From Duke University, where they validate what we’ve been saying for quite some time: there’s a divergence between climate models and reality.
Global warming progressing at moderate rate, empirical data suggest
DURHAM, N.C. – A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “But this could change.”
The Duke-led study shows that natural variability in surface temperatures — caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors — can account for observed changes in the recent rates of warming from decade to decade.
The researchers say these “climate wiggles” can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and accentuate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.
The research, published today in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports, uses empirical data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate decade-to-decade variability.
“At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability,” said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the study with Brown.
The team examined whether climate models, such as those used by the IPCC, accurately account for natural chaotic variability that can occur in the rate of global warming as a result of interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors.
To test how accurate climate models are at accounting for variations in the rate of warming, Brown and Li, along with colleagues from San Jose State University and the USDA, created a new statistical model based on reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years.
“By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,” Brown said. “Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”
Further comparative analysis of the models revealed another intriguing insight.
“Statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,” Brown said. “Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.”
Under the IPCC’s middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 percent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said. “That matches up well with what we’re seeing.”
There’s no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed. “Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn’t expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change.”
###
Eugene C. Cordero of San Jose State University and Steven A. Mauget of the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Lubbock, Texas, co-authored the new study with Brown and Li.
Funding came from the National Science Foundation (Faculty Early Career Development Program grant #ATM-0449996 and NSF grant #AGS-1147608) and the National Institutes of Health (#NIH-1R21AGO44294-01A1).
CITATION: “Comparing the Model-Simulated Global Warming Signal to Observations Using Empirical Estimates of Unforced Noise,” Patrick T. Brown, Wenhong Li, Eugene C. Cordero and Steven A. Mauget; Scientific Reports, April 21, 2015. DOI: 10.1038/srep09957
Full paper here: http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150421/srep09957/full/srep09957.html
The term “climate wiggles” suggests that the “natural variation” they are talking about is actually a reference to what is usually called “internal variation.” Certainly they are not considering the possibility of any solar forcing beyond the very slight variation in TSI (total solar insolation), meaning that they are attributing all late 20th century warming to CO2. To the extent that it was actually caused by indirect solar effects (from the period of high solar activity that ended at the turn of the century) the implied sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 will get knocked further down, and may well be less than one.
We don’t have 1000 years of temperature records. That means they had to use proxies. Since there are many proxies over this period and many of them don’t agree, the chances that this model is right are certainly in question.
I actually like the idea, I just don’t know that it can be trusted. Maybe if several models were built using different proxies we could get a range. That might be useful.
The hiatus was not modeled in either middle of the road models or any other. To assign it a value now as if it was is absurd. To pretend it is 11 years instead of 18 is childish. Do you think climate is aware of the common calendar? This is babble. An attempt to portray scientific disaster as a mere statistical misunderstanding .
Here is how my simple brain translates this story into plain language:
” Just because we have been wronger than we thought we would be about how fast it would not get any warmer for the past twenty years, this does not mean we will continue to be wronger forever.
Due to science, we will soon be righter than we thought, and the lack of recent warming is a bad thing, because it means it will get hotter faster, once we start being right again. Using 100 years of fake and cherry picked proxy data, we are about to figure out a new meme to justify our fat salaries and lard laden research grants, and thus keep the whole charade alive. Trust us…just because we never get anything right does not mean we do not know what we are doing or what we are talking about. That is just an optical illusion, caused by breathing record levels of poisonous CO2 carbon poison…stuff.
In conclusion, the rates of warming that we have seen in recent years to have not occurred, should not be expected to last. Because of science, our analysis says things can change.”
Doh, darn… another typo: Using 1000 years of…
I suspect these typos are lessening the impact of my careful analysis.
No Nicholas, you got it wrong. They are always getting righter, and in the future will be even more righter still.
Robert,
I cannot tell if you really believe that or not.
I suspect that you do not, just forgot the /sarc button.
We need a bunch of new punctuation marks, to indicate things like sarcasm, smiling while ones says something, sneering condescension, etc.
Emoticons?
People should consider the threat of slow, decade change due to sea level rise against the threat of Islamists storming into your town on a Sunday afternoon and decapitating and raping your daughter, granddaughter, son and wife. Perhaps you’ll be left alive to contemplate the danger of climate change and 2 degree Celsius rise in a hundred years.
It’s a matter of common sense and perspective. Religious believers become fixated on a subject and loose the ability to think and act rationally.
More likely is the spreading clouds of fallout from Nudets in the MidEast.
This paper champions the fact that the Null Hypothesis of naturally changing climate cannot be rejected when real-world data is considered. The Null hypothesis is only rejected by those who accept a programmed CG simulation similar to a HollyWood superhuman movie of CG animations.
Interesting that someone from San Jose State coauthored the study. That is where the infamous book burning took place in the climate department as reported right on this website.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/02/san-jose-state-university-meteorology-decides-burning-books-they-dont-agree-with-is-better-than-reading-them/
To be fair, I don’t think they’re burning the book per se … I think they’re smoking it.
Do we know what significant advances in human knowledge have been made by the Meteorology dept at SJSU since that episode to justify their hatred of unorthodox views?
“By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ ”
Looks like the “Game of Pauses” is just a passing fad then Villagers. Better start looking for a new distraction…
They do not mention the possibility that the climate scientists fiddled the results to match the previous variability when the supposed warming existed. Could it also be that there is not forcing caused by CO2 resulting in temperature changes but that CO2 is the result of temperature changes so instead of forcing there is negative feedback and a fundamentally stable system as the signal analysis would suggest?
No one mention the human impact on warming beside CO2. It is massive and it is cooling or warming.
Clean air act and aerosols control a lot! Since 1985 it has been warming NH as the air gets less sulphur and the sun gets brighter.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1
If no increase and therefore no movement is “progressing at moderate rate,” what type of movement would any increase be?
Looks like a classic yes and no paper where the authors find it impossible to ignore what the data tells them but at the same time are fully aware that what it tells them is ‘not good news ‘ for their careers .
Brandon Gates posted a graph earlier of radiation measurements made looking up and looking down made simultaneously. This is a very instructive graph to test one’s the understanding of radiative absorption.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg
When this was published in Grant Petty’s book, he asked a series of questions. These questions separate the sheep from the goats; those who know something about this subject from those who need to get up to speed.
The questions are:
a) what is the approximate temperature of the ground and how do you know?
b) what is the approximate temperature of the near-surface air, and how do you know?
c) what is the approximate temperature of the air at the aircraft’s flight altitude of 20km, and how do you know?
So, are you a sheep or a goat?
First of all, this emission spectrum is from Petty 2006 and is over the Arctic Ice-Sheet on a completely cloudless day. Hardly a representative scenario.
Second, all it shows is the effective emission temperature across the spectrum of CO2 absorption lines and Ozone absorption lines (when there is no cloud cover).
The CO2 emissions to space cannot happen from the ground because they get intercepted in a few short metres by another CO2 molecule and technically, most of the energy is getting absorbed by Oxygen and Nitrogen when the excited CO2 molecule collides with them (at the surface, about 8 billion collions per second if you can believe it).
It is not until one gets up to 10 kms high (in the Arctic), actually just above the tropopause, where emissions from CO2 now have 50% chance of getting emitted directly to space (and other CO2 molecules are not intercepting it and the molecular collision rate slows as the air becomes less dense). At this level, the temperature is 225K (-48C). THIS is CO2 cooling off the planet by emitting energy to space from high in the atmosphere.
The other emission/interception area is from the Ozone layer at 8 kms up (240k at -33C) where one can see Ozone is actually intercepting sunlight at this level (it is not getting to the ground) and then the Ozone is just emitting much of that energy right back to space in a few seconds.
This chart is NEVER described in the proper radiation physics sense that it is actually occuring at.
Bill, you seem to have avoided answering any of the three questions and chosen to write about something else.
This is not a representative scenario? Sure it is. More than that, it is a real scenario. These are real measurements, not from some model. (although the Modtran model would produce a very close fit).
http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/38/722d8552a9cbc163ecc372b97b57026d6b794ea6.png
You could, of course, make measurements like this at other real location on Earth and ask exactly the same questions, only the answers would be different. Being able to interpret plots like these is essential to understanding what is happening in the real world.
Mike B,
Here is the Modtran spectrum for mid-latitudes looking up from the surface on a low cloud cover day.
The spectrum is the BLUE line (and it could be thought of as the back-radiation) and the surface temperature is 18C.
A PERFECT blackbody spectrum with no CO2 or water vapor or Ozone emission lines. Just cloud cover blackbody. (and clouds are present in the atmosphere 65% of the time).
http://s8.postimg.org/ugzcjycc5/Modtran_Mid_Latitude_Looking_Up_Surface.png
The story is way more complicated than climate science says. (and your chart is for the Sahara on a cloud-free day).
I have a vague idea what the chart means and I would like an explanation.
JohnnyCrash,
I posted the plot originally as a bit of a test, MikeB backed it up with this addition:
When this was published in Grant Petty’s book, he asked a series of questions. These questions separate the sheep from the goats; those who know something about this subject from those who need to get up to speed.
The questions are:
a) what is the approximate temperature of the ground and how do you know?
b) what is the approximate temperature of the near-surface air, and how do you know?
c) what is the approximate temperature of the air at the aircraft’s flight altitude of 20km, and how do you know?
Since I started this, and you have asked, I’ll give my answers. By the letters:
a) The approximate ground temperature is just shy of 270 K (-3.15 °C, 26.33 °F). I infer this from the upper plot, which shows the intensity of the radiation detected by the aircraft in the so-called “atmospheric window” regions between 8-9 and 10-13 μm wavelengths, which follow the predicted curve of the Planck radiation distribution function for an object at that temperature.
b) The approximate near-surface air temperature is again just of shy of 270 K, yet a smidge cooler than the ground. I infer this from the bottom plot, which shows downwelling radiation at intensities between 13-16 μm as well as from 6-8 μm. Planck distribution again.
c) This is a little tricky. The answer is that it’s in the neighbourhood of 225 K (-48.15 °C, -54.67 °F). I infer that from the Planck distribution in the 15 μm region of the upper plot, but that rests on the assumption that the atmosphere is all but entirely opaque to radiation in that band at that altitude, which it isn’t. Annoyingly, and not for the first time, Google has failed to give me a direct answer to that particular question. I also happen to know that the US standard atmosphere puts the temperature at about 220 K for that altitude, it seems reasonable to suppose that an aircraft at 20 km looking down will “see” some upwelling IR from warmer layers below it.
In sum, these two plots show our friendly, essential to life as we know it, “greenhouse effect” in action on a clear sky day in the Arctic. I note some grumbling going on about 65% cloud cover. Well yes, clouds complicate matters, but that doesn’t negate the 45% of the surface which isn’t seeing clouds. It’s a big issue for making predictions going forward, not so much for understanding the basic theory. Why Bill Illis didn’t just answer the questions as posed is curious.
Hypothesis fiddling after the fact is a no-no. Dance with the one that brung ya. The “worst case” is tied firmly to the extreme emissions scenario, which has been consistently and significantly (both senses) exceeded. It is illegitimate to try to keep results within the error bars by moving the goal posts. Make a new prediction and wait out the forecast period.
“This would indicate that the global warming hiatus would need to continue for 8–16 years beyond 2013 before it could be said with over 99% confidence that the true forced signal is not increasing as quickly as these CGCM-produced forced signals.”
This has got to be the only “science” where as long as there is a 1% chance you are right you are right. Today they agree that they are touching the 5% chance for all the emissions models, so they are 95% probability wrong but until they are 99% chance of being wrong they don’t want to give up claiming to be right.
And it has to be the only “science” where sitting at 5% probability they refuse to construct the model that would represent closer to the 50% probability because I guess that’s something they don’t want to show in their paper or get accused of being a denier?
“We find that the interdecadal variability in the rate of global warming over the 20th century (i.e., acceleration from ~1910–1940, deceleration until ~1975, acceleration until ~2000) is within the 2.5–97.5% EUN”
So, around 2.5% chance today of being right is okay. We’re still good. In physics they need 6 sigma to be considered possibly right. Until you get 6 sigma verification you haven’t proved anything.
In Climate “science” you need 6 sigma against you before you are wrong.
“We find that a negative linear trend of 11 years is not extremely unlikely in any of the forced signal trajectories over this time period. In fact, for the RCP 6.0 forced signal, there is a ~70% chance of seeing at least one negative linear trend of 11 years or longer between 1993–2050 (see Methods).”
And so with 11 years they are not extremely likely to be wrong, so again, that’s okay. As long as they aren’t extremely likely to be wrong, they are right.
Of course, it’s been 18 years 5 months of linear trend if you use RSS satellite records. How’s that fit into their probability computation? 0.01% right? Still good! Until 2099 and temperatures are flat the whole way they will say there is still a 0.000001% chance that next year temps will jump 10 degrees in one year and make our numbers. It’s not over till the fat lady sings.
+1
its even better than that , in reality they can endlessly extend the required time line becasue they always have the fall of of claiming ‘not yet but it will’
If a snake oils salesman has found a way he can actually get people to buy snake oil, do you think he will turn around at ‘any time’ and tell people its worthless ?
The temps will almost certainly be moderate till close to 2030 due to amp/pdo. That’s 16 more years. By then the probability of their models will being correct will be 0.01%. I’m frankly surprised at their tenacity and the publics tenacity to continue to believe this stuff even as orobabilities have dropped to the 5% chance.
These are baby steps.
“Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” said Patrick T. Brown.
Middle of the road is still too high. But it’s a tough pill to swallow. All the models are too high. All of them.
Since 1945 we have 0.4C gain (according to their adjusted data) and we’ve put up 130ppm of CO2 or about 50% of a doubling. Scientifically speaking the remaining 140ppm can generate no more than 30% of the entire TCS or 0.3C more gain. That means TCS is 0.7C not 3.0 not 6.0 not 2.5 or 2.0. TCS is proven by the data over 70 years now (1945-2015) to be 0.7C.
It is scientifically implausible that TCS is 2.5 or 3.0 or 6.0. That is simply as scientific as you can get. After 70 years of data, the fact we continue to pour CO2 into the atmosphere at astonishing rates and a 18year 5 month haitus by RSS it is very clear that any projection north of TCS = 1.0 is impossible to defend except as theoretical unproven science.
I see no way around this argument.
So, there IS natural variability. Something climate science previously said was so small, that it could just be ignored. Well, they seem to have got that wrong didn’t they.
Secondly, when one takes into account the impact of this natural variability, then one can tease out what the global warming/CO2 signal actually is in the real Earth tm.
They are trying to make climate science fell good about themselves by explaining the hiatus as natural variability. They can all agree now that natural variability exists and that is the cause of the pause.
But they still do not take the next step and say “how much warming does CO2 then produce in reality”. Temperatures went down from 1880 to 1918, they went up from 1919 to 1944, down from 1945 to 1976, up from 1977 to 1998, and now is flat or declining again.
Take all those cycles into account properly rather than just focussing on the “last” pause period, and then one gets a CO2 warming rate that is just one-third to one-half of the theory.
THAT is what the paper should be saying and what climate science needs to face up to.
http://s23.postimg.org/t6xdylr9n/Hadcrut4_Warming_2100_Dec14.png
Well said, and a very useful figure that more or less reproduces my own fits graphed out above. In fact very accurately reproduces my fits above. Your AR5 MME mean does not agree with figure 9.8a in AR5, I should point out — it lies solidly above HadCRUT4 for a disproportionate amount of time in the 20th century as well as all of the 21st. One also cannot count “agreement” across the reference period around the 1980s because that is normalization to a free parameter. Basically everywhere outside of the reference period CMIP5 runs hot compared to HadCRUT4 four or five times more likely than it runs cold, and it never runs very cold but often is substantially hot.
Here is a figure I made that is perhaps more illustrative of this:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Toft-CO2-vs-MME.jpg
The thin red line is from figure 9.8a. Black line is HadCRUT4 with error bars. Blue is the equivalent of your red line above — a direct fit of log forcing to HadCRUT4 (where the “RCP scenario” is irrelevant for past data and where I use a smooth curve for the past CO_2 that matches mean ice core data on one end and Mauna Loa (pretty much perfectly) on the other. Note that the red line is above the black line nearly all of the time and is only balanced relative to the black line across the reference period. It sometimes dips down to the black line but pretty much never descends below the black line.
The green line is by far the best fit, and is really the only fit that stays inside the HadCRUT4 confidence intervals (whether or not they are believable) in a way that leads to a sane chi squared. One can actually reject the specific assertion “The CMIP5 MME mean is unbiased relative to HadCRUT4” with a rather enormously high confidence. It is not. In fact, given that the reference period is fit only by virtue of the fact that there is a free parameter in both curves (the zero point of the “anomaly”, and don’t get me started on the fact that this actual zero point temperature is both critical to the physics of radiative balance and not known within one whole degree C as far as global temperature estimates are concerned) I’d say that the p-value for a lack of bias is less than 0.01, possibly as low as 0.001. It also has the wrong spectrum, the wrong fluctuation signature, etc, but that is to be expected. The real problem is that if you look at the individual model runs themselves, they have the wrong fluctuation signature not by a little, but by a lot. Look at how large the residual fluctuations are from doing a superaverage of perturbed parameter ensemble averages from the individual models! The individual models have to be fluctuating by a factor of 2 to 5 too much compared to the actual climate, and with the wrong timescales.
From fluctuation/dissipation we can thus immediately conclude that they are not correctly computing dissipation. Since dissipation is the whole object of the exercise in trying to estimate mean temperature and future climate for a chaotic open system, it means that the climate models are producing meaningless results because they manifestly do not contain or compute the correct physics. Their dissipative modes are not those of the actual climate system.
rgb
“there was a 70 percent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050”
Like others have asked above what is the IPCC’s likelihood of a hiatus of 18 years? What if our current hiatus lasts 20? 30? 50?
As I always like to ask those who feel that CO2 controls the climate “How long with flat or falling temperatures and rising CO2 before you admit it doesn’t?”.
The IPCC modelers stated 15 years wouldn’t happen with a 95% confidence interval on that statement. Santer et al said 17 years.
IIRC they also said that of all the model runs, only 3% showed pauses of 10 years or longer. Their predictions are laughable.
“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”
Thirty five years later:
“Okay, the sky hasn’t fallen, but that doesn’t mean it won’t fall in the future.”
“At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate….”
You flip a coin 18 times and get 18 tails. So you up the ante because future coin flips could start having a faster rate of being heads.
Sucker.
A favorite trick of those who defend the models is to provide graphs that include a lot of hindcasting. The only meaningful part of the data as far as testing the model is concerned is the prospective part where the modelers attempted to actually predict the future. That is, from the day the model predictions were published on. They will tweak the model to fit the known data, so that this fits the model is a given. (They even provide the model with data about aerosols that is impossible to predict, such as volcanic eruptions.) It is the period that they tried to predict in which the data was not known that is the real test. This part model defenders attempt to hide by confining it to a small segment of the graph. Blow this part of the graph up and you can see the real performance of these models, which is dismal.
I am sure I am not the only one to be irritated by the constant — and meaningless — assertions that “97% of scientists” agree on the alarmists view of “global warming”. And I know that I’m not the only “scientist” who subscribes to Dr. Brown’s (rgbatduke, above) assertion that “climate models are producing meaningless results because they manifestly do not contain or compute the correct physics. Their dissipative modes are not those of the actual climate system. ”
In an earlier phase of my life I oversaw the activities of fifteen engineers and programmers designing and producing a large-scale computer model/simulation (ASW), funded by a fat military budget. We learned, among many other things, that transforming such a model from being useless to being very valuable was quite difficult and at times we despaired of successfully completing it. Ultimately, though, we found that we had been closer to success than we had once feared, and only a few terms and parameters had actually needed to be adjusted. to make it work (somewhat).
I suspect that the IPCC’s climate models can’t be fixed so easily. And I also suspect (actually, I am certain) that most of the commentary on these models and their outputs comes from folk who have little or no technical understanding of the actual models. The better the knowledge, the more likely the commentator is to agree with rgbatduke that the model results are “meaningless”.
There is an opportunity, perhaps, to assert a “consensus view” by 97% of professional modelers that IPCC models “produce meaningless results”. I’m not sure how one would go about doing this; finding and polling the necessary 55 professional modelers would not be easy. But maybe someone with more energy and imagination than I may want to try it. (Note; professional modelers, not professional models).
I think Brandon won.
Yes,he won the cut and past illogical presentation award.
Generous of you. I’ve lost track of how many times you’ve copypastaed the same section of AR4 over and over again. Not to mention Phil Jones’ BBC interview. Say … how’s that reading up on internal variability been going for you?
Won!?
If you mean beat on the head with his own illogic and deceptive graphs, then yes, Brandon won the doofus award.
Lneraho: You need to read the MikeB’s, Bill Illis’s and Dr. Brown;s comments along with quite a few others.
Lneraho,
Thanks. Counting wendy makes two. Unfortunately you appear to have been outvoted; this comment …
If you mean beat on the head with his own illogic and deceptive graphs, then yes, Brandon won the doofus award.
… looks to be a representative enough sample. Note, however, that no explanation is given for why my graphs are “deceptive”. Par for this course, I’m afraid.
I’ve seen almost no coverage of this study in the media. I guess I won’t hold my breath for that.
Because it’s depressing. You all get excited about because you can say the IPCC was wrong, when in fact it proves they are right, just not their worst-case scenario which everyone should be happy about. The trend is the same, your arguments the same.
What!
I presented the IPCC own statement of temperature projections for first two decades,then showed the official temperature data. The result was the IPCC claim failed.
Here is the comment you missed:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/21/study-global-warming-actually-more-moderate-than-worst-case-ipcc-models/#comment-1913444
“It still does not save the Chimps modeling temperature projection 100% failure rate. Skeptics have long pointed out this obvious reality,but people like YOU keep resisting the obvious, with bogus argument such as “internal Variability” claims.
The failure rate is the same whether you advance it or not.
The IPCC have made SPECIFIC temperature projections for EACH of the first two decades of at least .20C warming and actual temperature data says it is about ZERO,to slight cooling instead, for the first 13 plus years.
“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.”
Warming of .2 C PER DECADE!
They left NO room for your stupid “internal Variability” argument.”
I successfully made the case that the IPCC projection a failure.
Heck he admits the models are wrong: “Yeah, in AR4. CMIP3 ran hotter than CMIP5, which the IPCC themselves say also runs hot. This is not news. I think it’s hilarious that you guys pretend otherwise.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/21/study-global-warming-actually-more-moderate-than-worst-case-ipcc-models/#comment-1913513
He got exposed as a Cut and past artist on unrelated stuff,that does not address what I was talking about.
Richard C. Courtney pointed this out about Gates irrelevant “internal Variability” statements:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/21/study-global-warming-actually-more-moderate-than-worst-case-ipcc-models/#comment-1914067
“just not their worst-case scenario” – big media outlets seem to love putting out stories about the worst case scenarios with screaming headlines and pictures of things on fire or animals in trouble. It would be nice to see some balance now and then, a “Hey maybe the worst case scenario won’t happen” story or two.
And what difference does it make if it’s 0.2, 0.1, 0.05 or 3? It’s warming, but more importantly they finally figured it’s climate change, not just a nicer, sunnier day. In other words, increased cloud coverage can be the result of higher temperature conditions but cap actual temperature increase in various layers. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be rainfall variability, storm intensity (20 inches in Sonoma but in 2 short, violent and warm storms), and jetstream impact. If we as humans can’t figure that when a strawberry picker from Mexico can buy a 5 bdrm, new construction home from Toll it’s all going to crash, how can we assume that we can figure out the climate? In a panel?
It is clear you are unwilling to go with the evidence presented.
I have showed you what the IPCC said, the temperature data showed they are very wrong.
The models have no credibility when they are wrong.
What difference does it make if it occurs at 1, 3, 5 or 50 miles an hour? It’s still a car crash.
Think about that statement in the context of your statement about climate change, and you may form some idea about why the rate of change does, in fact, make a significant difference when we are being asked to divert billions and eliminate our key sources of energy in the name of climate change mitigation.
[Snip. Please dispense with the ad hominem comments. ~mod.]
Translation:
I can’t enter into a decent discussion on science, with a scientist, therefore fall back to ad hominem instead.
You are now falling into the troll category.
Definitely trolling. I just do this to amuse myself and maybe give someone an embolism to reduce the carbon footprint one denier at a time.[Snip. Please stop trolling then. And note per site policy the pejorative “denier” is not welcome here. ~ mod.]
They’re thinking that solar farms are in the pits!
These pros do not buy high and sell low; they buy low and sell high.
Industrial zoned land is always valuable. It was Buffet who answered a wannabe’s question on how to get rich; “Buy real estate and live a long time”.
Bias is knowingly abusing the scientific process to reach predetermined decisions. When a person refuses to allow their opinions to blind their research, that is not bias.
Trying to reply to RACookPE1978 who makes some great observations. We actually can reverse and clean some of these places and things up. LA though…better, but you still can’t read a bold sign 5 blocks away in downtown due to the haze, not exactly the best example, and call it what you want, but the pollution from Beijing and China makes it all the way to LA and 364 days of smog is climate change from their perspective. The Yangtze River Dam was also just a local construction project but has reportedly change the tilt or rotation of the planet enough to be noticed. China as we all know is not Cooper Hill. A scientist could clarify that comment though re tilt.
China, needs to pass an equivalent of the 1963 Clean Aid Act, before they clean up their act.
The Three Gorges Dam probably hasn’t changed earth’s axis of rotation (tilt), but possibly has altered its rate of rotation by a tiny, perhaps immeasurable fraction. However, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions & the most energetic storms already do that in random, unpredictable ways. The moon’s tidal effect slows earth’s rotation & adds a second to the length of a day every 40,000 years. The sun’s tidal effect is about eight seconds per million years.
IOW, the rotational effect is essentially non-existent. There are of course other, more significant environmental effects.
So far you have said nothing useful here.
I cited the IPCC and Official temperature data,you come back with nothing,but babbling bubbles.
You are indeed a troll.
I think being called a troll is an ad hominen attack, but [Snip. You admitted to being a troll above. Please stop it. The rest of this comment is way off-topic. ~mod.]
Moderator: [Sorry for the snip, but moderators do not debate. Please direct comments to other readers, or to the author of the article. Regarding your question about linking, others link to those sites with no problem. ~mod.]
You make clear you didn’t read the links because they referred to comments,that in them explained why I stated Gates was being wrong.
Too bad you have so much bigotry in you.
But I will try one more time,using just the IPCC words and temperature data:
“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.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
They say at least .30C per decade is projected, but the official temperature data shows a very different picture:
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
Zero to a slight cooling instead.
Normally that is considered a catastrophic failure.
I had honestly showed you, Gates agreement with me, that the Chimp models the IPCC used were indeed running hot, way too hot by the posted temperature data result.
This means they failed, this means they can’t support the AGW conjecture with them,as they have been wrong for 25 years now.
Grow up fella.
Referring to Pete, yes, it is the rate of change I was trying to address, not nominal numbers, as well as the direction. In most systems change happens on the margin, and does not require a substantial underlying shift to cause movement. So the fact that Boston’s average temp is down is irrelevant if Siberia and the Arctic are up which impacts the jetstream, which impacts Boston… But I personally don’t care if someone, the IPCC or Fred Singer thinks 3C is the number. They don’t know. And analyzing core samples from a glacier in Nepal to see what happened 10,000 years is irrelevant to understanding what is happening in Beijing, which is clearly man made climate change.
Lneraho
And analyzing core samples from a glacier in Nepal to see what happened 10,000 years is irrelevant to understanding what is happening in Beijing, which is clearly man made local weather
climate change.As was Pittsburgh’s dirty local valley conditions – which cleared up in less than ten years.
And Los Angeles local valley conditions – which also cleared up very quickly.
As did London’s deadly local conditions – which cleared very quickly up once electric power became available, and coal (in individual chimney burners) was not burned in stoves for cooking and heating.
Beijiing will clean up as soon as the Chinese generals decide they want to spend the money to clean it up.
Copper Hill TN (lead mining, sulfuric acid processing, copper mining and refining, cadmium and other deadly mineral, etc, etc … was a rocky blank hillside only 20 years ago. It is now pine trees and scrub grass. And bugs and deer and wild pigs and squirrels and tourists.