When messaging collides with science: The 'Hottest Year Ever' Inside a Global Warming ‘Pause’?

Excerpt  from a story by statistician William M. Briggs

train-collision

There are two stories floating around about the state of the earth’s atmosphere. Both are believed true by government-funded scientists and the environmentally minded. The situation is curious because the stories don’t mesh. Yet, as I said, both are believed. Worse, neither is true.

Story number one is that this year will be the hottest ever. And number two is that the reason it is not hot is because “natural variation” has masked or stalled man-caused global warming.

Which is it? Either it’s hotter than ever or it isn’t. If it is, then (it is implied) man-caused global warming has not “paused.” If it isn’t, if man-caused global warming has “paused,” then it is not growing hotter.

There are two things to keep straight: (1) why these divergent contentions are believed, and (2) why they are incompatible and individually false. The first point is easy. Climatology has become a branch of politics. And in politics, particularly in our rambunctious democracy, statements asserted in the name of some political goal are usually believed or at least supported by those who share the goal. It is necessary for global-warming-of-doom to be true in order to attain the government’s goal (of increasing in size and power), so any statement which supports global warming is likely to be touted by government supporters, even mutually incompatible statements.

Scientists — and some very big names indeed — who have made their living on government grants, and who provide arguments in line with the government’s desire that global-warming-of-doom be true, recently wrote a letter to the President and Attorney General asking these officials to criminally prosecute under the RICO Act scientists like myself and organizations that might fund me. Which scientists and organizations? Those, they say, who have “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.

In other words, arguments put forth by independent scientists and organizations that do not support the government’s line cannot be considered science, but should instead be classified as criminal acts. Incidentally, it has come out that the scientist leading the effort to prosecute the innocent has “paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from gov’t climate grants for part-time work.” Climatology is thus a branch of politics. Quod erat demonstrandum.

I’m no politician and can’t predict what will come of this. But I am a scientist and know good physics from bad. To understand why the claims about the atmosphere mentioned above are false, it is necessary to grasp, at least in broad outline, some rather complicated statistics and physics. Let’s try.

Read the rest of the story here:

https://stream.org/climate-change-spin-hot-hottest-year-ever-inside-global-warming-pause/

Advertisements

148 thoughts on “When messaging collides with science: The 'Hottest Year Ever' Inside a Global Warming ‘Pause’?

  1. The real problem is with the data itself. What they are in fact saying is that the average value of temperature changes in highly manipulated data sets is the highest it has ever been.
    Does anybody actually believe that the actual ocean surface temperatures at the location of the ARGO buoys has actually risen. Or that the thermometers on the ARGO buoys are all badly calibrated so that the temperatures they read are all too low?

    • There is A real problem with the data itself: the data are inaccurate, as documented by the surface stations program and confirmed by the perceived need on the part of the climate science community to “adjust” the data. Also, once the data are “highly manipulated” they cannot constitute a “data set” because they are no longer data, but rather estimates of what the data might have been, had they been collected timely from properly selected, calibrated, sited, installed and maintained sensors; or, in the case of infilling, what the data might have been, had there actually been data.
      There is also a real problem with the anomaly products, which can only be accurate if: there are no changes in the sensor calibration, the sensor enclosure or the surrounding conditions; or, if the adjustments made to the data in the production of the anomaly products are accurate.
      There is arguably a real problem with the climate scientists or their procedures when both of their newest measuring systems – MMTS and ARGO – are ASSUMED to have a cooling bias in the field, even though they were presumably calibrated prior to field placement.

      • They claim that the temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.002°C. That doesn’t leave much room for adjustments. If they now assume that ARGO measurements have a cooling bias, does that mean they adjust them beyond the stated margin of error? If so, that would present another contradiction for Mr. Briggs to write about.

    • Walt
      The real problem here is that this is NOT data. It is time that we refer to these products coming out of NOAA and the other ‘value-adding’ groups by some other title, not ‘Surface Temperature Data”. In my lectures I now label all such plots “Reconstructed Surface Heating”. Even referring to them as “Adjusted Data” is inappropriate, as most students think that implies the data has only been instrument-calibrated. The onus with “Reconstructed Surface Heating” is then on the student (or reader) to assess whether they agree with the “Reconstruction” algorithm.

  2. I have never thought of AGW as politics before, political, yes, good science most definitely, not.Wishful thinking is the term I would use. These scientists are no different to other bigots, they would welcome the demise of the Earth due to climate change just to prove that they are right. They is nothing to choose between them and other religious fundamentalists and so should not be treated any differently.

    • Andrew, here is a definition of bigotry from Macaulay that fits these climatologists perfectly:
      “The doctrine which, from the very first origin of religious dissensions, has been held by bigots of all sects, when condensed into a few words and stripped of rhetorical disguise, is simply this: I am in the right, and you are in the wrong. When you are the stronger, you ought to tolerate me, for it is your duty to tolerate truth; but when I am the stronger, I shall persecute you, for it is my duty to persecute error.”
      Thomas Babington Macaulay, Critical and Miscellaneous Essays (1843)

    • Very much – many of these people have no religious background, so they are completely unaware that what they have created IS a religion. All the while, they are calling the religious “stupid” or “ignorant”, while partaking of the exact same emotional candy.

  3. It’s called either Doublethink, or blackwhite, by Orwell, and it means holding two or more completely divergent and contradictory beliefs, truly believing both of them, if the Party needs and wants you to. Orwell was, sadly, a bloody optimist about human nature.

  4. “In other words, arguments put forth by independent scientists and organizations that do not support the government’s line cannot be considered science, but should instead be classified as criminal acts.”
    No…That is not at all what they said. They are talking about intentional deception. A good example is the tobacco companies (http://www.dwlr.com/blog/2011-05-12/rico-convictions-major-tobacco-companies-affirmed) where there is a paper trail showing that the tobacco knew they were lying and did so anyway.
    If there is no evidence that you are knowingly lying about climate change (but are, say, merely mistaken) then you have nothing to worry about. I think there is a pretty strong hurdle in the RICO act to show that there was intentional deception.

    • “If there is no evidence that you are knowingly lying about climate change (but are, say, merely mistaken) then you have nothing to worry about. I think there is a pretty strong hurdle in the RICO act to show that there was intentional deception …”.
      =================================
      That’s just dissembling, the purpose of applying such a draconian measure is to silence all so-called sceptics for fear of prosecution.
      The process would be the punishment, I think you know that.

      • Or:
        After how many cigarettes will a person have cancer?
        Or:
        True or false, if you smoke more than a pack of cigarettes every single day of your life from early teenager on, you will necessarily die young.
        I have brothers and a sister who have done just this. I know a lot of people who have done just this.
        No one I know personally has ever gotten cancer.
        BTW, I do not smoke, never have, think it is sickening and stupid, and tell them they should quit every single time I see them light one.
        But “causes” is not the right word.

      • Menicholas , “Causes” is the right word If you phrase it like this: Smoking could cause cancer (in people who are genetically more susceptible to a certain form of cancer).

      • Study concludes that many cancers caused by bad luck in cell division
        A new study has concluded that many people’s risk of developing cancer often depends on simple bad luck in cell division.
        Researchers at Johns Hopkins University studied 31 different cancers. Of those, just nine were found to be linked to bad genetics or unhealthy lifestyle choices. The researchers did not consider breast cancer or prostate cancer in their study.
        The study concludes that the most common cause of the production of most cancerous cells occurs when one chemical letter in DNA is incorrectly swapped for another during stem cell division. Scientists found that cancer rates were higher in parts of the body where cells are quickest to regenerate, thereby creating more random mutations.

        http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/01/02/study-concludes-that-many-cancers-caused-by-bad-luck-in-cell-division/

    • Adjusting earlier temperatures downward to create an artificial warming is “intentional deception”.
      If this whole RICO thing comes about, the first people who should be jailed are Mann, Hanson, et. al….. and maybe some of their more rabid supporters who propagate the fiction. Like, say, habitual trollers or the wiki defacers.

      • Well said. Climate Science is very much like Tobacco Science — both have a foregone conclusion, both examine data which supports their conclusion. If the data doesn’t match their preconceived conclusion they ignore it or change the data.

      • No…Everyone who has seriously analyzed the data, ranging from NASA to HADCRUT to BEST has understood the necessity of making corrections for various issues that arise with the data and they all have arrived at almost exactly the same result.
        And, sorry odcombe2007, but the analogy between climate science and tobacco science doesn’t work that way, especially since the people like Steven Milloy (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Steven_J._Milloy) and Fred Seitz (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Frederick_Seitz) who were involved with the shoddy tobacco science are also involved with the shoddy attacks on climate science.

      • Pfft – joel you just repeat the same garbage.
        Everyone who was “seriously” analyzed the data realizes that your side is fudging the numbers. Apparently the definition of “seriously” depends on how much you want to believe it’s true.
        Again, you spew the same lies about “tobacco science”… the same liars and data manipulators whose shoddy “science” caused them to scream about global cooling in the 70s turned on a dime and jumped onto the warming craze when it became politically expedient.
        OF COURSE they all arrived at “exactly the same result”. They collaborated at manufacturing the result in the first place.
        Apparently you are incapable of looking at anything objectively, which is typical for religious zealots.

    • Joeldshore
      Completely right. There is a big difference between having an opinion that is off the mark and deliberately deceiving. Frankly I’d find the highest tree to hang anyone who deliberately set about deceiving the public so they could continue to peddle their wares and so endangering future generations. I mean, could you be more immoral?
      Frankly I see nothing wrong with oil companies selling their goods as long as they don’t engage in misinformation. It has been reported lately that one company knew about the effect of CO2 on climate quite some time ago. The key question will be, did they then set about trying to influence/mislead public opinion so their profits were not affected? Big question. Big possibilities.

      • Simon,
        Your penchant for lynch parties is not especially well received but duly noted. As is the extravagance of your expression and your avowed consternation as to the well-being of “future generations”.
        I can agree with you and Joel on the distinction between intent to deceive and guileless credulity, but Joel’s reassurance that ” then you have nothing to worry about” is immediately belied by your own barely restrained baying for blood.
        Your apocryphal account of a company knowing “about the effect of CO2 on climate quite some time ago.” sounds pretty funny in light of the fact that nobody knows what the effect of CO2 on climate is.
        It’s always good for a sardonic chuckle when the self-righteous threaten their adversaries with dire retribution. It never occurs to them that the Fates might happily turn the tables on them.

      • mebbe,
        Simon is out for blood, that’s for sure. Yesterday he compared me with mass murderers — for disagreeing with him. A typical climate alarmist, full of hate.
        Now Simon has the gall to say to others who disagree with him:
        “could you be more immoral?”
        Simon doesn’t notice the beam in his own eye. But the planet is measurably greening due directly to more CO2 being added to the atmosphere. More food is being grown as a result, which holds down the cost of food, and in many cases makes it cheaper.
        That makes a huge difference to the one-third of humanity subsisting on $2 a day or less. Even a small rise in the cost of food would cause widespread malnutrition, possibly starvation.
        Simon doesn’t care. He is projecting his own faults onto others. It is really Simon who is being immoral. If the policies he wants were put into effect, it would cause millions of deaths by starvation. That’s pretty damn immoral, but Simon doesn’t see it, or maybe he doesn’t care. He’s just a hater who wouldn’t mind if lots of those brown folks were gone. That would leave more for Simon.

      • DB and Mebbe
        I think it is pretty well accepted that the possibility of Climate change being a problem in the future is real. Of course we can’t know for sure at the moment, because the future is ahead, but there would not be a thinking person alive who would not agree it’s a possibility. It’s also possible that we will slide on through this and in 20 or so years realise the concern was unfounded. This could potentially have cost us a lot of money, (believe it or not, I get that), preparing for an eventuality that did’t happen. With the above in mind, I would be more than happy to see companies or individuals on both sides of the argument held to account financially. There is far too much riding on this to allow deliberate misinformation or lying. Don’t you agree?

      • Those deserving of vigilante justice in your universe are those advocating measures to ameliorate supposed catastrophic, man-made climate change. They are the enemies of humanity who should be hanged while still alive, drawn, quartered and their parts stuck on pikes at the four corners of the realm to be eaten by crows.

      • ” It has been reported lately that one company knew about the effect of CO2 on climate quite some time ago.”
        What, they discovered a crystal ball and kept the future they foresaw to themselves?
        Is this the report in which some guys “discovered” something during the 1970s that had been postulated by Svante Arrhenius back in the 19th century? BTW, Svante later admitted he was incorrect in this assertion.
        Hey, back in 2005 it was discovered that a certain hurricane may hit land somewhere on the Gulf coast, and yet everyone was not evacuated immediately from all areas which might be hit.
        This scandal has continued on to include every storm since then, in which action is only taken at the last minute when it is “known” where it will hit to a near certainty (although even then they sometimes miss).
        Lets start locking people up over these forecasting scandals!

      • It has been reported lately that one company knew about the effect of CO2 on climate quite some time ago.

        How could they know that? We do not know that to-day as any signal is buried in the noise. Or are you another one, who believes the science is settled?? GK

      • DB and my other WUWT friends. Answer me this simple question. If Michael Mann was found to be deliberately fudging the data, for let’s say… to keep his career alive or to bolster his reputation…. would you want him to have to pay either financially or in some other way? If you answer yes then how is it any different expecting the same from people on the other side of the debate. What’s that about the goose and the gander?

      • Simon says:
        I think it is pretty well accepted that the possibility of Climate change being a problem in the future is real.
        The climate alarmists’ side of the debate has devolved to that kind of nonsense. That sentence means absolutely nothing. But it is the irrational basis for Simon’s “What if…” scenario.
        Simon me boi, you cannot produce a single measurement of something that you insist must be real, and that you believe is likely to be dangerous. In other words, you have a religious faith that your belief must be true. Measurements are data, Simon. But your alarmist cult has no such data to support their CO2 alarmism.
        Your data-free faith, combined with your bloodthirsty fantasies make you the perfect tool for the real motivation behind the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ hoax: big government’s push for a ‘carbon’ tax.
        You don’t seem bright enough to understand it, but a carbon tax would certainly cause much grief, suffering and starvation for the world’s poor. It would also reduce the middle class standard of living by making almost all goods and services cost more, and it would greatly expand government bureaucracy. But the one thing a carbon tax would not do is change the planet’s temperature by even 0.000001ºC.
        Finally, if a carbon tax were passed, it would follow the same trajectory as the income tax, which the government promised Americans would never exceed 1% of their income, and it would only apply to those making more than $4,000 a year — the top 3% of wage earners at the time. How did that work out?
        No matter what they say, and no matter how many promises they make, a carbon tax would only go up in the years following its passage. <— And that is a prediction based on reality, on human nature, and on history, while your prediction is based only on your measurement-free faith.

      • DB
        You didn’t answer my question. Do you think Mann should be held to account if it can be proved he has deliberately mislead? Simple question.

      • the only ones who have been seriously lying are those pushing the CAGW agenda. But it seems some of these are just idiots and zealots who have done immeasurable harm to civilization. what do you propose to do with them?

      • cba
        Are you really serious? Do you genuinely think that only people on one side this debate embellish facts for profit or personal gain? I’m sorry but that is too much for me to accept.

    • The example you are looking for is this: Government constructs a social justice lie and schemes to hand over $159 billion to cronies sold as propaganda to “save the planet and reduce energy prices” with the intention of making donors, bundlers and sycophants rich without having to repay on money.
      .
      89% of all grants went to best friends. 100% of those grants, loans and funds had no contractual compliance to repay any money….the friends get the money first and then fold. They even keep the funds from sale of government purchased equipment.
      .
      That, Sir, is intentional deception. Do you wish to discuss the Co-Ops created under Obamacare by Best Friends who never worked in insurance and are now failing, demanding a bailout from taxpayers?

    • But we have abundant evidence that advocates of catastrophic man-made “climate change” have lied systematically.
      IMO they should be hanged, drawn and quartered for the trillions they have cost the world and the millions they have killed in cold blood.

      • I count all the dead in the Arab Spring revolutions as Climate Casualties, including all those killed in the Syrian civil war, and by extension the current refugee crisis and all that will come of it.

      • Casualties of climate policy that is, not of anything to do with the climate itself.
        These uprisings started out as food riots, brought on largely if not completely due to the decision to require that motor fuel sold in the US contain corn ethanol.
        This caused a spike in food and especially grain prices and the price for futures contracts, even as crop yields were setting new records.
        The ensuing shortages and record high prices led to these riots, which festered and grew into the uprisings.

    • Those who are calling for the RICO act to be used against any who are sceptical of the AGW hypothesis need to be very careful.
      There are some very basic, glaringly obvious and easily proven fallacies with both the AWG and the GHE hypotheses. These fallacies are so fundamental and obvious that no ‘scientist’ could credibly plead ignorance of.
      I’ll give just one example. Water vapour feedback, water vapour is provably, a negative feedback mechanism. The IPCC’s GHE hypothesis, on which their AGW hypothesis is built, states clearly that water vapour is a “strongly positive feedback mechanism”. This is not just wrong, it is a scientific fraud.
      Wilful ignorance of facts in order to obtain money is the very definition of “racketeering”. Deliberate lies are quite something else.
      A law that is discriminatory is no law at all.

  5. Good article. The point that blaming El Nino for surprising the “experts” demonstrates that the “experts” didn’t know what they were doing in the first place – that’s very perceptive.
    But taking pot shots at Lewandowsky and Oreskes is too easy.

    Naomi Oreskes, a historian who believes in a vast right-wing conspiracy

    Yes she does.
    Yes, she’s nuts.
    But most True Believers are not that far down the sanity scale.
    By the way, if anyone has found this right wing conspiracy please put me in touch. I’m not right wing and I’m not paid. But I would love to take their money.

    • “Yes, she’s nuts.”
      She but not only nuts, also bad at sciences. Really, really bad. Terrible. (I couldn’t believe it when I heard about that on doubter blogs, I had to go to Google Books to find out, it’s true. I think there is a re-edition where some glaring errors are corrected.)
      She fails chemistry, she thinks neutral pH is 6 (but there might be a chemist conspiracy to fool people about the acidity of water laced with CO2), she also doesn’t know about or fail to read the Mendeleiev table (which might be Russian conspiracy to fool people into believing that no, beryllium isn’t a toxic heavy metal, just toxic), she obviously has never heard of reactive oxygen species and their role in cancer … and don’t get me started with the part where she describes radiation regulation (no, acceptable radiation levels aren’t based on levels believed to be safe, according to the official religion there is no safe level).
      Even Greg Laden’s regulars think this sucks (I am not going to link to his “science” blog, you can easily find it.)
      Maybe she just couldn’t care less about the scientific content of her book, and there is no pre-publication “peer review” on a printed book – not a website, not a personal blog, a published book. You don’t need world-class expert review, grad students would spot many mistakes.
      Anyway, she seems to have a few simplistic basic mental associations like “cancer” “radiation” and “toxic metal” “heavy metal” that she got from media reporting of science or from enviro propaganda and the link go both ways: from heavy to toxic or toxic to heavy, from radiations to cancer or cancer to radiations (the part about the hypothetical link between smoking and radioactive oxygen – YOU can’t make this up, but SHE can).
      Even a 8 years old child would spot the error on the radiation protection part (a level believed to be safe would be the same for adults working in the nuclear industry and some other adult – there is no “nuclear worker” human race with super radiation resistance). But then even a child can understand that a small increase of anything above natural level cannot be very dangerous, when natural levels vary between places).
      She seems confused and in need of science education about many issues, even the way history research works (hint: when you have zero idea what a person meant, don’t try to make up an uninformed interpretation, ask the person if you can, or his colleagues, or domain experts – even if you dislike this person).
      Because she is the team of the Good, approximately zero journalists are going to ask questions about the serious errors in her book.
      In France, the famous book of geoscientist (and former education and research minister) Claude Allègre L’imposture climatique ou la fausse écologie about the contradictions of the AGW theory has been VERY harshly criticized, sometimes even for minor stuff like an error in the name of a scientist or an incorrect reference. (Admittedly his book also contains more serious errors. I am not defending his book here.)
      The difference of treatment between the treatment of “L’imposture climatique ou la fausse écologie” where journalists published a long list of errors (sometimes small errors) and “Merchants” where journalists (especially specialized science journalists) described the book as some kind of revelation… it’s beyond words.
      And what is Oreskes even doing in a university? Jean Jouzel is annoying and not very honest and unlikable, but at least he really is a scientist, has recognised, verifiable qualification, has done real research (just not about atmospheric science), doesn’t get neutral pH wrong…

      • Good rant, S-T, and you’re exactly right about the dishonest and disparate treatment of AGW-belief texts versus critical texts.
        Steve McIntyre has noted that anyone critical of AGW must be microscopically correct. He’s dead-on right. Critical statements are trolled for errors with a fine-tooth comb. Any small error found is blown up, and used to discredit an entire argument, to the general applause and relief of journalists in the AGW peanut gallery.
        Meanwhile, grotesque falsehoods of the climate cognoscenti are overlooked and/or explained away with strained analogy. The excuses appended to “Mike’s Nature-trick” are a fine example. Willful lies swallowed whole and disseminated as gospel by a consciously partisan press.

  6. Between this, nutritional, and medical “science” I would hate to be a scientist. It’s all bought and paid for. The ones doing it right are considered nuts. At least I took it upon myself to figure out that saturated fat and cholesterol is good, medicating yourself is not, and I cannot change the weather.

    • Let least nutritional “science” is using the term “Emerging Science” a lot, the term actually means “We conducted a cohort examination of data intended for other purposes and are probably wrong or at least not correct”; unlike climatology.

  7. Of course, they do not propose prosecuting those who knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to exaggerate America’s response to climate change.

    • Original version:
      “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”
      Fixed version:
      “…climatologists who knowingly deceived the American people by exaggerating the risks of climate change, as a means to force America’s irrational response to climate change.”
      With those words they painted targets on their own backs. When the winds of politics change, as they inevitably do, they are giving ideas to their opponents as to how to deal with dissent. Very dangerous ideas indeed.

      • Exactly!
        I’ve thought for a long time that entities like Michael Mann, Penn State, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt and GISS need to have a RICO suit filed against them. We could easily prove they have knowingly published intentionally misleading data, obfuscated attempts to verify the data, and in the case of Mann in particular , the evidence is fairly overwhelming. Don’t think RICO jurisdiction extends as far as UEA but if it does, they should be a party too, among others.

  8. Climate industry is so large, it’s no surprise that there are divergent views. There will be the true believers who assume warming is going on as per the “models”. I mean, we all knew that this was going to be the warmest year ever long before it began, because every year for (how long now?) has been the warmest ever. Media headlines prove it. Quite recently I read a headline “74°C in Iran”. they printed it with what I assume was a straight face (sorry, I can’t find the reference now, but it was either in the Toronto Globe & Mail or on the CBC website some time in August).
    There are some of the hand-wringing foot-warmers who still try to practice a bit of science now and then, and maybe actually look at some data, and they can’t be unaware of the “pause”, and we have seen several (not very convincing) explanations of why the “pause” is consistent with continued warming.
    There is another faction who (perhaps seeing the writing on the wall) boldly assert that global warming is going to cause cooling, and we’ll all freeze. Of course, that’s still consistent with the models.
    Schisms in religious movements are only to be expected, and are probably overdue in the church of warming.
    BTW I spent a few minutes trying to follow the 74°C story to its source, and it looked like (a) it wasn’t an actual temperature, but a newly invented “heat factor” like the wind-chill factor those of us who live in cold countries know so well (b) it was converted to fahrenheit for the American public and (c) was converted back to celsius for the Canadian reader but they forgot to subtract 32 first. Such is the wisdom of the press. Story trumps facts every time.

  9. ‘There’s a slow train coming round the bend’ as the old Gospel song goes.
    There is a growing disconnect between what the IPCC says and climate reality.
    And the public are gradually waking up to the fraud (that’s not too strong a word)
    Those ‘scientists’ who tailored data to get a bigger faculty grant or follow a political agenda are a disgrace to science.

      • TonyL September 23, 2015 at 9:29 am shows satellite data he calls UAH Pause. There are actually two pauses or hiatuses here, not one. The right side is drawn correctly and shows the current hiatus. The left side is wrong and shows a curved red line. There should be no curved line but a straight horizontal line designating a hiatus in the eighties and nineties. It starts in 979 and ends in 1997. The two do not meet because between them there was a step warming in 1999 that raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius in only three years and then stopped. The two hiatuses now jointly prevent any greenhouse warming from happening since 1979 and render the satellite era that begins with that year entirely greenhouse-free

    • Please do tell us why that will worry you?
      You say this all the time, with no explanation.
      I thought you were just bring funny the first few times, but no one tells the same joke to the same people everyday…do they?
      Oh…wait…CAGW.
      Bahahahahaha!

    • @ annoarrak
      I agree, the step-change hypothesis is most interesting. I plotted this up to take a look at the differences between satellite and ground based data sets. (Channeling my inner Bob Tisdale) Bob shows plots post-Nino event with his Monthly Update posts, but he does not show the pre-Nino portions. So I thought I would plot it up, just to see what it looks like. As you can see, it is not really very flat at all. In fact, it tracks the ground data fairly well, which I did not expect.
      http://i62.tinypic.com/2yjq3pf.png
      (click to embiggen)
      The first portion is Dec. ’78 through dec. ’97. The second portion is Jan. ’98 through Aug. ’15 (includes the Pause-Busters adjustment). The legends show the slopes as Deg. C/decade.

      The left side is wrong and shows a curved red line.

      I prefer to think of it as fuschia
      A Lovely Fuschia.

  10. As always, a pleasure to read Briggs’ actual article and an even greater pleasure to follow his links as he takes on the impossibly narrow error estimates in BEST (would that he would extend this to e.g. HadCRUT4 etc as well, as their error estimates don’t even scale reasonably from the present to the remote past of the thermometric record), as he presents Bastardi’s CO2 vs temperature graph over the Phanerozoic (I built much the same graph for myself just to try to understand the geological evidence for CO2 being the primary driver for global temperature), as he links to the Goddard/Heller site with the comment that

    …the observations that modern records are continually being tweaked by scientists (and strangely always in a direction that makes it appears colder then and warmer now), and it’s no surprise to hear talk of “record temperatures.”

    Finally, I enjoyed reading “The Cult of the Parameter” as it illustrates one of several serious problems with error estimation not just in BEST, not just in discussions of the hottest year versus the pause versus warming continuing — but hidden — during the pause, but everywhere in the general field of modeling in climate science. Error in model parameters cannot be simply translated into error estimates for the results produced by the models — at best they are a strictly lower bound but the actual associated (contribution to the) error is (probably) many times larger. A brutally honest Bayesian computation (or a Monte Carlo simulation) can sometimes correct for this, but rarely is used to do so.
    One thing that I think would be a lovely exercise for Briggs’ students — since he apparently uses their homework as a fertile ground for establishing practical bounds on things like error for computable problems — to assess one of the central assumptions of the GCMs: That the mean and variance of N non-independent, parametric models simulating a highly nonlinear and formally chaotic process are in any useful or predictable sense statistically meaningful estimators for an actual nonlinear/chaotic process that is different. In particular, if one generates a numerical solution to a computational fluid dynamics problem at resolution X (sufficiently fine grained that the resulting model, started from some small spread in initial conditions and underlying parameters, exhibits the usual extreme and divergent variability over time characteristic of turbulent chaos at the resolution chosen, and forms the mean and variance of the trajectories in model phase space, how predictive are they of the same general model computed at resolution Y much less than X?
    This is a serious problem for non-chaotic dynamics. If you solve the coupled ODEs for a simple 2D classical orbit with some given stepsize, you can easily observe solutions that a) violate the known conservation laws for that orbit over time; b) have substantially different behavior from solutions solved with the same ODE solver but at a much smaller stepsize. GCMs solve a CFD problem on a grid that is order of 100’s of km square (or often larger) while we know that length scales down as low as millimeters (the Kolmogorov scale) are likely to be relevant to the accurate solution of the dynamics. What statistical theorem exists — what statistical hypothesis exists, backed by at least some simulations of comparatively simple problems to test the hypothesis — to support this practice? What is the relationship between the envelope of the averages of many perturbed parameter ensemble trajectories from many non-independent models evaluated at a range of spatiotemporal resolutions and the actual trajectory of the actual climate? What is the relationship of the superaveraged mean of these already-averaged per-model trajectories and the actual trajectory? It certainly isn’t going to be a statistically normal one, in the sense that if we only wrote another 1000 or so non-independent models and ran them lots of times and superaveraged their averages the multimodel mean would somehow converge to the actual climate, or that the standard deviation of the per-model PPE mean trajectories is a meaningful estimator of error.
    I don’t think anybody knows the answers to these questions. Anybody anywhere. The IPCC more or less acknowledges this in their earlier reports. I suspect that the unwritten assumptions are in any event false — that there is no defensible reason to presume that the various model ensembles produce any results that are even likely to be predictive at the resolutions we can afford to compute and with the parametric and model errors that no doubt abound in the models themselves.
    rgb

    • It has been my understanding that GCM runs that yield “nonphysical” results are discarded. I wonder if there is agreement on the threshold of a “nonphysical” result.

      • If the model is capable of producing “nonphysical” results, that should be pretty good flag that there are problems with the model.

      • I think a name change is in order for the Berkeley team.
        Perhaps The Berkeley With Out Regard to Science Team?
        Hey, they asked for it by choosing their acronym, then not living up to it.

    • RGB, I would be interested in your comments about the bind the IPCC is in in trying to explain a warming surface and flat or cooling troposphere with CAGW theory. In short, even if one accepts the mal-adjusted surface record, CO2 cannot be the cause of the warming.

    • “to assess one of the central assumptions of the GCMs: That the mean and variance of N non-independent, parametric models simulating a highly nonlinear and formally chaotic process are in any useful or predictable sense statistically meaningful estimators for an actual nonlinear/chaotic process that is different”
      If this is true, doesn’t mean that phrenology is actually viable after all? LOL

  11. “It is well past the time to move on from EFCOD global warming and return to doing real science.”
    Surely you jest Mr Briggs!

  12. “From the Triassic to the Quaternary, a time spanning more than 200 million years, the earth was hotter than it is now, and not just a little hotter, but downright steamy at times, with temperatures 10 or more degrees Celsius higher. ”
    And CO2 had nothing to do with it. Virtually no CAGW advocate/”Climate Scientists” ever allow this fact to creep into their grant applications…

  13. Sorry guys, the article is gibberish. There is no contradiction between ‘hottest year ever’ and ‘pause’. Anyone using ‘Hottest Year Ever’ to deny (can I still say that?) the ‘Pause’ is deeply arithmetically challenged. Anyone who thinks the ‘Pause’ falsifies the contention that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is equally so. Anyone who says they know how much ‘Natural Cycles’ have influenced the pause has a surfeit of confidence.
    Seriously, there must be better things to talk about.

      • RERT,
        The ‘pause’ by itself doesn’t falsify the AGW conjecture (I assume you meant AGW).
        But it sure weakens the argument.
        What weakens it even more is that ever since Arrhenius, scientists have been searching for the ‘fingerprint of man-made global warming’. By that I mean they’ve been searching for measurements quantifying AGW.
        But despite hundreds of billions of dollars ‘studying climate change’ and launching satellites and thousands of radiosonde balloons, no one has ever found a single verifiable, empirical, replicable measurement of man-made global warming.
        So, the usual question: at what point would you be willing to admit that either AGW doesn’t exist, or that it is just too small to matter?
        Or can nothing ever convince you that ‘dangerous AGW’ is gonna getcha?

    • Did you read the article?
      It does not say CO2 is is not a GHG, it says CO2 is obviously not driving climate because if it were there would not be a pause. Alarmists (can I still say that?) claim that CO2 warming is occurring but hidden by other natural climate events. If other natural events are overwhelming CO2 warming then it is reasonable to conclude that CO2 is not the principal climate trigger.
      Anyone who will look at the geological record of temperature and CO2 over the last 400 million years can figure that out.

      • There are people who claim that here in Rochester, we have a strong seasonal cycle whereby the seasonal change in solar insolation is a principle driver of our climate. However, the seasonal cycle theory predicts that it should be getting colder as we head toward winter. Nonetheless, last week was warmer than the previous week.
        By your logic, if the seasonal variation in insolation was important, last week should not have been warmer than the week before and we should thus conclude that this seasonal variation in solar insolation is not important in our climate.
        Do you actually believe that to be the case? Perhaps thinking about this more closely will help you to understand the errors in your logic.

      • “If other natural events are overwhelming CO2 warming then it is reasonable to conclude that CO2 is not the principal climate trigger …”.
        ===================================
        That looks to me like a perfectly logical inference to make.
        On the other hand joeldshore’s analogy is weak because it contains a disproportional scale comparison in time and magnitude.
        Pressed to a logical conclusion that analogy could be reduced to absurdity.

      • No…It is not a perfectly logical inference to make and my analogy is about as perfect as any analogy can be. In both cases, we have a slow but steady longer-term trend with relatively large short-term fluctuations.
        That means that the fluctuations dominate on short enough time scales but eventually slow long-term trend dominates. For the seasonal case, that means that behavior over the course of a week…or even a few weeks…will be dominated by the weather fluctuations but behavior over a few months will be dominated by the seasonal cycle. For the AGW case, that means that behavior over the course of a decade…or even a couple decades (especially if you cherrypick the starting point) will tend to be dominated by the climate fluctuations (ENSO and what-have you) but behavior over several decades to a few centuries will be dominated by AGW.

      • joeldshore says:
        …my analogy is about as perfect as any analogy can be.
        Got an even better one:
        Joel Shore’s belief in ‘dangerous AGW’ is as strong as a Jehovah’s Witness’s belief in his religion. ☺

      • “Large short-term fluctuations” are caused by “what-have-you” — very good that should be added to the list with ‘the oceans swallowed our global warming’.
        If the seasonal variation stopped, if the mean maximum monthly temperature in Rochester remained flat, say 5C, from February to August in one particular year that would raise questions about the seasonal cycle — which of course is absurd.
        But that is where the analogy takes you if pursued to its logical conclusion and exposes the inherent circularity or question-begging it contains, that CO2 forcing is an underlying dominating forcing factor analogous to the seasonal insolation fluctuations is the very point in contention.

    • OK. Let’s instead talk about how the GCM results seem to be diverging from reality. Do you think in ten years the agreement will be better? Do you thing the measurements are so poor that the globe is really hotter than we see it today? Do you think that, if we can prove that 99.999% of the peer reviewed literature that takes a stand on global warming supports the CAGW hypothesis, the naysayers will remarkably grow silent and the people of the world will give up their cars and air-conditioning in time to save the world?

    • where did you read here or in the article that someone thinks that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? This sounds like a red herring.
      Most reasonable people acknowledge that it likely is. However, currently it is a relative bit player in the “greenhouse gas” and naturally choreographed feedback system, and it cannot possibly be *the* climate driver to any great extent-and certainly not to the extent that has been claimed..

    • “Anyone who says they know how much ‘Natural Cycles’ have influenced the pause has a surfeit of confidence.”
      Ah… exactly. And that’s what the AGW camp is saying, and also that “Natural Cycles” had NOTHING to do with the temperature run-up over the last 50 years. So they knew everything about natural cycles up till The Pause, were in denial that it was happening, but now they are 100% knowledgeable again… CO2 is definitely warming but those natural cycles are only now kicking in and hiding the rise.

    • On the other hand joeldshore’s analogy is weak because it contains a disproportional scale comparison in time and magnitude.

      Actually, it doesn’t. It is spot on the money. The climate is not a stationary process. Even if nobody touched CO2, it would be warming up and/or cooling down and/or remaining the same, pretty much unpredictably. We have almost no data worthy of the name of the timescales of most of this variability, and we don’t know if it is true “noise” (some underlying random process) or a manifestation of chaotic dynamics. That’s why Indian Summer isn’t surprising. Nor is it surprising when this year is warmer than, or cooler than, last year. A glance at any of the temperature records (take your pick!) shows that it goes up, and down, and up, and down. Staying the same as long as it has recently is the exception, not the rule!
      The point is not that CO2 warming is being masked by natural shifts — or not. The point is that it is impossible to conclude that just because we haven’t warmed (much) over the last 20 or so years, that is some sort of proof that CO2 has no warming effect on climate. It isn’t, because the timescales involved are far too short to draw any such conclusion, just as is the case for 70 degree weather in January (which happens, sometimes, in NC, but is not the rule).

      • “The point is that it is impossible to conclude that just because we haven’t warmed (much) over the last 20 or so years, that is some sort of proof that CO2 has no warming effect on climate …”.
        ==========================
        For what it’s worth with respect that is not my point; simply that on the strength of the temperature hiatuses ~1945 — 1975 and ~ 1998 — ? CO2 must be in completion with other factors which at times augment and at other times nullify it as opposed to the analogy of the ever-present dominating influence of seasonal insolation fluctuations overwhelming short-term day-to-day conditions.
        But there are much smarter people than me who have reservations about the supposed overwhelmingly dominant role of CO2 in the evolution of the post ww2 climate as per the IPCC conjecture and model projections-predictions.

      • The – CO2 forcing is to the climate evolution – as – seasonal insolation fluctuation is to day-to-day weather change – analogy also implies an unfounded inevitability to the future temperature trend à la the IPCC models.

  14. The “pause” doesn’t mean or imply that the climate has stopped changing.
    Therefore, since the climate changes, each year will probably be either cooler or warmer than the previous year and probably be either cooler or warmer than the following year,… ad (probably) infinitum or until the planetary atmosphere ceases to exist, whichever comes first. /grin

  15. I have trouble placing any credence in claims of catastrophic global warming because there appears to warm bias in the way temperature is recorded. I’ve noticed from my daily monitoring of Gainesville Regional Airport’s weather station (KGNV) that all temperature records are rounded up to the nearest whole number, notwithstanding that the monthly departure from normal is reported in tenths of a degree. Normal daily temperatures currently are 68 F for the low and 87 F for the high. For some reason, however, the daily average is said to be 77 F. So, if the observed high and low for the day equal the daily normals, resulting in a daily average of 77.5, it is rounded up and the daily average reported on the F6 is 78 and a 1-degree departure from normal.
    In addition, I notice that at least once a day the six-hour maximum or minimum exceeds the high or low reported at 53 minutes past the hour, depending on the season. I speculate that jet wash may be influencing the thermometer, which is in the between runways or taxiways.
    So, when Dr. Roy Spencer says the satellites say the average world temperature is not anywhere close to the hottest ever, I believe that. I don’t believe NOAA’s estimate because it’s obviously at least 3 tenths of a degree on the warm side.

    • The satellites are measuring air temperatures only. NOAA is reporting temperatures that are for 70% consisting of ocean water temperatures at about 1,5 m depth. Their trends need not be the same as Christy et al. has demonstrated: Differential Trends in Tropical Sea Surface and Atmospheric Temperatures since 1979, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 28, NO. 1, PAGES 183-186, JANUARY 1,2001

  16. When the stories don’t mesh it’s “the shotgun effect” in action. Make contradictory statements that still point to the same claimed cause that needs to be “solved”. Whichever pellet hits doesn’t matter as long as those hit remain devoted to solving the “cause”.

  17. Jack Barrett is a CAGW sceptic. His blog profile includes the following:
    His interest in climate change developed with the 1992 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (Cambridge University Press), not just because of the global importance of the topic, but because of his interest in the spectroscopy of small molecules which include the ‘greenhouse’ gases H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O and O3. He became sceptical about climate modelling and what seemed to him the exaggerated claims emerging from the computer programmes about our future global climate.
    See: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page2.htm
    Jack has been arguing against the climate change establishment for more than 20 years. He has authored around seventy papers on various aspects of the chemistry and spectroscopy of small molecules and has written ten textbooks. His main argument against the AGW crowd is not that more CO2 produces warming it’s that the warming projected by models is exaggerated. He addresses the “pause” in this statement:
    .
    The gradual and continual build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere should produce a gradual and continual warming of the surface and lower troposphere. That the warming is not continual, but is affected by other causes does nothing to destroy the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. Very little, if anything, can be concluded from a consideration of any 15-year period in the 162 year’s data. Viewed overall there is an underlying warming trend enhanced or enfeebled by natural causes, some of a ~30 year cycle and others of smaller duration that make the observed graph ‘jagged’.
    And so say all of us. We are not going to see a continual monotonic increase in warming. There will be pauses and spurts in response to ‘natural variation’. The longer pauses simply suggest that Jack’s (and others) estimate of around 1.3 deg warming per 2xCO2 is more likely to be correct. There is absolutely nothing in any of the current temperature records which disproves basic AGW theory.
    PS the barrretbellamy site is well worth a look for those who have an interest in the science.

  18. Can anyone list the records for high temp for this year. I haven’t seen the list of locations, if they actually exist.

  19. Another excellent contribution from William M Briggs. He’s one whose always worth reading because he doesn’t pull his punches, qualifies his claims with evidence and without fail eviscerates the charlatans on the other side. A joy to read.

  20. >”They [Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, and James Risbey] say that if these “causes” did not exist, the temperatures would have increased just as they were predicted to under the theory of enhanced-feedback carbon-oxide-driven (EFCOD) global warming.”
    This is blatantly untrue and false i.e. a lie.
    What they are referring to is an MDV-neutral spline through GMST:
    1895
    1925
    1955
    1985
    2015
    But the EFCOD profile, as implemented by the GCMs, departs from the MDV-neutral spline after 1955 and by 2015 is WELL ABOVE the observed GMST spline.
    Lewandowsky, Oreskes, and Risbey are crooks, liars, and con men and women.

    • Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) approximated the most recent couple of decades of the MDV-neutral spline up to 2010 that Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey refer to, and the IPCC cite F&R11 in AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution in support of a similar claim (lie) to what Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey are making.
      Except F&R11’s residual is not CO2-forced i.e. it does NOT conform to the CO2-forced Model Mean. Worse, their residual goes through 2010 when it should go through 2015.
      In other words, the IPCC are complicit in disseminating the same lie that Lewandowsky, Oreskes, and Risbey are touting.

    • Yes, that first quote IS INDEED “blatantly untrue and false” … because that is NOT what “they” say! Briggs is creating a strawman by pretty much flipping what “they” say completely backwards.
      “They” say that these other cause DO exist (not what might happen if they did not). “They” say “these causes” existed in the past and will continue to exist in the future, creating various fluctuations that can last on a decadal scale. What “they” actually say that there is no statistical evidence that the current fluctuations are any different from past fluctuations. As such, this “pause” is not actually statistical evidence that the long-term warming trend from the past 100+ years has stopped.
      This is VERY different from Briggs’ interpretation that “[t]hey use the absence of predicted increases as proof the increases (from increasing CO2) were really there”. Rather the claim is that the absence of predicted increases is NOT proof that increases from CO2 are NOT there. The claim is that the data is perfectly consistent with (but not proof of) an increasing baseline modified by typical fluctuations.
      The rest of Briggs’ article is laced with similar strawmen. As such, i am not especially impressed.

      • tjfolkerts
        >”Yes, that first quote IS INDEED “blatantly untrue and false” … because that is NOT what “they” say! Briggs is creating a strawman by pretty much flipping what “they” say completely backwards.”
        Rubbish. The Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey rationale is that if you REMOVE natural variability (ENSO, solar, volcanoes, whatever) then what is left is the underlying residual global warming trend. But they neglect MDV as I show upthread and Dr Norman Page alludes downthread. MDV is Multidecadal Variation BTW (the 60 year climate cycle).
        REMOVING natural variability (the “absence” of it) is what Briggs is getting at with:

        “They [Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey] say that if these “causes” did not exist, the temperatures would have increased just as they were predicted to under the theory of enhanced-feedback carbon-oxide-driven (EFCOD) global warming.”

        The “causes” are natural variability causes as per Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey. So their rationale is to REMOVE them.
        Thing is, Lewandowsky, Oreskes, and Risbey are correct up to the point BEFORE theoretical EFCOD forcing is introduced. Foster and Rahmstorf (see upthread) did exactly what Briggs says Lewandowsky, Oreskes, and Risbey are advocating (although too short timeframe to remove MDV) i.e. they REMOVED natural variability (but not all of it). See full paper:
        ‘Global temperature evolution 1979–2010’
        Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf
        Published 6 December 2011
        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta;jsessionid=6B7EA4C9128102AC8A4397A53BCC98AB.c1
        The IPCC cite this paper in AR5 Chapter 10 but they are just as wrong as Lewandowsky, Oreskes, and Risbey i.e. they lie too.
        Problem is: the GMST residual AFTER removal of natural variability is NOT CO2-forced. The Foster and Rahmstorf (2010) residual is WELL BELOW the CO2-forced model mean.

      • tjfolkerts

        “They” say that these other cause DO exist (not what might happen if they did not). “They” say “these causes” existed in the past and will continue to exist in the future, creating various fluctuations that can last on a decadal scale. What “they” actually say that there is no statistical evidence that the current fluctuations are any different from past fluctuations. As such, this “pause” is not actually statistical evidence that the long-term warming trend from the past 100+ years has stopped.

        You are, perhaps inadvertently, supporting my argument re MDV and that of Dr Norman Page downthread. No-one is arguing that the “long-term warming trend from the past 100+ years has stopped”. Problem is: that long-term secular trend (ST) is not CO2-forced (see below)
        The “current fluctuations” of natural variability can be isolated as a signal that “existed in the past and will continue to exist in the future”. I agree totally. The signal exhibits as an oscillation with 60 year period i.e. MDV. This oscillation when added to the residual, but not CO2-forced, secular trend (ST) which is centennial/millennial scale, will reconstruct the GMST profile. This is the opposite to the Foster and Rahmstorf approach of removing natural variability. See Macias et al (2014):
        Macias D, Stips A, Garcia-Gorriz E (2014) Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record. PLoS ONE 9(9): e107222. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107222
        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107222#pone-0107222-g005
        But if you then add in a CO2-forced component (EFCOD) to ST + MDV, you will overshoot GMST – as the CO2-forced models have done.
        And note the negative inflexion starting in the Macias et al ST i.e. the long-term trend is still increasing but the rate is considerably less than it was. This is at odds with the progressively increasing CO2 curve i.e. CO2 is not the driver of the GMST long-term secular trend (ST).

      • “They [Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey] say that if these “causes” did not exist, the temperatures would have increased just as they were predicted to under the theory of enhanced-feedback carbon-oxide-driven (EFCOD) global warming.”
        Richard, there is a second problem here that I did not address above. “They” make no claims (as near as I can see) about PREDICTIONS based on EFCOD. Perhaps you can find a place in their paper where they do (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00106.1). As such they are not predicting what would happen under any specific model.
        Rather, they merely look at the data and see there is a warming trend. They see there is are fluctuations in this trend. Specifically, they see that the current “pause” is typical of previous fluctuations. As such, “the pause” is not evidence of a true pause. It is merely evidence of yet another typical fluctuation. maybe in a few more years this pause will grow to the level where it is noticeably different from previous fluctuations, but
        “But the EFCOD profile, as implemented by the GCMs, departs from the MDV-neutral spline after 1955 and by 2015 is WELL ABOVE the observed GMST spline.”
        As above, this is a separate issue.
        QUESTION 1) Is the current pause consistent with a continued baseline warming trend modified by normal fluctuations?
        QUESTION 2) is the baseline warming trend consistent with GCMs?
        The Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey is addressing Q1. You are addressing Q2. You could well be right about Q2 simultaneously with Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey being right about Q1!
        ******************************
        On a slightly different front, I am not a fan of the “preaching” that Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey do about “contrarian memes” or “framing of issues”. I prefer sticking to science rather than musing about motives. Which is also a big reason that I don’t care for Briggs’ article.

      • Richard says: “The signal exhibits as an oscillation with 60 year period i.e. MDV.
        Could you provide some links or evidence behind this? First of all, to see a 60 year period in noisy data, you would need a quality record going back 2 or 3 or more periods, ie 120 years or longer. But data 120+ years ago is probably not going to be reliable enough for such analysis. Yeah, there looks like there could be a peak now … and maybe a peak ~ 60 years ago … and if I squint hard enough there might be one ~ 120 years ago. But does something like a power spectrum using FFT show a significantly strong peak at 60 years?
        Second, random walk data can often look like there is some period. Random fluctuations could make a peak somewhere … maybe it just happens to be about 60 years ago. It would be a whole lot more convincing if you had a theory that *predicted* a 60 year cycle, rather than seeing one peak about 60 years ago.
        Thirdly, even if we agree there is a 60 year period, there is STILL a definite upward trend over the last 120 years (2 periods). So even including a 60 year period can’t remove the warming trend.

      • tjfolkerts
        >”Richard, there is a second problem here that I did not address above. “They” make no claims (as near as I can see) about PREDICTIONS based on EFCOD.”
        EXACTLY. Thank you TJ for “seeing” the issue. You seem to be about the only one, except perhaps Dr Norman Page, in this entire thread who does.
        They SHOULD be making their claims in respect to EFCOD but they’re not. In other words, they are making their claims in respect to natural drivers i.e. they are conflating naturally driven trends with a theoretical EFCOD driven trend – this is the blatant lie.
        >”Perhaps you can find a place in their paper where they do (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00106.1). As such they are not predicting what would happen under any specific model”
        Page 7 pdf, lines 104 and 105:

        “Fluctuations can therefore display warming rates that are greater than or less than the greenhouse-driven longer-term trend”

        The secular trend (ST) of GMST (see Macias et al upthread and below) is NOT “the [theoretical] greenhouse-driven longer-term trend”. EFCOD is added to the natural components i.e. Theoretical man-made warming GMST = ST(natural) + MDV(natural) + EFCOD(theoretical CO2 forcing). This is the CO2-forced model mean which is WELL ABOVE the natural ST in GMST.
        Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey lie when they conflate the natural GMST secular trend (ST) with “the [theoretical] greenhouse-driven longer-term trend”
        >”Rather, they merely look at the data and see there is a warming trend. They see there is are fluctuations in this trend. Specifically, they see that the current “pause” is typical of previous fluctuations. As such, “the pause” is not evidence of a true pause. It is merely evidence of yet another typical fluctuation. maybe in a few more years this pause will grow to the level where it is noticeably different from previous fluctuations,”
        YES, YES, YES. They are referring to Natural GMST = ST(natural) + MDV(natural) i.e. they are NOT referring to Theoretical man-made warming GMST = ST(natural) + MDV(natural) + EFCOD(theoretical CO2 forcing).
        >“But the EFCOD profile, as implemented by the GCMs, departs from the MDV-neutral spline after 1955 and by 2015 is WELL ABOVE the observed GMST spline.” As above, this is a separate issue.
        You’re back to rubbish again TJ. This is the ENTIRE issue, i.e. the MDV-neutral spline (STnatural) in observed GMST does NOT conform, as Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey falsely allude, to “the greenhouse-driven longer-term trend”. The former is natural and observed, the latter is theoretical and only appears in the CO2-forced GCMs.
        >”QUESTION 1) Is the current pause consistent with a continued baseline warming trend modified by normal fluctuations?”
        Yes. GMST(natural) = ST(natural) + MDV(natural). But this is NOT CO2-forced warming which is: Theoretical man-made warming GMST = ST(natural) + MDV(natural) + EFCOD(theoretical CO2 forcing).
        >”QUESTION 2) is the baseline warming trend consistent with GCMs?”
        No. GMST(natural) ST, which is the MDV-neutral spline that I’ve shown in this sub-thread header, departs negatively from the model mean after 1955 – it SHOULD’NT. The model mean is also MDV-neutral i.e. GCM’s do NOT model the MDV component in GMST. GCM sceptics complain that the models do not mimic the 1940s fluctuation – but they shouldn’t. the 1940s were maximum positive MDV, The models are MDV-neutral and the model mean crossed observed GMST at 1925 and 1955 and below 1940 i.e. the model mean is bang on the MDV-neutral spline.
        >”The Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey is addressing Q1.”
        So am I. This is EXACTLY my point as above. This is where the Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey lie emerges.
        >”You are addressing Q2.”
        In addition to Q1 but I’m addressing Q1 primarily. Q2 just proves my contention re Q1.
        >”You could well be right about Q2 simultaneously with Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey being right about Q1!”
        EXACTLY (almost). Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey are right about Q1 but in respect to the natural components of GMST. However, as I’ve laid out, they falsely allude that the observed natural ST of GMST is “the [theoretical] greenhouse-driven longer-term trend” – it clearly is not i.e. their contention is false, untrue, a big fat lie.
        BTW TJ, to view the relevant graphs from the IPCC and Roy Spencer that support my case, go to this comment at Climate Etc (in other words I’ve already raked this over in a couple of blogs now so this is not a new issue):
        http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/28/week-in-review-science-edition-19/#comment-727991

      • tjfolkerts
        >”Richard says: “The signal exhibits as an oscillation with 60 year period i.e. MDV.” Could you provide some links or evidence behind this? First of all, to see a 60 year period in noisy data, you would need a quality record going back 2 or 3 or more periods, ie 120 years or longer. But data 120+ years ago is probably not going to be reliable enough for such analysis. Yeah, there looks like there could be a peak now … and maybe a peak ~ 60 years ago … and if I squint hard enough there might be one ~ 120 years ago. But does something like a power spectrum using FFT show a significantly strong peak at 60 years?”
        I’ve already given you the link to the most recent literature TJ, Macias et al (2014) above but here it is again:
        Macias D, Stips A, Garcia-Gorriz E (2014) Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record. PLoS ONE 9(9): e107222. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107222
        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107222#pone-0107222-g005
        The 60 year oscillation can also be isolated by Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) i.e. there is a body of literature on this and you can get the same results by doing it yourself at home (I have by applying EMD to HasSST2).
        >”Second, random walk data can often look like there is some period. Random fluctuations could make a peak somewhere … maybe it just happens to be about 60 years ago. It would be a whole lot more convincing if you had a theory that *predicted* a 60 year cycle, rather than seeing one peak about 60 years ago.”
        It is NOT “one peak”, it is the atmospheric response to oceanic oscillations (i.e. fact, not theory). I’ve given you a link to a Climate Etc sub-thread in a previous comment TJ which deals with this in detail but I’ll repeat from that here:
        It goes like this:
        The MDV-neutral spline in observed GMST is central to this sequence:
        1895 – neutral
        1910 – MDV maximum negative (-ve)
        1925 – neutral
        1940 – MDV maximum positive (+ve)
        1955 – neutral
        1970 – MDV maximum negative (-ve)
        1985 – neutral
        2000 – MDV maximum positive (+ve)
        2015 – neutral
        2030 – MDV maximum negative (-ve)
        This is in respect to HadCRUT4: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl
        More here:
        http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/28/week-in-review-science-edition-19/#comment-727991
        The GCM model mean conforms to the MDV-neutral spline until 1955 but after that it overshoots radically i.e. the model forcing is wrong (see graphs at Climate Etc link above).
        >”Thirdly, even if we agree there is a 60 year period, there is STILL a definite upward trend over the last 120 years (2 periods). So even including a 60 year period can’t remove the warming trend.”
        EXACTLY TJ. There are 2 components of GMST (see Macias et al above), ST and MDV i.e.
        Observed GMST = ST + MDV
        The ST is the “definite upward trend over the last 120 years” “warming trend” once the MDV signal is removed from GMST but it is clearly NOT “the [theoretical] greenhouse-driven longer-term trend” that Lewandowsky, Oreskes, and Risbey falsely assume.

      • >”The 60 year oscillation can also be isolated by Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) i.e. there is a body of literature on this”
        See this paper for example:
        ‘On the trend, detrending, and variability of nonlinear and nonstationary time series’
        Zhaohua Wu, Norden E. Huang, Steven R. Long, and Chung-Kang Peng
        (2007)
        http://www.pnas.org/content/104/38/14889.full#aff-4
        The C5 curve in Figure 2 is the extracted signal of the atmospheric response to combined oceanic oscillations (MDV). In other EMD nomenclature (see paper) this is defined as Empirical Mode Frequency 5 (IMF 5).
        Note that the residual secular trend (ST) which is C6 in Figure 2 now exhibits a recent negative inflexion by the addition of new GMST data since the Fig 2 HadCRUT3 series end in 2003 but the ST peak has not been reached yet. Look for that around 2020 or just after.
        The difference between SSA and EMD is that the analyst selects appropriate “windows” in SSA (hence only 2 curves in Macias et al) whereas EMD extracts all the signals including the noise in C1 and C2. After that comes discernible interdecadal (although Wu et al say C1 through C4 is white noise) and multidecadal oscillations. By contrast, the imposition by an analyst of a single external extrinsic linear or polynomial trend say, is a subjective exercise. EMD is completely objective returning all the internal intrinsic signals and the analyst has no say in what signals are returned. SSA is perhaps a little more subjective than objective because specific signals can be targeted, but it is still far more objective than the subjective external imposition of extrinsic linear or polynomial trends.
        Wu, Huang et al have gone on in subsequent papers to miss-attribute the residual ST from EMD analysis of GMST, or at least part of it, to CO2-forced warming, just as Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey and Foster/Rahmstorf, and the IPCC have done or alluded. Note that Lewandowsky, Oreskes, and Risbey cite Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) in their paper (page 4 pdf).
        The MDV-neutral spline in GMST (the secular trend, ST) that I’ve laid out upthread can be clearly seen in Wu et al Figure 3, which overlaid by the MDV oscillation reproduces GMST i.e. GMST = ST + MDV. The GCM model mean tracks the MDV-neutral spline until 1955 but goes horribly wrong after that once theoretical CO2 forcing (EFCOD) is added in. Tweaking after-the-event for volcanoes doesn’t work either evidently, post 1955. If MDV is neglected in the GCMs they should neglect the relatively short-term effect of known volcanoes too. And future volcanoes cannot be predicted anyway.

      • Richard, this is clearly a topic you have thought a lot about. And in many ways we seem to be quite close in what we are saying.
        The one main issue between our positions that I see at the moment is your various claims like “They are referring to Natural GMST = ST(natural) + MDV(natural) i.e. they are NOT referring to Theoretical man-made warming GMST = ST(natural) + MDV(natural) + EFCOD(theoretical CO2 forcing).”
        This seems like begging the question. It seems that you attribute the entire overall trend to some assumed “natural secular warming trend” that would have existed independent of any anthropogenic CO2 increase. And of course, once you assume that nature would have done this anyway, then there is no room for rising CO2 to play any role.
        What physical reason can you give for a priori expecting a rising secular trend for the past 100 years? Why should it not have been cooling (like the overall trend that seems to have been happening for the last 5,000-10,000 years)?
        I tend to start from the opposite perspective — that any climate change requires a driver. Certainly there are many natural drivers that have in the past (and will continue to in the future) caused natural variations in climate on scales from decades to eons. But there IS a driver. So I look for a driver. Sometimes either the data or my knowledge is lacking and I can’t find one.
        But sometimes the answer seems pretty clear.For example: More CO2 should lead to warming. There is more CO2. There is warming. Occam’s razor suggests (but does not demand) that CO2 is involved (at least partially). This is much more satisfying to me than “there was coincidental warming during the past 100 years”.
        There is a good chance that many models overplay the significance of CO2. But that does not mean that rising CO2 has no influence, as you seem to be concluding.
        *******************************
        We could also consider bigger trends than Lewandowsky/Oreskes/Risbey addressed. Rather than “was the ‘pause’ during the last ~ 15 years unusual compared to the past ~ 150 years” we could consider “was the warming during the past ~ 100 years unusual compared to the past ~ 10,000 years”. Of course, this gets cloudy because the temperature data is not nearly so good the farther back you go, but it does seem that the last 100 years

      • tjfolkerts
        >”This seems like begging the question. It seems that you attribute the entire overall trend to some assumed “natural secular warming trend” that would have existed independent of any anthropogenic CO2 increase. And of course, once you assume that nature would have done this anyway, then there is no room for rising CO2 to play any role.”
        EXACTLY, the CO2-forced GCMs are proving that. Look at the graphs I referred you to at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc blog link above (IPCC and Spencer graphs – models vs observations). The IPCC only makes anthro attribution from 1950 onwards but the CO2-forced models fail to mimic the MDV-neutral spline from 1955 onwards and are now way above 2015 observed GMST i.e. CO2-forcing is superfluous.
        This is also proven by the IPCC’s primary TOA energy budget climate change criteria (critical, because it “controls” surface temperature i.e. temperature is a secondary climate change consideration). A valid climate change agent is one that moves the TOA energy budget from balance to imbalance (according to the IPCC), but CO2 is an ineffective climate change agent by their own criteria as follows:
        Quoting from another sub-thread at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

        richardcfromnz | August 29, 2015 at 5:48 pm |
        IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC AR4 FAQ 2.1, Box 1 – “What is radiative forcing?”).
        FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?
        [A] – “The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] controls the Earth’s surface temperature”
        And,
        [B] – “When radiative forcing [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system”
        https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html
        # 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).
        Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1 [or view image at link below]
        http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
        Loeb et al (2012) Figure 1 [or view image at link below]
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Loeb2012-TOAfluxvsOHC.jpg
        # 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), C 400ppm Co 280ppm, IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro).
        Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than treble the TOA imbalance and increasing, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing.
        # 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc
        Sfc imbalance is global average ocean heat accumulation (around 24 W.m-2 tropics, -11 W.m-2 southern ocean). Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA. No need to invoke CO2 “forcing” and it is impossible to invoke anyway – it doesn’t fit between Sfc and TOA. IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution fails to address this.
        http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/28/week-in-review-science-edition-19/#comment-728167

        The fact that the IPCC completely neglected to address their own climate change criteria in Chapter 10 begs two questions:
        1) Was it just sloppy incompetence?
        2) Or was it willful negligence?

      • tjfolkerts
        >”What physical reason can you give for a priori expecting a rising secular trend for the past 100 years?”
        The last 100 years is only about the last quarter of the most recent positive rising phase in the secular trend in GMST. Again, as upthread, the IPCC only makes an anthro attribution from 1950 onwards i.e. their theoretical CO2 forcing is ON TOP OF the already rising secular trend, but superfluous as I’ve shown above.
        The physical reason is simply that the GMST secular trend tracks solar oscillation over millennia e.g. the Maunder Minimum was a solar grand minimum and we’ve just experienced the Modern Maximum. This is the driver of the secular trend after accounting for oceanic thermal lag and atmospheric response. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Dr. Alexander Hempelmann and Carl Otto Weiss demonstrate this over the last 2500 years in their latest paper ([3] below). See:
        Study: German Scientists Conclude 20th Century Warming “Nothing Unusual” …Foresee “Global Cooling Until 2080!
        http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/21/study-german-scientists-conclude-20th-century-warming-nothing-unusual-foresee-global-cooling-until-2080/#sthash.YazJW0c3.dpbs
        [2] H.-J. Luedecke, A. Hempelmann, and C. O. Weiss: Multi-periodic climate dynamics: spectral analysis of long term instrumental and proxy temperature records, Clim. Past 9, 447 – 452 ( 2013 ); http://www.clim-past.net/9/447/2013/cp-9-447-2013.pdf
        [3] H.-J. Luedecke, C. O. Weiss, and H.Hempelmann: Paleoclimate forcing by the solar De Vries / Suess cycle, Clim. Past Discuss. 11, 279 (2015); http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/11/279/2015/cpd-11-279-2015.pdf
        >”Why should it not have been cooling (like the overall trend that seems to have been happening for the last 5,000-10,000 years)?”
        It is cooling over a millennial timeframe. The trend in the Ljungqvist series over the last 2000 years is about -0.18 C/1000 years (this is the real overall secular trend). But within that overall cooling trend there is a large oscillation from positive to negative (see [3] above) that we have been referring to as our “secular trend”. Obviously your time horizon determines which trend is relevant to your consideration.
        Once “our” relevant secular trend (ST) peaks just after 2020 it will go into a negative declining phase. However, MDV is already in negative phase now after peaking around 2000 i.e. the ST will be ABOVE the MDV curve AND the GMST profile from 2015 onwards for however many years it takes until the ST crosses the MDV curve again (as it is now in 2015). So to reconstruct the GMST profile after 2015 until the next cross, the MDV curve must be SUBTRACTED from the ST curve to give GMST. Prior to 2015 at say 2000 when MDV was maximum positive, MDV had to be added to the ST to reconstruct GMST.

  21. That’s interesting.. knowingly deceived… they should be careful what they ask for, the tables could flip. In my view, AGW is knowingly deceiving a lot of people. From the research , not only me, but others as well, the sun is behaving exactly as forecast from the 1970s. My thoughts are that if it starts getting cold, crops fail, and the EPA among others, has shuttered reliable energy producing plants, who is going to bear the responsibility of turning scientific inquiry into a crime? Worse, how are they going to correct it?
    They don’t intend to. Western nations are the enemy and if millions of us die, yea! CAGW people know exactly what they are doing. I also think they know AGW is a big lie, how could they not?

  22. Many posts on WUWT keep on showing that the GCMs for a variety on different reasons are useless for climate forecasting. Yet most bloggers ,like the establishment academics,seem unable to give up their preoccupation with this naive reductionist approach and move to an entirely different way of forecasting – using the obvious 60 and millennial cycles so obvious in the temperature data.
    With regard to the useless reductionist approach to complex phenomena n Harrison and Stainforth say in: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/eost2009EO13/pdf
    “Reductionism argues that deterministic approaches to science and positivist views of causation are the appropriate methodologies for exploring complex, multivariate systems … where the behavior of a complex system can be deduced from the fundamental reductionist understanding. Rather, large, complex systems may be better understood, and perhaps only understood, in terms of observed, emergent behavior. The practical implication is that there exist system behaviors and structures that are not amenable to explanation or prediction by reductionist methodologies … the GCM is the numerical solution of a complex but purely deterministic set of nonlinear partial differential equations over a defined spatiotemporal grid, and no attempt is made to introduce any quantification of uncertainty into its construction … [T]he reductionist argument that large scale behaviour can be represented by the aggregative effects of smaller scale process has never been validated in the context of natural environmental systems … An explosion of uncertainty arises when a climate change impact assessment aims to inform national and local adaptation decisions, because uncertainties accumulate from the various levels of the assessment. Climate impact assessments undertaken for the purposes of adaptation decisions(sometimes called end-to-end analyses)propagate these uncertainties and generate large uncertainty ranges in climate impacts. These studies also find that the impacts are highly conditional on assumptions made in the assessment, for example, with respect to weightings of global climate models(GCMs)—according to some criteria, such as performance against past observations—or to the combination of GCMs used .Future prospects for reducing these large uncertainties remain limited for several reasons. Computational restrictions have thus far restricted the uncertainty space explored in model simulations, so uncertainty in climate predictions may well increase even as computational power increases. … The search for objective constraints with which to reduce the uncertainty in regional predictions has proven elusive. The problem of equifinality (sometimes also called the problem of “model identifiability”) – that different model structures and different parameter sets of a model can produce similar observed behavior of the system under study – has rarely been addressed.”
    There is really no more to be said re the climate models – forget them and move on to the real world.
    Progress will be made by understanding the timing and amplitude of the natural periodicities especially the 60 and millennial year cycles.
    For forecasts of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling using these cycles and the neutron count as the most useful measure for solar “activity” see
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
    and
    for a simplified version see
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-epistemology-of-climate-forecasting.html
    For those fixated on the processes involved it should be noted that it is not necessary to understand and quantify these in order to make useful , reasonably accurate , climate predictions. Obviously the main climate drivers are our orbital relationships with the sun and the relationship between these and solar activity variations .
    The connection between solar “activity” and climate is as yet poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar “activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.
    Having said that, however, it is reasonable to suggest that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are:
    a) the changing GCR flux – via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth)
    b) the changing EUV radiation – top down effects via the Ozone layer
    c) the changing TSI – especially on millennial and centennial scales.
    The effect on climate of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.
    Of particular interest is whether the perihelion of the precession falls in the northern or southern summer at times of higher or lower obliquity.

    • Consistency check:

      Reductionism argues that deterministic approaches to science and positivist views of causation are the appropriate methodologies for exploring complex, multivariate systems … where the behavior of a complex system can be deduced from the fundamental reductionist understanding. Rather, large, complex systems may be better understood, and perhaps only understood, in terms of observed, emergent behavior. The practical implication is that there exist system behaviors and structures that are not amenable to explanation or prediction by reductionist methodologies …

      followed by:

      Progress will be made by understanding the timing and amplitude of the natural periodicities especially the 60 and millennial year cycles.

      Which (Fourier analysis and its generalizations) is not only a reductionist methodology, it is naive acausal reductionist methodology unlikely to apply to the chaotic weather/climate system. That is, one doesn’t make progress by throwing the baby out with the bath water, in this case by assuming that there is a stationary reductionist complex multivariate cause of distinguishable, stable, long period cycles — only we can’t say what that cause is.
      Seriously, the problem is that the weather and the climate are chaotic. This is a simple fact. It has been known since Lorentz solved the very first elementary climate models on a glorified desktop calculator and tried to restart a model he had saved to less than internal precision. When the authors of the paper you cite — which is, BTW, saying very useful and correct things — talk about emergent behavior in the context of a chaotic system, they are among other things saying that you cannot rely on past periodic behaviors remaining so, especially when you give the knobs controlling the system forcings a good hard twist. The heart may beat rhythmically (even though understanding exactly how and why may be very elusive) right up to the point where it undergoes period doubling to chaotic defibrillation. Or perhaps more to the point, Laundau’s model of turbulence is wrong, not correct. Asserting that fourier signals in a chaotic system are stable modes with some predictive value is almost certainly incorrect, even though they might appear stable for a while.
      The problem is that the system is currently in the neighborhood of some attractor, sure, but in this highly multivariate complex nonlinear chaotic system it is rather likely that solution attractors themselves form a dense set on some highly abstract space. As external forcings perturb the trajectory it is likely hopping all over, from attractor to attractor (where nearby attractors can have associated trajectories that fractally intertwine, make this enormously easy to do). When one does MORE than just perturb the forcings — when one cranks up CO2, for example — one almost certainly shifts the system across entire neighborhoods of attractors so that (for example) your 60 cycle (to the extent that it is real, given the extremely limited period of reliable data from which to abstract it) “suddenly” becomes a 20+40 year double cycle, which then becomes a 15 and 22 and 35 and 50 year quadruple cycle, etc into chaos without any real periodicity at all. Assuming there is any right now.
      It is in this specific sense that the climate alarmists have a point. For better or for worse, we have yanked on the Earth’s chain by substantially altering its overall forcing as an open system. This could have lots of possible outcomes. It could make the system more stable, given that it was already at least globally bistable with glacial interglacial cycles in this deepening ice age. It could make it even less predictable than it was before, likely to rocket up or plunge down in temperature. It could produce almost no visible change, a trivial modulation of the climate we had in 1850. We just don’t know, and no, GCMs won’t tell us (or rather, the important part of what they tell us we are firmly refusing to listen to while focusing an enormous amount of energy and resources on the least important and reliable part of their results).
      Right now the named quasi-stable modes of the Earth’s climate system are the (multi)decadal oscillations. They do not have much by way of fixed periods, but they have a structural cycle that is self-similar whatever the period, exactly as one would expect for a complex orbit associated with some attractor. But we are unbelievably ignorant of the general structure of the space of attractors itself — we don’t even know what the projective dimensionality is of the named oscillations, and we absolutely don’t know how they couple or how they respond to variations in drivings internal and external for a given non-Markovian state.
      You want to assert that there are truly long term periodic modes — spatiotemporal climate structures that the Earth returns to quite regularly. I would strongly suggest taking almost any chaotic (model) system with a nontrivial set of attractors, running a differential equation solver to generate a family of solutions from trivially perturbed initial conditions in the chaotic regime, and then try to run a FT on the projection in some dimension. In e.g. the chaotic oscillators I’ve modeled in just this way, chaos is almost precisely the place where one does not get a meaningful FT signature of some dominant frequency or frequencies. That’s why chaotic iterated maps often make good pseudorandom number generators.
      A nontrivial question that is far from being resolved is how much of what we perceive of as “climate change” is the accrual of what amounts to an unbiased random walk, how much is a biased random walk, how much is due to changes in forcings, how much is due to changes in attractors irrelevant to forcings. The solutions are not separable, so it is remarkably difficult to say.
      rgb

      • I could follow that except for the co2 forcing of changing the climate. When they first started talking about the amount of co2 that was being created, I thought it was in whole percentages. I’m sorry the math just isn’t there to alter the climate at these levels of co2. Additionally, co2 may not be the controlling factor that many think it is. The tipping point on the current math has been reached several times in the past without a run a way greenhouse effect. I have it at most, it’s probably lower, co2 is responsible for only 3% of the 0.5 C rise…. background noise. That’s the big problem. Who is saying what and why. Let me tell why I think it’s wrong. It’s wrong because if the math was right about co2, the changes that were predicted, without a doubt, would have happened. Climate warmest jump from rock to rock in this stream. Former statements are forgotten with amazing speed, but live on as fact when it came out as conjecture. Oh look the warmest it’s ever been, 0.01 . Meanwhile they are adjusting the numbers like crazy to make that happen. For example, they already adjusted the numbers on the original data they threw away. That wasn’t good enough so they’ve adjusted them again.

  23. Which is it? Either it’s hotter than ever or it isn’t. If it is, then (it is implied) man-caused global warming has not “paused.” If it isn’t, if man-caused global warming has “paused,” then it is not growing hotter.

    It depends on the data sets you are looking at. For GISS and Hadcrut4, this is the warmest year in the instrumental record so far and there is no pause of zero slope for any time worth mentioning.
    But for RSS and UAH6.0, the pause with a slope of zero is over 18 years and the ranking so far is 6th for RSS and 3rd for UAH6.0. Neither satellite record can even reach second warmest this year.

    • Personally, I switched off halfway through his article.
      First, in order to refute the suggestion that this is not the hottest year ever, he goes back 100 million years. How fatuous is that? He knows very well that we’re all interested in the last few decades, or couple of centuries at most, as far as such claims are concerned.
      And then he can’t resist making snide remarks about those with whom he disagrees – “gimmicked surveys”, “right-wing conspiracy”, etc.
      If the facts speak for themselves, then let them do so, without running down other studies by the rival authors

  24. Briggs is better than this. Assuming “the pause” has happened in the midst of historical high temps, you can have a maximum point within the pause that thereby becomes highest ever while being within a long-term trend of zero (or even negative) slope.

  25. recently wrote a letter to the President and Attorney General asking these officials to criminally prosecute under the RICO Act scientists like myself and organizations that might fund me.”
    The intent may ultimately be to prosecute, but all that the letter explicitly called for was an investigation. (Which would mostly vindicate our side.)

  26. My suspicion is that the the letter from the “scientists” was conceived and orchestrated by the obama administration. Then dutifully carried out willingly by some and not so much by others who want to keep their paycheck.

  27. Climate change is a religion and the government is not suppose to endorse or enforce any religious beliefs. They say man-caused climate change is fact but so does every religion on earth claim what they believe is fact. To use the term ‘denier’ proves climate change is a religion in which a person must ‘believe’ to be true or be ridiculed and punished or ousted, imprisoned, jailed or fined. I am a ‘denier’ for climatology, ‘heretic’ for Christianity and an ‘infidel’ when it comes to Islam. The fact is, religious people don’t like people who think for themselves based on personal study and decision making. Because the pope is getting involved in this, I don’t consider this political. These so called climate scientists with the pope are just a bunch of money grubbing religious nuts.. con-artists.

  28. Reblogged this on ajmarciniak and commented:
    There are two things to keep straight: (1) why these divergent contentions are believed, and (2) why they are incompatible and individually false. The first point is easy. Climatology has become a branch of politics. And in politics, particularly in our rambunctious democracy, statements asserted in the name of some political goal are usually believed or at least supported by those who share the goal. It is necessary for global-warming-of-doom to be true in order to attain the government’s goal (of increasing in size and power), so any statement which supports global warming is likely to be touted by government supporters, even mutually incompatible statements.

  29. NOAA’s global temperature record is like Major League Baseball’s claim of a “World Series”; it’s not. They NOAA have no “global” temperature record, certainly not back to “1880” as they claim. And certainly not with the precision they claim with the “hottest August” beating the old record by .07F. LOL ….1/100th of a degree using a thermometer record that only recorded whole numbers is called a “rounding error” when the numbers were averaged; not a “whirled” “record”. How could possibly claim a record temperature derived from a precision that never existed in the original data that average was derived from?

  30. With Pairs coming up 2015 was ‘always’ going be claimed has the hottest ever, it simple does no matter what the facts are, the political requirements overruled this and climate ‘science’ where more than happy to supply the numbers , which by ‘lucky chance ‘ benefited them to great extent .

  31. It is said that
    “arguments put forth by independent scientists and organizations that do not support the government’s line cannot be considered science, but should instead be classified as criminal acts.”
    I believe that this argument is definitely invalid. On one hand, there has been a majority of works supporting global warming since at least the mid 80s, including in the US. On the other hand, the political orientation of those in charge in the government(s) has been switching repeatedly between left and right (we’re talking about a 30+ years period of time). How could one then argue that it is politics that dictates the way these scientists worked and published?

    • Specious argument. Why would the political beliefs of climatologists change depending on the political affiliations of the current federal administration? Also, why would the IPCC by affected by changes in the US government? (Actually, the insulation from such factors was one of the brilliant aspects of Maurice Strong’s overall strategy.)

      • That’s exactly my point. The author, like many “sceptics”, implies that the emergence and dominating character of the global warming theory is due to some governmental agenda. Obviously, we agree that this cannot be the case.

  32. People like Mann who have such vociferous reactions to disagreement with their scientific ideas should not be taken seriously. And in a reasonable world Mann’s behavior would have long ago disqualified him from a position of any stature at a university or anywhere else in professional life.

  33. Funny that governments falsify the effects of carbon dioxide and are supposedly saving the planet yet VW falsify those emissions and are fined billions. bonkers

  34. The dishonesty between mixed messages with pause and record hot year is simply down to sampling.
    GISS and HADCRUT4 only show warming because they have both recently changed the sampling method. Satellite data keeps the same sampling method all the time so still shows stability. If GISS and HADCRUT had kept the same sampling in the data, they also would have shown no warming or less warming. GISS has introduced infilling in data since 2001 only and causes a warm bias of 0.2 c. This is not based on science at all and just gives them more control on fiddling the data. The surface data sets are bad because no period of a few years or more have the same sampling method throughout the data sets. Each decade is like going through different comparable fruits with none being the same.
    GISS corrected illustrates what it should have been like without all these changes.
    http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/GISS-corrected2_zpssymskhge.png
    There has been no record hot year in 2014 or 2015 so far with this corrected data set.

Comments are closed.