![CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs-thru-20131.png?quality=75)
Alex Sen Gupta, a biological scientist, has written an article (reviewed by John Cook) which attempts to defend the validity of climate models which can’t predict the climate.
According to Gupta;
To understand what’s happening, it is critical to realise that the climate changes for a number of reasons in addition to CO₂. These include solar variations, volcanic eruptions and human aerosol emissions.
The influence of all these “climate drivers” are included in modern climate models. On top of this, our climate also changes as a result of natural and largely random fluctuations – like the El Nino Southern Oscillation, ENSO and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, [IPO] – that can redistribute heat to the deep ocean (thereby masking surface warming).
Such fluctuations are unpredictable beyond a few months (or possibly years), being triggered by atmospheric and oceanic weather systems. So while models do generate fluctuations like ENSO and IPO, in centennial scale simulations they don’t (and wouldn’t be expected to) occur at the same time as they do in observations.
The problem with this claim is that, as Gupta says, the climate models are supposed to take these random fluctuations into account. Climate models are supposed to accommodate randomness, by providing a range of predicted values – the range is produced by plugging in different values for the random elements which cannot be predicted. However, observations are right on the lower border of that range. The divergence between climate models and predictions is now so great, that climate models are on the brink of being incontrovertibly falsified.
As Judith Curry recently said, If the pause continues for 20 years (a period for which none of the climate models showed a pause in the presence of greenhouse warming), the climate models will have failed a fundamental test of empirical adequacy.
This is important, because it strikes at the heart of the claim that climate models can detect human influence on climate change. If climate models cannot model climate, if the models cannot be reconciled with observations, how can the models possibly be useful for attributing the causes climate change? If scientists defending the models claim the discrepancy is because of random fluctuations in the climate, which have pushed the models to the brink of falsification, doesn’t this demonstrate that, at the very least, the models very likely underestimate the amount of randomness in the climate? Is it possible that the entire 20th century warming might be one large random fluctuation?
Nature is certainly capable of producing large, rapid climate fluctuations, such as the Younger Dryas, an abrupt return to ice age conditions which occurred 12,500 years ago. You can’t use climate models which demonstrably underestimate the randomness of climate change, to calculate how much of the observed 20th century warming is not random.
If current mainstream climate models cannot predict the climate, then scientists have to consider the possibility that other models, with different assumptions, can do a better job. It is no accident that Monckton, Soon, Legates and Brigg’s paper on an irreducibly simple climate model, which does a better job of hind casting climate than mainstream models, has received over 10,000 downloads. As every scientific revolution in history has demonstrated, being right is ultimately more important than being mainstream, even if it sometimes takes a few years to win acceptance.
For now, mainstream climate scientists are mostly hiding in the fringes of their estimates. When they acknowledge it at all, they claim that the anomaly, the pause, is a low probability event which is still consistent with climate models. Hans Von Storch, one of the giants of German climate research, a few years ago claimed that 98% of climate models cannot be reconciled with reality – which still, for now, leaves 2% possibility that climate scientists are right.
Is the world really preparing to spend billions, trillions of dollars, on a 2% bet?
You can’t make this stuff up. Supporting the veracity of climate models….or any model for that matter…that fail to meet predictions because “…they don’t (and wouldn’t be expected to) occur at the same time as they do in observations.”….is beyond reasoning. Basically he’s saying it’s the fault of reality for providing data not consistent with the models.
It would have been nice if those climate models would have given the people of the state of Texas at least a couple weeks warning of the impending wet weather. I guess they don’t do that. Apparently they can only predict doom far enough in advance so that the doomsayers get off scot free…
We’d be better off just listening to Stevie Ray Vaughn
Blah Blah Biologists.
Biologists told me for years that homosapians (us) evolved from Neanderthals. Biologists gave the % of DNA argument showed me a picture illustrating several images starting on the left with a chimpanzee then an orangutang etc until there was an image of a modern man on the right. It never seemed correct or obvious to me that Neanderthals were our predecessor. Boy, if you ask a question about that!! Look out!
Now that the human genome project is well underway and large scale genetic sequencing has been done on people everywhere as well as some neanderthal teeth, we now know that homo sapiens interbred with neanderthals, they didn’t evolve from them. Caucasians (like me) have 2-3% neanderthal DNA (whatever that means). African (blacks) have very little. (whatever that means) Ahem that means there is a problem with common descent of modern humans at least in the last 100,000 years. Don’t say that too loud or you may be accused of eugenics or being racist or something.
Make sure that the Lewandosky moron reads this comment. He’ll make a study out of it. So all along the idiot copycat biologist thugs who beat up my curiosity in human evolution by, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, making me repeat the now proven wrong, theory of evolution of modern man FROM neanderthals. I was also told “by scientists” like Bill Nye that the universe was always here too….that there was no moment of creation.
What complete jerks they were. Every one of them. Not one biologist teacher or professor, expressed the smallest amount of curiosity in the possibility that evolution did not follow the WRONG linear progression of development. Every single one of them were incurious morons, without exception, in my 21 year education, especially Miss Newman. She was down right certain about her “science”.
So a biologist speaks! What now does the biologist have to say about the climate no less. Biology IMO does not insist and teach the principle of establishing what you think know and being honest about what you do not know. They skip over that part of science.
BIOLOGISTS DON’T UNDERSTAND DIMENSIONLESS ANALYSIS
I had a budding PhD student, (a lab demonstrator) try to explain to me that cells are the size they are because they could not be any bigger based on the fact the the volume to radius ratio get bigger as cells get bigger. ????? It was such a baffling idea, I admit I may have misremembered it. I recall asking the lab demonstrator “compared to what?” I was thinking that maybe it was an oxygen diffusion thing and the base unit was really and oxygen atom. Nope…. it was the radius to volume ratio… no med school for me!!! I am a bad student!
The most important thing that Eric Worrall mentioned was that a biologist wrote this. Ok. So we can take it with a grain of salt. It could have been worse… a psychologist could have written it.
A 5 x 5 x 5cm cube has a volume of 125cm^3 and a surface area of 150cm^2.
But if you divide the same volume into 125 cubes of 1 x 1 x 1 cm, the surface area increases to 750cm^2.
Likewise, the ratio of cell membrane to cell volume increases with smaller cell size, allowing for a more rapid rate of chemical exchange (nutrients in, waste out). The exchange rate would probably be inadequate if cells were larger.
“The exchange rate would probably be inadequate if cells were larger.”
Amoebas don’t seem to have such a problem, especially the so-called “giant amoeba” Chaos carolinense, which can reach lengths of 5 mm,.
ergo my “compared to what” question. Compared to the O2 molecule size. Ok, we agree.
Next question for the cr@ppy biologist grad student was… Is a human being surface area all that much different than a cell when compared to an Oxygen atom diameter? After that…An ostrich egg is a single cell….so…
Einstein ” No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
@ur momisugly Paul Westhaver
Now I am learned in both the biological and physical sciences and am also an ole computer designing dinosaur ….. which is only a part of my resume “talents” …. and I take offense at your utterly ignorant characterization of Biological Science et el.
Now I agree that many of the generally accepted biological claims (human evolution, brain/mind functioning, etc.) and the subject matter of current research projects/studies are in serious need of being questioned and/or criticized …… but not by someone like you who appears to be extremely biased against and totally ignorant of the discipline.
You remind me of a Bible believing Creationist whose science education both “began & stopped” when he/she was told that …. “man evolved from a monkey”.
But in your case it was ….. “ … FROM a Neanderthal”.
Blaming others for your own failure to achieve anything meaningful in life seems to be rampart within the mindset of the younger generation.
Samuel C Cogar,,
you said a lot but specifically… “Blaming others for your own failure to achieve anything…”
I have achieve a great deal by ignoring the mentally entrenched and the incurious. Google my name!
Also you missed the point. Your brain went to the default mode… you know… creationism. Where dis that come from? I am and was being critical of the Biolgists, their training, and unwillingness to test their own theories and try new things and abandon bad assumptions…You got waaaay off track there buddy.
Paul Westhaver,
If you are incapable of figuring out the reason for my, … uh, ….. “creationism” statement …. then I have serious doubts about your per se …. Googled resume citations.
This ain’t my first rodeo, ….. ya know. I’ve seen lots of engineers and inventors come and go, …. the good, the bad and the BS’ers. And I have known a few of the great one too, …. so don’t be blowing smoke at me. I’ll just get irritated again.
Been there, done that, — chew on this, to wit: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3449735.pdf
And what I stated above still holds, …… your voiced comments that I criticized portrays the “real you”.
Cheers
Whatever you ole obsolete cranky coot. rodeo??? WTF? Creationism? WTF??
Got a whole Lotta crazy there old boy! Seeee Ya. NOT!
Alex Sen Gupta, a biological scientist
The trolls have repeatedly insisted that my opinion is immaterial because I’m not a climate scientist. Might I ask the trolls, some of whom have made an appearance on this thread, why Gupta gets a pass? I know his article was reviewed by a cartoonist, does that make him a climate scientist?
No biologists get a pass. IMO. Biology is a near discredited discipline. It is where all the dim wit pseudoscience students dwell. Usually $200,000 in tuition to study “marine biology”. Say “marine biology” in the interrogative while chewing gum and you’ll get what I mean.
Marine biologists?
Are those the guys that capture and dissect rare sea creatures to see why they are dying out ?
HA, …. rejected by your true love who claimed a greater passion for an intelligent biologist, ….. HUH.
These marine biologists… are typical…for the extent of their scientific rigor…
SeaTrek BVI for young climate scientists – nerds getting to hang around with gorgeous girls in brief bikinis for only US$5,400
Don’t hold your breath for all the great “science” to come from this bunch of budding biologists.
Yeah… don’t forget the work ethic (lack thereof) and chronic alcoholism.
Ya’ll quit complaining via the snarky remarks rhetoric, …. it was the Wacky Tobacca smokers/pushers of ya’lls generation(s) that literally ruined the Public School System in the US, …. thus it is now “sucking hind teat” in the World Ranking of Student Education in Science, Math and Reading.
Read more @ur momisugly http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=978874
Thus me thinks a reassessment of what ya’ll think you know, …. were nurtured to believe, ….. would be my recommendation.
One has to “learn how to learn”, ….. “learn how to think and reason”. The aforesaid are NOT inherited mental traits.
Both Watson and Crick were biologists. Most medical progress in the last few decades has owed much to their work and that of numerous other molecular biologists who followed them. The same goes for progress in agriculture, criminal detection and many other disciplines.
On a slightly different track, if climate scientists had a better understanding of biology they might not be quite so (afraid of)/(alarmist about) increasing levels of CO2.
Solomon Green,
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So you named 2 worthy biologists OK. I will accept a couple of exceptions. The DNA information structure was initiated by George Gamow, a physicist who Crick credits, and the x ray diffraction photo #51 of the double helix was taken by Raymond Gosling, a physicist. Analysis was none by Rosalind Franklin a chemist. Her work was scoffed, without permission by Watson.
Maybe their worthiness is conditional.
Solomon Green,
And if climate scientists … and a few mechanical engineers ….. had a better understanding of biology they wouldn’t be making their asinine, silly and/or dumb arsed claims of fact about physical science process that are highly influenced by biological process.
Atmospheric CO2 biyearly cycling caused by Northern Hemisphere greening … is but one of their idiotic claims.
That would be dumb-arsed, not dumb arsed. That would be for future reference.
@ur momisugly Paul W
Still trying to impress me, ….. HUH?
An earned Degree via a college education does not bestow intelligence upon the recipient of said Degree ….. so don’t be touting your IQ on account of said.
Iffen you want to be impressed …. then take your own advice …. only this time you Google the name ….. George R Cogar ….. who was a High School drop-out.
Also, from the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre, the group involved in the Ship of Fools Antarctic Incident.
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/ccrc-team
How long do we have to wait for them to acknowledge what is right……? A…. L O N G time, methinks.
As long as it takes for temperatures to drop by a degree, about three years from now.
Ironicman… as long as they get to continue adjusting the data, there will NEVER officially be a drop in temperature. Seems the climate has already returned to the the 1970s yet it officially is the HOTTEST ever according to the “corrected” data.
If Climate models are correct but are being skewed by these other factors, how is it that they’re ALL ALWAYS skewed in favor of increasing warming?
If a grocer’s scale was found to be defective, and he claimed that it wasn’t his fault because the scale was affected by temperature and humidity, people might believe him if the scale had sometimes registered fresh produce as being too heavy and sometime as being too light.
But if it always registered things as being heavier than they actually were, everyone would conclude that the guy was a crook.
All along the skeptics have been saying that you can’t eliminate random variation as a leading cause of the warming that we saw in the second half of the 20th century. The alarmists retort was that they had eliminate random variation as a possibility — after all they had reconstructed the climate over the past 2000 years using chicken bones and tea leaves and had shown conclusively (with multiple lines of independent evidence) that the climate was in near perfect stasis with barely a wiggle in surface temperature until humans began to emit CO2. Now, in the face of a total collapse of the computer models, they argue that there is actual a considerable amount of random various in the climate.
So now that they have accepted our argument that there is much more natural variability than what they previously believed, how can they continue to say that the majority of warming can be attributed to human emissions of CO2? They must now accept the fact that equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 is substantially less than the IPCC says it is. You can’t have it both ways.
It’s called having your cake and eating it, too. A principle beloved by Progressives.
To understand what’s happening, it is critical to realise that the climate changes for a number of reasons in addition to CO₂. These include solar variations, volcanic eruptions and human aerosol emissions.
What solar variations?
What volcanic eruptions?
What change in aerosol emissions?
The pause is getting quite long now without anything unexpected that might reasonably be slowing down the warming.
You can’t use the “natural variation” argument when there have been no major changes from when it was “dangerously” warming.
The Sun hasn’t been as quiet for 100 years, as it has been since the modern maximum in solar activity ended in 2003, after several very active solar cycles #21, 22, and 23.
I think the main problem with these models is that they were tuned to not consider that some of the rapid warming from the early-mid 1970s to a few years after 2000 was due to an upswing of a multidecadal natural cycle. I tried my hand at some simple Fourier on HadCRUT3, which is the surface temperature dataset that has the better agreement with both the UAH and RSS TLT datasets than all other surface temperature datasets – including all versions so far of HadCRUT4, and all versions of GISS that existed since a couple years before HadCRUT4 was released.
What I tried on HadCRUT3 annual figures (the UEA version thereof, as opposed to the more-warming-lately UKMet version) was finding period and amplitude for a 2-cycle period, analyzed from one peak to 2 peaks later, with period around 60-70 years, to maximize the reported amplitude of the cosine component. My results: Peak-to-peak amplitude of .218 degree C, and a 64 year period having peaks at 1877, 1941, and 2005.
So, I think about .2-.22 degree C of the rapid surface warming that occurred from the early-mid 1970s to shortly after 2000 was from a multidecadal natural cycle, and the downturn side of that natural cycle is a major reason why we now have a pause – which I expect to continue until approach of the next upward-turning corner, which my method suggests will be around 2035.
I think that if “the models” are re-tuned to consider that their hindcasted rapid warming from the early-mid 1970s to shortly after 2000 had .2-.22 degree C of the warming being from a multidecadal natural cycle, then they would be much less alarmist in their predictions, and predict warming of this century to be around 1.1-1.5 degrees C as their median warming prediction, and around 1.25-1.75 degrees C as their mean warming prediction. In such a case, I would expect around 60% of such modified models to be outrunning HadCRUT4 now, and a 50-50 split of the models around HadCRUT4 to occur later this decade as the pause (which I think started around 2001-2005) continues through what I expect to be its midpoint.
If HadCRUT3 was still being determined, and would continue to be determined for the next 20 years, then I expect that the 50-50 point of HadCRUT3 catching up with multidecadal-cycle-considering models would be around 2020-2023. 2023 is the midpoint of the cycle that I analyzed (?) in HadCRUT3. I expect 2020-2023 is likely to be where the midpoint of The Pause will be, if its start date is considered as a time this century, and the 1998 century-class spike with its both of its adjacent La NInas is considered as a late feature of the pre-pause rapid warming, as opposed to (with neglect of part of the preceding La Nina) being an early feature of The Pause.
Gupta is correct. There are many variables that affect climate and CO2 is just one; and a very minor one at that.
Since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, the CAGW hypothesis has only “worked” 20 years (1978~1998) out of a total of 165 years. During all other times, manmade CO2 emissions were either to small or global temps and CO2 levels were inversely correlated.
Over the past 20 years, 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 have been emitted with almost no global warming trend to show for it. According to CAGW projections, the global temp trend should have been 0.2C/decade since 2000…. Not so much.
During the short period from 1978~1998 when the CAGW hypothesis “worked” as advertised, the following warming events occurred:
1) a 30-yr PDO warm cycle started in 1980.
2) the 2nd and 3rd strongest solar cycles since 1715 occurred (1976~1996)
3) it marked the end of the strongest 63-yr string (1933~1996) of solar cycles in 11,400 years.
4) a 30-yr AMO warm cycle started in 1994.
5) there were SIX El Niño events between 1983~1998
6) the Super El Niño of 1997/98 occurred.
7) oh, yeah, the highest levels of manmade CO2 emissions in 4.5 billion years.
The following events are currently in effect:
1) No global warming trend for almost 20 years.
2) a 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2008
3) the current solar cycle is the weakest since 1906.
4) the weakest solar cycle since 1715 is expected to start from 2022
5) only 3 El Nino events since 1998.
6) Antarctic Ice Extents hit a 35-yr record size in 2014
7) Arctic Ice Extents have been recovering since 2007
8) oh yeah, the most manmade CO2 emissions in 4.5 billion years occurred from 1996 to 2015 and no global warming trend to show it.
Warmunists can’t have their cake and heat it, too….
If warmunists blame natural cooling factors for “the 20-yr Hiatus”, they then have to admit that most of the 1978~1998 warming was also caused by the aforementioned warming factors and not CO2.
CO2 is a bit player. The empirical evidence and physics show doubling CO2 will only cause between 0.5C~1C of gross warming per doubling by 2100, plus or MINUS whatever the sun and other factors decide to do over the next 85 years….
CAGW is dead.
The science of Global Warming is absolutely sure and completely certain. Addition of CO2 to the atmosphere causes the atmosphere to warm. Why then no or negligible change in atmospheric temperatures since 1998? Answer, there are natural forces counterbalancing the warming. If these forces are equal to the warming, then it must be that when these forces are applied in the opposite direction, (as is assumed from 1979 to 1999) there will be a rapid rate of warming. So one can speculate with a high degree of certainly that the warming 1979 to 1999 was 50% due to CO2 and 50% due to random natural forces.
It follows that any reputable climate scientist (if that is not a non sequitur) should re-run his models with the forcing attributed to CO2 divided by 2, and see what the result is. If he has correctly assessed the values for the natural, random elements, his resultant graphs should be evenly spread either side of the actual temperature data. If there is still an imbalance – ie, the ‘projections’ still average higher than actual average temperatures, then the value of these natural random forcings should be increased.
Make the models fit the actual, not hope to make the actual fit the models!
Sounds like the Monckton et al model 😉
It follows that any reputable climate scientist (if that is not a non sequitur)
That should be “oxymoron” not “non sequitur”.
Dudley– There were two periods of warming during the 20th century: 1913~1940 and 1978~1998.
The first warming period could not have been caused by CO2 as manmade CO2 emissions were much too insignificant to cause any warming, so one must look at shared warming factors which include: both had 30-yr PDO warm cycles in effect, both had 30-yr AMO warm cycles in effect, and both had strong solar cycles in effect.
It’s apparent that 30-yr warm PDO & AMO cycles and strong solar cycles are what drove the two 20th century warm cycles; not CO2.
Since a 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2008, a 30-yr AMO cycle starts in 2022, the current solar cycle is the lowest since 1906, the next solar cycle is expected to be the lowest since 1715 and there is a chance for a 70-yr Grand Solar Minimum starting from 2022, it’s likely global temps will be falling for at least another 20 years and perhaps for as long as 70 years.
Even without a GSM, global temps will likely be flat/falling for the next 20 years.
Dr. Curry was right, in another year or two, it’ll be 20 years without a global warming trend, which should be sufficient to falsify the CAGW hypothesis.
CAGW is dead.
BTW, as I’m typing this, I’m experiencing a 8.5 magnitude (5+ Richter scale ) quake in Japan… Never a dull moment…
“So one can speculate with a high degree of certainly that the warming 1979 to 1999 was 50% due to CO2 and 50% due to random natural forces.”
One could speculate, but that is all it would be; speculation. One would be fooling oneself if one thought they had “found” the increased CO2 warming signal.
That should be “carboxymoron” not “non sequitur”.
Let’s get the chemistry right.
SAMURAI (May 29, 2015 at 9:38 pm)
“Gupta is correct. There are many variables that affect climate and CO2 is just one; and a very minor one at that.
Since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, the CAGW hypothesis has only “worked” 20 years (1978~1998) out of a total of 165 years. During all other times, manmade CO2 emissions were either to small or global temps and CO2 levels were inversely correlated.”
////////////////////////
Yes, but it is worse than that.
If one looks at the satellite data, there was no warming between 1979 and the run up to the Super El Nino of 1998. The Satellite data and the land based thermometer record are very much at odds during this period. Of course, Michael Mann’s trees post 1960s were not showing warming so I gues both trees and the satellite data suggests that there was no warming between 1979 and the run up to the Super El Nino of 1998.
The satelliet data shows that over the past 35 years there has been a one off single and isolated warming event which event (the 1998 Super el Nino) is not the result of manmade CO2 emissions.
There is no first order correlation between CO2 being a temperature driver on any time scale, and this is why the matter has to be fudged with aerosols etc upon which there is no hard data and heat hiding at the depths of the ocean upon which again there is no data.
There’s no sign in surface data that CO2 has reduced nighttime cooling, in fact 30 of the last 34 years it’s greater than the prior day’s warming.
The fundamental problem with the climate models is they try to do too much. The modelers have been sent on a “fools errand”.
Since CO2 is the main issue and since it is a well-mixed gas and changing very slowly, it makes more sense to first estimate the average global warming, than the feedbacks, and then how the average will vary with location. Observational data can’t help except eventually perhaps to falsify.
To do this basic physics and a simple energy balance is the best way for the first step, but only after balance requirement is extended to the surface and the atmosphere as separate entities.
See my “Improved simple climate sensitivity model” that helps do this and more.
http://edberry.com/blog/climate-clash/g90-climate-sensitivity/improved-simple-climate-sensitivity-model/
Then whatever CO2 does will be added to everything else of which we don’t know everything and can’t do much about anyway.
“To understand what’s happening, it is critical to realise that the climate changes for a number of reasons in addition to CO₂. ”
I seem to remember prior to climategate that natural effects were thought to be small or negligible next to carbon dioxide. It must be marvellous to be a climate “scientist” just make it up when your predictions do not turn out and continually change the goalposts!
A 20 year ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in temperature increase is not required to falsify global climate models.
Five years is more than sufficient to render the GCMs useless, or worse than useless as applied by the alarmists.
The whole GCM model design, scripting and run process is indicative of GCM value.
Immediately after a bad model run is completed, where are the dissection reports? Surely they’ve reviewed every component of code and identified where that particular run skewed off?
If those wonder modelers of the climate world are baffled or puzzled by specific or even nebulous code issues, where are the attempts to pull in true experts to assist with the code?
Hasn’t happened.
Instead the climate wonder children have doubled down so many times they’ve run off the scale.
One bad run!? Run the models many times…
Observations can’t be adjusted that far without getting obviously busted!? Blame the skeptics for not believing.
Claim that averaging bad runs brings out what’s good!? Ignore the mathematical fantasy required by loudly proclaiming the averaged trash accurate.
Buy a super computer and claim it will do miracles with bad code.
Run the bad code and then claim that Igor needs more power.
Now; have a goofball write up some nonsense that endless GCM runs failing to match reality is a backward kind of validation then have the infamous cartoonist review the claim?
GCM Bogosity from top to bottom by all involved in the GCM world.
The default null hypothesis for any change in climate is internal nonlinear oscillation or state change, with no external forcing needed. Until this is understood and acknowledged at the outset of any discussion of climate change, then climate science remains on the road to nowhere.
Eric Worrall
You say
Sorry, but when 98% of models are shown to be wrong and no model has been shown to be right (to within acceptable error bounds) there is only AT MOST a 2% possibility that climate scientists MAY BE right.
The difference is important when “climate scientists are mostly hiding in the fringes of their estimates”.
Richard
Eric Worrall
This is the second paper attempting to make the claims you report.
The first of those papers was cited by someone posting as Luke in another thread.
I replied to Luke and I think the argument I then made also applies in this thread, so I copy it to here.
A falsehood gains traction when iterated. I suspect there will be more papers pushing the excuse before the Paris COP in December.
Richard
I wonder if Praveen Gupta is related? He wrote all sorts of utter rubbish about the Six Sigma Scam.
The climate models can only be declared scientifically wrong if the models were, in fact, declared to be predictive and fit for purpose. As this is routinely disavowed, we need only note that they are truly fit for purpose in political suasion. This is, also in fact, the stated goal of the IPCC.
We can claim that climate scientists are not scientists; but that too is wrong. They are simply political scientists trying to legislate the value of PI. A historical event that is nearly synonymous in the little details with the current issue. Even down to a unanimous vote in a State chamber about the matter. For your comparative purposes:
http://io9.com/5880792/the-eccentric-crank-who-tried-to-legislate-the-value-of-pi
Robert A. Wilson wrote, “If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C, except where prohibited by law.”
Alex Sen Gupta, a biological scientist, has written an article reviewed by John Cook (The John Cook from SkS)? So, a biologist wrote summat and reviewed by a cartoonist saying that (Climate) data is wrong but (Climate) models are right? Good Lord! Paris will be a real pantomime!
Lets hope all the speakers are using swazzles.
What we have learnt about climate science in the last 20 years: Not a lot
What we have learnt about psychology in the last 20 years: A great deal more.
What we have learnt about the aims and ambitions of political elites in the last 20 years: Far too much for comfort….
Many of the comments infer that these guys are scientists when the correct word is activist. They are politically inclined to advance their agenda. They aren’t really into science, they are trying to manipulate the data to justify their social goals. It is not working..The emperor has no clothes. They want us to drink the poison laced Flavor Aid.
Unfortunately my eldest daughter has sipped a bit too much and commented with the Koch brothers funding Ad Hom, She claims to be atheist yet apparently belongs to the First Church of Climate change. She hasn’t done the science, but has taken the alleged consensus point of view. She seems unaware that it is politics masquerading as science for the purposes of persuasion. Very sad.
Anyway, if the scientists admit the truth, they would be obligated to give up their social planning policies too. They haven’t figured out yet that they have a cognitive dissonance problem.
By the way, I am a CO2 fan, as more of it make my cacti grow nice and healthy.
PS. Next time my daughter ad homs me again posting a link on my Facebook page to this site, I’ll ask her for the year by year funding Anthony has received and see how she reacts.
Give your daughter a link to this comment here.
Here’s what I said about that Koch-funding claim on the New Republic site, in response to warmist PhillipNoe, at
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119056/why-climate-change-denier-myths-return?destination=node/119056
What “documented record”?
One source of that claim is Sourcewatch, at http://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute :
Sourcewatch gives DeSmogBlog as its source.
DeSmogblog makes the same claim, at http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy, and gives as its source (in footnote 21): Richard Littlemore, “Heartland Insider Exposes Institute’s Budget and Strategy” Heartland Institute, Feb. 14, 2012.
Littlemore quotes the Heartland “Strategy” document that Gleick posted and said he received in the mail from an anonymous source with the handle ““Heartland Insider” before he phished other documents from Heartland. But that claim is very dubious. Poster David Ross said of it:
See two threads critiqueing the authenticity of the Strategy document and DeSmogBlog’s defense of it by Megan McArdle in the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/
And this on the contrarian site Climate Audit: http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/20/heartland/
In the documents that Gleick phished from Heartland, there is a mention of something different: a proposed ONE-TIME funding of Watts for a special project: to put up a user-friendly front-end on a NOAA site. Most of the money would have gone to a programmer Watts intended to hire. However, that project fell through. (NOAA has since put up its own front end.) See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/an-update-on-my-climate-reference-network-visualization-project/
Watts states that he hasn’t received ANY funding for his blogging. Go here and hit page-down twice:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/faqs/
Here’s what Heartland says, at http://heartland.org/funding :
It’s not “largely koch brothers funded.” (You may be thinking of the Cato Institute.) Koch gave Heartland only $20,000 in the year of Gleick’s phishing expedition, and it was for health research—see the 1st McArdle Atlantic article that I linked to for the reproduction of the Heartland documents.
PhillipNoe says:
I’m sure they’ve been guilty of a few “stretchers,” but that’s not systematic and relentless “lying,” as your wording implies. It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking one’s opponent is deliberately lying if one is an inflamed true believer who is certain that nearly all the “findings” and assertions made by important sources on his side are true or mostly and made in good faith—and that disagreement with, and mockery of, them must be perverse, at best.
——————
A couple of green organizations have posted the results of their investigations into Koch funding and found that little of it is going to Heartland—at least, not recently. Here’s what a WUWTer named “F.A.H.” reported:
—-
“Here are two links that have Greenpeace’s numbers:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/the-manhattan-institute/
http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2012/04/02/koch-brothers-exposed-fueling-climate-denial-and-privatizing-democracy/
“In the second link, GreenPeace states:
“. . . these numbers (e.g. 61.48 $M) are spread over almost 30 years. That makes the $61 M work out to about $2M per year total. . . . So over 30 years, around $2M per year spread over largely general policy institutes. These grants are each about enough to fund one graduate student or researcher for a year or so, and the bulk of them have nothing to do with climate, instead focused on general conservative issues. . . . This should be compared to the $2.6B U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is focused entirely on “official” climate change research and persuasion.”
—-
Of course, the Kochs could be funding Heartland from their personal fortunes via a smokescreen foundation akin to Tides. So we’ll never know. But all you can honestly say at this point is, “I SUSPECT the Kochs are funding Heartland somehow.”
PS: The belief in Koch or Heartland funding, derived from Gleick’s phony Strategy document is widespread, very damaging, and continually renewed by SourceWatch’s and DeSmogBlog’s libels. Getting a retraction out of them would be priority #1 if our side were a well-organized, well-funded machine. Alas, it isn’t. Regardless, getting a retraction (and suing if one isn’t forthcoming) would provide the most bang for the few bucks we do have.
At the end of the day, if the armies of ‘climate scientists’ made a statement like:
“It appears as though the activities of man may have an impact on our planet’s climate, but we can never hope to accurately measure or model it, nor does it seem likely this will have any significant impact in the future.”
Well, the above statement is almost certainly true and there would no longer be any need for armies of ‘climate scientists’. Stating the truth would create an unemployment problem for a group of worthless parasites and save the western world from economic suicide, so obviously the truth must be suppressed at all costs.
Dear Public,
We have recently made some very scientific predictions.
You may note that they immediately diverge from observed trends.
BUT – we can assure everybody that they will be shown to be valid on a centennial scale.
We only really need lots of money and attention on a sub-centennial scale.
Please send us the money and attention now.
Confirmation will almost certainly be assured in one or two hundred years time.
Thanks, Cook, Mann, Lew et al.
P.S. thanks for all the money and attention.