Guest essay by Viv Forbes
Climate alarmists claim incessantly that all bad weather is caused by man’s use of hydro-carbon fuels – oil, gas and coal.
They insist that man-made carbon dioxide is the trump card in the climate game. Their computerised models of doom assume ever-rising levels of carbon dioxide which will trump all natural climate controllers.
Unfortunately for their credibility, since at least the year 2000 global temperatures have trended level despite significant increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The sun is the primary source of almost all of Earth’s heat. It is becoming increasingly clear that this gigantic heat generator, with its varying cycles and emissions, is an Ace in the climate game.
Then there are the massive oceans, whose vast heat capacity and ever-changing currents and oscillations also regularly trump the steady but tiny influence from man’s industry.
In order to explain the failure of their carbon-centric forecasts, the alarmists have thrown several other wild cards into the climate game. These include heat losses into the deep oceans and unexpected variations in earth’s cover of ice, snow, soot, particulates and volcanic dust.
Finally, they have created their own friendly climate Joker – data manipulation. They deal this card from the bottom of the pack onto the climate table to create artificial warming trends and heat wave “records” on demand.
Obviously there are too many Jokers and Wild Cards in the climate game for one simple carbon-centric theory to win a forecasting game, except by cheating or chance.
This is why warmists have not won a “Forecast-the-Warming” game for at least 15 years.
Further Reading
Bogus data in Australian Temperature Records:
Brisbane temperature benchmarks change daily:
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2015/03/15/how-hot-is-brisbane-with-new-improved-daily-benchmarks/
“Climate alarmists claim incessantly that all bad weather is caused by man’s use of hydro-carbon fuels”
A geocentric climate paradigm would readily arrive at such a conclusion, as it excludes the possibility of weather driving climate, and of differentiating between natural or otherwise, and of prediction of either.
BFL April 18, 2015 at 4:17 pm Re: Spencer’s comments
CO2 emitted energy (microwaves) radiative forcing heats up water through sensible heat, 1 Btu/lb-F.
When water evaporates it cools, that’s how an evaporative cooler works, those canvas water bags, the water soaked bandana tied around your head, and the sweat on your body. Latent heat of evaporation/condensation, around 1,000 Btu/lb, is how the water vapor cycle thermostat moderates the climate.
One of the popular global heat balance diagrams shows about 340 Wm-2 (can’t do superscripts in these boxes.) IPCC AR5 says that the additional radiative forcing due to man caused GHGs between years 1750 and 2011 is less than 3.0 Wm-2.
Is that what the fuss is about? Less than 1% of ToA!
Look up “negative radiative feedback” on Google.
Yes, climate science has a concept to account for the increased energy transferred back to space from increased evaporation, from the surface and atmosphere heating up. As matter gets warmer (even 1.0C from doubled CO2), it emits more energy back. If the Earth warms up, it will emit more long-wave photons back to space.
But climate science has been very cagey about what the negative radiative feedback means, should it be included in the calculations.
Then they go on to just ignore it.
It appears to be one of the biggest little wild cards left out of the theory but could answer the question about why the Earth ‘s climate is so stable in paleohistory, why we are not seeing the warming that the CO2 released to date is supposed to have caused.
400 ppm CO2 is supposed to raise temperatures by 1.4C. All we have seen is 0.5C not counting Mosher’s fake temperature adjustments.
What the heck is CO squared?
One of the “cards” says “CO²”, which is not at all the same thing as “CO2”. Someone created that graphic, who does not know how to write the chemical formula for Carbon Dioxide, but can make pretty pictures. And their vote counts the same as mine.
The Pause means the Null Hypothesis is not falsified, and no factors other than natural variation need be considered.
Brian is exactly right. Not that it will be convincing to alarmists. This is politics to them, not science. They lost the science debate about eighteen years ago.
I do hope it is a pause not the last plateau in the Holocene interglacial period which began about 10,000 years ago.
We know the middle of the Holocene was warmer than today.
Since length of the current interglacial has already exceeded the length of the most recent few, any forthcoming cooling may be an ominous sign and should be a warning to future inhabitants of N. American and European communities above 50 degrees north. Density of the current population long before inevitable onset of a new glacial can not be sustained; even return to the LIA temperatures would more than decimate crops of N. America and European plains. Anything worse than the LIA may initiate unprecedented human cataclysm.
http://www.qpg.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/englishchannelformation/1453389260_3dcecb561c.jpg
What he said!
As you freeze or starve to death, let me tell you how warm you are.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/18/think-global-warming-is-bad-wait-until-you-meet-sustainability/
The argument over AGW is SOOOOOOOO 2014.
For several years now I have been trying to draw attention to Agenda 21 and all I get are “tin hat” comments, and worse. It is nice to see that some are starting to open their eyes. Don’t think it affects you? The program is being forced down our throats even though the US has not signed onto the UN Agenda 21 program.
Are you thinking of buying a house? Then – Next, and very soon, government backed home loans will require your home to meet or have certification that they meet “Sustainability” requirements before they approve the loan. 2nd mortgage applications will follow. Look up “LEED” on Wikipedia and then look at the Agenda 21 sustainability B/S. It is obvious LEED is following Agenda 21. Now do a search on “LEED problems.”
Still don’t think it affects you? Google “DOD Sustainability,” or “IRS Sustainability,” or any other government department or agency. [The] words in their program were “cut-and-pasted” from the UN agenda 21 program that the US has not signed on to!!!! Every university that receives federal funds has a “sustainability” program GOOGLE IT.
While you are reading UN Agenda 21, think about the impact this program will have on life in third world countries. As usual all UN handouts will go to the dictators, and the population will suffer even more. What good is a windmill to power a small village away from any grid? Can wins/solar pump and store water, yes – these units are sold at the local farm suppliers in the western states – but how can they rely on it for perishable food storage? All it is good for is to hook up to the internet or watch propaganda on TV when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining – when they should be tending to their crops!
“By 2014, we are predicting that will be 0.3 degrees warmer than 2004…”
Dr Vicky Pope, (then) Head of Climate Change Advice, UK Met Office, in 2007.
What a babbling buffoon. Her Team makes up things that turn out to be severely wrong and none of them face any consequences or take any responsibility for anything.
https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/the-skillful-predictions-of-climate-science/
Yes – but thus buffoon was in charge of the Met Office’s advice to the UK Government, which resulted in the Climate Change Act 2008, whose catastrophic effects are slowly becoming apparent.
If I understand her correctly, what she s saying is ” We are predicting that something very dire will happen very soon. So it is apparent that dire things will soon happen.”
The oceans affected by human activity, naval and merchant ships operating and sailing the seas back and forth should have been the hottest topic in the debate on climate change since meteorology was established as a science in the late 19th century. Instead of that, oceans were ignored up to the late 20th century and not even today do they enjoy the significant position they deserve. Oceans are a decisive climatic force, the second after the sun. I suggest visiting http://www.1ocean-1climate.com, in order to find out more about the oceans’s role in climate change.
Viv Forbes,
One might get the impression from your article that the climate science community members who are players in your statement of the climate change alarm game are too myopically focused on their activities to realize it is a game and not a science.
If one assumes that is the case, then there is question as to whether or not the game is controlled from outside of the entire climate science community.
Where would you think the control of the game is per your statement of the game.
John
John
Where do you think the control centers? I remember when G.W Bush desperately desired Americas consent to fight terrorists. His camp drew up a massive fear campaign and set about on his agenda. Every time I’m asked to be deathly afraid, to throw my cash into a bottomless pit..I start to question. And ultimately others are doing exactly what I’m doing, and we share info. This site is that mechanism.
(Snip. Now you’re off onto ‘Chemtrails’. Stop it. -mod)
= = = = =
warrenlb,
Ahhhh, young grasshopper . . .
John
owenvsthegenius on April 19, 2015 at 4:58 pm ,
– – – – – – – – –
owenvsthegenius,
I do not think the climate change alarm movement is a game like the analogy Viv Forbes is a describing.
But, since Viv Forbes approached the climate science process and community with the analogy to a game then I was wondering where he thinks control of the game resides. I would still like to know his view.
Again, I do not agree that it is a meaningful intellectual strategy to use an analogy to a game in analyzing or discussing the climate change alarm movement that does exist within the climate science community and process.
John
Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog and commented:
Been saying this for years. But they want to blame CO2 – and not just any CO2, but our measly 4%.
0.4%. For millenia, atmospheric CO2 was ~ 0.28%, and Earth’s temperature was maintained 60F above its natural temperature (ie, if it had no atmosphere) of 0F. CO2 is now 40% higher. What do you conclude from this?
No CO2 was about .26 to.28 for thousands of years,while temperature had large swings, as shown in the Greenland Ice core:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01287656565a970c-pi
Sorry Warrenlb
CO2: 0.04% and 0.028%.
So much for your credibility .
warrenlb is incapable of identifying any global harm from the rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2. Therefore, CO2 is “harmless”. QED
Further: changes in CO2 always follow changes in global temperature. Effect cannot precede cause, therefore the alarmist cult got their causation backward. If they were honest, they would admit it.
warrenlb is just being Chicken Little, running around in circles and clucking that the sky is falling. It isn’t. It was just a tiny, harmless acorn. But try convincing Chicken ‘warrenlb’ Little.
dbstealey,
Five separate studies carried out in Australia all concluded that the heat waves Australia experienced in 2013 were linked to increased atmospheric CO2 levels: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/09/australias-2013-heat-waves-linked-human-caused-climate-change-studies-conclude
The paper is here: http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf The section on Australia’s heat wave starts on p. 41
@chris:
In my reply to the eco-religious numpty above I wrote:
warrenlb is incapable of identifying any global harm from the rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2. Therefore, CO2 is “harmless”. QED
Nothing you wrote changes that fact, or anything else in that comment. All you did was cherry-pick one location, and try to argue that GLOBAL warming is due to human activity.
But of course there is ZERO empirical, testable scientific evidence showing that what we have observed globally over the past twenty years is outside of past parameters.
Therefore, what is observed is nothing but natural variability. You may see a “human fingerprint”, but it is entirely in your imagination. People constantly see patterns that aren’t there. That’s why we use the Scientific Method.
Go back to you eco-church and tell them about the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. They probably have some canned response for their lemmings, which should keep you in line.
For thinking folks, though, all you are doing is searching for cherry-picked factoids like Australian weather to support your MMGW confirmation bias. That may impress unthinking acolytes. But real scientific skeptics know better.
@dbstealey,
In your comments to warrenlb, you said: “warrenlb is incapable of identifying ANY global harm from the rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2. Therefore, CO2 is “harmless”. QED”
I provided a link to a paper that proved that the Australian heat wave of 2013 was exacerbated by AGW. Therefore, I identified place where harm occurred. You did not refute the article. Trotting out phrases like the Scientific Method and Null Hypothesis does not disprove the article. Specifically in what way does the paper not follow the Scientific Method?
What I found is not a cherry picked factoid, it’s an example of AGW worsening a heat wave. You said they were no examples of AGW contributing to global harm, I proved that there have been. Therefore, AGW is real. QED
Chris,
You ‘proved’ nothing, because your link says nothing of the sort. Right at the beginning it states:
This year three analyses were of severe storms and none found an anthropogenic signal. However, attribution assessments of these types of events pose unique challenges due to the often limited observational record. When human-influence for an event is not identified with the scientific tools available to us today, this means that if there is a human contribution, it cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability.
That link is filled with what amounts to nothing more than speculation, opinions and conjectures based on models. But at the conclusion the authors admit:
None of these analyses found an anthropogenic signal, in part because attribution assessments of storm events such as these pose unique challenges due to the often limited observational record. As stated earlier, this failure to find anthropogenic signals does not prove anthropogenic climate change had no role to play in these events. Rather, a substantial anthropogenic contribution to these events cannot be supported by these analyses. [my emphasis]
Your link says exactly the opposite of what you claimed. No anthropological signal was found.
After decades of searching by thousands of highly paid scientists using the latest equipment, no “human fingerprint of global warming” has ever been found. But you can be certain that if any real evidence of AGW was found, it would not just be published in a supplement to a journal. Rather, it would be trumpeted everywhere as proof that AGW had finally been found.
What will it take to convince you that every observation shows only normal natural climate variability? At some point you must ask yourself if you believe simply because you want to believe, since there is no supporting confirmation of human-caused global harm caused by the rise in that harmless and beneficial trace gas.
@dbstealey,
Well that’s very interesting. I pointed you to a report, and to a specific place in the report (page 41 onwards, as well 37-41) that relates to the point I made about AGW being attributed to the Australian heat waves of 2013. And what did you do? You cited a completely different part of the report that talks about extreme storms in the US.
Some quotes from the section I was referring to:
“When isolating 1984–2012, the 2012/13 heat wave frequency increased three-fold due to human activity, while heat wave intensity increased two-fold, compared to a climate with no anthropogenic forcings.”
“Thus, the risk of maximum temperatures above the 2002 threshold is extremely likely to be 23 times greater now than in the late 19th century. Large increases in the likelihood of extremely hot seasons
and years across Australia related to human-induced climate change have been documented previously
(Lewis and Karoly 2013).”
The document I posted summarizes the research and findings related to about 20 different climate events/conditions that occurred globally in 2013. The section you quoted determined that for the 3 severe storms you mentioned, there was not an AGW fingerprint. Neither climate scientists nor I have ever said there is a link between AGW and ALL adverse weather, so your point does not refute anything. As an aside, I guess by your definition the science is rock solid when it states there is no AGW footprint (US storms), and junk when it does (Australian heat waves).
The section I directed you to clearly indicates a link between AGW and the Australian heat waves of 2013, and nothing you posted refutes that in any way.
Has anybody factored in the effect of nuclear and high energy weapons testing during the second half of the 20th Century? Does anybody consider that the Earth is still thawing out from the last Ice Age?
If everyone in the world knew just two facts this scam would be finished, dead and buried. One: Carbon Dioxide is a minuscule trace gas representing less than one half of one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere. Two: On an annual basis Mother Nature puts most of it there (apparently over 90%).
Unfortunately the alarmists have succeeded in getting Joe Public to believe that Carbon Dioxide represents a large percentage of the atmosphere (I have heard some people guess as much as 50%) and that we put it all there.
I find it amazing that anyone can believe that by cutting down our tiny contribution to a minuscule trace gas by a small percentage we can control the weather.
Steve Reilly
Indeed it is mistake to think that because they failed to produce good science they not succeeded, when in reality in many ways they have while failing to produce good science because often this is simply not a scientific argument in the first place.
You do know that before the Industrial Age, 0.28% atmospheric CO2 maintained earth’s temperature about 60F above its theoretical thermal equilibrium temperature of 0F with no atmospheric greenhouse effect? You would think that a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since then might have an effect on that 60F temperature elevation, wouldn’t you?
No, it didn’t. You constantly make those baseless assertions.
Changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, not vice versa. Effect cannot precede cause… except in your world.
What I love most about warmists, is their hearted support of the coming doom. We all agree that we will see some warming via Co2 increase. But warmists must have death and flooding and giant spiders. Despite their demand that we pay trillions of dollars to fund a global governing body to halt the impending cataclysm, we try to be nice; saying things like “calm down”, ” relax” and “don’t scare the kids”. Because we are kind people who care about the stress levels of warmists. We love them despite their paranoia.
owenvsthegenius,
Cue warrenlb and his climate alarmist nonsense, topped with his usual Appeal to Authority logical fallacies.
When you say ‘warmists’ or ‘alarmists’ are you referring to the Scientists working in the worlds Science Academies? Or in the worlds Scientific Professional Societies? Or the major Universities, or NASA, or NOAA? All those institutions conclude Man’s burning of fossil fuels are warming the Earth, dangerously so. Are those the individuals you’re referring to?
“When you say ‘warmists’ or ‘alarmists’ are you referring to the Big Government-paid and educated Scientists working in the worlds Science Academies? Or in the worlds Scientific Professional Societies who gain political power and their press from Big Government? Or the major Universities, or NASA, or NOAA? All those institutions (are paid billions of dollars every year) to conclude Man’s burning of fossil fuels are warming the Earth, dangerously so.”
By a Big Government that has decided that an entirely potential beneficial rise of 1/2 of one degree in global average temperatures in 85 years is the most dangerous national security interest the US faces today ? Those jokers, liars and political hacks?
So you do say this IS a conspiracy of all the World’s governments, eh? Going so far as to control the minds of Scientists in the Science Academies of the US, China, Japan, France, Germany, and the UK, all Scientific Professional Societies, all major universities, NASA and NOAA. All those governments must have quite an enforcement mechanism, wouldn’t you say?
warrenlib says:
So you do say this IS a conspiracy of all the World’s governments…
He did not say that, which means you are once again misrepresenting what someone wrote — an incorrigible fault of yours. It reflects your dishonesty.
I try to set the example for people like you: cut and past the writer’s words, verbatim. That way you will not look quite so devious.
And:
Going so far as to control the minds of Scientists…
It is clearly your own mind that has been colonized by the MMGW false alarm. That bogus Narrative is controlling your mind. In your case that’s easy-peasy, but we would appreciate it if you would not try to spread your misinformation to new readers. Thanx.
Mr. Gates, now falls into the twilight zone since he tries to make excuses for previous IPCC temperature projection failures of 2007, with idiotic rationalization:
“AR4 hmmm? Based on CMIP3, yes?”
Then goes on with his excuse that newer Chimp5 is better,but fails to realize that earlier versions of Chimps have been all wrong too.
“CMIP3 a tenth of a degree hotter than CMIP5. Science is iterative. Doesn’t get things right on the first try. Sometimes not the 4th try. IPCC notes in AR5 when it was published that CMIP5 runs ~10% hotter than it should based on observation. Am I getting through yet?”
Real science runs on REPRODUCIBLE research, not on regular pattern of readjusting failed temperature models,the way the IPCC has been doing since 1990. Chimps has become Wimps these days…..
He then responded to my rational statement, “Why can’t you admit the short term IPCC projection, is an epic fail and go on?
Gates quality thumper!:
“Well, that would be because the IPCC make it very clear that it’s not yet possible for them to predict internal variability. It’s easy for you to “falsify” your strawman hypothesis of AGW, isn’t it.”
But of course he didn’t read carefully right below what I quoted,in the 2007 IPCC report,where the IPCC sure seem to say they have a good grasp on their scenarios. I will quote what he responded to,then additional words that came right after that:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}”
These are the very next two paragraphs,
“Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {1.2, 3.2}
Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios. Best-estimate projections from models indicate that decadal average warming over each inhabited continent by 2030 is insensitive to the choice among SRES scenarios and is very likely to be at least twice as large as the corresponding model-estimated natural variability during the 20th century.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
Note the confidential words:
“strengthening confidence in near-term projections.”
“Best-estimate projections”
“is very likely”
Ha ha,
But alas Brandon sweeps it all away in his desperate attempt to support weak science where they update their Strengthening confidence,best estimate,very likely quality based models, with a new version, that somehow never seem to meet the reality of the real world anyway.
I showed this chart,that destroys it away, even their chimp5 model is still wrong, as it STILL says it is supposed to be warming the first two decades:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend
But he goes on with his willfull blindness,since I was talking about warming TRENDS per decade,here I quote what I wrote that he manage to miss the obvious:
Mr. Gates amazingly says: “I trust HADCRUT4 and RSS just fine. Unfortunately, the satellite record doesn’t show the part of the surface record you cherry-picked out:”
He then show a chart from 1850 and concludes:
“Two 40 year pauses, each followed by rising temperatures resulting in the next pause happening higher than the previous
Are you going to say the temperature data from HadleyCrut4 is wrong?.”
I had shown what Dr. Jones said about warming trends since the 1850’s. Somehow he thinks I am “cherrypicking” the data when I used the same time line, Gates did.
Ha ha ha….
I had stated;
“Dr. Jones himself stated in his BBC interview with Roger Harrabin, that ALL of the short warming periods,dating back to the mid 180’s are statistically similar with each other. Here is the link and quote from the Interview:”
Then backed it up,by quoting what Dr. Jones said and what he posted for the interview:
““A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?”
His answer in part,
“….So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:”
He then shows the list of trends and they are the following: 1860-1880 .163 C per decade warming
1910-1940 .15 C per decade warming, 1975-1998 .166 C per decade warming, 1975-2009 .161 C per decade warming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
I was talking about TRENDS per decade! They are almost the same each time there was a warming trend.
I posted a chart based 100% on what Dr. Jones stated in the interview,and you manage to miss the obvious point:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-8790.html#pid8790
The chart is 100% based on Hadcrut3
The point was to show no unusual change in the warming trends of at least the last 150 years. An obvious point you completely missed in your silly zeal to defend unverified modeling claims,that is unusually changeable very 5 years,after it become obvious they keep running too high.
One last thing, this time a chart from Girma Orssengo:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-8791.html#pid8791
Note what it would be like if the still current IPCC warming projection of .20C per decade warming continues from year 2000,versus the pattern of OBSERVED warming and cooling periods, going back to the 1880’s,where it is falling on a oscillating sine wave,that has been holding very well for over a 120 years now.
I thought you are a scientist, but I wonder……………………..
sunsettommy,
Starting at the end because the beginning is only a rehashing of your initial talking points:
No need to wonder — I’m not. Doesn’t take much training to read a chart though, nor to parse the meaning of the words: internal variability. Your “trend per decade, trend per decade!” mantra isn’t real compelling when any dummy with a working set of eyeballs can see +/- 0.25 K 40-year cycles in the temperature record. The IPCC have, in fact, seen your endlessly recycled weak-sauce nonsense, and answered it: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf
Climate scientists do not attempt or claim to predict the detailed future evolution of the weather over coming seasons, years or decades. There is, on the other hand, a sound scientific basis for supposing that aspects of climate can be predicted, albeit imprecisely, despite the butterfly effect. For example, increases in long-lived atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations tend to increase surface temperature in future decades. Thus, information from the past can and does help predict future climate.
Some types of naturally occurring so-called ‘internal’ variability can—in theory at least—extend the capacity to predict future climate. Internal climatic variability arises from natural instabilities in the climate system. If such variability includes or causes extensive, long-lived, upper ocean temperature anomalies, this will drive changes in the overlying atmosphere, both locally and remotely. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation phenomenon is probably the most famous example of this kind of internal variability. Variability linked to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation unfolds in a partially predictable fashion. The butterfly effect is present, but it takes longer to strongly influence some of the variability linked to the El Nino-Southern Oscillation.
Or in short form, the IPCC did not commission long-term weather forecasting models with CMIP5. Time for you to stop pretending that’s what they’re selling.
Your link is 78 pages long, I will ignore it,the same way you ignored the fact that ALL the short warming trends,going back to the 1850’s,fall in a very tight range, centering about .16C per decade.
The significance of this clearly flies over your head,since it is clear there is no significant CHANGE in past 150 years on warming trends, there is no reason to think that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 levels,has made such a noticeable impact on warming over the decades.
DR. Jones who showed that all the warming trends, are statistically the same with each other was an tactic admission that CO2 impact on temperature, is much smaller than what the IPCC were claiming it to be for years.
The IPCC made it clear they accept the Chimp5 modeling set, therefore your attempted misdirection,is full of misleading crap. It is indeed part of the AR5 IPCC report, just as earlier Chimp versions were, in earlier IPCC reports.
“Climate model results provide the basis for important components of IPCC assessments, including the understanding of climate change and the projections of future climate change and related impacts. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) relies heavily on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 5 (CMIP5), a collaborative climate modelling process coordinated by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP).”
http://www.ipcc-data.org/sim/gcm_monthly/AR5/index.html
From Watts Up With That, is an Annotated form of the Dr. Jones Interview,you have a hard time understanding the significance about those unchangeable warming trends you try so hard to ignore:
Phil Jones momentous Q&A with BBC reopens the “science is settled” issues
“Excerpts from the Q-and-As, with annotations [in brackets], follow.
Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
… The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA’s press office.
A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
[This indicates that the recent warming is not exceptional. Moreover, even if it had been “exceptional,” that would not prove it is due to greenhouse gas emissions?]
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
[The fact that the magnitude of the trend for 1975-2009 is smaller than the trend for 1975-98 indicates that there has been no warming OR A DECLINE IN THE RATE OF WARMING from 1998-2009, which is not necessarily the same as saying there has been cooling during this period. HOWEVER, SEE KERR (2009), WHICH INDICATES NO WARMING FROM 1999-2008. Regardless, this is at odds with the IPCC’s model-based claim that were emissions frozen at 2000 levels then we would see a global temperature increase of 0.2°C per decade. This, in turn, suggests that the IPCC models have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both. This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models. See here.]
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. [This indicates that the recent warming is not exceptional. Moreover, even if it had been “exceptional,” that would not prove it is due to greenhouse gas emissions?]”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
THINK Brandon,think!
There is no specific evidence of “unusual” warming ongoing since the 1850’s, the trend rate of warming remains essentially UNCHANGED!
There is no obvious AGW signal in it!
sunsettommy,
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rP0aIGI9Nfw/VTSlkgnYiVI/AAAAAAAAAbA/vmKrQ-M9IQk/s1600/HADCRUT4%2B40%2BYear%2B1st%2BDerivative.png
Basically, you’re either blind or thoroughly dishonest.
Brandon Gates
sunsettommy made clear statements based on provided evidence that demonstrated recent global warming has been in a series of similar warming periods, and he concluded
Your reply is to provide a graph that shows two of the warming periods which concur with what sunsettommy wrote and you say to him
NO!
Brandon Gates, your post demonstrates beyond doubt that YOU are “dishonest”.
Richard
What’s dishonest is the deliberate ignorance of the fact that Global Average Temperature trends shorter than 30 yrs have no meaning when trying to discern long term Climate Trends.
warrenlb
Your comment confirms what was already known: i.e.
you are so dishonest that you don’t know what honesty is.
And the confidence of global temperature trends depends on the variance of the data and NOT whether or not the time series is 30 years long.
Richard
richardscourtney,
And everything in between. Let’s look at it again, shall we:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rP0aIGI9Nfw/VTSlkgnYiVI/AAAAAAAAAbA/vmKrQ-M9IQk/s1600/HADCRUT4%2B40%2BYear%2B1st%2BDerivative.png
That’s the 1st derivative of a centred 480 month running mean, 12 month “compression” to remove monthly noise, and multiplied by 10 to give decadal rate of change.
The linear trend across the entire interval has a positive slope. A positive slope on the 1st difference means what?
It’s always possible he simply doesn’t understand calculus. What’s your excuse?
Brandon Gates
I don’t need an “excuse” to complain at your dishonesty. You need an excuse for the dishonesty and you have displayed that you don’t have one.
Richard
richardscourtney,
Indeed. Much better to have a reason. Typically, all you’ve got are hand-waving assertions.
Brandon Gates
“Handwaving assertions”?! NO! This detailed complaint.
As usual, when called on your behaviour you display psychological projection.
Richard
Ha ha ha,
You accuse me of dishonesty, when it is straight from DR. Jones who made the claims. I QUOTED from the BBC interview, I posted HIS periodic warming trends temperature data,dating back to the mid 1800’s, posted a chart,Jo Nova made, that is 100% based on HIS temperature trends data he provided to Roger Harrabin for the interview..
The ENTIRE nearly identical warming trends claim came from Dr. Jones!
You are proving to be an irrational being here, or just plain stupid instead.
sunsettommy,
Except for these bits: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
I – Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?
No – see again my answer to D.
Why leave those out, hmmm?
Phil Jones:
Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?
“No”.
As Sunsettommy says: “Ha ha ha”!
Jones flatly contradicts himself:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
As usual, the numpty brigade (both of them) are running around in circles, clucking that MMGW is a giant problem just around the corner. I am beginning to suspect they actually balieve that nonsense. But normal folks know better. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening:
Even the left-of-center mass media now admits that global warming has stopped:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2014/06/newchart.jpg
And the only way the “authorities” keep their true believers in line is by fabricating scary temperature charts:
Skeptics think for themselves. Others should try that for a change.
Hey Stealey:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RqcviJ-LBFo/VTWzaE5AFNI/AAAAAAAAAbk/J2BX64yHG9A/s1600/GISS%2BGlobal%2Bvs%2BCMIP5%2BTemps%2BF.png
Those models are lookin’ pretty good, hey?
“Hide the decline” they weren’t talking about temperatures were they.
Having seen a claim of a one day heat wave in a BBC weather forecast for the UK on a summer day in 2013, the cartoon sadly has more than an element of truth to it.
Anyone who believes this climate change fantasy is a fool:
— One tiny 22 year period from 1976 to 1998, the only time in the past 4.5 billion years, when manmade CO2 and average temperature rose at the same time, which to leftists is sufficient “proof” that only humans caused the warming from 1976 to 1998 … but … ALL the warming and cooling in every other period during the past 4.5 billion years had only NATURAL causes!
.
More CO2 in the air is good news for green plants, and good news for green plants is good news for humans.
.
Slight warming in the past 135 years is also good news, since the climate was relatively cool in the mid-1800s.
.
Average temperature on a planet not in thermodynamic equilibrium is a meaningless statistic whose compilation is a waste of the taxpayers’ money.
.
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE:
There are very rough estimates for a mere 135 years.
.
4.5 billion years of average temperatures are unknown.
.
Therefore, no one has any clue what a “normal” average temperature is.
.
Even if the measurements from 1880 to 2015 were 100% accurate (a laugh, since 1880s thermometers were so inaccurate, and so few, that all the warming measured since then could be measurement error) … no one could say if the slight warming was good news or bad news.
.
Tiny changes in the average temperature should be ignored.
.
A one degree change in 100 years is a meaningless random variation.
.
If another ice age was starting, that would be worth studying.
.
As with most leftists beliefs, the ‘CO2-caused coming climate catastrophe’ is complete nonsense — just another phony leftist scare (boogeyman) to justify ramping up central government powers (which is the leftists’ solution to all the “problems” they see in life)!
.
Climate knowledge for non-scientists:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
Warren comes along to make a fool of himself as he pushes an arbitrary 30 year number:
“What’s dishonest is the deliberate ignorance of the fact that Global Average Temperature trends shorter than 30 yrs have no meaning when trying to discern long term Climate Trends.”
You just like Brandon missed the OBVIOUS point, that ALL of the warming TRENDS are nearly identical,going back to 1860,which if you can count past 30 is 115 years.
DR. Jones states they are statistically significant, quoting him:
“Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. ”
He clearly think they are with his YES to each of the individual trends,two which are over THIRTY YEARS LONG!
“1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes”
Please go away……
Sunsettommy: There is no response that can do justice to your lack of comprehension — willful or not– that a 25 year (+/-) pattern cannot define a climate trend, but several such periods strung together does.
warrenlb
You write this nonsense to Sunsettommy:
Say what!?
Where did you obtain such a silly and untrue idea as “a 25 year (+/-) pattern cannot define a climate trend, but several such periods strung together does”?
Also, are you saying the IPCC was wrong to use three successive 4-year periods in its 2004 so-called Scientific Report and if so then why?
Richard
The period usually required to separate climate from weather is 30 years, ie climate is considered the average of weather over a period that long or longer.
The climate of the past 30 years (1985 to 2014) has arguably been warmer than the preceding interval (1955-84) but might not have been warmer than 1925-54 in reality rather than GISS & HadCRU “data”. It is however warmer now than 300 years ago, during the LIA, but cooler than ~3000 years ago, during the Minoan Warm Period (or just after it). It is definitely a lot warmer than 30,000 years ago, during the last big ice age.
milodonharlani
You assert a common misunderstanding when you write
Sorry, but No. That is a misunderstanding.
Any time period can be used for climate but the period must be stated. In fact, a value of GASTA (n.b. global average surface temperature anomaly) for a single year is a datum indicating part of the global climate state for that year.
The 30-year period pertains to a ‘climate normal’ period. It was decided as part of the International Geophysical Year in 1958 because it was thought that no more than 30 years of global climate data then existed.
Correcting the misunderstanding is not helped by the IPCC Glossary including an apparent contradiction. That Glossary defines
That definition clearly says a climate parameter can be stated for “over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years”.
However, that definition ends by providing the apparently contradictory statement that the “classical period of time is 30 years” and refers to the WMO without the IPCC Glossary itself stating that the 30 years is ‘climate normal’ period.
The ‘climate normal’ period exists so an average of 30 years of data is used as a basis against which climate data is compared. Thus, for example, global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) is presented as a difference from an average of 30 years of global surface temperature data. But each team that provides values of GASTA (i.e. GISS, HadCRU, etc.) uses a different 30-year period as its climate normal.
The adoption of 30 years for the climate normal period was completely arbitrary and is to some degree unfortunate: 30 years is not a multiple of the 11-year solar cycle, or 22-year Hale cycle, or etc..
My question about the IPCC 2004 so-called Scientific Report using 4-year periods was intended to clarify that a climate datum is valid for any “period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years”.
Richard
Brandon,attempts to undue the damage to himself, with a patented deflection, from my argument,which was about warming TRENDS.
He quote from my link:
“E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
I – Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?
No – see again my answer to D.”
You that blind Brandon?
After he already stated that ALL of the short warming trends are nearly identical with each other,and backed it up with data. But here he provides an OPINION, based on climate models.
YOU still fail to notice that the most recent warming trend he claims is man made,is not statistically different from the “natural” ones before 1950. The AGW temperature signal is not visible,from the supplied temperature data.
Pathetic attempt at a feeble deflection.
sunsettommy,
No that would be you. Or dishonest. Or perhaps you don’t understand calculus. Who knows, I’m not a mind-reader. However, for the benefit of those with working eyeballs, intellectual integrity and some proficiency in maths:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MW_NJp28Udc/VNS3EAEqpOI/AAAAAAAAAUs/hjhuLZFkdoM/s1600/hadcrut4%2Bhiatuses.png
1) The overall trend across the entire interval is positive, indicating long term warming.
2) There are two previous 40-year surface warming pauses, from 1870-1910 and 1935-1975. The latter hiatus shows a slightly less negative slope than the former. The present hiatus since 2001 shows an even slighter cooling.
Both are consistent with a mechanism which slows the rate of heat loss. Notice I said consistent with, not conclusive of. Quoting Dr. Jones again:
C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
Statistically too close to call, in other words. However, 30-40 years’ time is generally regarded as climatologically significant:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rP0aIGI9Nfw/VTSlkgnYiVI/AAAAAAAAAbA/vmKrQ-M9IQk/s1600/HADCRUT4%2B40%2BYear%2B1st%2BDerivative.png
Instead of arbitrarily selecting endpoints for trend analysis as the BBC asked of Dr. Jones, and which my first hiatus plot above does, this plot takes a 40 year centred moving average, takes the 1st derivative to get rate of change, “compresses” the results at 12 months to remove monthly “noise”, and multiplies by 10 to get the final decadal rate of change.
This is a superior method to calculating linear trends from arbitrary end-points. The positive slope of the 1st derivative over the entire interval indicates that positive rate of change has been accelerating. This is consistent with accelerating levels of radiative forcing.
Again, that would be you, for here is how you evidently operate: Your link is 78 pages long, I will ignore it, the same way you ignored the fact that ALL the short warming trends,going back to the 1850’s,fall in a very tight range, centering about .16C per decade.
The evidence for AGW comes from more than just one BBC interview with Dr. Jones, and certainly from more than your quotemined hack job of that interview. Here’s another Q&A you are “ignoring”:
D – Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.
Got it? CO2 is not the only factor to consider. Go read about internal variability and learn something. Perhaps see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_statistics
Brandon,fails to notice he is arguing with Dr. Jones,who supplied all the nearly identical trend line data,Brandon now idiotically disputes.
“It’s always possible he simply doesn’t understand calculus. What’s your excuse?”
You have yet to show that Dr. Jones is wrong about his temperature trends.
You don’t even notice that YOUR own chart is making a fool out of you,since the latest warming trend rate is about 50% LOWER,than the earlier warming trend rate,that you stopped at the 1998 date line.
Why did you exclude the last 17 years of data?
This is HadCrut4 since 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2015.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2015.3/trend
This is HadCrut4 for this century only:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend
The rate of warming trend went down,down and…..zzzzzz
Ha ha ha….!!!!
sunsettommy,
Please point to the exact text where I said that the trends the BBC asked Dr. Jones to speak to are in dispute.
I didn’t. Here’s the first step of the plot: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:480
See, no date filters. Ponder the meaning of a 480 month centred running mean.
So sorry to keep you awake past your bedtime, sunset. I imagine that my droning on and on about internal variability and multivariate statistics applied to a complex dynamic system would tend to get boring to folks who already have their minds made up based on their simplistic, wilfully ignorant way of being “sceptical”.
@Brandon Gates
“Are you going to say the temperature data from HadleyCrut4 is wrong?”
Irrelevant.
Of COURSE that HadCrut4 data from 1850 to present shows WARMING. If it didn’t, we would still be in the Little Ice Age.
If you would actually PREFER that the temperatures were still the same as they were back in 1850, please just come out and say so!
Then, you post some really cool graphs on Natural and Human Forcing, which are based upon the CMIP models; however, you fail to use any sort of logic whatsoever.
The models ASSUME that CO2 drives temperature, so OF COURSE the model output is going to SHOW enhanced CO2 FORCING as CO2 increases in the atmosphere!!! (DUH). The one MAJOR PROBLEM is that you forgot to prove that the models are actually CORRECT in any way, shape or form.
So, all you have shown in those posts is that the temperature has indeed risen since the end of the Little Ice Age (which is a really GOOD thing, in my opinion), and you have shown that models that are tuned to show CO2 as the major forcing component in the atmosphere actually do show CO2 as the major forcing component… but that doesn’t actually mean anything whatsoever unless you can show that the models are actually CORRECT and have any real predictive power whatsoever.
So, to cut to the chase, simply show us that the CMIP models are actually correct and useful, and then we can go from there.
Gates says:
I imagine that my droning on and on…
As always. Next:
warrenlb’s incessant fixation with his appeals to authorities continues:
…the worlds Science Academies… the worlds Scientific Professional Societies… the major Universities… NASA… NOAA… All those institutions…&blah, blah, etc.
Those are just false Appeal to Authority logical fallacies that warrenlib always hides behind. He can’t think for himself, so he needs someone to give him talking points. If they told him to join the other lemmings and jump off a cliff, he would probably do it for the simple reason that they have a title, and warrenlb is infatuated with titles.
Fools don’t think for themselves; they are unquestioning when it comes to official government narratives. Anyone who cannot see governments’ ulterior motives (carbon taxes and political power) is a truly naive and credulous numpty. The old Soviets used to call them ‘useful fools’.
If global temperatures had been rising steadily for the past 18+ years, scientific skeptics (the only honest kind of scientists) would be working hard to find solutions to the problem.
But there is no problem. It’s all good. Global warming has stopped; even the head of the IPCC admits that. The MMGW scare is a false alarm. It simply is not happening:
Read my lips Stealey: internal variability.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oxFP6mUKqIY/VTWEdb3gJzI/AAAAAAAAAbU/YiRjFJ8Zb8M/s1600/HADCRUT4%2B12%2Bmo%2BMA%2BForcings.png
So between 1910 and 1940 human emissions caused the same warming trend as 1980 – 1997??
That makes no sense. CO2 emissions were far higher in the last half of the century.
Yes, it’s variability: Natural variability. That is what your chart shows.
Once more: MMGW is a conjecture. Nothing more. It is a measurement-free belief; an opinion. And it requires suspension of faith in the scientific method, and in Occam’s Razor, and in common sense.
But by all means, believe anything you want. It’s a free country.
PeterB in Indianapolis,
Quite relevant to the context of the discussion: sunsetttommy had just asked me if I disputed HADCRUT4 trends over the past 18 years.
I presume you don’t believe in magic and can offer a plausible physical mechanism to explain the observed temperature rise.
Ok, 1850 looks reasonably comfy to me. I don’t think it’s reasonable to get there any time soon however, and I’m not one for wishful thinking.
lol, ok. This ought to be good.
Ah. The reason we humans do science is because we’re not omniscient and are trying to better understand how things work. When we don’t know stuff, we start with assumptions and then test them. IOW, doing science without making assumptions is impossible.
Sorry, but your mind-reading skills are abysmal. I didn’t “forget” to “prove” anything. In the context of that particular discussion, the plots of CMIP3 and CMIP5 I posted were meant to demonstrate that from AR4 to AR5 the IPCC have downgraded their near term projections of temperature trends. I also pointed out that the IPCC say that CMIP5 runs ~10% hotter than observation. IOW, the models are WRONG, as all models are — else they’d be reality.
But I can’t do that. See again: All models are always wrong. Nor can I “prove” that your opinion of us being better off warmer than the LIA is “wrong”.
Utility is a personal choice. I can tell you why I think CMIP5 is useful, whether you accept my reasons or not is entirely up to you. If that’s what you like me to do, ask me that question, and we can go from there.
Brandon Gates
You repeatedly assert that it is “internal variability” which causes the empirical data to refute your assertions.
Please state what you mean by “internal variability” and how you determine when it is and when it is not altering the empirical data.
Richard
richardscourtney,
See again this plot I posted in response to dbstealey:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oxFP6mUKqIY/VTWEdb3gJzI/AAAAAAAAAbU/YiRjFJ8Zb8M/s1600/HADCRUT4%2B12%2Bmo%2BMA%2BForcings.png
And my follow-on description of it: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/18/too-many-wild-cards-in-the-climate-game/#comment-1912694
Also my response to your similar questions below: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/18/too-many-wild-cards-in-the-climate-game/#comment-1913182
Your question makes no sense to me. As I see it, internal variability does not alter empirical data — it is manifest in empirical data.
Brandon Gates
I asked you
You have NOT answered either question.
Instead, you have copied&pasted irrelevant graphs and linked to meaningless waffle with which you have polluted this thread.
The nearest you provide to and answer is in this link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/18/too-many-wild-cards-in-the-climate-game/#comment-1912694
which you provided.
In that link you say
Clearly, what you call “internal variability” is an undefined excuse for all disagreements of the models with reality. In other words, your “internal variability” is magical mystery.
Richard
dbstealey,
Nope. CO2 is the only anthropogenic effect I take into consideration, top plot, light blue line. From 1910-1940 CO2 contributed about 0.05 K, solar (same plot, yellow line) about 0.10 K. 1980-1997, CO2 just shy of 0.20 K, call it 0.18, solar maybe about 0.05 K.
No kidding. Look at the light blue line, clearly labelled ln(CO2/280) * 2.23 in the upper most plot. That 2.23 is the regression coefficient that comes out of the multiple regression from which the TSI and AOD (volcanic aerosol) coefficients are also derived.
The MIDDLE plot shows internal variability. Dark blue line is the residual of the external forcings (CO2, solar, volcanic aerosols), the magenta line is calculated based on AMO, NINO and length of day anomaly (LOD). The bottom plot breaks those three out so that you can see their individual contributions to the overall trend.
Make up your mind already, Stealey:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/16/climate-naysayers-are-giving-climate-skeptics-a-bad-name/#comment-1909004
They are graphs from different sources, and they all show the same thing because they are based on radiative physics. They accurately reflect real world observations.
Show us the observations already. Tell us how the measurements were performed to confirm them. Walk us through these radiative physics you apparently know so much about.
Cat got your tongue or something?
PeterB…,
“So, to cut to the chase, simply show us that the CMIP models are actually correct and useful, and then we can go from there.”
He already admitted they are not when he said earlier:
“CMIP3 a tenth of a degree hotter than CMIP5. Science is iterative. Doesn’t get things right on the first try. Sometimes not the 4th try. IPCC notes in AR5 when it was published that CMIP5 runs ~10% hotter than it should based on observation. Am I getting through yet?”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/18/too-many-wild-cards-in-the-climate-game/#comment-1911812
He fails to notice that even the most up to date,most accurate Chimps5 is still wrong as it runs hot,just like all the other Chimps models do,since it STILL projects a warming trend the first two decades,while the temperature data show NO warming at all, the first 13 plus years of the new century:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend
Brandon is a silly man here.
sunsettommy,
Yup, that’s what I wrote. That’s what the IPCC says.
ROFL!!! How can I fail to notice something that I explicitly pointed out?!?
Well yes, I “admit” … I am at risk of getting a severe case of giggles watching you tie your own shoelaces together. This brings me full-circle the self-contradiction I pointed out in my first post which stared this whole circus:
Then there are the massive oceans, whose vast heat capacity and ever-changing currents and oscillations also regularly trump the steady but tiny influence from man’s industry.
In order to explain the failure of their carbon-centric forecasts, the alarmists have thrown several other wild cards into the climate game. These include heat losses into the deep oceans and unexpected variations in earth’s cover of ice, snow, soot, particulates and volcanic dust.
So far, nobody has been able to unravel for me whether Viv thinks the oceans can affect temperature trends or not. How many times must I write internal variability in BOLD before you Jokers get past the dissonance and stop blubbering, “bbbbbbbutt MODELS”?
Brandon, the models you drools on fails EVERY TIME! Meaning the AGW conjecture they base it on is a failure.
The Scientific Method make clear that it MUST pass tests made against it,before it can gain credibility,but those Chimp models have failed for YEARS,somehow still tickles Brandon’s fancy, despite a 100% failure rate.
They have NO demonstrated credible predictive value, they have been wrong for 20 years now.!
Unreal…..
You make no sense, sunsettommy. How about addressing the substance of Gates reply.
sunsettommy,
You said that. I read it the first time. Of course they fail every time, they’re models.
lol. Of the thousands of things that can be wrong with an AOGCM, you pick the one thing which obviously isn’t.
Yes, your departure from reality has been quite apparent for some time now.
Brandon Gates
You dispute the accurate statement of sunsettommy that the models consistent failure demonstrates their predictions are wrong.
Please say anything you think the models have got right because decades of study convince me that they get nothing right.
Or are you claiming the mythical “internal variability” – which you repeatedly cite but don’t define – explains the models’ failure as you have repeatedly claimed it explains why the empirical data refutes your assertions?
Richard
richardscourtney,
All models are always wrong. The question is whether or not they’re useful. See also: model skill is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Skill scores are also relative. Much depends on the reference model used in the evaluation.
In short, “[the models] get nothing right” is ignorant gibberish. Whether yours is an incidental, wilful or feigned ignorance I cannot tell. Incidental ignorance is something I deem pardonable. The latter two types, not so much.
The CMIP5 ensemble is best at hindcasting within the bounds of annual- and decadal-scale natural variability, of which internal variability is the largest component. Forward-looking projections are not as good. It is my understanding that one main reason is that the hindcast portion of a CMIP5 model run uses empirical observations for solar output, volcanic aerosol forcing, and atmospheric GHG mixing ratios to drive the radiative forcing calculations. We do not know what those will be in the future with any certainty. This is especially true of GHGs, since the overtly stated policy goal is to reduce them — a goal which meets some significant resistance, to put it quite mildly.
Hence, Representative Concentration Pathways or RPCs, assumed emissions scenarios designed to give policy makers bounded estimates of the potential impacts of various policy choices. Not predictions or forecasts, but projections based on assumed scenarios. CMIP5 is more a policy tool than a scientific tool in this regard.
Component models of the CMIP5 ensemble do have scientific uses, namely hypothesis formulation and some limited testing. They are also used to make inferences in cases where data are sparse. In my view, the best use of such inferences is to assist researchers in directing their efforts toward the most promising avenues of empirical research rather than allocating scarce fiscal and human resources to turning over every rock they happen upon simply because it’s there.
What empirical data refutes which of “my” assertions? Specifics, please.
Again, I quote the paragraph which was central to my very first post in this thread:
Then there are the massive oceans, whose vast heat capacity and ever-changing currents and oscillations also regularly trump the steady but tiny influence from man’s industry.
In order to explain the failure of their carbon-centric forecasts, the alarmists have thrown several other wild cards into the climate game. These include heat losses into the deep oceans and unexpected variations in earth’s cover of ice, snow, soot, particulates and volcanic dust.
How do you reconcile the apparent self-contradiction? You should not need to appeal your opinions regarding model failures to answer.
Brandon Gates
Your asserted magical mystery of “internal variability” is superstitious nonsense.
And you repeatedly make the daft assertions that
A model is wrong when it fails to provide predictions and/or descriptions that are within their determined accuracies and precisions.
All climate models are wrong.
Useful models are NOT “wrong”: they provide predictions and/or descriptions that are “right” to within their determined accuracies and precisions.
All climate models are wrong and, therefore, they are NOT useful.
Forecast skill is determined by comparing a series of predictions with empirical outcomes. No climate model has existed for the decades required to provide a series of future predictions of climate. Hence, although climate models may be useful heuristic tools, no climate model has any demonstrated predictive skill.
Climate models have the same demonstrated predictive skill as the casting of chicken bones.
Scientific models are evaluated by comparison with reality and NOT by comparison with other models selected as reference. Skill scores of models are relative to the models’ ability to predict outcomes in the real world and NOT what some other model does.
Evaluating a model by comparing its performance to the performance of another model is pseudoscience.
Brandon, you have polluted almost every part of this thread with your nonsense.
Richard
IPCC bases its various predictions on four model cases:
Case CO2 Radiative Dry air, ΔF Increment in global water content
Concentration Forcing to absorb heat of CO2 RF
RCP 2.6 421 ppm 3.0 W/m2 0.011 incremental global water vapor 0.12%
RCP 4.5 538 ppm 4.5 W/m2 0.017 incremental global water vapor 0.18%
RCP 6.0 670 ppm 6.0 W/m2 0.023 incremental global water vapor 0.23%
RCP 8.5 936 ppm 8.5 W/m2 0.033 incremental global water vapor 0.33%
A watt is a power unit, energy over time, and equals 3.4 Btu/h.
In 24 hours the entire atmospheric volume will rotate through this RF heat flux and accumulate x.xx Btus.
For dry air, no moisture, 0% RH, to absorb this x.xx Btu would result in a temperature increase of x.xx F.
The evaporation of water into vapor at about 950 Btu/lb, absorbing that x.xx Btu, without any increase in temperature, i.e. isothermal, would increase the atmospheric water content by about x.xx%, i.e more clouds, more albedo, less heat.
It’s the water vapor thermostat that controls the greenhouse, not CO2. It’s the water vapor thermostat that controls the simplistic blanket analogy as well.
The hiatus heat went into a few more clouds, not the ocean.
Same old straw men presented again and again – dull.
harrytwinotter
You say
Yes, but I and others have tried to stop Brandon Gates from polluting the thread with those “same old straw men presented again and again”. Sadly, our failure to stop him doing it has – as you say – made the thread “dull”.
Richard
I think you know full well I was referring to the article.
harrytwinotter
What on Earth gave you that idea? I answered what you wrote.
Richard