Guest essay by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
– FOREWORD: WUWT readers probably remember when the now head of NASA GISS, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, could not stand to be seen on the same stage with Dr. Roy Spencer. Gavin decided to hide offstage while Dr. Spencer had finished his interview with John Stossel, rather than be subject to some tough questions Dr. Spencer might have posed in a debate with him on live TV. Gavin knew he’d lose, so he acted like a child on national TV and hid from Dr. Spencer offstage. It was one of the truly defining moments demonstrating the lack of integrity by mainstream climate scientists.
Now, Dr. Schmidt seems to be hiding from those inconvenient questions again, as Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes below. Dr. Schmidt also hides from me, having blocked WUWT on Twitter, so I’d appreciate it if some other WUWT readers would let him know of this publication. Dr. Schmidt is welcome to publish a rebuttal (or simply answer the questions) here if he wishes. He has my email. – Anthony Watts
Questions for Gavin Schmidt – Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York
by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
On March 18 2015, I submitted a set of questions to Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA GISS, who initially seemed inclined to answer and ask some of his own. However, he now is not even replying to my e-mails. If he were a scientist without leadership responsibilities in the climate community, he certainly can choose to ignore my request. However, he is a Director of a major US federal laboratory and, as such, he (or his staff) should be responding to such requests. As of today’s date, he has not answered any of the questions.
By posting these questions, I am encouraging others to respond to the science issues I have raised, as well as be used in the future when Gavin is required to testify, such at a House and/or Senate committee. In your comments, please focus on the scientific issues and avoid any comments on motives, personal attacks etc.
My questions to Gavin follow:
Gavin,
Below are my questions that you agreed to look at in your tweet. I have copied to Judy as her weblog is an appropriate place to present this Q&A if she agrees. Judy might also want to edit and/or add to the questions.
Thank you for doing this. It shows that there is room for constructive debate and discussion on these issues.
1. There is a new paper on global albedo Stephens et al 2015
Click to access albedo2015.pdf
There is also a powerpoint talk on this at http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/Lorenz/Lorenz_Workshop_Talks/Stephens.pdf
Among the conclusions is that
“Climate models fail to reproduce the observed annual cycle in all components of the albedo with any realism, although they broadly capture the correct proportions of surface and atmospheric contributions to the TOA albedo. A high model bias of albedo has also persisted since the time of CMIP3,mostly during the boreal summer season. Perhaps more importantly, models fail to produce the same degree of interannual constraint on the albedo variability nor do they reproduce the same degree of hemispheric symmetry.”
Q: How do you respond to this critique of climate models with respect to the GISS model?
2. In 2005 Jim Hansen made the following statement regarding the GISS model [https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/1116592hansen.pdf]
“The Willis et al. measured heat storage of 0.62 W/m2 refers to the decadal mean for the upper 750 m of the ocean. Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean. The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2 , includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.
Certainly the energy imbalance is less in earlier years, even negative, especially in years following large volcanic eruptions. Our analysis focused on the past decade because: (1) this is the period when it was predicted that, in the absence of a large volcanic eruption, the increasing greenhouse effect would cause the planetary energy imbalance and ocean heat storage to rise above the level of natural variability (Hansen et al., 1997), and (2) improved ocean temperature measurements and precise satellite altimetry yield an uncertainty in the ocean heat storage, ~15% of the observed value, smaller than that of earlier times when unsampled regions of the ocean created larger uncertainty.”
Q: What is the GISS update to this summary including the current estimates for the imbalance?
3. There are questions on the skill of the multi-decadal climate prediction models in terms of their use for regional impact studies for the coming decades. These models have been tested in hindcast runs. What are your answers to the following:
When run in hindcast (over the last few decades) where the forcings of added CO2 and other human inputs of greenhouse gases and aerosols are reasonably well known:
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting average observed regional climate statistics?
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting CHANGES in observed regional climate statistics?
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting observed regional extreme weather statistics?
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting CHANGES in observed regional extreme weather statistics?
4. The issue of value-added by regional downscaling has been discussed in
Pielke Sr., R.A., and R.L. Wilby, 2012: Regional climate downscaling – what’s the point? Eos Forum, 93, No. 5, 52-53, doi:10.1029/2012EO050008. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/r-361.pdf
Among our conclusions is that
“…downscaling has practical value but with the very important caveat that it should be used for model sensitivity experiments and not as predictions….. It is therefore inappropriate to present [downscaling of multi-decadal climate projections] results to the impacts community as reflecting more than a subset of possible future climate risks.”
Q: Can regional dynamic and/or statistical downscaling be used to increase the prediction (projection) skill beyond that of available by interpolation to finer scales directly from the multi-decadal global climate models predictions?
5. There is considerable debate as to where heat has been going in recent years since the temperature increases at the surface and troposphere have flattened. On example of this discussion is in the post
Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean
Q: Since it is claimed that a large fraction of the heat from human input of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has been going into the deeper ocean over the last 10-15 years (as an attempt to explain the “hiatus”), why is the global average surface temperature trend still used as the primary metric to diagnose global warming?
6. The paper
Matsui, T., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2006: Measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Letts., 33, L11813, doi:10.1029/2006GL025974. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-312.pdf
writes the following
“This paper diagnoses the spatial mean and the spatial gradient of the aerosol radiative forcing in comparison with those of well-mixed green-house gases (GHG). Unlike GHG, aerosols have much greater spatial heterogeneity in their radiative forcing. We present a measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing. The NGoRF is introduced to represent the potential effect of the heterogeneous radiative forcing on the general circulation and regional climate.The heterogeneous diabatic heating can modulate the gradient in horizontal pressure field and atmospheric circulations, thus altering the regional climate.”
The paper
Mahmood, R., R.A. Pielke Sr., K. Hubbard, D. Niyogi, P. Dirmeyer, C. McAlpine, A. Carleton, R. Hale, S. Gameda, A. Beltrán-Przekurat, B. Baker, R. McNider, D. Legates, J. Shepherd, J. Du, P. Blanken, O. Frauenfeld, U. Nair, S. Fall, 2013: Land cover changes and their biogeophysical effects on climate. Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.3736. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/r-374.pdf
…shows that such heterogeneous forcing also exists for land use/land cover change.
Q: What is the relative role of land use/land cover change relative as well as added aerosols with respect to added CO2 and other greenhouse gases in affecting local and regional climate and changes in regional climate statistics?
6. In our post at Climate Etc
An alternative metric to assess global warming – http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/28/an-alternative-metric-to-assess-global-warming/
we wrote
“We present this alternate tool to assess the magnitude of global warming based on assessing the magnitudes of the annual global average radiative imbalance, and the annual global average radiative forcing and feedbacks. Among our findings is the difficulty of reconciling the three terms.”
Q: Please provide your best estimate for the terms.
7. The book
DISASTERS AND CLIMATE CHANGE Rightful Place of Science Series
Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes by Roger Pielke, Jr.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/dcc/index.html
discusses the role of changes in climate in recent decades on disasters.
Q: What is your conclusion on the role of changes in extreme weather as they affect society during the last several decades?
Roger Sr.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Post them on Obarmy’s new twitter account. He can lie his way out of anything.
This reminds me of an early lesson I learned when I was in the military working at a government lab. The jist of that lesson was, “If you don’t think you are going to like the answer, don’t ask the question”. Gavin Schmidt has learned this lesson well.
To the good Dr Pielke, it is not possible for this person to answer your questions for you are not dealing with science per sec, but post normal science. The twentieth century saw meetings of prominent scientists that formed a consensus on a model of the universe, a consensus on nuclear physics, a consensus on the model of the sun and our planetary system.
The consensus was to be adhered to at all costs, or you lost your tenure, thus the statement shut up and calculate [ he explained]. The result was that scientists were only allowed to try and prove the models and not disprove them as is the case of normal scientific endeavour. This has been branded post normal science.
The model of the universe fell apart when most of the universe was found to be missing, this did not set them on a path for a new model, but an explanation of the old on using imaginary dark matter and dark energy.
Nuclear physics suffering from the same illusions borrowing imaginary particles from a non existing ether to prop up their consensus model, I dub these imaginary friends, for they need them to perpetuate their fantasies.
Non of these people are allowed to think outside the square, they are either brainwashed or scared. Real science coming from satellites , rovers ETC is contradicting them big time, yet no one is stepping out.
Then we come to climate science and the consensus of, pure post normal nonsense, for they are only trying to prove it and not using the scientific method of trying to disprove it. Thus we have propaganda and not science.
As I’m reading this comment thread, including the exchanges between Richard Courtney and some of his detractors (so happy to hear about your improving health, Richard!) I have NPR playing, and it’s dutifully (as is it’s wont) reporting on Obama’s hysterical address to U.S. Coast Guard academy, saying how critical it is that we immediately stop sea level rise by outlawing coal burning to generate electricity in the states and effectively allow the Federal government to control the electrical generation industry.
Obama is Gavin’s ultimate “boss.” But Gavin is also a Federal bureaucrat. The U.S. bureaucracy has many tenets that survive and even thrive across political changes and elections. That said, there’s no doubt that these two men are of one mind on carbon dioxide emissions and the CAGW “crisis.” Unfortunately, Gavin will still be an alarmist bureaucrat working for the U.S. government even after Obama leaves office. But he might have to hold his tongue a bit more. If I were King of the World, both Obama and Gavin would out of a job, (and I’d think up some other devious ways of humbling both of them, too, as their personal hubris seems to be an integral part of the problem).
As an aside, it’s shameful to me how Obama has co-opted the U.S. military top brass into supporting the optics of CAGW and climate crisis. Several years ago, the Navy was forced by the idiots to buy a certain type of ethanol fuel for it’s ships, including a percentage from cellulose based production that doesn’t even exist. There’s no question these policies wasted huge amounts of money when our military is shrinking, even as global threats are increasing. Our navy is a force for civilization, at a time when piracy and thousands of fearful refugees are taking to the seas to flee political and religious persecution. I’m left to shake my head and think bad thoughts about the people who voted for Obama, who think carbon dioxide emissions are a crisis, that you can create a free market by legislation, and who lean toward the idea that the world would be better if the U.S. military were suddenly eviscerated.
/rant
Richard has a one track mind.
That said I hope his heath keeps improving.
Salvatore Del Prete
I follow where the data leads. And if the data is inadequate then I say I don’t know,
Richard
It is shameful that the brass have saluted and obeyed. Any general officers inclined not to follow illegal orders have been purged, so we’re left with toadies.
The current CinCPac says with a straight face that his Number One mission is combating “Climate Change”. People see CACCA advocates giving lectures to military officers on YouTube, so conclude that the threat must be real, rather than imaginary but mandated.
Gavin Schmidt sure is a lot like Hillary Clinton.
That’s not a compliment. 🙂
Reblogged this on Climatism.
Here is an article to which Gavin Schmidt made a contribution in 2010. He might not wish to be reminded that whilst Mankind proposes, Nature disposes. Those pesky Milankovitch cycles play havoc with climate change theory. An ever changing climate is what we have & temperatures drop as well as warm.
http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/how-earths-orbital-shift-shaped-the-sahara/
Pardon my ignorance, but is this the same Gavin at RealClimate ?
Yes Mary, it is.
Brief off topic celebratory notice!
Not only has the first printing of “Climate Change, The Facts” sold out at Amazon.com in less than 30 days, as of this morning, it’s “Amazon ranking” was #1,116 in the book department. (For contrast, Dana Nuccitelli’s book about pseudo-climate science has not sold out in the 2 1/2 months since it went on sale AND was ranked this AM by Amazon at #181,683.) BUT….when I checked this afternoon, Climate Change, The Facts has risen in Amazon Ranking to # 863!!!
Congratulations Anthony and all others involved in compiling this soon to be best seller!!!
I think skeptics the world over should ask the following question: What will falsify the AGW theory? After all, what does religion and AGW theory have in common? Neither are falsifiable.
I tweeted Gavin as follows:
I won’t be shocked if I don’t receive a detailed reply going into depths as to his reasons.
This is not a finished poem.
Gavin Schmidt — I Got The Data In Me
(most sorry Kiki Dee)
Got no troubles at NASA
I’m a rocket nothing can stop
Survival’s always the first law
And I’m in with those at the top
I heat up
I cool down
A site I don’t like I discard it
The high and the mighty can frown
So say what they want they reward it
Man is the measure
Of all things that be
The Progressive Alliance
And its New Age Science
Say I got the data in me
I work in the mists and the fogs
By methods that none can review
To hide like a fox from the dogs
The premise of all that I do
The thermometers all want skilling
When their readings are not alarming
As the early ones all need chilling
So the later ones all need warming
An apple in a garden hangs
From the lowest branch of a tree
Why reach for anything higher
It fills my every desire
I got the devil —
I got the devil —
I got the devil in me
Eugene WR Gallun
Pielke is adopting a well-known technique for wasting the time of an expert. Basically he is cherry picking a few points he knows would take hours of analysis for Schmidt to cover. Please note that one of these questions would involve Schmidt in reading a whole book, and another appears to have four questions instead of one.
It is right that Schmidt ignores these questions.and gets on with the important job he has to do right now in preparing for the November 2015 climate summit in Paris. The science is clear and it is time to take actions.
If Pielke wants to play the question game then let him answer these:
1. Rejection of the conclusion of mainstream climate science is almost exclusively a phenomenon among English-speaking conservatives. Although it correlates with level of education among conservatives, the correlation disappears as soon as the level of formal education on climate science increases. Different survey techniques have found that 97% or 98% of climate experts (determined by publications in the academic journals) confirm that AGW is real. All national science academies throughout the world confirm that AGW is real.
Q1. Why should anyone pay attention to the material questioning AGW put out by right-wing think tanks or the tiny minority of (invariably conservative) climate scientists who dismiss the mainsteam climate science consensus?
2. Much is made of “the pause”. However, this is a treble cherry-pick. Firstly you have to look only at surface temperatures (or more specifically lower tropospheric temperatures as measured by satellites), instead of the full set of indicators (e.g. including radiative forcing imbalance and reduction of upper stratospheric temperatures). Secondly the (1998 – 2015) pause only shows up on the RSS data set, not UAH 5.6 or any of the surface temperature data sets. Thirdly, the pause requires a specific start date which coincided with a huge En Nino event.
Q2. Given that it is a treble cherry pick why should anyone pay attention to or draw conclusions from the supposed pause?
3. When comparing models with reality, those questioning mainstream climate science never apply any controls for actual ENSO state. These controls can be applied in one of two ways. Either you can compare the models trends with three individual sets of data separately – those for states of El Nino, La Nina nad neutral ENSO. Or you can select those model runs which are close to the phase (ENSO state over time) with the actual ENSO history then do the comparison. In either case the model trends are a reasonable match for actual surface temperatures when the normal scientific controls are applied.
Q3. Does he accept that the normal scientific controls for random stochastic external factors such as ENSO,solar output (TSI), and volcanoes should be applied when comparing climate model surface temperatures with actuals and that the controlled comparison results show that the climate models are basically sound?
That will do for now, but there’s four more to go.
We livin’ in the middle of the cherry pie, pits and all; it’s half-baked.
======
I will answer your questions by pointing out that you use a sophists trick right at the beginning that invalidates all that follows.
Your trick is that you take two different things (one named and one not) and conflate them under just one name. AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is not CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) — but you hash together the admitted benign existence of the former with the imaginative coming disasters to be caused by the latter. You intrinsically imply that anyone who believes in AGW also believes in the certainty of coming climate disasters predicted by CAGW.
(Essentially you are saying something like this — ‘We all admit to the existence of spring rains and thus our countryside and cities will be destroyed at their arrival.’ Put that way do you see how inane your writing is?)
In the study that you cite in question #1 the truth is that 96% of papers did not imply the authors believed in CAGW. Only 2% did — the same percentage of papers which implied that the authors did not believe in either AGW or CAGW. The authors pulled the same trick you are pulling — combining that 96% of papers that implied a belief in AGW with that 2% which implied a belief in CAGW. .Then (wink, wink) this hit the newspapers as — 98% Of Science Papers Say CAGW Is Real!!!!!!!!!!!.
I believe in AGW — there are cities all over the world that have a higher temperature than the surrounding countryside. But AGW has almost zero effect on world climate.
Recently Willie Soon was attacked, the claim being made he received funding from the Koch brothers. Actually several years ago Dr. Soon, through the institution where he works, received grant money coming from the Koch Foundation to do research totally unrelated to climate. The money was used up years before the current paper for which he was being attacked.
Now it comes out that a group of climate scientists published a paper confirming how fantastic the EPA’s new regulations were and what a wonderful effect they would have on saving the climate — and between them those scientists had received nearly 50 million dollars of previous funding from the EPA with the funding still ongoing.
So based upon the money who is probably speaking honestly and without bias?.
i could go on but why waste my time on someone as blind as you.
Eugene WR Gallun
.
Here’s an document on Naomi Oreskes survey in which she found that none of 928 scientific journal articles rejected AGW, 75% concurred and 25% expressed no views. Benny Peiser tried to claim he found 34 which “rejected or doubted” AGW, but virtually all of these are not scientific publications. http://norvig.com/oreskes.html
The 34 are listed here and mostly Peiser has backed off calling them “rejected or doubted AGW”. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/05/06/peiser/
And here is the link to the 2013 paper by Cook et al which does a very similar survey, but this time with more articles – http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article .
As you can see, the conclusions are very similar.
Then there’s the Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey – https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
That’s three sources saying the same thing – of the climate science research papers expressing a view on AGW, at least 97% agree with the mainstream climate science consensus.
And someone did a straw telephone poll of the papers in one of the surveys to check whether the authors agreed that AGW was real, and guess what – those contacted agreed that it was.
The evidence is that the closer a scientists field of expertise gets to climate science, the higher the percentage that will tell you AGW is real.
The interesting one is the meteorologists (of which Pielke Sr is one, as well as dabbling in climate). They used to be split around 50 : 50 on whether AGW is real, but now 90% of them will tell you it is, including some of them on air too.
And the problem with Soon is not that he accepts funding from right-wing think tanks or Koch brothers or fossil fuel companies, but that all his papers say “no conflict of interest” when there clearly is one. Further, some of the conflicts of interest were contracts signed which say that the Southern Company had a right to read and suggest (but not require) changes to the first draft of his papers published. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon#2015:_Allegations_of_disclosure_violations
Eugene,
You can see ‘Climate Pete’ doing the same thing:
…at least 97% agree with the mainstream climate science consensus.
1. Consensus isn’t science. But since CP is so impressed with the consensus argument, I will point out that the OISM surveyed more than 31,000 professionals, all with degrees in the hard sciences (including more than 9,000 PhD’s). They all co-signed a statement saying that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Every one of them was named and vetted.
I have regularly challenged the alarmist crowd to produce the names of even 10% of the OISM numbers, which contradict the statement. No one has ever tried. So I challenged them to produce even ONE PERCENT of the OISM numbers. That’s only about 300 names. Response: *crickets*
So the fact is that the true consensus is heavily on the side of skeptics of man-made global warming(MMGW). ‘Climate Pete’ decisively loses that argument.
2. CP says:
…someone did a straw telephone poll of the papers in one of the surveys to check whether the authors agreed that AGW was real, and guess what – those contacted agreed that it was.
No names, no links, no sources, nothing. Not that anyone with any sense would believe such self-serving pablum. “Those contacted…” Sure.
3. …funding from right-wing think tanks or Koch brothers or fossil fuel companies…
Credibility totally shot. Go away.
It’s entirely possible that more scientists in relevant disciplines think that AGW is possible than not. That is a far cry from humanity being the primary driver of GW and farther still from its being catastrophic. Many who think humans might be affecting climate see our contribution as a good thing.
That’s why the short hand “climate change” is just a way to lie.
Aw, c’mon, this troll’s easy.
========
You know it’s going to be a laugh-a-thon when Naomi conducts the prelude.
===================
‘Climate Pete’,
No matter what you say, no matter what you believe, no matter what you preach, there is one central fact that deconstructs all of it:
Global warming stopped many years ago.
‘Climate Pete’,
No matter what you say, no matter what you believe, no matter what you preach, there is one central fact that deconstructs all of it:
Global warming stopped so long ago that everything you write has been debunked.
‘Climate Pete’,
No matter what you say, no matter what you believe, no matter what you preach, there is one central fact that deconstructs all of it:
Global warming stopped so long ago that everything you write is nonsense
The plateau shows up in all “data” sets, even the cooked book GISS and HadCRU “surface record”. Both satellite records, UAH and RSS show it, as does the balloon record. It is a scientific fact, ie an observation.
Nor does it start in 1998, so your assertion of a cherry pick is false. Applying a linear regression to RSS, there has been no warming since 1996.
Now if you want to see a real cherry pick, look at Arctic sea ice. IPCC pretends that there were no satellite observations of the Arctic before 1979, when a satellite launched for that specific purpose began operating. But in fact there are satellite observations from the 1960s onward. It just so happened that 1979 was one of the highest ice years of the past century, if not the highest. Just four years previously, Arctic sea ice extent was about the same as now. Thus, using 1975 as a start date would show no change in 40 years.
But in fact Arctic sea ice extent is cyclical longer term when year to year fluctuations are averaged out. Which is why its extent in 2013-22 is liable to be greater than in 2003-12. In any case, global sea ice is already in an upswing, thanks to the Antarctic, which is the sea ice that really matters climatically, due to its much greater effect on albedo.
Climate Pete
You write
Say what!? Please define what you mean by “expert”.
Pielke is an expert in climate science and Schmidt is not.
Richard
Google scholar is telling me that Pielke Sr has a higher h-index than Schmidt but is primarily a meteorologist rather than climate scienteist. The papers with the most citations from Pielke Sr include a number on meteorology rather than climate science or climate change which cannot be included.. Based on that I would rank them similarly in terms of climate science / change citations. However, Pielke Sr clear is one of the 3% of those working in climate science who argues against the 97% climate science expert consensus.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=ZCFFOQcAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate&cstart=100&pagesize=20
https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&newwindow=1&es_sm=122&q=wikipedia+willie+soon+&oq=wikipedia+willie+soon+&gs_l=serp.3…168148.174339.0.174706.22.22.0.0.0.0.169.1702.18j3.21.0.msedr…0…1c.1.64.serp..2.20.1633.h-fD9ev353g
Oops, sorry wrong like for Gavin Schmidt. use this one.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TKPXa3UAAAAJ
‘Climate Pete’,
No matter what you say, no matter what you believe, no matter what you preach, there is one central fact that deconstructs all of it:
Global warming stopped almost 20 years ago.
Climate Pete
It gives me great pleasure to agree with you for the first time.
You say
Yes, the science is clear.
Global warming stopped nearly two decades ago and this falsifies the hypothesis that human emissions of greenhouse gases will cause harmful global warming.
Yes, it is time to take actions.
We need to defund the rent-seekers, pseudoscientists and subsidy junkies who have been living off the global warming scare.
Richard
Richard, Do you understand that your statement “Global warming stopped nearly two decades ago and this falsifies the hypothesis that human emissions of greenhouse gases will cause harmful global warming.” is a treble cherry pick and is not “controlled” for external factors as science generally demands?
1. You are focusing on only one aspect of AGW. A much better one is the reduction in upper stratospheric temperatures over the same time period, because that determines what energy imbalance / radiative forcing we are currently getting. And given that figure you can readily work out an approximate eventual surface temperature rise.
2. You are picking only the RSS data set and ignoring both UAH 5.6 and ALL the surface temperature datasets.
3. You are cherry picking a period which starts with the largest El Nino in the last 20 years – although it may well be that the current El Nino in progress may take that honour – who knows. Try starting from a date 10 years previously
4. And the point on control for external factors is that you should try to assess whether the ENSO status has affected trends. If you do that you find that the trends for years with the same ENSO status are pretty much all very similar and upwards, not static.
So that is four things you have to be very biased about in order to reach the conclusion you have.
‘Climate Pete’,
No matter what you say, no matter what you believe, no matter what you preach, there is one central fact that deconstructs all of it:
Global warming stopped nearly 20 years ago.
Climate Pete
You assert and ask
That is total nonsense and the remainder of your blather is a set of straw men based on those falsehoods. I will address the falsehoods.
You don’t understand what you have written.
If you did understand your own words then you would have understood
1.
I made no “cherry pick”: your assertion is a falsehood.
2.
“Control” for “external factors” (whatever you think that means) is not relevant to determination of whether something is warming or not.
3.
Science does NOT make the “demands” you state but pseudoscience does.
I made no “cherry pick”: your assertion is a falsehood.
There has been no discernible global warming at 95% confidence for at least the most recent 14 years with only the GISS determination indicating less than 19 years and RSS indicating for the most recent 26 years.
You are plain wrong when you write
Check the facts for yourself and you may start to escape the conditioning imposed on you by your cult. Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly (GASTA) has not risen (or fallen) at a rate discernibly different from zero at 95% confidence for several years according to ALL its different compilations.
The data compiled by Dr Ross McKitrick (of RSS) provides these values he has computed for the length of the period to present when global warming was not discernibly different from zero at 95% for each data set.
SATELLITE INDICATIONS
UAH: No discernible warming since July 1996: i.e. for 20 years.
RSS: No discernible warming since December 1992: i.e. for 26 years.
SURFACE INDICATIONS
HadCRUT4.3:No discernible warming since May 1997: i.e. for 19 years
Hadsst3:No discernible warming since May 1995: i.e. for 21 years
GISS: No discernible warming since June 2000: i.e. for more than 14 years.
There are over 60 different papers published in attempt to explain the cessation of global warming that is often misnamed as the “Pause” or the “Hiatus”. It is misnamed because the cessation may end with warming or cooling and nobody can know which until it happens.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its most recent scientific report (AR5)
Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
That was published 3 years ago and the then “Past 15 Years” is now 18 years.
Climate Pete, face reality as expressed by ALL measurements and the IPCC because it will help you to escape the conditioning imposed on you by your cult.
“Control” for “external factors” (whatever you think that means) is not relevant to determination of whether something is warming or not.
Warming consists of an increase in temperature. Global warming consists of an increase in Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly (GASTA).
Whatever you mean by “external factors” is not relevant because they do not alter the fact that GASTA has not risen (or fallen) at a rate discernibly different from zero at 95% confidence for several years according to ALL its different compilations; i.e. global warming stopped nearly two decades ago.
The existence of ENSO effects is not relevant because that is merely a possible factor affecting WHY global warming has stopped and is not a refutation of the fact that global warming has stopped.
You say one should “try starting from a date 10 years earlier”. NO! When considering the time global warming stopped then one starts from NOW and works back from now until a period is observed to include warming. Similarly, when considering when a person stopped growing one does not include the 10 years before he stopped growing.
Your cult has really, really brainwashed you if you cannot understand that.
Stratospheric temperature and energy balance are not relevant to GASTA which is about surface temperatures. The stratosphere is above the troposphere (i.e. the lowest layer of the atmosphere) and energy balance can alter without warming or cooling (e.g. because of phase changes of water).
I repeat, Climate Pete, face reality as expressed by ALL measurements and the IPCC because it will help you to escape the conditioning imposed on you by your cult.
Science does NOT make the “demands” you state but pseudoscience does.
Science attempts to find the closest approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking information that refutes existing idea(s) then changing, amending and/or rejecting an idea to incorporate new information.
Pseudoscience decides an idea is ‘true’ then seeks information which supports the idea while refusing to accept information that refutes the idea.
Climate Pete, your entire post is pure pseudoscience.
Face reality as expressed by ALL measurements and the IPCC and reject pseudoscience because that will help you to escape the conditioning imposed on you by your cult.
Richard
I have checked the facts for myself. My Excel spreadsheet is a little outdated at present but contains temperatures from the source datasets (RSS, UAH, GISTEMP, C&W) through December 2013. It is invalid to use raw HadCRUT4 data as it is known to omit a lot of grid points around the Arctic which is where a lot of warming has taken place, so these points have to be filled in using kriging or some other means. The Cowtan & Way data set give you the choice of HadCRUT4 plus kriging or spatial infill from UAH satellite data (it does not use UAH time series).
The spreadsheet currently contains data currently up to December 2013, and the data is smoothed over 12 months, so my data points go up to July 2013. Here are two results from the spreadsheet.
1. The UAH trend from September 1997 (data cherry picked as you would want it to give minimum trend) to July 2013 is 0.69 C per century, with a standard error in the trend of 0.18 C/century. A two sigma (just over 96%) confidence limit thus gives a range of 0.33 to 1.05 C/century. This directly contradicts your statement above, which I bet you have not worked out for yourself from the raw figures.
The 96 percentile range for UAH does therefore show significant warming 1997-2013. The range does not span zero, and could be as high as a degree C.
Your quote above from McKitrick is, of course, in direct contradiction to my spreadsheet findings.
Personally, I would trust my spreadsheet (and extension of temperatures on it by another 12 months is not going to affect trends much because 2014 was a pretty hot year). My advice to you would be to do your own spreadsheet using the SLOPE function for the base trend and INDEX(LINEST(:,: ,TRUE,TRUE),2,1) to get the trend standard error. Or send an email to user technopete at email domain bariumtitanatemechanism.com and I’ll send you the spreadsheet.
2. If you average the four datasets (UAH 5.6, RSS, GISTEMP, C&W) and then take the trend and two sigma bounds you get a graph which looks like this.
http://api.ning.com/files/NHPaItPS5EgaXJA3hsprTMwKPD4fRVckcyC3fIYLo*VisPF9WsQT5a-RUmO7CkQTbwfh-L4tZmVC0iGYOQYDVqKMTZ8Qq-0o/TemperatureDatasetTrendsWith96PercentBoundsToJuly2013.jpg
From the graph you can see the minimum in trend for start date of 1997/8. The brown and yellow lines are the two sigma (standard error in trend) confidence levels, which show a minimum confirmed positive trend for this start date. The graph also shows how cherry-picked 1997/8 start date is compare with earlier start dates. Trends starting after this date are starting to get high levels of fluctuations, however, because the time period is too small to give stable trend values over time. Trends starting after 2006 are suppressed completely because they would require larger y axis values.
Based on the evidence submitted above, I repeat that the “pause” is a treble cherry-pick on RSS dataset, trend start date, and using the surface / lower tropospheric indicator instead of looking at a bigger picture, and is not controlled for ENSO state. If anyone does not know what controlling for a random external input means then go Google it.
However, the whole argument is a complete waste of time anyway. The only thing that matters is the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, and this is dictated by upper stratospheric temperatures which have not stopped reducing during the “pause” period. You should try to understand the ramifications of this. While the energy balance is out of kilter, then it is inevitable that at some point surface temperatures must rise, because this is the only thing which can happen to restore the equilibrium. All the temperature trends (and to some extent models) are trying to tell you is how fast this happens, but this does not affect the final equilibrium temperature rise.
Pretty likely the pitiful anthropogenic aliquot from fossil carbon will already be well on its way to nearly permanent re-sequestration by the inevitable conspiracy of the biome and the sun long before your much unnecessarily feared equilibrium is reached.
=================
Climate Pete
Please try to read what I wrote. Your long-winded response ignores it.
You assert
NO!
You are refusing to face the reality that global warming is a discernible rise in Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly (GASTA. Global warming is NOT a change in some processed version of GASTA or any other straw man you want to erect.
Based on your spreadsheet using your unstated algorithms you claim that everybody except you is wrong.
The only thing we know of your assertion (n.b. assertion NOT “evidence”) is that you process the data before combining it (you say you “average” it) and you average the values from the different data sets in contravention of Nyquist. That is pure pseudoscience which you provide in attempt to pretend (to yourself?) that reality can be ignored.
In reality, global warming has stopped.
Publish your work if you really think your spreadsheet shows reality is other than it is.
Richard
Climate Pete the models are way off and just about all of the atmospheric processes AGW has called for have failed to materialize.
Go look up what has happened to upper stratospheric temperatures in that time. It is these which control the energy imbalance, which has grown larger over the last 20 years.
It’s pretty irrelevant what the models say, because they are only trying to apportion the extra heat to atmosphere, surface and various bits of the ocean. The extra heat is clearly there and getting worse.
I do not see it. The global temperature trend will be down not up going forward.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/
Here is a list for starters there is much more.
A veritable collection of cherry picks, myths or red herrings.
1/2 The pause only affects surface temperatures which can vary considerably. There has been no pause in the earth’s energy imbalance, which is the really important thing. And the pause is a treble cherry-pick – see my post above.
3/4 is based on a misunderstanding of the dynamic CO2 processes. Although an individual molecule of CO2 does not survive for more than a few years in the atmosphere, 40% of the excess quantity of CO2 pumped out by humans stays there for hundreds of years.
5 is just plain speculation with nothing to back it up, whereas AGW mechanisms are backed with solid science and thousands of peer-reviewed journal publications.
I could go on, but it is enough for now if you understand the other 17 are irrelevant to whether AGW is real or not – same as the first five.
If you decide to learn enough to understand the items on the list properly you would be able to prune the list for yourself. I recommend https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x
‘Climate Pete’,
No matter what you say, no matter what you believe, no matter what you preach, there is one central fact that deconstructs all of it:
Global warming stopped many years ago.
Over the last two days, I have been commenting at ATTP on their post
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/watt-about-rogers-questions/#comment-56471
Today, in my last comment on that weblog, they are holding it up rather than posting. Quite frankly, I tried to engage, and was encouraged yesterday when they actually admitted they made an error. Not today as the usual trolls have started piling on. Just as with SKS, they are not interested in scientific debate but want to play “gotcha”. Even Gavin Schmidt’s not relevant to the question response shows he is not interested in any perspective but his.
Below is the comment I submitted that they are holding up (let’s see if they actually post).
May 21, 2015 at 9:10 pm
russellseitz – Perchance you have a cite for this? It is an erroneous statement. For example,there are three dimensional radiative transfer codes. They produce instantaneous radiative forcing.
ATTP – On your statement
“I also don’t think that the term forcing in climate science is quite equivalent to a force in physics.”
This says a lot about the disagreement. Climate science is a physics problem (as well as a chemical and biological). Maybe this is one reason some in climate science have so much trouble communicating its findings to the outside science community who have knowledge of physics.
On the current radiative imbalance, a good reference is
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/ – see their Figure.
Since 2003 the positive radiative imbalance has lessened (although there is an uptick recently). Interesting that there was cooling between 2003 and 2005. If my participation on your weblog has done nothing else, I hope you routinely look at this data and assess what is the radiative imbalance in Watts per meter squared using that data.
I am going to now leave this site. For a while yesterday it was constructive, but now you and others are just repeating themselves (as am I). Also, the tone and substance of the comments have deteriorated. I will rejoin if you address the other questions I asked.
If there remain anyone open on my views on this on your weblog, you could read these peer reviewed papers on the subject
Ellis et al. 1978: The annual variation in the global heat balance of the Earth. J. Geophys. Res., 83, 1958-196 http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/ellis-et-al-jgr-1978.pdf
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-247.pdf
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-334.pdf
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/
Finally, don’t be so critical of Anthony Watts but look at the mirror in terms of how a number of your commentators participate. They certainly are trolls and poison debate.
They cut the end off my comment. https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/watt-about-rogers-questions/#comment-56621
rpielke,
No one poisons debate more than Russell Seitz. A more despicable human being would be hard to imagine and impossible to tolerate. Thus, he fits right in at ATTP.
Here is part of the response at ATTP –
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/watt-about-rogers-questions/#comment-56635
“Sorry, but if you think there is some similarity between the tone of this site and the tone of WUWT, you’re welcome to stay away. Wallow in the cesspit of WUWT if that is what you wish to do.”
Very disappointing.
.
rpielke,
Well, that certainly makes clear the “tone” of ATTP.
You’re better off without them. Post here instead, where your comments are appreciated.
> They cut the end off my comment.
No, I did. For less than a minute. I put it back as soon as AT commented on it. Had he not, I would have deleted it, just as I tried to delete any bits that would have excused Senior’s renowned dodge.
***
Here’s a relevant comment that he has not repeated here:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/watt-about-rogers-questions/#comment-56556
The management might take note.
***
Still no response to the other question contained in the comment to which this responds.
Still no response to this tweet either:
https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/601507921378283520
Heh, you got answers for the questions? When will willard wonder well?
=============
Baby steps towards answers, Willard? Are the answers to the questions outside your ken or outside your curiosity?
=====================
It’s really quite frightening, dismaying, the apparent belief by Gavin that ignoring the questions will make them go away. We’re gonna feel sorry for him, someday.
==================
Perhaps obscured in the fine scientific points articulated by Pielke Pere, and raised by past events, is that the answers to these questions argue directly to grievous policy malfunction by all spheres over the last couple of decades, from the direction of climate research to the most basic of simple economic acts, such as keeping the lights on.
There has been so much damage, and these Schmitters have much to answer for. I do not expect answers from them, and would be surprised at any such admissions against interest, no matter what Nature has to say. There is screaming in the machine.
==================
‘Schmidtters’ and I do so hate to personalize it. It’s not like he’s alone.
He may feel like it some days. Sorry ’bout dat.
================
Steven Mosher May 21, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Thanks, Mosh. Actually, yes, we do get to demand answers. Anyone who wishes to can file a FOIA request and other than a variety of reasonable exceptions, the folks in the Government have to answer it. This is precisely the difference between say you or I and the Gavermint—you and I can ignore FOIA requests. The Gav cannot.
Now, obviously we can’t demand answers from Gavin in this forum, nor would I wish to. This is an open marketplace of ideas where participation is always voluntary. Gavin is certainly free to ignore all of the comments. As you point out correctly, his boss is not me or you.
The mystery to me is that with few exceptions, the mainstream climate scientists are so unwilling to answer questions and defend their own claims in the open marketplace of ideas, whether that is here or in any other forum that they cannot censor. Roger Pielke has asked good questions and been willing to discuss them anywhere reasonable. Seems to me like the upside is much greater than the downside … but hey, I’m just a guy who believes in answering questions.
Best wishes to you,
w.
FOIA requests are for records, as in things that are already in those records, they are a matter of record, they already exist.
So go ahead, submit an FOIA with your list of arbitrary questions. All the goobermint can do is search their records to find out if those arbitrary questions have existing answers in their records.
As for what you do, that’s for you to decide (you have no one to answer to but yourself), as for what Gavin does, that’s for him to decide (meaning anything outside of the job description/requirements/duties).
Signed,
Former gooberment employee who definitely did not have a job description even remotely suggestive of communicating to anyone/anytime in the public domain.
Speaking of censorship …
“”3. There are questions on the skill of the multi-decadal climate prediction models in terms of their use for regional impact studies for the coming decades. These models have been tested in hindcast runs. What are your answers to the following:
When run in hindcast (over the last few decades) where the forcings of added CO2 and other human inputs of greenhouse gases and aerosols are reasonably well known:
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections
Easy but there are two answers.\
When the models have been primed with the aforesaid forcings and have been programmed with the hindcast data they predict the past changes perfectly and adjust the forcings to match.
Where they have not been programmed with the past data and the models use the forcings to hindcast they fail miserably.
You do not need Gavin for that one.
Climate Pete You wrote
“Pielke Sr clear is one of the 3% of those working in climate science who argues against the 97% climate science expert consensus.”
Your statement is factually incorrect. The “97%” have not accepted the consensus. They conclude there is a human CO2 footprint on the climate system.
I am part of that group, not the 3% [indeed, I have published on the role of human landscape change on climate; I also agree add CO2 has a role on the climate]
For a more accurate survey, see
Brown, F., J. Annan, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2008: Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1? https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/brown.pdf
Here is a summary of our findings
“1. The largest group of respondents (45-50%) concur with the IPCC perspective as given in the
2007 Report.
2. A significant minority (15-20%), however, conclude that the IPCC understated the seriousness of the threat from human additions of CO2.
3. A significant minority (15-20%), in contrast, conclude that the IPCC overstated the role of human additions of CO2 relative to other climate forcings.
4. Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming.”
Of course, the AGU EOS publication refused to publish.
Roger Sr.
“Of course, the AGU EOS publication refused to publish.”
“In our poll, there were 140 responses out of the 1807 who were contacted by the first author. The
authors participated along with poll specialist David Jepson (Bsc Hons) in writing the polling
questions (see Table 1 for the questions), but had no knowledge of who participated in the polling.
It is interesting to note, however, that among the respondents were a substantial number of senior
scientists and leading figures in climate science, whose support and interest in the poll were much
appreciated. It is important to recognize that we are not presenting the results as representing
anything other than the views of those who responded as we have no way to assess the relationship
of the responders with the total relevant population.”
Of course, now I see why.
Roger,
The categorisations in http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt of five papers of which you are one of the authors in “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” Cook et al 2013 http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article are 4,3,3,3,2.
The relevant categories are :-
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification
Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact.
(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming.
E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause
(4a) No position
Does not address or mention the cause of global warming
(4b) Uncertain
Expresses position that human’s role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined
So on this basis you most definitely belong mainly in the 97%, and I apologise for lumping you in with the 3%, though may look up your 4-rated paper later.
I do not agree with your quoted position that CO2 is responsible only for a minority of radiative forcing and surface temperature increase but that humans are responsible for all of it in one way or another. However, at this stage the discussion ought to be couched in terms of expectation and uncertainty values, on a Bayesian basis, which is beyond the scope here.
I also note that you were the 6% (1 in 15) dissenting voice from the AGU statement on global warming.
Climate Pete
Human responsibility is not yet known, and, amusingly, is constantly changing. Fortunately, it’s all been net beneficial so far and likely to remain so.
========================
Roger,
What has caused you to conclude that there is a human CO2 footprint on the climate system? I haven’t been able to find one, so would greatly appreciate your reason.
Thanks.