGW research or researchers are rebutted or falsified. These sock puppets thread bomb supposed responses to honest science with claims for their falsified CAGW nonsense while ignoring the solid answers in previous threads that destroy their childish beliefs.
        These sock puppets are here to try and cause as much havoc as possible. They are either unemployed anti-social has-beens or employed by big green PR machines and paid by the noise they make. Note, their insistent claim that skeptic sites and posters are funded by Koch Brothers yet are blind to the overwhelming proof that big green funding and funders far outweigh and outspend Koch. Such blindness is intentional.
        Don’t try to engage the sock puppets. They are not in control of their lives or comments nor do they care for honest science.

    • +100 said the same thing on this and other threads, at times the mods should give him at most 2 answers and put him in the corner with a dunce hat ( or am I giving away my age then?)

  32. will be fun to watch the next hearings in the US senate, will the anti science senators read from the economist again when they have a real expert in front of them? or will he read from WUWT…. or the bible again?

      • how ironic that you say that on a thread about a letter to , among others, Jim Snowball Inhofe….. the whole world laughed at that anti science clown. Next time he might be quoting WUWT and we might laugh even more.

      • Daniel says:
        …Jim Snowball Inhofe…
        I think Inhofe is going to have the last laugh at your expense. The Senate majority now belongs to Inhofe’s party. That means what they say goes. And it will be a real pleasure listening to the high pitched squealing from folks like Danny Kuhn. ☺

      • Daniel, you are the poster child for anti-science because you BELIEVE in your “Authority” without question or evaluation. You are anti-science because you HATE questions and questioners. You are anti-science because you attack articles you haven’t read and certainly haven’t evaluated FOR YOURSELF. You are anti-science because you think ad hominem, strawmen and appeal to Authority are valid responses instead of facts and logic. You are anti-science because you haven’t presented any facts to back up your accusations.
        Your postings are the antitheses of science. If you knew ANYTHING about science, you would be deeply embarrassed to post the things you have posted.

      • ” You are anti-science because you HATE questions and questioners. ”
        no.
        i hate the same old long answered questions over and over again just because a fringe group does not like the answer.

      • :LOL! Name ONE “long answered” question. Name ONE that is CURRENTLY being asked that was actually answered “long ago” with real FACTS.
        You need to back that old chestnut with some real data.
        And don’t bother with computer model “answers” nor with strawman (imaginary) questions that no one actually asked.
        No Daniel, you are a very good example of anti-science. You BELIEVE without question and attack without thought.

      • for exampel, what is the evidence for AGW. i being asked over and over again here, and nobody seems to be even aware of the measurements that have been presented by sthe scientific community that is regarded as a line of evidence.
        i don0t mean you have to accept it, but when you guys are arguing agianst the science, you should atleast be familiar with those measurements and be able to point out why you do not accept it as evidence.
        but nobody on WUWT is able to.
        this shows who really is informed about the science…..
        but i expect too much from WUWTers. while it is often said that most on WUWT accept AGW. but not the positive feedbacks proposed not the quantifications or projections.
        but the comment section shows a pretty different picture.

      • And the raw, unmanipulated, verified FACTS that answer that question are … ?
        Oops! Totally missing! You BELIEVE that the question has been “answered” by your Authority, but I noticed you didn’t actually present any source for your belief. Sorry, these pesky question will continue to be asked until actually answered – and not by your “Authority SAID so, so THERE!”

    • It will be excruciating to watch. Since the politicians from both sides have no background in science, they wind up quoting talking points they don’t understand to experts who do. The expert responses are lost on the pols on boths sides. Just sad, but at the same time terrifying manner given the effect their decisions will have on the welfare of billions.
      But as to your caterwauling about the validity of the models, it is my observation that in determining sensitivity, the experts charged with writing IPCC AR5 themselves concluded that the models were running hot, and substituted their expert opinion instead. Having been discredited by the very experts commissioned by the United Nations IPCC to evaluate them, I’m personally left with three options:
      1) Accept your appeal to authority
      2) Accept the authority of the IPCC’s own scientists
      3) Determine for myself based on a comparison of the models to observations
      As options 2) and 3) coincide, I see no reason to further consider your appeal to authority which is discredited by the very authority that you appeal to. If only the pols who attend senate hearings were as informed.

      • WUWT readers like Hoffer are skeptics who use the scientific method. By your comment it’s clear you can’t refute what he wrote, so you’re just running interference.
        Models have their place. But whenever there is a discrepancy between model output and the real world, skeptics always accept the empirical evidence and real world observations. But many in the alarmist contingent are exactly the opposite.

      • oh cool, i am a sceptic too.
        so how did Hoffer account for the real TSI and Volcanic aerosols for example?

    • Daniel Please forgive this rather personal question , but something has been puzzling me :
      Yesterday , at 6.25am , in response to a comment from Harry Passfield you replied :
      ““strip-clear forests for fuel”
      we are actually working to prevent exactly that”.
      What surprised me is the use of the pronoun : we
      Not ;” I am working to prevent that” , or “They are working to prevent that”. but “We are — etc”
      Would it be impolite to ask who the organisation is that you are associated with ?
      I am assuming Greenpeace, not that that is a felony or even a misdemeaner , but it helps put comments into a pigeonhole I think that you would agree.

      • “Would it be impolite to ask who the organisation is that you are associated with ?”
        humanity. i said we, as that is a very international effort and paid for by all of us. (most atleast) via tax money.
        “I am assuming Greenpeace”
        no, they would kick me for being pro nuclear and pro GMO.

    • I see we have a gaggle of trolls in this thread.
      [img]http://a404.idata.over-blog.com/3/10/47/74/dont_feed_the_troll.jpg[/img]
      IT truly is sad. Daniel and his clan cant even address one item Bob Tisdale has posted. Piles and piles of …. left every where. So tell me Daniel, what has the increase of 120ppm CO2 over the last 150 years done to the earths systems.. Be specific! show what is natural variation and what is man caused. Please post the math, methods, and data to support your claim.
      Inquiring minds want to know…

      • Daniel Kuhn
        I repeat my request to you that you desist from citing IPCC documents until you have read them.
        You merely add to the demonstrations that you know nothing about the subjects on which you pontificate when you provide arm waving such as

        you can find all the answers you are looking for in AR5,

        No, the IPCC AR5 does NOT answer any of the points from Bill H when he writes

        IT truly is sad. Daniel and his clan cant even address one item Bob Tisdale has posted. Piles and piles of …. left every where. So tell me Daniel, what has the increase of 120ppm CO2 over the last 150 years done to the earths systems.. Be specific! show what is natural variation and what is man caused. Please post the math, methods, and data to support your claim.

        And in the unlikely case that there is anybody who doubts your total ignorance of what you claim, I challenge you to state where in the AR5 (i.e. Chapter and page number) it states

        what has the increase of 120ppm CO2 over the last 150 years done to the earths systems.. Be specific! show what is natural variation and what is man caused. Please post the math, methods, and data to support your claim.

        You cannot provide the required reference (i.e. Chapter and page number) because that information does NOT exist in the AR5.
        Daniel, a difference between you and me is that when I say something is in an IPCC document I cite it, quote it and link to it, but you assert that there are things in IPCC documents that are NOT in those documents although you wish they were.
        I yet again request that you slither back under your bridge because your infantile and untrue assertions are wasting far, far too much space on threads.
        Richard

      • “Chapter and page number”
        it is in many different chapters…..
        https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
        Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
        Observations: Ocean
        Observations: Cryosphere
        are a good start.
        maybe you should read it for once instead only making false claims about it’s content.

      • Daniel Kuhn
        Your listing of chapter titles doesn’t wash.
        You were asked in which chapter and on what page does the AR5

        show what is natural variation and what is man caused. Please post the math, methods, and data to support your claim.

        You claim the information is there. I know it is not because – unlike you – I have read the AR5.
        Now you can
        (a) continue to waste space on the thread by more armwaving about the information being somewhere in several AR5 chapters
        or
        (b) you can crawl back under your bridge.
        I don’t mind which because your armwaving demonstrates to onlookers that you are blowing smoke, and you going away would benefit everybody.
        Richard

      • this was the question.
        ” what has the increase of 120ppm CO2 over the last 150 years done to the earths systems.. Be specific! show what is natural variation and what is man caused. Please post the math, methods, and data to support your claim. ”
        yet somehow , richard think this will be found in one chapter on a few pages?
        really?
        but as you only quoted the attribution and quantification part of the question this time, i would recoomend you read this :
        https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
        when you disagree with the findings, you best publish your research in the scinetific literature and confront the experts with your findings, im sure they will be very impressed ^^

      • Daniel Kuhn:
        Please continue the armwaving because it emphasises both that
        (a) the IPCC AR5 does NOT provide a quantified estimate of “what is natural variation and what is man caused” effect of “the increase of 120ppm CO2 over the last 150 years done to the earths systems..”
        and
        (b) you provided a blatant lie when you claimed that you know the AR5 does include that information.
        The partitioning of natural and anthropogenic effect of the 120ppm CO2 rise is a simple but fundamental parameter which could be stated in one sentence, and its derivation (math, methods, and data) would be stated in a single numbered Section.
        It does not exist and your claim to know what is in the AR5 is yet again shown to be wrong. It escapes me as to why you don’t man-up and admit the obvious truth that you have not read the AR5.
        Richard

      • “natural and anthropogenic effect ”
        with effect, what do you mean? the warming? how much of the observed warming is anthropogenic?

      • [quote] Daniel Kuhn April 15, 2015 at 1:18 pm
        “natural and anthropogenic effect ”
        with effect, what do you mean? the warming? how much of the observed warming is anthropogenic? [/quote]
        It appears you really are clueless or you are intentionally misleading. AR4 does not, nor does AR5, address or quantify the questions I have asked you. Yet you went straight to the appeal to authority mantra even though you dont have a clue what is in those reports. So in an effort to make it easier for you understand i will use Crayolas…
        According to the IPCC all warming prior to 1950 was natural variation and all warming after 1950 was man caused. SO lets look at what warming has occurred and when it occurred. (Note: The icreduliity of the IPCC to imply that natural variation has stopped is one of my biggest gripes. If they have learned to control the climate why are we still funding this Cr*p?)
        I believe that others have posted similar explanations. My apologies if I fail to give proper attribution.
        Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/mean:6/from:1900/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/mean:6/to:1950/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/trend:6/to:1950/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/to:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1951/to:2000/trend
        The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade. (Trend was simplified to the IPCC’s determination of 50 year interval)
        This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.
        The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade. (Trend was simplified to the IPCC’s determination of 50 year interval)
        Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..
        http://i857.photobucket.com/albums/ab140/Billy_Bob_photos/DrJChristy-CO2notathermostat.jpg
        Source;Midtroposheric Warming-Dr.J Christy
        So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claimed runway rise, it was nothing of the sort. Even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural temperature rise. And the last 18 years 4 months there has been a zero trend, no rise, despite continued rise in CO2.
        SO what does this exercise tell us about CO2 and its effects:
        1) CO2 is not affecting our atmosphere as the IPCC has purported in AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4, or AR5. The models used to create these documents have all failed empirical review and falsification.
        2) Climate sensitivity to CO2 has been grossly exaggerated. Empirical lab experiments show the warming that CO2 alone could be responsible for does not exist in our atmosphere. We are seeing about 20% of what could be caused by CO2 alone, with natural variation included.
        3) Water vapor is not enhancing any warming by empirical evidence. In fact, we have seen an increase in the IR release from the top of the atmosphere indicating that the convection cycle is increasing, not slowing as the IPCC predicted. ( I personally believe that this is where Trenbreth’s heat has gone as the oceans haven’t significantly warmed.)
        4) Water Vapor has not increased in our atmosphere. Again in direct conflict with IPCC predictions.
        5) Tropical storm energy has decreased, again in direct conflict with the IPCC predictions.
        Any way you slice it the IPCC predictions are severely lacking and CO2 attribution to causing anything is ZERO. And that is using the IPCC’s own goal posts.

  33. Suggest that readers from Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas who agree with Bob Tisdale email and/or tweet your respective senator:
    FL: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
    OK: http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
    TX: http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=email_senator
    Tell them you are in agreement with the letter that was recently sent to them by Bob Tisdale.
    Enough of such responses will almost certainly impel the senators to read and consider what Bob wrote.

    • He is not chairman of a relevant committee or subcommittee.
      He tries to soft-pedal it, but Dr. Paul is a CACA skeptic.

  34. Here is a question for the Warmists.
    Professor of agricultural engineering Gert Venter of the University of Pretoria found that introducing CO2 to agricultural greenhouses (done routinely to stimulate plant growth) coincides with a correlated drop in internal temperature. He has data from more than 30 hydroponic tunnels world-wide that show this correlation. The final question I ask is: If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, why doesn’t it cause hydroponic tunnels to warm up?

    • Alberta Slim,

      The final question I ask is: If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, why doesn’t it cause hydroponic tunnels to warm up?

      That’s an extremely good question. As davidmhoffer has pointed out elsewhere on this thread, so-called “greenhouse” gasses are constantly both emitting and absorbing “thermal” radiation, i.e., radiation in the infrared spectrum. On the scale of something the size of a hydroponics tunnel in a “standard” sea level atmosphere, an IR photon has only a very small probability of being absorbed by a CO2 molecule, yet every CO2 molecule within the volume will be emitting constantly. The net radiative effect is therefore negative (outward); thus marginally increasing the CO2 level will tend to have a cooling, not warming toward some new equilibrium temperature.
      Here’s the fun part. For a sufficiently large hydroponics tunnel, it would be possible to increase the level of CO2 within the structure such that the internal atmosphere becomes so opaque to IR that photons emitted near the interior of the structure would have a very small probability of escaping directly to the outside environment. Once absorbed, some of those photons would be re-emitted back toward the center of the structure, while the remainder would be emitted outward. We can’t really ignore convective and conductive effects here — but for sake of illustration some sufficiently high concentration of CO2 would tend to warm the interior of the structure and cool the outer regions.
      The Earth system is a sufficiently large structure to carry this off, and this is exactly what has been observed: the upper atmosphere has cooled and the lower atmosphere has warmed as CO2 concentration has risen, inclusive of convective, latent heat transfers and the ever elusive feedbacks. A hydroponic tunnel, being much smaller, would require a far higher concentration of CO2 for a warming effect near the interior to be noticed because of the relatively much smaller dimensions involved.

      • This may be a dumb question from a science tragic, but would the greenhouse panels (of Polycarbonate or Polypropylene) emit any gasses that might interact with the environment within the greenhouse?

      • A bit above my paygrade but WAG, no. Maybe enough to get you high when they’re new, but I disclaim any and all responsibility for deleterious results should anyone attempt to find out empirically.

  35. Why are taxpayers funding climate model-based research when those models are not simulating Earth’s climate?

    Oh I don’t know …. to improve them maybe?

    • If the science is settled, and the policy advice has been published based upon those models, then why should models need improving? Mr. Tisdale’s point is that continued funding of models which are producing very poor results is throwing good money after bad, and perhaps it is time for alternative avenues to be explored.

  36. Here is another item to consider.
    1. Comparing 200ppm to 400ppm CO2.
    Roughly speaking, 200 extra parts per million CO2 has to absorb enough energy to raise the other 999800 parts per million of the atmosphere by 1°C, very roughly from15°C to 16°C which is approximately about a 5 watts per square meter change.
    200 is 1/5000 of 1 million therefore 200 parts of CO2 has to absorb 5,000 times the energy to raise the temperature of the other 999800 parts.
    To raise 1 square meter of atmosphere by 5 watts, CO2 would have to absorb 25000 watts?

    • You’re buying in to the warmist meme that GHG’s “absorb” or “trap” heat. This is not what happens. Each molecule absorbs and immediately re-emits photons over and over again. So the amount of heat “absorbed” by CO2 molecules is nearly irrelevant. That the photons are intercepted and re-emitted in a random direction is what matters.

      • Thus arises the Beer-Lambert law. I somewhat agree that “trapping” heat is not the best way of putting it but absorb is fine so long as the re-emitting is also discussed. My preferred short-form explanation of the overall effect is “reducing the net rate of heat loss”.

      • My preferred short-form explanation of the overall effect is “reducing the net rate of heat loss”.
        That is also incorrect. The rate of heat loss before CO2 doubles is exactly identical to heat loss after CO2 doubles. What changes is the temperature profile from surface to TOA due to redistribution of the energy fluxes.

      • Yes, I am not a warmist. I was using a Warmist argument, or claim, and trying to show how ludicrous it is.

      • “The rate of heat loss before CO2 doubles is exactly identical to heat loss after CO2 doubles. What changes is the temperature profile from surface to TOA due to redistribution of the energy fluxes.”
        does that mean one of the largest negative feedbacks is not real?

      • does that mean one of the largest negative feedbacks is not real?
        Since I don’t know what you think the negative feedbacks are, let alone which one of them you are referring to, it is not possible to answer your question.

      • davidmhoffer,

        That is also incorrect. The rate of heat loss before CO2 doubles is exactly identical to heat loss after CO2 doubles. What changes is the temperature profile from surface to TOA due to redistribution of the energy fluxes.

        The easy way to do this is to talk through the chain of events in a simplified version of the system. The hard way is for me to just pummel you with literature. I’ll start with the easy way first and see how it goes. Consider the planet as composed only of uniform rock, no liquid water, and an atmosphere of only nitrogen and CO2. Solar constant is constant, and the system is at equilibrium, by which I mean that net radiative flux at TOA is effectively zero. Assume present “Earthlike” parameters for global average absolute surface temperature.
        Let “immediate” be something on the order of a year’s time. We magically double CO2 concentration immediately. What is the immediate effect of doing so?

      • Let “immediate” be something on the order of a year’s time. We magically double CO2 concentration immediately. What is the immediate effect of doing so?
        Why a year? You want to simplify things, make it instantaneous. As for “immediate effect”, again, why complicate things? Let’s allow sufficient time for a new equilibrium state to be established and see what the difference is.
        The MRL would occur at a higher altitude. Below this altitude, temperatures would be higher. Above this altitude, temperatures would be lower. The effective black body temperature of the earth would be exactly the same as it was before (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).
        Your rather disingenuous display in the Climate Craziness thread has me wondering why I am bothering to respond to you at all. You’re short on science (though orders of magnitude better than most warmists who show up here) but slippery as h*ll when it comes to having an actual disussion.

      • davidmhoffer,

        Why a year?

        It explicitly addresses the effects of any diurnal and seasonal cycles.

        Let’s allow sufficient time for a new equilibrium state to be established and see what the difference is.

        The question I am asking is the mechanism by which the new equilibrium state is achieved, in stepwise fashion. You have just skipped that step.

        The MRL would occur at a higher altitude.

        Agree.

        Below this altitude, temperatures would be higher.

        Agree.

        Above this altitude, temperatures would be lower.

        Agree.

        The effective black body temperature of the earth would be exactly the same as it was before (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

        Ah, good point, thanks. I believe that’s also correct.

        Your rather disingenuous display in the Climate Craziness thread has me wondering why I am bothering to respond to you at all.

        I’ll leave you to hold your own counsel on that one.

        You’re short on science (though orders of magnitude better than most warmists who show up here) …

        As a lefty in more than one way, I appreciate your compliment.

        … but slippery as h*ll when it comes to having an actual disussion.

        When in Rome, good sir. The question you’ve left dangling is what happens at TOA “instantaneously” when we magically double CO2 concentration?
        Here’s a hint: ΔF = α ln(C/C₀) : α = 5.35 W/m²
        ln(2) resolves to what value?
        I’m, oh, two steps away from bringing out the big guns.

      • Catherine,
        I intend to regardless, the timing is contingent on David’s answer to the question he glossed over.

      • Brandon Gates seems of the opinion that because I discussed the equilibrium states (before and after CO2 doubling) that I have somehow “glossed” something over. He is technically correct. During the transient state while the entire system re-adjusts to the increase in CO2, there is indeed an energy flux imbalance at TOA. The transient state being, well, transient it is by definition, temporary. It doesn’t change where we start, or where we end up. Brandon Gates has already attested to this in point by point agreement with me above.
        If the transient state is his “big gun” then I am mildly amused. If he has something else in mind, he should stop playing games and simply state his position. I await being amazed.

      • davidmhoffer,

        During the transient state while the entire system re-adjusts to the increase in CO2, there is indeed an energy flux imbalance at TOA. The transient state being, well, transient it is by definition, temporary. It doesn’t change where we start, or where we end up. Brandon Gates has already attested to this in point by point agreement with me above.

        And I agree with you here because that’s exactly what I was driving at. I was being a stickler (or PITA if you wish) about it because I wanted to make sure this didn’t happen:
        http://i.imgur.com/EXmmL.jpg
        Also very much why I explicitly agreed with you point by point — I do not like ambiguity in these sorts of discussions. Now I know that you and I agree on the basic physics from pertubation through the transient phase and then to a new equilibrium, which was not at all clear to me from previous discussions with you. I consider that a good thing, thank you for answering the question.

        If the transient state is his “big gun” then I am mildly amused.

        No, the big guns refer to people who do this for a living, whom I trust more than J. Random Guy on the Innert00bs. Didn’t want to have to break them out, that’s the aforementioned “hard way” of doing this. I like it much better to just talk things through. Someday you’ll figure out that I generally only give people crap when they’re giving it to me — as I see it, the main big deal between you and me seems to be on our somewhat mutually incompatible definitions of crap.
        I did promise to roll out some references regardless, since I think that’s always best practice:
        Knutti & Hegerl (2008): http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
        The Horses Mouth (AR4) on defining radiative forcing: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html
        Daniel Jacob’s “Intro to Atmospheric Chemistry” I find indispensable, especially Chapter 7: http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html#pgfId=113237
        K&H (2008) may be the most relevant for where we are right now. See Fig 1f: time to equilibrium on the order of millennia, b/c: the oceans.

      • David:
        That still begs the question that a few molecules must transfer energy to a massive number of other molecules; some larger, some smaller. Whether those secondary molecules are atmospheric or surface molecules is moot.
        The question is how do so few molecules raise the temperature of so many other molecules.
        Jumping into mass calculations ignores the need for a specific actual process of physical transferring energy at individual molecules.
        That water vapor swamps CO2, in concentrations or reality, means that water vapor should be considered first. Once all atmospheric aspects of water vapor IR absorption and emissions are fully understood and documented, then and only then should a trace gas like CO2, be considered for the same levels of investigations.
        Totting up totals for trace gases based on assumed transience rates is sophistry.

      • ATheoK,

        The question is how do so few molecules raise the temperature of so many other molecules.

        That there is a double-edged sword you’re swinging.
        Radiation absorbed by a GHG can easily be transferred kinetically to a non-IR active species. Once there, the only way for that energy to get out of the atmosphere is to knock back into a GHG and get it to burp out photons.
        LOTS of Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules are heated via direct contact with the surface. The only way for the atmosphere to ultimately shed heat it picks up that way is via a vanishingly small percentage of trace gasses.

      • “Since I don’t know what you think the negative feedbacks are, let alone which one of them you are referring to, it is not possible to answer your question.”
        sad, but was to be expected.

      • Brandon Gates
        I object to your calling those who like me have done this sort of thing “for a living”, “big guns”.
        Your characterisation is pointless. Facts are what they are whomever states them.
        Indeed, that is why you annoy with your habit of copying & posting screeds that you don’t understand. The truth of what is said has importance: who said it does not.
        Richard

      • richardscourtney,

        Indeed, that is why you annoy with your habit of copying & posting screeds that you don’t understand.

        You annoy talking about copypasta in a subthread containing very little of it. On highly complex technical matters, I unapologetically defer to the opinions of domain experts as a guide toward determining truth. That doesn’t mean that I do it wholly uncritically, nor that I only ever consider arguments from experts. Note that my leading reply to davidmhoffer indicated that I preferred talking through it to just … how did i put it … pummelling him with literature. As for “big guns” I see that few are in touch with my sense of humour on that one, I shall retire it from usage.
        Based on past experience with you, I expect little of this to be received gladly. Hope, however, springs eternal.

      • Brandon Gates
        What do you think I may or may not “accept gladly”?
        Is it that you are a disruptive troll who pretends knowledge he doesn’t have by copying and pasting screeds he doesn’t understand? If so, then I already knew it.
        Richard

      • richardscourtney,

        Is it that you are a disruptive troll who pretends knowledge he doesn’t have by copying and pasting screeds he doesn’t understand?

        That would be an example of you not suffering my comments gladly. From my perspective, you are the one disrupting my attempts to counter disinformation with literature citations, which I use specifically when my own understanding is sufficiently lacking that I can’t explain the concept in question in my own words.
        By my way of thinking, well-poisoning is not intellectually honest sceptical truth-seeking. Such IS, unfortunately, a common tactic on both sides of this fence, and yes, I’m not wholly above doing it myself.

    • The GHG effect of most air molecules is negligible. Water vapor & CO2 are the main GHGs. Nitrogen, oxygen & argon, the predominant air molecules, are not GHGs.
      Water vapor is not evenly distributed, but averages about 30,000 parts per million in the atmosphere. CO2, as you know, is better mixed & averages about 400 ppm. The effect of CO2 is negligible compared to water vapor, except in the driest areas of the globe, such as the polar deserts.

      • I thought the results from the OCO probes were debunking that “evenly distributed’ meme and showing a very distinct plume and decay signature. I seem to remember quite a lot of variation in the graphics.

      • he effect of CO2 is negligible compared to water vapor, except in the driest areas of the globe, such as the polar deserts.
        Water vapour is prevalent only at low altitudes. As you rise in altitude, temps drop, which forces water vapour out of the air. So, for the vast majority of the atmospheric air column, water vapour is negligible. On the other hand, this also means that downward LW from CO2 at altitude runs into a wall of water vapour close to earth surface, and GHG’s do their thing regardless of which direction the LW originates from, so some of that LW gets absorbed and redirected up before it can get to the surface. At this point in trying to understand the physics as a big picture thing, my head begins to hurt.

      • Owen,
        CO2 is better distributed than water vapor, but I agree it’s not as well mixed as claimed by CACA advocates. Water vapor varies from over 40,000 ppm of dry air in the moist tropics to perhaps four ppm above the polar deserts in winter, when of course there is no reflected sunlight to absorb.
        David,
        True of course that cold air holds less water vapor. However GASTA is measured in the lower troposphere, ie at the surface for land stations or under water for SST (thus out of & beneath the troposphere), or in the mid-troposphere for satellites.
        Surely atmospheric radiative heating & cooling effects occur in the upper troposphere & stratosphere, but, as you say, it’s headache inducing to try to imagine their extent. It was observed in the 1960s that CO2 concentration changes abruptly at the tropopause:
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v221/n5185/abs/2211040a0.html

      • Davidmhoffer:
        Yours is a point not often addressed, which bears repeating:
        “On the other hand, this also means that downward LW from CO2 at altitude runs into a wall of water vapour close to earth surface, and GHG’s do their thing regardless of which direction the LW originates from, so some of that LW gets absorbed and redirected up before it can get to the surface.”
        IR emissions high in the troposphere find a relatively clear path to space. Downwelling, they find the “blanket” where IR is absorbed, then it is radiated half up, half down. Upward is a clear path, downward, not so clear and antother iteration. Downwelling IR is reduced by half for each iteration.
        How does the heat get high in the troposphere? The “blanket” has holes, in the form of convective currents, which carry warm air above the blanket, and where the aforementioned cycle releases energy into space. This does not lend itself to modeling. No headache here.

    • Brandon Gates;
      I like it much better to just talk things through.
      Then start doing so. Stop with the word games, quit with the cutesy questions trying to bait people into a mistake. If you disagree with something, state your disagreement, articulate the facts as you see them. Threatening to bring out the big guns, sneering down your nose while accusing others of glossing over facts, you come off as nothing more than a condescending jerk.
      You want to discuss the science, then discuss the science.
      You’re one of the few warmists who actually can. So do that instead of this crap you’ve been pulling.

      • It takes two, David. Now that I know better what you and I agree on I will make the effort. It would help a great deal if you stopped calling me “alarmist”. Condescending jerk is in-bounds, at the very least that label is accurate.

      • Now that I know better what you and I agree on I will make the effort.
        I see. Now that I’ve passed your test you’ll make the effort to have a cogent discussion with me. How nice of you to allow me into your exalted plain of existence.

  37. Hello, I’m new to this site and to the science of the global warming controversy. I’m trying to learn the facts behind the issues. But I have some questions about Mr. Tisdale’s article that I’ve listed below.
    I hope my unschooled questions will not invite abuse; I’m just trying to learn I try to find what is valid about others’ perspectives when they differ from mine.
    •Why are taxpayers funding climate model-based research when those models are not simulating Earth’s climate?
    Is it possible that scientists are varying the parameters that define current state to determine how to improve their models? In other words, could the models’ initial states have been set at variance with current parameters to see how predictions would change as a result, i.e. how sensitive the different parameters are to small changes in value?
    •Why are taxpayers funding climate model-based research when each new generation of climate models provides the same basic answers?
    Is it possible that the direction of the trends is clear (seas rising, etc.) but that scientists are trying to improve the numeric accuracy of their models?
    •Redundancy: why are taxpayers funding 5 climate models in the U.S.?
    Can this not be a good thing? Research would no longer be necessary if the models had strong predictive validity. Can having different models allow simultaneous lines of research along different lines?
    •Why aren’t climate models providing the answers we need? •Example: Why didn’t the consensus of regional climate models predict the timing, extent and duration of the Californian drought?
    This question is a one for the climate scientists. But if predictive models are at variance with reality, does that mean we should stop trying to improve the models?

    • The models are fundamentally flawed. Tweaking them accomplishes nothing except to continue the entire charade, at everyone’s expense. The models are the mere pretense of science.

      • Bob Teasdale’s message is that the models are not useful for policy. He is correct.
        The IPCC is a political body. No scientific organization would take the modeled mean of a group of wrong in one direction models, and use the knowingly wrong modeled mean to predict future climate affects, and base policy decisions on the wrong models. The IPCC has been forced by the observations to dampen their own CS estimates, but still the models run way to warm.

  38. So many issues and questions….. I really hope that at least you will raise awareness by that, if not obtaining a competent answer…. Unfortunately, this happens a lot: climate is the last thing politicians worry when they take actions regarding climate change. It’s both ironic and true and it seems this situation happens in most of the fields linked in any way to the climate.

  39. Great work, Mr. Tisdale. I pray that the presidential candidates addressed will make use of your very valuable contributions to our understanding of the great flaws in the so-called science that Alarmists offer.

  40. It took our “Dear Leaders'” State Dept. 3 months to report back on removing Cuba from the list of State Sponsored Terrorist nations.
    The same State Dept. after FIVE YEARS, can’t finish it’s evaluation of the Keystone XL Pipeline…..
    Is it just me?

  41. Bob,
    That’s an interesting letter. But it’s probably too long for the attention span and meager cognitive fortitude of the average U.S. Senator, regardless of party affiliation.

    • US primaries and the general election are not far off.
      Already mustering their forces.
      Why else would Dudley..er..Daniel have shown up so soon?

    • Jim G1 on April 14, 2015 at 1:46 pm

      – – – – –
      Jim G1,
      I agree with you that Bob Tisdale’s open letter is well done.
      Regarding ‘trolls’: If the commenters, who you are referring to as trolls, can be reasonably found to be insincere in their comment history on other threads and insincere here in this comment thread then call them on the insincerity but I suggest drop the name calling them as trolls.
      I think the commenters you are referring to have been insincere in the past and the present. Therefore I think they deserve very very little or no sincere interaction from other commenters.
      John

    • I like to refer to them as “inciteful” posts. The perp gets a dopamine rush anticipating a reaction to them. Since they are incapable of eliciting a normal conversational response they incite vitriol. Any reaction, good or bad, satisfies the dopamine response.
      Studies show that cell phones and twitter, and posting on discussion threads all elicit a similar dopamine response, hence the booming market.
      https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-wise/201209/why-were-all-addicted-texts-twitter-and-google
      Ahhhh….until my next fix….

      • Dave Worley on April 14, 2015 at 6:35 pm
        – – – – – –
        Dave Worley & Jim G1,
        My comment to Jim G1 (John Whitman on April 15, 2015 at 7:07 am) was intended as a response to you.
        Jim G1, sorry for my mistake in addressing my comment to you.
        John

  42. “where I would be considered an investigative reporter”
    good to see Bobs finally admitted he’s not a scientist

    • Bevan, you must be new here, too. I’ve admitted numerous times I’m not a climate scientist. I’ve also stated that I wouldn’t want to be one, because politics dictates the focus of climate science, and that’s tragic.
      Have a good day.

    • Bevan April 14, 2015 at 2:18 pm says:
      “…good to see Bobs finally admitted he’s not a scientist…”
      Are you a scientist, Bevan? If so, your comment is not one a real scientist would make. If not, it classifies you as a troll.

    • And Ted Cruz has responded about “climate change” very intelligently. (I don’t want to include the Giant Youtube picture that come with posting the link. It has been posted on WUWT and at Jo Nova’s several times. If you missed it – let me know.

  43. Bob Tisdale,
    I think you are using a reasonably good approach in your the ‘Open Letter to U.S. Senators Ted Cruz, James Inhofe and Marco Rubio’.
    I look forward to hearing of any direct or indirect feedback you get as a result of your open letter.
    John

  44. Hopefully you will get a response from Ted Cruz, James Inhofe, and Marco Rubio. I hope at least one of them reads WUWT. They probably do based on what I have heard from all 3.

  45. Bob Tisdale, Ted Cruz, James Inhofe, and Marco Rubio:
    There are scientists, and then there are scientists who study how to manipulate scientists.

    • Bob Tisdale has confirmed he is not a scientist, but he does know how to manipulate his followers.

  46. Bob Tisdale,
    In language that might be more suited for your intended audience, perhaps your excellent letter could be simplified to:
    climate models are to science
    as
    blow-up dolls are to real naked women

      • Ahhh, that explains the “excessive parameterization” and “wiggling elephant trunks” …
        Pamela, if you have a crush on me, just say so … you’re among friends here. It’s okay

  47. To whomever is the most recent troll (David?):
    1. The Sun beams at a relatively stable rate. It can be ignored in the long-term temperature data.
    2. The Earth goes through an incredible random walk string of “solar in” versus “solar filtered out” long term and short term seasons via trade winds and clouds around the equatorial band where solar insolation is at it’s most direct solar incidence angle (IE deepest penetration). I wonder if we are in a “solar filtered out” phase. Hint: Slack trade winds allow clouds to spread West across the Pacific equatorial basin.
    3. The North and South solar insolation span defined by the N and S 45th parallel is the most important segment of solar insolation that needs to be considered. Why? Water absorbs and KEEPS warmth compared to soil which coughs it up almost immediately. Oceanic solar incidence is greatest between the N and S 45th parallel because of incidence.
    4. The equatorial band oceans (see # 3 above) are warmed more or less (because of clouds) by solar insolation (powerful shortwave fuel from the Sun), not by surface long-wave (very weak fuel from CO2/water vapor re-radiation) infrared radiation from greenhouse gases which are almost instantaneously evaporated from the surface.
    5. Less warmed or more warmed (because of solar INSOLATION) waters around the girth of Earth then migrate via oceanic (think yellow duck meandering around riding on currents) currents to nether regions, warming or cooling land sensors depending on their temperature.
    6. Some of these random walks naturally take a few years to multiple decades to finish their walk. If you don’t get that, study fluid dynamics.
    7. The medieval warm period (when there were truly hot female babes scantily clad in practically nothing romping around on the beach) was the result of warmed equatorial pools of water meandering to more northern latitudes.
    8. The point of this bulletined list is to say that climate models do not take this into account (by their own admission). It is also evident that Bob explains it much better than I do.
    9. The trolls can bug out. Your adherence to dogma is evidence of sheeple mentality. So when did hippies (I am 58) EVER toe the uneducated establishment mindset??????

    • Pamela, your last point is exactly what I have said to friends and on some blogs. I find it curious the looney left is in bed with the “man” on so many things. I almost miss the sixties with all the anti government protesters. At least they were real.

  48. IF we ignore Daniel ( NOT Daniel Kuhn) he will go away. – Although it might be good for him to put out is lunacy for everyone to see- it IS wasting everyone’s time to respond (or even read) his comments. He knows how to push buttons but knows NOTHING of climate science.

  49. Here’s another way to state one of the questions:
    ‘If climate science is ‘settled’ science, why is the UN and the US government bothering to fund scientific research that is supposedly settled?

  50. Bob Tisdale.
    A good letter, but it does miss the political point. CAGW is not a scientific issue it is a political/moral dilemma invented by activists that accidentally got traction. Because it is their path into the halls of Power they are loathe to let it go, indeed everything is being hung on the CAGW bogeyman, from volcanoes to extinct butterflies. To defeat a moral/political meme, you need to make moral arguments.
    When CO2 was 270PPM the worlds population was about 1.2 Billion, and half of Europe had just died from the little ice age. There is a civilisation destroying effort to return to 270PPM CO2 in a world with a population of 7 Billion! This makes no sense at all, with crop yields decimated by CO2 starvation and (assuming the warmistas are right, 1-2 degrees of cooling to below that of the little ice age) what is going to happen in a world of 7 Billion people – famine! The posited cooling if it did happen would devastate northern USA and Canada. Alaska would be for all intents and purposes virtually uninhabitable yet your President and his EPA are intent on propelling the world toward just such a fate… there has to be something unconstitutional about intentionally causing an entire state to become uninhabitably cold even while increasing the cost of energy beyond the publics ability to fend off the cold.
    Fact is that actions on climate change has done nothing except kill grannies in winter, push up the cost of food for the poor, divert billions away from the poor, medical research and aid into ill advised renewable power investments and prevent poor countries and communities from bettering themselves using cheap reliable fossil fuel power. It is these stories the politicians need to be repeating. Not is it right, but is the pain worth it – clearly the answer is NO, we can’t dent the climate even if we wanted to, and mankind is so dependent on elevated CO2 with 7 Billion inhabitants, that it is completely irresponsible to lower it – even 5 PPM lower might lose us 1% of world crop yields, in fact to sustain our population higher CO2 levels are highly desirable.
    Lowering CO2 is UNSUSTAINABLE!

  51. Thanks, Bob.
    I hope your excellent letter will help enhance the awareness of these Senators. They can be a factor in rising the awareness of the general public.
    The IPCC’s General Circulation Models (GCMs) have proven wrong in the sense that they paint scenarios that miss the details that affect the people and the rest of the ecosystem.

  52. Science itself is not the problem: the problems are all caused by the “tax gobblers” as Christopher Monckton of Brenchley so aptly put it in his article of nine days ago. His written “conclusion” at the very end of that article is the following three paragraphs.
    Conclusion
    Back we go, down the tax-gobblers’ mighty mountain to base camp. Our attempt to climb it has failed at every single step. Even with the aid of CO2-emitting helicopters to lift us and our equipment to each new step as we fail to climb the one below it, no rational scientific or economic case can be made for taking any action whatsoever today in a probably futile and certainly cost-ineffective attempt to make global warming that is not happening as predicted today go away the day after tomorrow.
    The correct policy to address what is likely to prove a non-problem – and what, even if it were every bit as much of a problem as the tax-gobblers would wish, could not by even their most creative quantitative easing be cost-effectively solved by any attempt at mitigation – is to have the courage to do nothing now and adapt later if necessary.
    The question is why, in the teeth of the scientific and economic evidence, nearly all of the global governing class were so easily taken in or bought out or both by the strange coalescence of powerful vested interests who have, until now, profited so monstrously by the biggest fraud in history at such crippling expense in lives and treasure to the rest of us, and at such mortal threat to the integrity and trustworthiness of science itself.

  53. I have to jump in to put spme trolls into their places. As a scientist, stupidity annoys me and stupidity combined with incompetence is what the “leading lights” of their climate science are sticking us with. Take the basic tenet of statistics: “Correlation does not imply causation.” Have you noticed that the association they make between greenhouse warming and atmospheric carbon dioxide is not even an actual correlation because the Keelimg curve and global temperature curve go their own separate ways throughout the the last two centuries. It is an alleged correlation with no proof of causation whatsoever. To prove the existence of causation you must demonstrate it in the atmosphere, not in a test tube, and this has never been done. Fortunately testing for causation is not actually difficult today thanks to the hiatus/pause/cessation of warming (pick one) that we are living through now. There has not been any warming for the last 18 years but carbon dioxide just keeps increasing as the Keeling curve tells us. According to the Arrhenius greenhouse theory of 1896 that the IPCC is still using such addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere should create greenhouse warming, but demonstrably it does not. Now it so happens that if a scientific theory makes an unequivocally wrong prediction, that theory itself is considered false and belongs in the waste basket of history. That is where the Arrhenius greenhouse theory belongs, right next to phlogiston, another failed theory of heat that took thermodynamics to dispose of. The correct greenhouse theory to use is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory, MGT. It came out in 2007 and was immediately blacklisted by the global warming establishment. Grad students were kept ignorant of it and you could not even mention that it existed. It tells it like it is: addition of carbon dioxide to air does not warm the air. MGT differs from Arrhenius in being able to handle more than one GHG at the same time. Arrhenius is able to handle only one – carbon dioxide. Even the IPCC requirement that atmospheric water vapor will triple the amount of greenhouse warming that carbon dioxide by itself creates must be added as an ad hoc addition whose validity has never been scientifically proved. According to MGT carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere form a joint optimum absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87, deteremined by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR, just as Arrhenius says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this occurs, water vapor will begin to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will keep absorbing of course but the reduction of water vapor keeps the total absorption constant and no warming is possible. And this is the end of greenhouse warming, the alleged cause of anthropogenic global warming or AGW. Let us not forget that the IPCC was tasked by the UN ro provide “Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind.” A case can be made that the absence of the greenhouse effect makes such protection unnecessary and IPCC should be shut down.

    • Roy Spencer doesn’t even support the MGT. From Roy Spencer’s blog:
      On the theory side, much of what he claims depends upon the validity of his statement,
      “for..two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of (energy) transport that may be occurring.”
      If this statement was true, then IR radiative transfers cannot change the temperature of anything, and Earth’s natural greenhouse effect cannot exist. Yet, elsewhere he implies that the greenhouse effect IS important to temperature by claiming that the greenhouse effect stays constant with time. The reader is left confused.

Comments are closed.