Guest Post by Leo Smith, Gary Pearse and Werner Brozek, Edited by Just The Facts
Image Credits: Picture Australia, and Doubleday and McClure 1897
“In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan’s third-story windows.” No Fracking Consensus:
We may now laugh at the above perceived problem, or the additional things as mentioned by Gary Pearse below. But how will people in 50 years from now judge “us”? Will they laugh at our collective inability to see past our noses? Should we approach things differently?
The previous post with September data produced many gems among the over 500 comments. Unfortunately, I cannot use all gems in this post. I intend to use others in later posts. However for now, I will recopy two posts, one by Leo Smith and the other by Gary Pearse.
Leo Smith:
November 7, 2015 at 2:55 am
Robert G Brown is one of the few people I look up to, not because he has solved the problem of Climate (change) but because he accurately understands the almost complete impossibility of understanding it!
Years ago someone said to me that, faced with a problem that you didn’t know how to solve, you must go back to first principles. None of the theories and equations helping? Start from scratch and develop new ones!
Robert G Brown reminds us that the ‘easy’ problems that we can solve with the application of linear differential equations (and in a sense, scientific theories are simply differential equations, like F=ma) have already been solved, and that what remain are the fiendishly hard problems, that, even if we can identify the differential equations that govern system behaviour, are practically incalculable because of the inherent non linearity of multiple terms, all of which affect each other.
In essence this approach – finding the underlying (partial) differential equations – won’t work, not because we get the raw science wrong, but because the integration of those partials over time leads us into sensitivity issues and chaotic behaviours that is essentially the nature of the beast. Larger and larger supercomputers merely extend the size of the area we can predict with some degree of accuracy, from the minuscule to the pathetically small.
And this is why even this brave attempt to identify all the variables, and even establish the correct partial differential equations based upon them will not result in a computer model that accurately predicts the climate.
The only approach that I have ever come across that partially works, is to examine the possible cases and eliminate those that are completely unstable – that is if we consider all possible climates in terms of stability, we will find that huge collections of them are so mightily unstable that should perturbation of the system by e.g. volcanic eruption or meteor strike or even releases of lots of lovely CO2, cause the system to enter such a region, the overwhelming tendency would be to revert back to a more stable region.
That is, we might be able to map climate into zones of possible quasi stability, and zones of impossible instability. If you like instead of working out what the climate will be, we could at least ascertain what it simply couldn’t be. And then leave the rest as ‘what it could and might be’.
This alone is probably what an organisation like the IPCC should be tasked with – what are the possible states of future climate, what are their potential probabilities, and impacts, and how should we meet the challenges – not by attempting to stop them happening, but by identifying the physical and social and economic changes necessary to adapt to them.
In my time beyond engineering as a business man, I learnt a Golden rule. Do not expend effort on attempting to change that which is inevitable, nor attempting to solve that which is – for whatever reason, effectively insoluble: Rather use the techniques of pragmatism – as practised by both engineers, and oddly enough, the military, and consider all the possibilities, do the research or reconnaissance to ascertain which of them are likely, plan accordingly, make tentative steps forward, and as soon as it appears that the situation is not as it appeared to be, change the plan without shame.
In other words, going back to first principles, as a putative agent of government, what the real question is, is not ‘where is the climate going’ but ‘where might the climate go, with what probability, and, given that its unlikely we can in all honesty stop it, what should be a meaningful response that preserves as much of civilisation as is practicable’?
I know that the final answer would be along the lines of :
‘Almost anywhere within a degree or two, a few cm or so of sea level, a few cm or so of rainfall, and indeed along the any of the lines that the historical record have already shown us is certainly possible’ and as to what we ought to do about it, the final answer there would be: ‘be prepared with a contingency fund, to meet whatever Nature sends, but don’t waste a single halfpenny on trying to stop it or second guessing what its going to do, because frankly the mathematics is insoluble to that level of detail’.
And to PROVE that the ‘mathematics is insoluble to that level of detail’ is the first step.
It’s not just a matter of finding the right equations, don’t waste time on that. Because the simpler job is to prove that even if you did find them they wouldn’t actually allow the integration to a realistic and useful prediction anyway.
All we need to do is to have enough of the relevant parameters to show that the problem is chaotic and non linear, calculate the size of computer needed to give an answer in real time, rather than hindcasting, and that will show that all climate science of the sort that is claimed is ‘settled’ is in fact completely useless.
Not that it will change a damned thing politically, because the mathematics to do that would be beyond nearly everyone – especially ‘climate scientists’ who are mainly, at best, third rate alchemists – and as we know, that which passeth all understanding, is in the end a matter of faith to those whom it passeth….
(The above ends Leo’s post.)
Gary Pearse
November 7, 2015 at 1:05 pm
Leo, I believe your approach is eminently doable and, in part, is done! How many kinds of weather are there anyway? In the polar regions, what, 2-3, in the temperate zones 5 or 6, and in the tropics 2-3. Empirically it has reached these temperatures, these rainfalls/snowfalls (or lack thereof), these intensities and numbers of storms of a couple of types and the secondary effects – rates of sea-level change, droughts, fires etc. Also some physical, non weather stuff – volcanoes, tsunami, earthquakes, extraterrestrial bolides. We should be spending more money on tracking all the asteroids while we are at it and planning possible things that might be done.
I have a soft hypothesis -actually it might be better termed an axiom- that PREDICTIONS OF DOOMSTERS WILL NEVER COME TRUE. Such predictions are made using linear thinking of the kind discussed here for which a supportive legitimate mathematical expression is impossible. In the case of Malthusian disasters, their predictions are even less possible because they miss out the confounding principal component of human ingenuity in their thinking. Our cities didn’t end up being buried in horse manure (Malthus), the industrial revolution didn’t starve itself out by 1900 because of the shortage of coal (Jevons), we didn’t starve to death by 2000 and run out of mineral resources (Club of Rome, Holdren, Ehrlich) nor did we freeze to death by that date with the imminent man-made new ice age on the way (by the same people). Saudi oil minister Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani said it best in a 2005 interview with New York Times discussing peak oil: “The Stone Age didn’t end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil.”
The Club of Rome’s 1972 “Limits to Growth” and others by the same group in recent years were totally blown away. We have doubled the 1972 world population and have 7B people living better and longer than the 3.5B of 1972. That there are still apparently well educated persons making such doomster predictions is evidence more of their misfit psychology than the application of sound methods. All these predictions are made by biologists and social scientists whose training and knowledge are linear and more akin to accounting than to creative science. Such disciplines give the air of erudition but they are precisely the least equipped to make such predictions. Knowing the sex rituals of the chameleon, which do not change over a very long time if at all, or counting tiger turds in the jungle to calculate population, are not the kind of skills required to properly attempt to forecast the future of mankind and the planet.
Mention should also be made here of the inevitability of unexpected consequences (themselves arising from the same kind of lack of unpredictability inherent in “doom” and climate science) that have and will abound in any action that might be designed by doomsters to correct the perceived fantasy. Some of their geoengineering ideas are downright scary and definitely not the work of engineers (although I guess you could buy one). These aspects definitely also brand doomster climate scientists as political activists and social scientists.
(The above ends Gary’s comment.)
Before continuing with my regular post, I would like to point out some highlights in the October data and put these highlights into perspective.
The GISS anomaly for October at 104 smashed the previous all time high mark of 97 from January 2007.
However for RSS, its October value of 0.440 was beaten in October 1998 at 0.461. Furthermore, all of the first 10 months of 1998 beat 0.440. In addition, it was beaten for several months in 2010.
UAH6.0beta4 did have its highest October on record at 0.427. However all of the first 9 months of 1998 beat that mark. In addition, it was beaten for several months in 2010.
Hadcrut4 set an October record at 0.811. However this does not beat its all time high anomaly of 0.832 set in January of 2007.
GISS and Hadcrut4 and Hadsst3 will set new records in 2015, however both satellites will not get higher than third place. I am assuming of course that Dr. Spencer is not about to be replaced very soon by you know who.
In the sections below, as in previous posts, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on some data sets. At the moment, only the satellite data have flat periods of longer than a year. The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2015 so far compares with 2014 and the warmest years and months on record so far. For three of the data sets, 2014 also happens to be the warmest year. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative on at least one calculation. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
1. For GISS, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
2. For Hadcrut4, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
3. For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
4. For UAH, the slope is flat since May 1997 or 18 years and 6 months. (goes to October using version 6.0)
5. For RSS, the slope is flat since February 1997 or 18 years and 9 months. (goes to October)
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.
Note that the UAH5.6 from WFT needed a detrend to show the slope is zero for UAH6.0.
When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.
The actual numbers are meaningless since the two slopes are essentially zero. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 18 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on the two sets.
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.
On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 11 and 22 years according to Nick’s criteria. Cl stands for the confidence limits at the 95% level.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH6.0: Since January 1993: Cl from -0.018 to 1.669
This is 22 years and 10 months.
For RSS: Since April 1993: Cl from -0.033 to 1.566
This is 22 years and 7 months.
For Hadcrut4.4: Since January 2001: Cl from -0.048 to 1.334
This is 14 years and 9 months.
For Hadsst3: Since October 1995: Cl from -0.001 to 2.010
This is 20 years and 1 month.
For GISS: Since September 2004: Cl from -0.036 to 2.172
This is 11 years and 2 months.
Section 3
This section shows data about 2015 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the five data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadsst3, and GISS.
Down the column, are the following:
1. 14ra: This is the final ranking for 2014 on each data set.
2. 14a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2014.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that the satellite data sets have 1998 as the warmest year and the others have 2014 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0. Periods of under a year are not counted and are shown as “0”.
8. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month are followed by the last two numbers of the year.
9. sy/m: This is the years and months for row 8. Depending on when the update was last done, the months may be off by one month.
10. Jan: This is the January 2015 anomaly for that particular data set.
11. Feb: This is the February 2015 anomaly for that particular data set, etc.
20. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months.
21. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have for 2015 without regards to error bars and assuming no changes. Think of it as an update 50 minutes into a game.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.14ra | 5th | 6th | 1st | 1st | 1st |
| 2.14a | 0.186 | 0.255 | 0.564 | 0.479 | 0.74 |
| 3.year | 1998 | 1998 | 2014 | 2014 | 2014 |
| 4.ano | 0.482 | 0.55 | 0.564 | 0.479 | 0.74 |
| 5.mon | Apr98 | Apr98 | Jan07 | Aug14 | Jan07 |
| 6.ano | 0.742 | 0.857 | 0.832 | 0.644 | 0.97 |
| 7.y/m | 18/6 | 18/9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8.sig | Jan93 | Apr93 | Jan01 | Oct95 | Sep04 |
| 9.sy/m | 22/10 | 22/7 | 14/9 | 20/1 | 11/2 |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 10.Jan | 0.275 | 0.367 | 0.688 | 0.440 | 0.81 |
| 11.Feb | 0.173 | 0.325 | 0.660 | 0.406 | 0.87 |
| 12.Mar | 0.163 | 0.252 | 0.681 | 0.424 | 0.90 |
| 13.Apr | 0.085 | 0.175 | 0.656 | 0.557 | 0.73 |
| 14.May | 0.283 | 0.310 | 0.696 | 0.593 | 0.78 |
| 15.Jun | 0.331 | 0.392 | 0.730 | 0.575 | 0.77 |
| 16.Jul | 0.181 | 0.288 | 0.696 | 0.637 | 0.73 |
| 17.Aug | 0.274 | 0.390 | 0.740 | 0.665 | 0.79 |
| 18.Sep | 0.252 | 0.373 | 0.785 | 0.725 | 0.80 |
| 19.Oct | 0.427 | 0.440 | 0.811 | 0.700 | 1.04 |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 20.ave | 0.244 | 0.331 | 0.714 | 0.570 | 0.82 |
| 21.rnk | 3rd | 3rd | 1st | 1st | 1st |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 6.0beta4 was used. Note that WFT uses version 5.6. So to verify the length of the pause on version 6.0, you need to use Nick’s program.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0beta4.txt
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
For Hadcrut4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
For Hadsst3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
To see all points since January 2015 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below. Note that UAH version 5.6 is shown. WFT does not show version 6.0 yet. Also note that Hadcrut4.3 is shown and not Hadcrut4.4, which is why the last few months are missing for Hadcrut.
As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January 2015. This makes it easy to compare January 2015 with the latest anomaly.
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since February 1997 or 18 years and 9 months. (goes to October)
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since April 1993: Cl from -0.033 to 1.566.
The RSS average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.331. This ties it at 3rd place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.255 and it was ranked 6th.
UAH6.0beta4
The slope is flat since May 1997 or 18 years and 6 months. (goes to October using version 6.0beta4)
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since January 1993: Cl from -0.018 to 1.669. (This is using version 6.0 according to Nick’s program.)
The UAH average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.244. This would rank it at 3rd place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.482. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.742. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.186 and it was ranked 5th.
Hadcrut4.4
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since January 2001: Cl from -0.048 to 1.334.
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.714. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.832. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.564 and this set a new record.
Hadsst3
For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning. For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since October 1995: Cl from -0.001 to 2.010.
The Hadsst3 average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.570. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 2014 when it reached 0.644. This is prior to 2015. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.479 and this set a new record.
GISS
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since September 2004: Cl from -0.036 to 2.172.
The GISS average anomaly so far for 2015 is 0.82. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.97. This is prior to October 2015 when a new all time record of 1.04 was set. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.74 and it set a new record.
Conclusion
Do you feel we are going about our climate studies in the proper manner? If not, what changes would you suggest?
(and in a sense, scientific theories are simply differential equations, like F=ma)
A differential equation is an equation with derivatives in it. While Newton’s second law can be written as a differential equation easily enough (replacing acceleration with the second derivate of position), the above equation is not.
F=ma is a grossly simplified equation to be sure, but it’s still one case of the basic equation for any dynamic system.
“F=ma is a grossly simplified equation to be sure, but it’s still one case of the basic equation for any dynamic system.”
Yes, but that’s not the issue. It is not, as written, a differential equation.
Well rabbit, you could also have added that differential equations are the creation of pure mathematics, so they are not scientific theories either.
Now some differential equations can be statements of the presumed operational behavior of a MODEL of some physical contrivance.
And your example of acceleration as the second derivative of position, is a good case of that.
If we imagine a massive object that experiences a restoring (aimed at its rest position)force, and specify that the magnitude of that force (force is a vector quantity) is exactly proportional to the displacement of that massive object we can write (mathematically):
F = -k.s where s is the displacement and k is the proportionality constant. The (-) sign simply designates that the force always acts towards the rest point from which the displacement is measured.
If we now invoke Isaac Newton’s empirical ” law ” that a force will produce a certain acceleration of a massive body given by F = m.a from our essayist’s post,
or F = m.d^2(s) / dt^2 = – k.s we then do have a differential equation that can be solved mathematically, to produce steady state solutions of the form:
s = Acos (omega.t) + Bsin(omega.t) which we call simple harmonic motion.
But we note, that in the real world, Newton’s ” law ” is only an approximation, and furthermore, there is no known physical material or device that can exactly establish a restoring force linearly proportional to a displacement, although some approximate systems are known.
So SHM is a consequence of a purely mathematical exercise of solving a quite arbitrary mathematical differential equation : d^2(s) / d(t)^2 = – k.s
The steady state solutions are never ending (or starting) in time, so they don’t exist in reality, but again close to that behavior is well known in real systems.
And other mathematical contrivations, enable us to obtain solutions for the transient start or stop situations.
The point is that the mathematics can enable us to solve exactly, the behavior of imaginary MODELS, but those models only approximate what real world physical systems actually are seen to do.
Since the mathematical solutions do enable us to predict what the MODEL will do next, or later on, that does spike our curiosity to see if the real world also might do something close to what the model will. so we can devise an experiment to see if the real world system does something like the MODEL will.
Sometimes we win that conjecture, and that is progress.
g
I am not sure I would agree with that. I believe that if you drop a steel marble from the 20th floor of a building, that you can know how long it takes to reach the ground. But it is not the law that is the issue, but rather the simplifying assumptions we make to arrive at the answer. For example, Earth’s gravity gets stronger the closer the marble gets to the ground, providing the building is above sea level. But if a building were on the Dead Sea, which is below sea level, the acceleration due to gravity would get less as the marble fell. But the change is very little either way and we ignore it. As well, we usually ignore air resistance, but that is not Newton’s fault.
As for Leo’s point, perhaps he just should have left it as “equations” instead of “differential equations”, however that does not change the thrust of his very valid point that the new climate problems are “fiendishly hard problems”.
True, however one should never underestimate human ingenuity. I expect nuclear fusion on Earth to be viable in my grandchildren’s lifetime.
The differential equation I like is
Pi = Po + dE/dt
where Pi is the net solar power entering the system, Po is the power leaving to space, E is the total solar energy stored by the system and dE/dt is the flux in and out of E which in the steady state has an average across a period of stimulus (seasonal solar variablity) of zero. Pi is the solar power after reflection which can be quantified as (1-a)*Psun, where a is the albedo. Po lags Pi since the planet has a time constant and Po can be expressed as e*Psurf, where Psurf is the SB emissions of a surface at some average temperature and e is the effective emissivity of the planet, relative to the surface temperature.
This formulation is exact and there exists smooth, continuous, causal functions describing Pi, Po and E corresponding to the Earth’s energy storage system and that satisfies this equation exactly.
If we define an arbitrary amount of time, tau, such that all of E can be emitted at the rate Po, we can rewrite this as,
Pi = E/tau + dE/dt
This is recognised as the LTI that describes an RC circuit whose solutions are well known and which quantifies an exponential decay to a step response and a sinusoidal response to sinusoidal stimulus.
The sensitivity of the surface temperature to incremental Pi can be calculated exactly from this formulation and characterized over all possible effective emissivities and albedos and no part of the sensitivity range claimed by the IPCC lies within the solution space. Note that the dE/dt term is mostly equivalent to what the IPCC calls ‘forcing’.
Well rabbit, you could also have added that differential equations are the creation of pure mathematics, so they are not scientific theories either.
The same is true of General Relativity.
Werner, how would you characterize the difference between an “approximation” and a “simplification”?
Aren’t they pretty much different words for the same concept?
Your context is obviously my comment on Newton’s Law where F = ma. The law itself is not approximate. It is not as if F = 1.01ma nor 0.99ma for example. Nor is ma = 1.01F or 0.99F. The law is exact, neglecting relativity. However in applying it, we usually make simplifying assumptions such as ignoring air resistance. But we need to be careful that this simplifying assumption is justified for the whole range of motion we are interested in. For example, when dropping a rock 3 metres, it is justified, but a person falling from a plane will soon reach terminal velocity so then it would not be justified. When terminal velocity is reached, F = ma still holds, but if air resistance is equal to the force of gravity, there is no acceleration.
WB: ” But if a building were on the Dead Sea, which is below sea level, the acceleration due to gravity would get less as the marble fell.”
Not so. The earth’s core is denser than the mantle; gravity increases down a thousand miles or so as I recall.
–AGF
Ooops! I had not considered that. Thank you!
Well Werner, You might try and google either ‘Albert Einstein’ or ‘General theory of Relativity.’ or both for that matter, and see if Newton’s Law is exact or not. Maybe even ‘Special theory of Relativity’ as well.
Just a suggestion.
g
That is why I said:
Are you suggesting Newton’s law holds at speeds close to the speed of light?
@Werner Brozek December 1, 2015 at 8:01 am
The acceleration is still the same, there’s just no increase in speed.
Acceleration = (vf – vi)/t. So if there is no increase in speed, vf = vi so vf – vi = 0, so the acceleration is 0. It is NOT 9.8 m/s/s.
Have you ever looked at European temperatures – there are scores of sites all over the place – with an eye to identifying “The Pause”? No? Well, try starting in late 1987 and using data up to the present if you are investigating monthly “anomalies” – which I call “differences” because they are not anomalies, simply differences from the average for the same months over the period of interest. You will find that significant slopes are rather rare. Since Oct 1987, when I believe a step change took place, perhaps 0.6 C or even more, European sites have been remarkably stable. Why? I would like to hear some ideas on this.
No, my focus has been on global warming, however I did have an article about Antarctica here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/23/polar-puzzle-now-includes-august-data/
Additional non global trends are found here:
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/
I agree, but I am not a linguistics expert and I have no interest in trying to have anyone change their definitions.
What I think happens is the ocean has cycles, when these cycles change where the warm water currents travel the surface temp of the oceans change, this warm water increases surface temps that are measured down wind, and they will generally stay warm until the oceans currents (and blobs) change where they go.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
Not lately in France. As of 2005, temperature records at French stations have been trashed:
https://verdeviews.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/no-need-to-keep-records-anymore-the-climatic-trend-is-settled/
No “why” found yet, only a guess that reliable humans were replaced with absurdly unreliable automation.
I looked at 10 stations in Germany with 15 years of daily data (up to 15 missing days/month) from 2000 through 2014. 7 stations trend cooler, 3 trend warmer. On average, trend is -0.09°C per decade.
http://verdeviews.com/climate/europe.html
You can see the uptick in 1988 in Berkeley Earth’s data for Germany’s overall average. Trends there are +0.09°C/decade since 1988 and -0.33°C/decade since 2000, but the data only goes through 2012.
Meanwhile, according to NOAA data, most U.S. state average high temperatures have been trending downward during 2000 through 2014 (-0.88°C/decade in SD), with TX, CA, and NE states as exceptions. Even with the “warm blob,” OR, WA, and AK average highs have been dropping.
In your article above, Gary Pearse restated Newcomb’s Paradox from a very long time ago, (and this is not an exact quote) ‘Catastrophe’s predicted to happen, don’t happen’.
Thank you jsuther2013, I was unaware of Newcomb’s Paradox and am pleased (and not very surprised) that the idea already had a home. My thoughts arose from several sources.
First, all the planetary disasters that have been predicted have simply not come to pass. In 4.5B years, the planet has seen great drama but, in each instance, it has “recovered” and continued its interesting journey. Now, it has always been possible that something extraterrestrial and massive could have destroyed it, but at the human level of forces, they are too puny to do other than local, temporary damage. The atom bombing of Hiroshima displayed something of our power and maybe we could do a hundred times this today (although I believe human ingenuity would intervene).
It isn’t often noted, though that radioactivity had reduced to low background within a year of the bomb and the city has been rebuilt. Chernobyl was expected to neutralize life, agriculture, etc. over broad areas of Europe for the forseeable future. The large ‘exclusion zone’ has, to everyone’s surprise spawned all by itself a thriving European Serengeti-like animal refuge. To be sure there were some mutations particularly among smaller animals, but guess what – these got eaten up by predators and the survivors are healthy and strong (of course if you google it, pages and pages are paved with green activist science that says otherwise, a la climate change mode). Here are some remarkable photos to judge for yourself (remember only 31 people died who were mucking about the plant site and this represents half of all people who have died in radioactive accidents since 1950):
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/chernobyl_wildlife_the_radioactive_fallout_zone_is_a_wildlife_refuge_photos.html
Second, the people who choose to make these predictions are simplistic linear thinkers by training (biologists and ecologists) and they adopt the petri-dish model of helpless, constrained existence. We laugh at Malthus’s worry about cities being buried in horse manure today, but, in fact, all the doomsters past and present foresee the same kind of ridiculous events happening – ingenuity and constructive imagination are not in their purviews. Note for example that CAGW CO2 vilifiers, admit no beneficial aspects to increase CO2 and warming – it’s all bad! This points to ingenuousness and even to personality disorder.
Third, all leave out the number one principle component that confounds any prediction that could have a (small) chance of occurring, that of human ingenuity with which they are singularly unblessed. Those having ingenuity would never consider it a practical exercise to be contemplated.
I look forward to the day when the world population stablizes at ~15 to 20% more by mid century than that of the present and takes the air out of the sails of Malthusian nuts who have been a very expensive tax on human endeavor and wellbeing. Maybe then even useful fools will be a smaller part of our makeup. I like to point out that 90billion people could tread water in Lake Superior with a square metre of water each, just to give a graphic of what ten times peak population looks like.
In the movie Sleeper Woody Allen is put on ice for 200 years . Please watch attached video. View from Min:11 to Min: 13 and 26 Min to 28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRe9z32NZHY Woody Allen the Sleeper
Wrong video Russell !!
Video is : Enjoy Eating Saturated Fats: They’re Good for You. Donald W. Miller, Jr., M.D.
Marcus the youtube video is correct open and go to Min :11 to 13 and 26 Min:to 28
Thank you! How often have we been told one thing about diet or whatever and then have different experts disagree now or later? It is one thing to have an individual make a decision and have to live with it. But it is quite another to have governments make decisions that force all to pay, whether we agree or not.
Sorry Russell, I stand corrected !!!!! P.S. Did you happen to read the comment section ???? Nasty war of words , just like climate change discussions…
Werner and Marcus The reason I became interested in this whole climate discussion is because. Two years ago: I was with Diabetes, Obesity, Heart Condition, High blood Pressure and Severe Arthritis, and on 6 different Meds. Just last month the World Health Org., i.e UN got into the act no red meat no fat ect this is complete garbage. I did the complete opposite Now No pills no illness of any kind on low carb high saturated fat diet ( No Grains ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwX8Ip_RAq0
Good for you! However keep in mind that everyone is different. Some people have allergies to the strangest things. Then almost every drug has side effects. It seems as if the drug companies need to protect themselves from lawsuits by listing every conceivable side effect, even if only one in a million may be fatally affected by something.
There may be a good reason to try something new for yourself in low doses at the start to see if something works for you.
“Russell
November 30, 2015 at 8:35 am”
Look up “French Paradox” regarding a rich fat diet.
I detest his films, never liked them at all. The only “funny” fart of Sleeper is when her “kidnaps” and threatens to shoot a cloned nose.
Patrick MJD Thanks the French Paradox I am sure that most chronic disease can be eradicate on the French Diet. But they are now eating the western diet thanks to the WHOrg. UN This is like Climate Change they want us sick and on meds and in health care. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsI6oQN8fdE
“Funny fart”? Was that a Freudian?
“…the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure.”
Well, figuratively they were close – only it’s 2015 and the city is Washington, DC.
/grin
superb !!!
+5
I commend you for copying the comments from Messrs. Smith and Pearse; it’s important to be reminded of the big picture from time to time.
While I largely agree with what Mr. Pearse says about how unsuited to the central problem the backgrounds of so many “climate scientists” are, I would just caution against discriminating too much on the basis of a person’s formal education. Even though I have no examples in mind, I am quite confident that some whose degrees are in biology can comprehend the nature of the problem better than some who have degrees in, say, fluid mechanics and numerical methods. My experience is that, although there is no doubt some correlation between what someone studied in school and his native ability to do that type of work, the correlation is not as high as you might think.
But I’m picking a nit. Again, it’s always valuable to be reminded of the big picture.
The central tenant of Global Warming or Climate Change is that CO2 causes the atmosphere to absorb more energy than it emits, .6 watts to be exact.
A watt is a unit of power, equivalent to one Joule per second. The average watts per square meter of the earth surface is ~340 watts. In less than an hour an imbalance of .6 watts results in an energy imbalance of over 2000 joules, in other words enough heat to raise 2000 grams (2kg) of water .24 K.
In 24 hours the accumulated heat would raise 2 kg of water over 5˚ C and after a year, enough energy to heat a 2 kg metal bar to over 2000˚ C or permanently increase a cubic meter of ocean surface water 4˚ C.
The entire surface of the earth’s will increase by over 4˚ C each year and this is cumulative from the 1990’s time period.
15 years times 4 equals 60˚ C warmer today. In less than 5 years the oceans should start to boil in shallow areas.
This is simple, basic, irrefutable math/physics. The world burned up a few years ago and we are obstinately refusing to face reality.
If not for the invention of the automobile and the reduced numbers horses in cities, some of these predictions would have come true, maybe. Another consensus shot down.
Do not expend effort on attempting to change that which is inevitable, nor attempting to solve that which is – for whatever reason, effectively insoluble
More importantly, do not “solve” a problem that doesn’t exist.
And still more importantly, if you think a problem has been solved that does not exist, do not expect me to pay for a solution to the problem that does not exist.
There is more to climate science than temperature fluctuations.
It seems the preponderance of climate science is temperatures. Wind, humidity and atmospheric pressure have an affect as well as duration of a particular temperature. If the high temperature is “H”, how much time passed, what is the humidity, wind and atmospheric pressure associated with “H”. The same affects applies to the low temperature “L”.
Also not included in the “climate science” chat is the shape and mass of the atmosphere over time.
There is so much more to climate than temperature fluctuation; maybe too much to make specific predictions. Afterall, the local weather/climate forecast is constantly changing. Cheers…
Of course you are correct here. However Paris is now focused on preventing too much global warming. And to show their focus is misplaced, we must talk about a lack of sufficient warming.
In the end it will depend on the degree of magnitude change of solar parameters and the duration of that change.
I think if certain low average value solar parameters are met they will bring a cooling to climate due to weakening solar conditions but more importantly the associated secondary effects associated with a prolonged minimum condition.
If for example intense volcanic eruptions occur in response to prolonged solar minimum conditions which they have in the past according to the data global temperatures will decline, despite the ocean heat content which will by the way eventually decline.
We may have more EL Nino’s when the sun is quiet? That is only when the sun is in a steady rhythmic cycle and does not apply to prolonged minimum solar conditions. Even so if El Nino’s are to occur they will be superimposed upon sea surface temperatures in general which will be on the decline.
Another factor which I think has to be watched is what is happening with Antarctica. The S. Ocean is way below normal in temperature and that could be one of those factors which is dismissed to create a climate impact. It is always the factors that are dismissed that I focus on.
Then the atmospheric circulation pattern as we know can change the distribution of global temperatures in way that does not necessarily bring the global world wide temperatures down as a whole but effects the distribution of where the cold global temperatures are, which could create global cooling where it counts, the mid to high latitudes while leaving lower latitudes not much changed which would result in your point of view about the oceans holding up temperatures and the global cooling point of view that prolonged minimum solar conditions create a trend toward Ice Age conditions if not by cooling the globe all that much as a whole but rather on a regional basis for phase 1. This later progresses if prolonged minimum solar conditions persist.
I think these are some of the things that have to be watched.
In addition the globe has been in a cooling trend since the Holocene Optimum some 8000 years ago punctuated by spikes of warmth and I think Milankovitch Cycles , the Geo Magnetic Field with solar activity superimposed upon those two factors explain it quite well. This current warm spell is just one of those spikes in temperature in an overall cooling trend in my opinion post the Holocene Optimum.
I want to see how high the temperatures spikes are with this El Nino and as you said how low it gets post this El Nino. My feeling is the spike will not be as high and the cooling post this El Nino will be greater. I think cooling trend will be established before this decade ends and the unknown is climatic thresholds which are and must be out there because if one looks at the historical climatic record often times the climate goes along changing gradually then all of a sudden it changes in a step like fashion into another climate regime. That aspect seems to be being overlooked everyone seems to keep assuming the climate changes in a gradual fashion when past history shows us this is not the case and I think if the proper phasing of items that control the climate are achieved and the duration of time is long enough along with the degree of magnitude change that thresholds could be reached once again. I am not saying that will happen but if prolonged minimum solar conditions are achieve and are severe enough in magnitude and duration of time that possibility has to be considered.
The above is from a recent post I ha sent out.
Wise indeed it would be, to drop the CO2 as pollution scare like a hot potato and focus on the real ‘inconvenient truth’; that we are presently defenseless against the two most imminent threats of human extinction, both of which are extra-terrestrial in nature and can be dealt with by the time our progeny inherit this planet. A Carrington-sized geomagnetic event or collision with an object only tens of meters in size is capable of putting a huge dent in mankind’s proliferation.
I would suggest to the “Saviors of Gaia” meeting in Paris, that there are real and present global threats which they can get credit for protecting us from, and are truly worth the public’s funding and support.
The greenhouse as the primary effector of climate change will be recalled as naivete by future generations, providing we are wise enough to work now towards protecting the planet from extra-terrestrial threats.
Oh, forgot the best part. There’s no need for absolution through “planned austerity”.
The climate summit is stupidity to it’s highest degree the blind leading the blind. I wish I could address the fools and show them why they are out if it and are clueless when it comes to the climate.
WHAT A WASTE OF TIME !!
Some points I would bring out and hammer if I were there.
The way I see it the Test is on and those who think AGW IS real are going to be very disappointed and this disappointment will be realized before this decade is out IF my low average value solar parameters are achieved and have some staying power. I think they will be achieved and then we will see which side is correct once and for all.
In the end it will depend on the degree of magnitude change of solar parameters and the duration of that change.
I think if certain low average value solar parameters are met they will bring a cooling to climate due to weakening solar conditions but more importantly the associated secondary effects associated with a prolonged minimum condition.
If for example intense volcanic eruptions occur in response to prolonged solar minimum conditions which they have in the past according to the data global temperatures will decline, despite the ocean heat content which will by the way eventually decline.
We may have more EL Nino’s when the sun is quiet? That is only when the sun is in a steady rhythmic cycle and does not apply to prolonged minimum solar conditions. Even so if El Nino’s are to occur they will be superimposed upon sea surface temperatures in general which will be on the decline.
Another factor which I think has to be watched is what is happening with Antarctica. The S. Ocean is way below normal in temperature and that could be one of those factors which is dismissed to create a climate impact. It is always the factors that are dismissed that I focus on.
Then the atmospheric circulation pattern as we know can change the distribution of global temperatures in way that does not necessarily bring the global world wide temperatures down as a whole but effects the distribution of where the cold global temperatures are, which could create global cooling where it counts, the mid to high latitudes while leaving lower latitudes not much changed which would result in your point of view about the oceans holding up temperatures and the global cooling point of view that prolonged minimum solar conditions create a trend toward Ice Age conditions if not by cooling the globe all that much as a whole but rather on a regional basis for phase 1. This later progresses if prolonged minimum solar conditions persist.
I think these are some of the things that have to be watched.
In addition the globe has been in a cooling trend since the Holocene Optimum some 8000 years ago punctuated by spikes of warmth and I think Milankovitch Cycles , the Geo Magnetic Field with solar activity superimposed upon those two factors explain it quite well. This current warm spell is just one of those spikes in temperature in an overall cooling trend in my opinion post the Holocene Optimum.
I want to see how high the temperatures spikes are with this El Nino and as you said how low it gets post this El Nino. My feeling is the spike will not be as high and the cooling post this El Nino will be greater. I think the cooling trend will be established before this decade ends and the unknown is climatic thresholds which are and must be out there because if one looks at the historical climatic record often times the climate goes along changing gradually then all of a sudden it changes in a step like fashion into another climate regime. That aspect seems to be being overlooked everyone seems to keep assuming the climate changes in a gradual fashion when past history shows us this is not the case and I think if the proper phasing of items that control the climate are achieved and the duration of time is long enough along with the degree of magnitude change that thresholds could be reached once again. I am not saying that will happen but if prolonged minimum solar conditions are achieve and are severe enough in magnitude and duration of time that possibility has to be considered.
Reply
I am certainly not disagreeing with anything you say. You could well be correct. But the bottom line of your post seems to be: “Wait five years and you will see no action is needed.”
They may say that we cannot wait because things are too urgent. But if you point out Lord Monckton’s present graphs of no warming for over 18 years, that should be more effective, if anything would work. That is just my opinion.
Most of the people at the Paris climate talks are there to demand money from us. Nothing will deter them in this project.
Politicians fear losing elections.
Yes, I know, not particularly deep, but in a world where most voters don’t vote SHOWING them what this will cost always gets their attention. Over on Dr Curry’s blog she introduced an article on what this is costing Germany and California energy rates. Not perfect, but headed in the right direction.
Yes, you are right! Silly me! Here I thought there would be some rationality based in science.
Tapping into false guilt and limitless projection
http://350.org/
Climate justice .. gender equality .. immigrant justice … racial justice
Another http://www.usclimateplan.org/
http://www.climatehustle.com/
Saw this on the wires.
I’m anxious to see how well it does.
It no doubt be a litmus test of sorts.
“In my time beyond engineering as a business man, I learnt a Golden rule. Do not expend effort on attempting to change that which is inevitable, nor attempting to solve that which is – for whatever reason, effectively insoluble:”
The above is meaningless, as is any statement about what the IPCC should be tasked with doing. Their Mission is to show the effects of manmade global warming whether it is happening or not. It makes their “argument” better if they can show warming, so they have to fabricate/adjust the temperature data dishonestly as well as make up false climate effects and attributions of everything normal as abnormal in the weather/climate.
If the IPCC does not show these effects and also show that they are getting more and more confident of these effects happening due to man’s activities, they will have failed their Mission and should be disbanded. This is a propaganda organization dressed up to fool the public into thinking it is an august body of elite scientists. Sure, some IPCC scientists actually do good work, but their work is largely ignored and the false results and effects are cobbled into propaganda by the upper-level bureaucratic politicians of the IPCC, in the form of the Summary for Policymakers. A major clue that the IPCC scientists and their report are simply window-dressing is that the Summary for Policymakers is written before the body of the report.
If only the climate could be represented accurately enough with hundreds of mathematical equations to project the next 100 years.
I think the basic assumption that the theory is built on is that most things remain the same or change little….then we add a bunch of CO2. How does this effect the climate system as represented by the math(physical laws that we know drive it).
The Pacific Ocean has something like 2,000 times more heat stored in it than the atmosphere………..so really, you can’t predict the climate unless you can predict the Pacific Ocean and its cycles with some accuracy………note the difference in global climate from short term fluctuations between El Nino’s and La Nina’s.
Another big element is the massive greening of the planet from increasing CO2. This is having big effects on things like albedo, evapotranspiration/the water cycle, low level moisture, low clouds and average cloud height/base.
We can assume that CO2 is a greenhouse gas based on our confidence in the physics and even get the right amount of it’s ability to absorb LW radiation close with our math.
However, the additional factors, some mentioned above are significant contributors to the climate system. Global climate models use the increase in water vapor(that is happening, BTW) to amplify the greenhouse gas warming by X amount.
If not for the previously mentioned factors, this simplified approach would be a good way to project long term global temperatures(not necessarily climate in some regions).
Those factors and more(I left out the sun intentionally here because this too is very speculative) have enough influence to cause a huge effect on sensitivity of our climate to CO2, so that its absurd to be representing a realm with much uncertainty……………with so much certainty.
In other words, going from CO2 at 400 ppm to 600 ppm(which might even be unlikely if our biosphere continues to gobble up the additional CO2 at an increasing rate) could increase the global temp an additional 2 deg. C, if increasing H2O greatly amplifies the effect and all the negative feedbacks happening now, go away with the atmosphere deciding to start acting more like the models. This is possible.
However, the real world should always trump mathematical equations(from modelers) that represent a theoretical atmosphere. That world is telling us that additional increases in global temperatures will not likely exceed another 1 deg. C.
Also, warming of the higher latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere has mostly been beneficial to life on this planet. The increase in CO2 has been massively beneficial to almost all of life.
The decrease in the temperature differential from higher to lower latitudes has DECREASED many measures of extreme weather.
This is basic meteorology 101, just like CO2 atmospheric fertilization thru photosynthesis is basic biology(agronomy/agriculture).
We should be using rock solid scientific principles, with overwhelming empirical evidence in front of our eyes from real world observations/measurements vs speculative theories, unsubstantiated weather extremes and a political ideology to assess this potential threat, as well as widely measured benefits to date.
When I looked at the satellite data in the middle of November, it did not appear that it was being strongly influenced by the current Strong El Nino.
Many people expect to see this years Strong El Nino take hold in the satellite data between November and February/March, but as I say, at the middle of the month, November did not look to be extraordinary high.
Given that COP 21 has just started, hopefully Dr Spence will quickly release the November data. Unless there has been some dramatic pickup, it will confirm that 2015 is not going to be the warmest year on record by quite some margin.
It should be made clear to the crowds at COP that the satellite data does not suggest that 2015 is the warmest year ever on record.
Richard,
Nobody in this group cares about the November 2015 UAH global satellite temperature data.
Those that give it weight, have all been following it for years and 1 month is not going to make a difference……………unless it spikes higher. Then, probably many in that group will say its from the El Nino(which would be correct) anyway.
Reactions at the end of this year are very predictable. One side will site ground based thermometers as evidence of record smashing, unprecedentedly hot global temperatures in 2015……….the other side will say that satellites did not confirm this and that much of the warming was from the strong El Nino.
Both sides will be right.
Some huge questions include:
1. Why are surface observations so much warmer?
2. What happens after the El Nino? Do we have a step change bump up that is maintained for the next decade or do we go back down a bit and maintain more or a pause.
Or……….do we add to the warming or have a bit of cooling(less likely it would seem)
3. What does the PDO do????
This may be the most important clue. It has spiked much higher that last 2 years to ++PDO(during what was assumed a -PDO regime)
Did the -PDO end? Is this like the late 1950’s, during the halfway point of the previous -PDO regime, where we spiked higher(not this high) for around 2 years, then went another 15 with mostly a -PDO?
The +PDO and strong El Nino are certainly linked. Heat is now pouring out of the Pacific Ocean into the atmosphere.
Is this some of the heat that was getting stored during the pause and made it look like the atmosphere is not as sensitive to CO2 as we thought and left global climate models projections during the period almost all(95%) too warm?
Since we really don’t know(even those that are fooling themselves to think that they do) only the next several years will provide some answers………….watch the PDO during this period too.
It really is dumb for us to not know the answers to the above questions and much more but be willing to gamble and take known and extraordinary harmful actions in order to counter a speculative, worst case scenario unknown…… that observations tell us, is getting LESS threatening with time, not more threatening.
Authentic scientists will be watching the data, including the Pacific Ocean and letting that tell them what is happening.
What I’d suggest (to answer the authors question is:
For GISS/HADCRUT et. al. to show us exactly how and why they have altered their data? Oh BTW, they’ve seeming;y done it more than once? How and Why? UAH and RSS have given full disclosure of their methods and rationale. Till the “keepers of the faith” AKA: land based temperature records volunteer and clearly explain themselves….their data is just a pretty picture with little value.
The above would be the first answer that should be given to the question….
Yes, not only did they get rid of Hadcrut3 for not being cooperative by beating 1998.☺ But Hadcrut4 has also often been adjusted.
Tim Osborn even replied here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/05/is-wti-dead-and-hadcrut-adjusts-up-again-now-includes-august-data-except-for-hadcrut4-2-and-hadsst3/#comment-1755584
Explanation, pretty pictures, code, all of the processed data, even the link to the government’s data.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
Short answer, there is a slight cooling trend in the daily balance of day time warming, and the following night’s cooling in the surface record since 1940.
It’s not Co2.
Thank you! This should be a post on its own.
A little taste of the agenda.
Waddled around on google to find this one.
A previous poster had suggested researching http://newsroom.unfccc.int/financial-flows/
Here’s a nice little window into a joint venture betw, ngos, the WH and a couple of heavy hitting American utility companies.
http://www.c2es.org/events/2015/c2es-events-paris
What strikes me in the eyeballs is they have moved beyond the rejection/acceptance of CAGW.
Instead, what I see is a flow of money into what the next new whiz bang low carbon energy plan will look like.
In 10 years who knows maybe molten salt SMRs. China seems to get them first though.
What will the world do while we try to get there ?
Oddly, in 10 to 20 years when people realize this energy and money shift had nothing to do with CAGW will they be pissed ? I wonder. Probably not if it turns out to be a “better” (cheaper, cleaner, more reliable energy) world.
Generally speaking it looks like the money is being committed to give it the old college try.
If they do it by giving a discount on the income tax of the profits from their R&D money invested into a new whiz-bang energy device, good for whoever becomes the first private trillionaire.
Micro
Eh, fat chance. Moneymakers like to have it both ways. They squawk that they can’t afford to fund the prototype version of things due to the rate of failure in those prototypes and typically get the government (read taxpayer) to make the heavy lift. Then once it’s close to ready for prime time .. then they want it … and then only insiders get to have it. It’s so corrupt, makes you wonder how we got here from there.
The taxpayer always pays something extra.
Probably the only shot that a noninsider has is to read the tea leaves, follow the money and catch a bit of the wave.
All in all, this CAGW hoax is such a sad testament to getting from point A to B by going thru the alphabet and wasting trillions of dollars getting there. It’s such a facepalm. It’s naive of me to expect that some leader gets up and says :
“hey people, look, all CAGW BS aside we are gonna shake up the energy industry in the first tier nations. we are tired of fighting over fossils and we got a little lazy in developing nukes, but we are gonna move in that direction. it will cost all of us about 5% extra for the next 20 years”
Mathematics is, in essence, a symbolic form of logical reasoning – as opposed to a regular, verbal form. Like any logical process, it cannot exist in isolation, but must first be predicated by certain assumptions. If any of the assumptions is wrong, if relevant criteria are missed or excluded, if relationships between factors are misunderstood, then the result of the process is invalid – however rigorous the logic – even if the answer is plausible, or apparently correct. There are many questionable assumptions associated with all of the inexact sciences – climate science being a classic case.
The PDO and other phenomena have been observed and measured for some time, but they are still not understood. The application of mathematics to this mash of ignorance, best guesses and dodgy assumptions is a waste of time. As I have noted previously, bigger computers just deliver useless results quicker.
I have to make a correction here and point out the existence of fraudulent temperature records. According to your article, section 1, these are the reported results:
1. For GISS, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
2. For Hadcrut4, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
3. For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
4. For UAH, the slope is flat since May 1997 or 18 years and 6 months. (goes to October using version 6.0)
5. For RSS, the slope is flat since February 1997 or 18 years and 9 months. (goes to
First, you have the satellite data wrong. Missing is the fact that for both UAH and RSS the slope is flat from 1979 to early 1997. See Figure 15 in my book “What Warming?” or draw your own graph.
Second, this flat slope is covered up by a non-existent “late twentieth century warming” in the three first data sets you list. The flat slope in the eighties and nineties makes those eighteen years into a hiatus period. That means another, second, hiatus in addition to hiatus that we are living through today. As you should know, during a hiatus CO2 keeps increasing but there is no warming that the greenhouse theory predicts The rime between the end of the first hiatus and the beginning of the present one is short. Even if you are generous it is five years at most or a year at least. This means that since the beginning of the satellite era in 1979 the climate has been in hiatus for 30 years or more. It means no global warming for all for at least 30 years. Take the time back to the beginning of IPCC in 1988 and now you have 21 years out of 27 years in a a state of hiatus,over 80 percent of the time it has existed. That means that over eighty percent of the time that the IPCC has existed there has been no warming whatsoever. All those grandiose claims of greenhouse warming they have announced can no way be true if for eighty percent of its existence there has been no warming whatsoever.
What I am doing is exactly what Lord Monckton always does, namely take the latest month for which data is available, which happens to be October in this case, and see how far back we can go and still have a negative slope. That is why we both agree on 18 years and 9 months for RSS. I said UAH was 18 years and 6 months. I am not sure if Lord Monckton gave a UAH figure, but on November 29, he gave 18 years and 7 months for a combination of RSS and UAH which is totally consistent with my two numbers. We are not interested in prior pauses for our analysis.
As for 1979 to 1997 for RSS, see:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/trend
It shows a slope of 0.007/year. That does not look flat to me.
Again, I am only interested in how far back it is flat from October 2015, and if I am not mistaken, it is not flat for even one month for GISS and Hadcrut4. If you can show any flat slope on WFT with GISS ending in October 2015, please show it. (I am not asking for Hadcrut since WFT is out of date with Hadcrut.)
That of course is a different issue and I will not even try to defend GISS and Hadcrut4.
“But how will people in 50 years from now judge “us”? Will they laugh at our collective inability to see past our noses? Should we approach things differently?
People who doubted that C02 will warm the planet will be pretty much lost to history. The same way you can barely recall the name of anyone who denies we landed on the moon.
The skeptical movement will wither because it builds nothing. It doesnt seek to understand, it just raises doubt, and most of the doubt it raises is dubious doubt.
every year that goes by a skeptical voice vanishes.. getting old sucks.. but the arguments never get any better.. that’s because you cant build on a a skeptical argument. you can just repeat it.. until there is no one left to repeat it..
Faraday, Darwin, Einstein, Rutherford…etc etc etc. You are talking rubbish as usual Mosher.
Patrick We must get our message across on Climate Change like they have on Cholesterol and Diabetes . Judith Curry in her testimony to Congress on climate used the lie on cholesterol as a example . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IYVIdztWWs
Judith Curry on Climate / Cholesterol as an example go to min: 48 of the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm7_FVS3IMo
Arrhenius and Angstrom knew the limits of your magical molecule. You can stick a fork in it, it’s done.
I believe you are confusing the “skeptical movement” with slayers. These are a very small subset of the “skeptical movement”. Most skeptics believe CO2 has some effect, just not a catastrophic effect.
Moshe,
What would it take to make you more skeptical? Each year, it gets more obvious that the stuff that was a worry is less of a worry. The Pause and the reduced climate sensitivity and increased importance of natural variability is ever more in your face. Climategate and the present panic to get rid of the ‘Pause’ by shear fraud must chip away a bit at an honest campaigner like yourself. You must at least miss the days when the picture was simple and clear and explainable with a small accounting equation. Your admonition of skeptics is a queer notion for science. I shudder to think where we would be right now, in terms of binding agreements and freedom of speech if there were no skeptics. Certainly, over the past decade, most creativity in climate science has come from the skeptical side, the proponents too busy in rearguard actions to advance anything. The ‘physics doesn’t eliminate the possibility to thermostatic counter forces to warming, even giving you your ceteris paribus CO2 warming.
Do any of you experts know the uncertainty on the various methods of determining the global temperature?
Surely it cant be less than 1% as the numeric precision suggests. Presumably the ‘systematic’ uncertainty can be estimated from the spread of the different groups.
One can get into all kinds of detail here depending on the data set and which century we are talking about. I believe a general rule of thumb for present anomalies is that we are 95% certain that the average is within 0.1 of the stated amount.
However even that does not seem possible since 2015 will smash the 2014 record on Hadcrut4 by more than 0.1, however the satellites will be no where close to beating 1998.
GSoD is reported as +/-0.1F
all of it. It only starts in 1928 or so, and with the number of samples, I don’t really use any data prior to 1940, 1950 starts to have a reasonable number of samples.
The purple is station count/100 with other stuff.
We need to remember that no about of science and math will solve the underlying and driving mission of Global Warming ( or what ever PC term of the da). The real mission of the Climate Change “group” is to tax to raise money, redistribute from “me” to “them” and centrally control every aspect of our lives (BIG GOVERNMENT). Scientific analysis can not over come this political agenda. We just need to address these “Climate Controllers” as what they are political hacks. Just vote the elected officials out and defund the bureaucrats. In summary Climate Change is about control of you by them, funded by you, for them to do as they please.
UAH November Update
UAH for November came out very fast. And it showed a drop of 0.1 from October! I knew that UAH could not reach second place before this. However a huge upward spike in November could have made it interesting. But with a drop, reaching second place it totally out of the question. It is stuck in third.
So what happens to the length of the pause on UAH and RSS? I will assume that RSS will show a similar drop as UAH, but at the very least, not a huge spike. If so, based on the anomalies where their present pauses start, namely February 1997 for RSS and May 1997 for UAH, I would say the pauses will probably AT LEAST stay at the lengths they are at present, namely 18 years and 9 months for RSS and 18 years and 6 months for UAH. The only difference with the November data is that the pauses will start and end a month later.
Richard Barraclough says:
December 1, 2015 at 7:57 PM
Hello Werner,
The “Pause”, as defined by various commenters on this site and Watts up with That, is still the same length as last month. In other words, the start date has moved forward by 1 month to June 1997
The above is for UAH.
(RSS did not come today.)
RSS Update for November
RSS for November came in at 0.426, a slight drop from the October value of 0.447. While it is the warmest November on record for RSS, the anomaly of 0.426 was beaten in the first 10 months of 1998 and the first 9 months of 2010. 2015 is in third place now and there is no way it can even reach second in 2015.
The pause remains at 18 years and 9 months, however it is shifted by one month. So it is no longer from February 1997 to October 2015, but rather from March 1997 to November 2015.
Thanks Werner, Leo, Gary, and JTF!
Keep doing what you do!
It is appreciated by many.