Scott Adams (Dilbert Author): The Climate Science Challenge

b40bb-haroldhaydenipcc

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Scott Adams, author of the famous Dilbert Cartoon, has challenged readers to find a qualified scientist who thinks climate models do a good job of predicting the future.

The Climate Science Challenge

I keep hearing people say that 97% of climate scientists are on the same side of the issue. Critics point out that the number is inflated, but we don’t know by how much. Persuasion-wise, the “first offer” of 97% is so close to 100% that our minds assume the real number is very high even if not exactly 97%.

That’s good persuasion. Trump uses this method all the time. The 97% anchor is so strong that it is hard to hear anything else after that. Even the people who think the number is bogus probably think the real figure is north of 90%.

But is it? I have no idea.

So today’s challenge is to find a working scientist or PhD in some climate-related field who will agree with the idea that the climate science models do a good job of predicting the future.

Notice I am avoiding the question of the measurements. That’s a separate question. For this challenge, don’t let your scientist conflate the measurements or the basic science of CO2 with the projections. Just ask the scientist to offer an opinion on the credibility of the models only.

Remind your scientist that as far as you know there has never been a multi-year, multi-variable, complicated model of any type that predicted anything with useful accuracy. Case in point: The experts and their models said Trump had no realistic chance of winning.

Your scientist will fight like a cornered animal to conflate the credibility of the measurements and the basic science of CO2 with the credibility of the projection models. Don’t let that happen. Make your scientist tell you that complicated multi-variable projections models that span years are credible. Or not.

Then report back to me in the comments here or on Twitter at @ScottAdamsSays.

This question is a subset of the more interesting question of how non-scientists can judge the credibility of scientists or their critics. My best guess is that professional scientists will say that complicated prediction models with lots of variables are not credible. Ever. So my prediction is that the number of scientists who ***fully*** buy into climate science predictions is closer to zero than 97%.

But I’m willing to be proved wrong. I kind of like it when that happens. So prove me wrong.

 

Source: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155073242136/the-climate-science-challenge

He also tweeted this:

Climate models are the core of the climate scare, but even the scientists who produce them know their predictive powers are weak. The scientists bundle model output up into an ensemble on the assumption that this will help cancel individual errors, but in doing so they make a very shaky assumption that errors in individual models are independent from each other, and that an averaging process will therefore tend to cancel them out. If the models all share underlying systemic errors, such as shared mistakes in their basic assumptions, bundling the models into an ensemble will do nothing to improve accuracy.

The following presentation by Pat Frank details some of the devastating predictive weaknesses of climate models, especially their poor statistical management of uncertainty.

Will any scientist rise to the Scott Adams challenge?

Update (EW) – turned the Scott Adams Says ReplyTo link into a hyperlink

Advertisements

389 thoughts on “Scott Adams (Dilbert Author): The Climate Science Challenge

    • “Dilbert the Denier”, that’s even worse than Dennis the Menace.
      Has there not been examples of persons smoking in those comic strips? There you go! Adams must be in the pay of the tar-in-the-lungs and oil sand moguls!

      • The main thing these models tell us is negative – i.e. how not to predict the future global climate – but what a waste of time and money! BTW, how much CO2 have the cpu cycles expended on these models contributed to the atmosphere?

      • The red pill! No…wait…the BLUE ONE!…..um…on second thought….both! :) And Alice thought her rabbit hole was bad….lol

      • @ noaaprogrammer December 29, 2016 at 6:01 pm

        It really is computer aided global warming for sceptics and warmists alike.

        DP

    • The continual failure of CO2 based climate models to accurately predict global warming trends actually prove that CO2 is not a factor.

      • no. It simply proves the models in their current state are useless to answer the question. They don’t replicate/project reality, they must be discarded (in their current state). Nothing more.

        Positive “proofs” in science are rare to non-existent. Negative findings, independently replicated, can and do disprove theories/hypothesis/paradigms all the time.

      • James:

        The currently existing climate models do not “predict” at all. Rather than “predict,” a model of this type “projects.”

        A model that “predicts” is of potential use in regulating Earth’s climate system as the mutual information of this model is non-nil. A model that “projects” is of no use in regulating Earth’s climate system as the mutual information of this model is nil. For the prospects for regulation it is the level of the mutual information of the model that is crucial and not the level of the accuracy. Few taxpayers or bloggers understand that this is true. Thus, they perpetually allow their government to spend their money on construction of models that are useless for the intended purpose.

      • Terry: You’re playing semantics – projections and predictions are the same – in this case based on CO2 as a factor and whether you say tomayto or tomarto the result is still just plain wrong… hundreds of modeled times wrong and hundreds of modeled times proving CO2 is not a factor.

      • hi joel.
        you know i’m gonna card you again for asserting that “Positive “proofs” in science are rare to non-existent.”
        (as you make the assertion with the built in escape hatch of denying the existence of a proof, right?)
        so i’m not sure if you are simply a noob at epistemology, or repeating something you heard somewhere but haven’t considered fully or maybe you are attacking the fundamental means of a human being’s survival- his reason.
        how lucky for you there is a place where you can expand on the notion that there is anything true that can not be proven and how this makes you scientific: https://rulesofscience.wordpress.com/2016/12/22/the-rules-of-science-v5/
        do pop over sometime and either dig deeper and get squashed or think better.
        (you just happened to be the one, today- nothing personal and you’re not the worst or only one who carries on this meme of truth can not be proven – which, of course, you can’t prove and therefore only pretend that it can therefore be true.)

      • projections and predictions are the same
        ========================
        not correct. The IPCC admits that climate models CANNOT predict the future. Instead the IPCC says that the climate models project the future.

        The difference is profound. ANY model can project the future with 100% mathematical reliability. For example, a least squares fit of a straight line will project the future, with 100% accuracy.

        However, this is simply a least squares fit curve fitting, with order=1, and as such may have zero skill at predicting the future. In the case of the climate models, the IPCC has already admitted that the models have zero skill a predicting the future.

      • Whether the IPCC uses “predict” or “project”, their intention is the same – to create the impression that they are doing something useful. And if it does not work out, then they can play with words and suggest they never said that. You are just arguing over words – the tamato syndrome.

      • Let’s remember that these climate models were created by some of the best climate scientists money can buy.
        And these models, although independently produced, all find substantial agreement with each other. Since this cannot be a mere coincidence and a demanding 5-star peer review process has already eliminated any chance of scientific fraud, we must now seriously begin to consider supplemental adjustment of satellite and radiosonde data in order to fix the divergence problem.

        And since we already know as fact that the highest increases in temperatures globally have occurred in NH polar climes, additional downward corrective adjustments are also needed to be made to the existing record high temperatures in Canada 45.0 C (1937), Greenland 24.2 C (1908), Iceland 30.3 C (1939), Norway 35.6 C (1970) and Alaska 38.0 C (1915).

      • Gnomish,

        Joel has it right.

        Proof is a mathematical, not a scientific concept. Your link mentions proving a theorem, which is a mathematical, not a scientific term. Science uses math as a tool, but a scientific theory or hypothesis is an entirely different concept from a mathematical theorem.

        A scientific hypothesis can be show false or confirmed by an experimental test of predictions made on its basis, but confirmation isn’t necessarily a demonstration of validity. An hypothesis or theory can be confirmed repeatedly but isn’t known to be true until it has been observed. That the earth goes around the sun remained a theory until this fact was actually observed.

      • Chimp
        Show me where in gnomish’s link it speaks of “proving a theorem”?

        Specifically gnomish’s link states-
        “A scientific conclusion is deduced by an explicit application of axiom, definitions and theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have been verified or validated.”

        Or where the word theorem ONLY applies to mathematics and not physics or logical deductive reasoning….

        theorem:”a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths”

        You said-“Science uses math as a tool, but a scientific theory or hypothesis is an entirely different concept from a mathematical theorem.”

        1.-Well duh. Maybe that’s why the the statement above CLEARLY shows math being used as a tool to deduce a scientific conclusion.
        2.-A scientific conclusion is an entirely different concept from a scientific hypothesis.
        3.”proof in Science
        proof (pr f)
        A demonstration of the truth of a mathematical or logical statement, based on axioms and theorems derived from those axioms.
        The American Heritage® Science Dictionary”

        Thus positive “proofs” are just as possible in science as “negative proofs” are, and gnomish is correct.

      • James, Terry, et al
        If my temperature data show a temperature of 90 deg. at 0600 hrs. and 90 deg. at 1200 hrs, my projected trend shows an trend line temperature of 130 deg. at 1800 hrs. which is laughable. My predicted temperature for 1800 which incorporates an allowance for the diurnal cycle would be much less than 90.

      • RE: Hereticus Maximus
        December 30, 2016 at 3:17 pm

        **Let’s remember that these climate models were created by some of the best climate scientists money can buy.**
        What is the point here?

        **And these models, although independently produced, all find substantial agreement with each other. **
        Yes, they all made the same mistake in assumptions about CO2.

        **Since this cannot be a mere coincidence and a demanding 5-star peer review process has already eliminated any chance of scientific fraud, we must now seriously begin to consider supplemental adjustment of satellite and radiosonde data in order to fix the divergence problem.**
        Peer review, I think you mean Pal review. Who gave it a 5 star rating?
        Yes, you change the data to match the bad model.

        **And since we already know as fact that the highest increases in temperatures globally have occurred in NH polar climes,**
        How do you know when there are few observations and data are infilled?

        ** additional downward corrective adjustments are also needed to be made to the existing record high temperatures in Canada 45.0 C (1937), Greenland 24.2 C (1908), Iceland 30.3 C (1939), Norway 35.6 C (1970) and Alaska 38.0 C (1915).**
        Why do they need to be adjusted downward?
        Oops, I forgot, you need a rising trend to match the CO2 increase.
        Then I forgot the charts here:

        http://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

        especially the one where the temperature adjustment correlates so well with CO2 increase. Amen.

      • Aphan,

        How did you miss point number four, or the glossary which specifically mentions proving theorems?

        “§4 A scientific conclusion is deduced by an explicit application of axiom, definitions and theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have been verified or validated.”

      • How did you miss point number four, or the glossary which specifically mentions proving theorems?

        I QUOTED #4, which does NOT include the word “proving”, (did you miss that?) and the glossary states-
        “theorem: a concept which has been proven and which can now be used as the basis of other proofs.”

        So, let’s have a grade school teaching moment. Swap the definition for the term: (bolded)

        4.” A scientific conclusion is deduced by an explicit application of axiom, definitions and concepts which have been proven and which can now be used as the basis for other proofs , or measured properties and scientific concepts that have been verified or validated.”

        Science uses theorems as TOOLS. Scientists APPLY theorems.

        You said:
        “Proof is a mathematical, not a scientific concept. Your link mentions proving a theorem, which is a mathematical, not a scientific term. Science uses math as a tool, but a scientific theory or hypothesis is an entirely different concept from a mathematical theorem.”

        #1-gnomish’s link says NOTHING about “proving a theorem”. It speaks of USING theorems to arrive at scientific conclusions.
        #2-The word THEOREM is very much a scientific term as well as a math term.

        Here is a link to a list of theorems-see how many of them you can locate that have to do with SCIENCE and not just “math”.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theorems

      • Aphan,

        Nope. There is no “proof” in science. Observations don’t “prove” that the earth goes around the sun. Observations are facts, not “proof”.

        In common parlance and popular media, the phrase “scientific proof” is often misused. But in the strict philosophy of science, no such thing exists. Popper wrote, “In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,” as in mathematics.

        An hypothesis is either confirmed or shown false by being tested. If repeatedly tested and never found false, scientists can have some confidence in its validity, but a single failure can show it false (not prove it false). Some hypotheses are eventually shown literally to be true, based upon direct observation, as was Copernicus’ heliocentric theory, although it was wrong in details, such as circular orbits.

      • Aphan,

        I pointed you to the glossary, but I guess I have to copy it for you:

        prove: verify a statement by means of theorems.

        theorem: a concept which has been proven and which can now be used as the basis of other proofs.

        Sorry, but there is no “proof” in the philosophy of science. Mathematics, yes. Science, no.

      • APHAN – please contribute any comments and criticisms over at Science or Fiction blog
        i think the person has produced something valuable for human beings who use reason professionally- and it would not be a bad thing if amateurs (like chimp) learned how to think as well.
        if chimp ever wants to find the truth of anything, he must learn what that means- after discovering there is such a thing. then he can even evaluate his own utterances regarding the impossibility of proving his own utterances…lol he can’t yet even detect the self contradiction that belies it.

      • Well the only thing that models can predict is what THE MODEL will do. And they can predict that very precisely, which is why we make them up in the first place.

        What models cannot predict is whether the real universe will pay any attention to what they predict.

        Trust me; IT WON’T.

        So if your model does note even emulate the system you are trying to model; such as for example, rotate if it’s a planet, then the model will tell you nothing about that system.

        G

    • Beliaik December 29, 2016 at 2:05 pm
      Some very serious people read Scott Adams’ blog. This won’t go unnoticed.

      ——————

      Yeah well, over 1800 comments have shown up on Scott Adams blog and he noted that many of his twitter account comments were people telling him how dumb he was and insulted him. He then said I’m am not taking sides for personal safety reasons (tongue in cheek I presume). He then goes on to note that both sides of this debate have good arguments so it is not convincing to just quote one side’s good arguments – they are both good arguments. Neither is convincing when both sides have good arguments.

      Search for “Coffee with Scott Adams \ 2016.12.29” – periscope video. This guy is pretty smart. I understand why serious people read his blog.

      • Bill, Scott’s “not taking sides for personal safety” disclaimer is not exactly tongue in cheek. It’s scarier than that.

        It’s part of his thesis that we humans are rarely as rational as we like to believe. People who are violently partisan can see the insincerity of his “not taking sides” claim just as clearly as you or I and it just doesn’t matter: it gets them off his case anyway.

        In http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147247313346/when-persuasion-turns-deadly he wrote,
        “Some of you watched with amusement as I endorsed Hillary Clinton for my personal safety. What you might not know is that I was completely serious. I was getting a lot of direct and indirect death threats for writing about Trump’s powers of persuasion, and I made all of that go away by endorsing Clinton. People don’t care why I am on their side. They only care that I am.”

    • “””””….. Guest essay by Eric Worrall

      Scott Adams, author of the famous Dilbert Cartoon, has challenged readers to find a qualified scientist who thinks climate models do a good job of predicting the future. …..”””””

      Well such a statement (good at predicting the future) is plain stupid.

      The ONLY way to know if the predictions ” were ” good, is AFTER the future has happened and is now in the past.

      And we already know that the climate models can’t even replicate the past after the fact; let alone before the fact is known.

      So nyet on the goodness of GCMs.

      Maybe it has something to do with the GCMs being NOT models of THIS planet.

      This planet rotates, and does not behave like a uniformly illuminate plane surface with the sun shining continuously day and night on it, from an altitude of 186 million miles (averaged over the year).

      G

  1. I’m not sure what he will achieve, directly.

    There will certainly be some, if not lots, of people who answer the challenge from such a well known person. But so what? Whether their arguments are good ones, or not, is what matters, though I have still not yet seen a convincing argument in favor of the models.

    • michael hart

      “…I have still not yet seen a convincing argument in favor of the models.”
      ______________

      Is the fact that, as of 2016, surface observations are now higher than the projected multi-model average on an annual scale not a convincing argument?

      If not, why not?

      • You mean adjusted or not adjusted? NOAA is good at that.
        Satellite era. or back to the 1890’s or so?
        1936 was the hottest year. Until adjustments were made.

      • ladylifegrows

        “Because 2016 was an El Niño year.”

        Yes, and 2010 and 2011 were both La Nina years. You can’t count just the natural warming events and exclude the natural cooling ones. It’s inconsistent.

      • tgmccoy

        “You mean adjusted or not adjusted?”

        Perhaps you would prefer to live in a world where no adjustments are made to account for past influences on temperature data, such as station moves, time of observation bias, ship engine intake bias, urban heat island effect, etc….

        Or perhaps you could suggest a better way of accounting for these known biases than those currently used by the world’s many and diverse global temperature data producers?

      • Global Temperatures are now down considerably from the 2015-16 super-El-Nino heights (and there is more decline to come in the months ahead. December is likely to be down a further 0.15C).

        The NCDC global (adjusted) temperature and the RSS/UAH lower troposphere temperatures are both below all of the main climate model forecasts made going back to Hansen’s 1988 projections.

        Anyone can use this chart. It is up-to-date as November, 2016 and all of the numbers are on the same baseline (which the alarmist rarely take into account).

      • DWR54

        The suggestion in your question that this is evidence of the models’ predictive capabilities tells us that you are either completely clueless or simple trolling.

        If it’s the first, read up until you understand the issues. if it’s the second crawl back under the rock you came from.

      • DWR54, forget the “model average”. In the real world, you don’t get to pick which models you like after the event to claim a good prediction from one of them. Predict everything and you will never be wrong.

        That is why the IPCC doesn’t discard any of them, however bad. The low-projection models don’t project disaster, even if they are generally poor. That’s a problem for catastrophists, but those models are needed to lend an air of near-credibility.

        The high-projection models are simply atrociously wrong and unbelievable, but are needed to scare the horses.

        Which model do you choose?

      • “You mean adjusted or not adjusted? NOAA is good at that.
        Satellite era. or back to the 1890’s or so?
        1936 was the hottest year. Until adjustments were made.”

        Nope – not for the US….

        Or for the Globe….

      • Toneb,

        Your NOAA uncorrected line is really not from the NOAA. It is from the UK Met Office which was not a real actual global temperature series ever used.

        The UK Met Office noted that prior to 1940, ocean sea surface temperatures were recorded by throwing a bucket over the side of the ship and then brining it on-board and using a thermometer to record the temperature.

        In the early 1980s, The UK Met went out all over the world and at various seasons to test what the bucket method used prior to 1940, actually measured versus the actual sea surface temperature. It turned out that the water in the buckets cooled off by 0.2C and more by the time they were brought aboard

        After these extensive tests, THEN the UK Met Office produced an historical sea surface temperature series.

        So the “NOAA uncorrected” series is actually a fabric of someone’s imagination and does not take into account the current method of measuring sea surface temperatures AND was never actually produced anywhere.

        There is much more to this story of course but that will take more space. Toneb, I propose you quit posting charts using made-up data.

      • “Your NOAA uncorrected line is really not from the NOAA. It is from the UK Met Office which was not a real actual global temperature series ever used.”

        OK Bill – here ….

        “Toneb, I propose you quit posting charts using made-up data.”

        Bill – I propose you “quit” accusing me of posting “made up data”, (which aren’t) unless you post something yourself to verify your accusation.

      • DWR54
        “Perhaps you would prefer to live in a world where no adjustments are made”
        Yes adjustments are needed. But wouldn’t you expect that some cause the warming rate to go up while others cause the rate to go down? So, how come the vast majority are UP?

      • tgmccoy wrote: “You mean adjusted or not adjusted? NOAA is good at that.
        Satellite era. or back to the 1890’s or so?
        1936 was the hottest year. Until adjustments were made.”

        Toneb December 29, 2016 at 3:25 pm wrote: “Nope – not for the US….”

        Toneb, here’s (link below) what Hansen said in 1999, about the U.S. temperatures. And the graph on that page shows the 1930’s as being 0.5C hotter than 1998. I guess in subsequent years the 1930’s data were manipulated to make it appear they were cooler than 1998, and that’s where you get your graph from. Like tgmccoy said, it was hotter in the 1930’s before adjustments were made. Your graph is *after* adjustments were made.:

        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

        “The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.”

        end excerpt

      • DWR54,
        Speaking of “ship engine intake bias,” can you justify increasing the state-of-the-art buoy temperatures to align with the warmed ship intake temperatures?

      • DWR54,
        The models are not independent and the errors are not known to be uniform (and almost never are in these types of iterative models), so the model average is meaningless. Of course, you can always just pick one that happens to match the temperature series (whichever one you choose), but that would just be an ad hoc selection which runs afoul of the Sharpshooter fallacy. Do you have anymore unscientific drivel to regale us with?

      • Thank-you Eric, for featuring my DDP presentation. :-) It shows that climate models have zero predictive value.

        DWR54, do you understand the impact of error propagation on predictive reliability? Or that tuning does not make climate models predictive?

      • Toneb, no uncertainty bars on any of your air temperature plots. They’re scientifically disingenuous. Not to say, physically meaningless. No scientist of integrity would present them that way.

      • I think Toneb likes to be proven wrong. Maybe it’s masochism, or something…

        (I have more charts like these, but if I link them my comment won’t be posted until it’s approved.)

      • “DWR54 December 29, 2016 at 2:57 pm
        Perhaps you would prefer to live in a world where no adjustments are made to account for past influences on temperature data, such as station moves, time of observation bias, ship engine intake bias, urban heat island effect, etc….

        Or perhaps you could suggest a better way of accounting for these known biases than those currently used by the world’s many and diverse global temperature data producers?”

        e.g. Ship intake bias used to adjust the more accurate buoy sea surface temps.

        The real world displays adjustments all of the time. Clearly labeled, fully documented and explained.

        The normal world does not adjust data without telling the full and complete truth. In fact, in most business lines, to adjust data and then present it as unadjusted data without a full complete explanation is cause for legal investigation.

        Framed another way, politicians and businesses are putting trillions of dollars on the line, based on adjusted temperature graphs.
        Without full and complete disclosure regarding what, when and why temperatures are adjusted.

        Yes, this includes all of the individual stations.
        Every temperature adjustment at a station level is an admission of error and should be represented by larger error bars.

        Station moves should be represented by each station! not adjusted or jury rigged joined temperature lines.
        Time of observation bias I san error rate.
        Ship intake bias is an error rate.
        Urban Heat Island effect must be thoroughly checked for each an every station. Satellites tracking lights is a sham.
        on and on and on.

        NOAA/GISS treat mounted thermometers as being as accurate as laboratory thermometers.
        They’re not, nor can they be ever that accurate.

        NOAA/GISS filling in missing temperatures using temperature data from stations up to 1200km away is fantasy land.
        Any temperature record that has “filled in” temperatures should have the addendum “Lots of made up temperatures added!”.

      • DWR54 writes

        Is the fact that, as of 2016, surface observations are now higher than the projected multi-model average on an annual scale not a convincing argument?

        It peaked high because of weather. El Nino, specifically. You need to look at the rate of warming to understand whether the models are agreeing with reality or not. And they’re not.

      • Not really. There are three independent data sets that can be manipulated to produce something which might resemble a “global average temperature”; though what relevance that number has to net radiative energy balance is unclear. Balloons provide direct temperature measurements of the atmosphere through which they pass. Satellites provide a reading of the temperature of the surfaces which they survey. The third, longer, data set should really be divided into two parts: one composed of remote and rural surface temperature measurements, and the second from measuring stations that have experienced direct human-induced environmental changes over the record..(I’m told that these two sets can exhibit different trends.)

        If the trends produced by all four data sets independently are in reasonable agreement, AND if all four trends lie reasonably close to the trend of the models, THEN you would have a convincing argument.

      • Yes, and 2010 and 2011 were both La Nina years. You can’t count just the natural warming events and exclude the natural cooling ones. It’s inconsistent.

        But you opened up suggesting 2015 peak suggested models were correct. So, in fact, you already know the answer to your own “if not, why not” false question.

      • In the early 1980s, The UK Met went out all over the world and at various seasons to test what the bucket method used prior to 1940, actually measured versus the actual sea surface temperature. It turned out that the water in the buckets cooled off by 0.2C and more by the time they were brought aboard

        Really, that’s the first time I’ve seen that claim. What the Met Office did was heat loss modelling and wind-tunnel testing.

        The papers produced then claimed to have “validated” the results by taking data from just TWO geographic locations. One, an island somewhere in the Pacific where results which did not agree so well were carefully preselected out; and another based on japanese fishing boats which … were using canvas buckets !! Apparently japanese buckets don’t produce bias like white-man buckets and so this validated the Hadley adjustments.

        Another test was comparisons of a couple of coastal met. stations in the UK, where a model was used to verify its own output in an ingenious bit of circular logic.

        Another part of the adjustments involves selectively “correcting” written records of whether readings were engine room or buckets if they decided there was more than the “correct” statistical proportion in a given area of ocean. Apparently seamen can’t tell the inside of a ship from the outside or were lying and the written record does not count.

        There certainly will be biases due to different measuring methods but frankly, the claims that these adjustments have been validated is farcical

      • Bill:
        I know hand-waving is the order of the day here … but in the real world, it doesn’t wash.
        So QED my friend, on your lack of substance.

      • It turned out that the water in the buckets cooled off by 0.2C and more by the time they were brought aboard

        How odd. Nearly everywhere I have been except for north Atlantic in winter, the sea is colder than the ambient air temperature.

        So why are buckets from the tropics and the cold current areas not having 0.2C subtracted from them, in the past…?

      • DWR54, Should those adjustments be in the public domain? Should they be replicable? BoM apparently uses world’s best practise, yet it can’t be replicated because it needs a modicum of “expert judgment”.
        If it can’t be replicated it can’t be science.

      • I have a version of the US Monthly Temperature saved from 2002.

        (The NCDC has been extremely thorough in scraping every old version of it off the internet – why would they do that). These are the 1200 USHCN stations which supposedly have not changed and it is reported in absolute degrees F so I don’t know why they would go back and reduce all the old recorded temperatures.

        So, here I am using a 12 month trailing average because US Temperatures are extremely variable and it is not quite like the global average. You need a moving average but NOT a 5 year one (like all the ones above from Zeke Hausfather from Berkeley Earth) which just hides all the important information which Zeke is an expert in.

        1934, and 1998-2000 were the warmest periods. I don’t know if the new version where 2012 and 2016 are also high are comparable.

      • TA:

        Please note the date on your quote…

        “Whither U.S. Climate?
        By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999”

        This is what happened since…..

      • For the very simplest of reasons. The ” surface observations ” which you refer to, fail to conform to the fundamental laws governing sampled data systems, so those “observations” do not even constitute real ” data “.

        They are simply aliased noise, which is why the planet itself simply ignores those models.

        Think Yamal Christmas tree, and you will understand why the GCMs don’t work.

        G

      • “””””….. Guest essay by Eric Worrall

        Scott Adams, author of the famous Dilbert Cartoon, has challenged readers to find a qualified scientist who thinks climate models do a good job of predicting the future. …..”””””

        Excuse me; please sir; but wouldn’t a change like a station move ONLY affect any future calibration and not any of what has already been measured.

        So why did they do “adjustments” ie fakery, to the recorded records of the past when those stations were already unmoved ??

        Please explain how a station move changes what it has already recorded.

        G

      • I found another chart Zeke Hausfather prepared on a monthly basis this time which he of course did not share with his followers. (I assume you can recognize the style – it in about 10 charts on this page).

        No Lower Troposphere in this chart however where you can see the 1998 super-El-Nino (almost completely adjusted out now by the alarmist “official data collectors”.

      • No, but get back to me when 4C/100y of warming shows up on the satellite datasets and then I’ll pay attention. Terrestrial, adjusted, UHId, Obamad, thermometer datasets aren’t worth the hard disks they’re stored on.

    • Michael Hart — do you have a source for this information? I would like to read it. In particular, I’m interested in the starting point for those predictions.

    • “You can’t count just the natural warming events and exclude the natural cooling ones.”

      Nobody has done that.

      • What is absurd is that the author of that post choose to use the peak of the recent large El Nino for his ” proof” of warming!

    • The fact that the models vary so much among them in their projections is evidence that none are any good except for a lucky chance. Where is all this scientific consensus?

      • Richard:
        A philosophical way of describing the variation in the conclusion of the argument that is made by a climatological model is to state this model “equivocates” about the conclusion of this argument. Though an equivocation looks like a syllogism it isn’t one. Thus, though it is logically proper to draw a conclusion from a syllogism it is logically improper to draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw such a conclusion is the “equivocation fallacy.”

        The conclusion that humans suffer from the malady called “anthropogenic global warming” draws a conclusion from the equivocation just described. Thus, in reaching this conclusion climatologists apply the equivocation fallacy. Though abysmal scientists, global warming climatologists are first rate equivocators!

    • michael hart
      December 29, 2016 at 2:14 pm

      I’m not sure what he will achieve, directly.

      Then you need to read Adams’ blog post from the link above – “The Illusion of Knowledge”. He makes some very telling points that address this (though, admittedly, rather obliquely). The punchline though, is the tweet he posts at the end. One of his readers saw through the illusion when he said “It suddenly dawned on me that you’re watching laymen discuss science as a study in persuasin (sic). Well played.”

    • read harder.

      It was actually funny, when folks did ANSWER HIS CHALLENGE,, he ran away and changed the topic

    • I believe what he’s trying to do, or at least I hope he is, is to deconstruct the scaffolding supporting the AGW theory. By yanking one premise at a time out of it and holding it up to the world for examination and discussion, he can highlight just how much of it is based on guesses, inaccuracies, faulty logic, and how much actually supports the argument.

      Computer models are constantly referred to as if they are strong supportive evidence in the AGW construct. Demonstrating that not one actual expert in climate science will state unequivocally that they are accurate or credible is to yank a key plank out of that side and show how rotted and weak it is.

      The man is a critical thinker. He’s using critical thinking skills to examine an issue in broad daylight. And in doing so, it’s also easy to examine the way posters respond for evidence that they are also critical thinkers. Or not.

    • heh- it’s really quite obvious what he achieves.
      he achieves 2000 comments per article on his blog which equals 2000 potential customers.
      whoever ends up with the money won.
      that’s not just marin county rules…lol

  2. Well, to be credible it doesn’t have to be true. I bet that there are plenty of ‘scientists’ that will look in your eyes and swear that they are credible and not even blink.

      • Everybody should take the time to read Mike Jonas’ excellent dissection of the models in his 4 part series “The mathematics of Carbon dioxide” that was posted earlier on this site. In it, Mike, who holds a masters degree in mathematics from Oxford, replicated the models using the same Arrhenius equation, termperature sensitivity and the Stefan-Boltzmann law to “predict” future temperature anomalies year by year, coming up with the same “consensus” figures as the ones accepted by the IPCC going forward. Then he applied the these same equations in an attempt to hindcast temperatures based on CO2 levels in past geologic eras and found that CO2 was not a significant predictor of temperatures at all. At most, it could account for about 10% of temperature variability. Case closed.
        If Mike was in error, I would certainly appreciate it if somebody could explain it to me. The mathematics looks fine to me.

    • Adams:

      [C]hallenge is to find a working scientist or PhD in some climate-related field who will agree with the idea that the climate science models do a good job of predicting the future.

      Roman:

      I bet that there are plenty of ‘scientists’ that will look in your eyes and swear that they are credible and not even blink.

      Well Al ‘the inventor of the Internet’ Gore would do that. But I’m certain Scott Adams will have a freakingly short list of eminent scientists that will make that mistake.

      Or rather, no eminent scientist will acknowledge hearing of Adams’ challenge. They would blink when they’d say it, so they rather shut up. And for that reason, the usual suspects like John Cook will be unable to find suitable scientists for the troll army. So DRW54 and friends won’t deliver a scientist you’d recognize.

      Because a troll army it is. Just read Izuru’s verbatim message copies from SS website. They have been making a war, they got funding, they have the motivation, they collected blacklists of their enemies. They think we’re conspired to attack them with oil money. I’m pretty certain they don’t realise they don’t only have much, much more money, they also have much more oil money.

    • Actually Adam, I think they’d stare earnestly into my eyes and I wouldn’t hear a word they say. I’d be thinking “I really don’t know if this guy’s conclusions are is believable or not. So many questions….”

  3. The noisy chart in the lead post shows what, exactly? Models versus ‘Tropical mid-troposphere’ temperatures ending in 2013?! It refers to “4 balloon data sets”. Which balloon data sets? How can we check these against more recent values?

    The IPCC reports don’t, as far as I can see, concern themselves much with model comparisons of models versus tropical mid-troposphere data. They concern themselves with models versus global (not just tropical) land and ocean surface temperatures. On both a monthly and running 12-month average scale these are performing pretty well. Less so on Bob Tisdale’s preferred 60-month running average scale, but catching up.

    Bear in mind that none of these models are expected to reproduce exactly the trajectory of observations. Rather, the expectation is that, form the start of the forecast period (Jan 2006, I think) observations should remain inside the 5-95% multi model range for at least 90% of the projected period. So far they have done this; so they have already proved themselves ‘useful’.

    You don’t need to be a scientist to point this fact out.

      • As far as I remember, the CMIP5 models projected period runs from Jan 2006. The rest is ‘hind-cast’. The IPCC uses annual data to validate model forecasts. On an annual basis, observations are now running slightly above the multi-model average set for 2016.

        How can anyone say with a straight face that this is a failure of the models?

      • Sunsettommy

        “The model runs are worthless since they are not falsifiable as they run to year 2100.”
        ___________

        The models form a projected ‘range’ of possible outcomes, all of which assume a temperature increase over time. If observations fall below the lower 5% of that range for more than 10% of the period between 2006 and 2100 then yes, the models have failed. They were outside the lower end of that range briefly a few years ago. Now they are well inside that range; in fact, currently warmer than the model average on an annual scale.

      • DWR54, you have a very different eyesight. Looking at the graph, do you see observations inside the 5-95% multi model range from 2006 on? Outside would be the word.

      • “DWR54, you have a very different eyesight. Looking at the graph”
        No, I think he’s looking at a different graph. The one shown here is of the tropical troposphere, a rather unusual (cherry-picked?) entity, for which we don’t have very good observations. When you look at a plot of surface temperature, which is actually up to date, you get this:

      • Curious George

        I take it you are referring to the chart included in the top post: the one that stops in 2013 and only uses satellite data from the tropical mid troposphere, including ‘4 balloon data sets’, the source of which is undeclared?

        I was referring to the updated surface temperature data – the one used by the IPCC to assess model performance.

      • DWR54,writes this howler:

        “The models form a projected ‘range’ of possible outcomes, all of which assume a temperature increase over time. If observations fall below the lower 5% of that range for more than 10% of the period between 2006 and 2100 then yes, the models have failed. They were outside the lower end of that range briefly a few years ago. Now they are well inside that range; in fact, currently warmer than the model average on an annual scale.”

        Since by YOUR own admission that the models runs to year 2100,it is clearly untestable,unfalsifiable.it is junk science.

        Here is what the Scientific Method means for credible reproducible science research:

        It clearly fails here,

        “Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: Your experiment tests whether your prediction is accurate and thus your hypothesis is supported or not. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. You conduct a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same.

        You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure that the first results weren’t just an accident.”

        http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

      • Models should be compared to the same data set used to calibrate them. (apples to apples) So, they cannot be compared to HadCRUT4.5 temperatures or any HadCRUT4.x temperatures for that matter, since that data set was not available in 2010.

        But is is even sillier to think that the mean of a multi-model assemble has any scientific meaning. Especially with such big differences in the values for climate sensitivity. In some cases one model can use a value twice as large as others.

      • Actual numbers using the baselines that were used at the time that the forecasts were made is above. See my chart above.

        Nice try Nick Stokes. Smoothing the data should only be done when the annual seasonality is not accounted for properly as in most climate model forecasts.

      • @Sunsettommy
        “Since by YOUR own admission that the models runs to year 2100,it is clearly untestable,unfalsifiable.it is junk science.”
        That’s absurd. On that basis no-one could ever make any kind of projection about anything. What do you think about people who predict eclipses? Or even weather?

        @Uredarra
        “Models should be compared to the same data set used to calibrate them”
        The usual uninformed stuff about models being “calibrated” with surface data. See if you can find what data was used to “calibrate”.

        @Bill Illis
        “Actual numbers using the baselines that were used at the time that the forecasts were made is above. See my chart above.”
        So your plot uses 1961-90 and shows UAH and RSS. How does that work?
        In fact, the baseline makes no difference to relative positions; just slides the y-axis up and down. I use 1981-2010 there, the WMO recommendation.

        ” Smoothing the data should only be done”
        The plot displayed at top here uses 5-year smoothing. I use 1-year.

      • DWR54 December 29, 2016 at 2:49 pm- “If observations fall below the lower 5% of that range for more than 10% of the period between 2006 and 2100 then yes, the models have failed”
        DWR54 December 29, 2016 at 2:33 pm- “the CMIP5 models projected period runs from Jan 2006. The rest is ‘hind-cast’”
        What you are saying is that the models started 10 years ago from the (then) current temperature point, and because 10% of the period between 2006 and 2100 is 9.4 years, they would have to have fallen below the 5% threshold 0.6 years into the run to (currently) be considered “failures”. And you are using this slanted math to “prove” the models correct!!!
        Is it any wonder that the climate skeptics get get exasperated at your doublespeak?

      • Nick writes

        When you look at a plot of surface temperature, which is actually up to date, you get this:

        Look at the trends, Nick. Arguing a weather event validates the models is well beneath you (although to be fair its DWR54 who is doing most of that)

      • Notably, the global surface temperature caught up to the CMIP5 models for about a year due to warming by a 20-year-plus-class, almost-century-class El Nino that erupted from weaker El Nino conditions that were simmering starting in the second half of 2014. Before those El Nino conditions, global surface temperatures were falling behind the CMIP5 projections, especially the RCP 60 and 85 ones. (RCP 60 seems to me as the most realistic “representative concentration pathway” for manmade increase of greenhouse gases.) I expect the shortfall from forecast to resume and continue once we get through the current La Nina and a likely next one a year from now.

      • TTTM<
        “Look at the trends, Nick. Arguing a weather event validates the models is well beneath you”
        Yes, I showed the trends. Observed is about 70% of model mean, over this fairly short period. But arguing that some “weather events” should be excluded is tipping the scales. The diversions around 2008 and 2012, which are enthusiastically played up by Christy and all, were weather events.

      • Incredibly Nick writes this howler,quoting me then his silly reply:

        @Sunsettommy
        “Since by YOUR own admission that the models runs to year 2100,it is clearly untestable,unfalsifiable.it is junk science.”

        That’s absurd. On that basis no-one could ever make any kind of projection about anything. What do you think about people who predict eclipses? Or even weather?

        =====================
        Eclipses prediction are based on established orbital data,with several long established motion laws behind it,such as Kepler’s law,Issac Newton Law of Motion and more recently Einstein Gravity Theory.Short term weather forecasting accuracy drop off rapidly after 3 days,continually subject to revisions every 1-24 hours. This still happens after making organized forecasts for over 100 years,because the weather is a chaotic process.The point is that they adjust regularly as new additional data comes in. Your precious long into the future made up climate model guesses,doesn’t have that feature.

        When I said it isn’t testable,that is exactly what I mean,yet you completely dodged the implication of that statement with your silly reply that has nothing to do with those 100 plus models that have been cast in “stone” that has NEVER been shown to have ANY credible forecast history behind it. You can’t tell if it will work at all. You will long be dead when year 2100 comes around. Therefore it is JUNK SCIENCE.

        You might as well buy a Crystal Ball to make bald long into the future guesses,that have just as good a predictive value than your 90 years into the future unverified climate modeling scenarios does. With no actual long into the future real data to work with to meet the Scientific Method, it has no scientific value.

      • Nick Stokes
        December 29, 2016 at 4:17 pm

        @Uredarra
        “Models should be compared to the same data set used to calibrate them”
        The usual uninformed stuff about models being “calibrated” with surface data. See if you can find what data was used to “calibrate”.

        I was pointing out yet another rule of scientific method broken by “climate science” You cannot move your reference point (or your goal posts) in the middle of an experiment. It seems that climate scientists do it all the time. Is 1998 warmer than 2010?, No worries, we remove some surface stations, we add some others and voilá, now 2010 is warmer than 1998. We call it an update from HadCRUT3 to HadCRUT4 and problem solved.

        Who needs to calibrate the models when we can choose the temperature data set that fits our narrative, eh? And if there is not data set or our liking, we just “update” one.

        What version of HadCRUT4 are you using now?

        You have no shame.

      • Nick Stokes & DWR54,

        To best of my knowledge, the hypothesis of AGW – ACC is that atmospheric temperatures will rise with the increase of CO2/GHG’s.

        When did that hypothesis change from atmospheric temps to surface temps?

        Is there a peer-reviewed study of this change?

    • Let me help you out. The most recent version of Christy’s chart (without the IPCC confidence annotations,is in Congressional testimony from 2 Feb 2016, is current to that point, and the written testimony lists the four standard radiosonde data sets by name. Google fu will take you there in one click as it is on the official House Science and Technology Oversight committee website
      The 5-95 range is a fiction, as Briggs continually points out. And in fact as Steve Mc pointed out in a Jan 2016 post at Climate Audit that was the subject of a recent guest post here, temperatures have not stayed within that range.
      The models have a tropical troposphere hotspot that does not in fact exist. Christy et. al. have a long paper on this so sharp it drew a Santer paper response.
      The models have an ECS twice observed.
      The models run hot for a simple reason discussed in a previous guest models post last year here by myself. Attribution. AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2 makes clear that the warming from ~1920-1945, whichnis essentially indistinguishable from the warming ~1975-2000, was not mainly AGW. Not enough change in CO2 comcentration. It had to be mainly natural variation. Natural variation did not stop in 1975. Yet the CMIP5 ‘experimental protocol’ expressly had the unavoidable model parameterizations tuned to best hindcast from YE 2005 back to 1975. A fatal flaw explaining why they now run very hot.

      • Ristvan, you have not understood Stefan-Boltzmanns law. The warming 1975-2000 is different from 1920-1945 since it starts from a higher temperature, with at least 1.5W/m2 higher radiation to space. It is quite obvious that the latter period must get some extra push from AGW to overcome the larger radiation losses…

      • ristvan,
        “The models have an ECS twice observed.”
        ECS is equilibrium sensitivity. It cannot be observed until an equilibrium state is reached.

        “Natural variation did not stop in 1975.”
        And, unlike the earlier period, the 1975-2000 warming did not stop in 2000.

        “Yet the CMIP5 ‘experimental protocol’ expressly had the unavoidable model parameterizations tuned to best hindcast from YE 2005 back to 1975.”
        I see no basis for that. The protocol specified data initialisation in 1960, 1980 and 2005, for hindcast ensembles. Initialisation just means providing initial information, as always has to be done. It isn’t tuning.

      • Nick, has the equilibrium state ever been reached? Was it a glacial, or an interglacial, or both, or sometime else? How long before we reach it now?

      • OR, I do. Your argument fundamentally fails because SB is in K, and you are arguing a fraction of 1k at ~ 1/291. Nick, read the final 2012 peer reviewed version of the CMIP5 ‘experimental protocol’ by Taylor et. al. in BAMS D-11-00094.1. Study especially required run submission 1.2 of the protocol.
        Both responses suggest my comment was a rather powerful general refutation

      • “Ristvan, you have not understood Stefan-Boltzmanns law. The warming 1975-2000 is different from 1920-1945 since it starts from a higher temperature,”

        Looks to me like 1920-1945 warming is more than the warming from 1975-2000, if you go by a temperature chart that shows the REAL temperature profile for this era, like the chart below:

      • Nick Stokes: ““Natural variation did not stop in 1975.”
        And, unlike the earlier period, the 1975-2000 warming did not stop in 2000.”

        Warming surely slowed after a bump centered around 2004-2005. Especially if consideration is given to 2015 and especially 2016 being warmed by an El Nino with almost-century-class peak (slightly short of the 1997-1998 one by most and not all measures) and starting in the 2nd half of 2014.

        Also, I complain about surface temperature datasets that use an outlier sea surface temperature dataset (ERSSTv4) (both American ones lately) and ones that show more warming than an earlier version of HadCRUT4 – the lesser-known of two studies that I know of for modifying an earlier version of HadCRUT4 to include parts of the world not covered by earlier versions of HadCRUT4 used the ECMWF weather model to say that earlier versions of HadCRUT4 got the modern warming rate right, as opposed to choice of two interpolation/extrapolation methods whichever one showed more warming for each part of the world not covered by earlier versions of HadCRUT4 (Cowtan and Way). More recent versions of HadCRUT4 (4.4 and 4.5) had coverage expansion disproportionately towards parts of the world that were warming faster than the previously-HadCRUT4-covered majority of the world.

      • ristvan,
        “Study especially required run submission 1.2 of the protocol.
        Both responses suggest my comment was a rather powerful general refutation”

        Why can’t you just quote and cite properly. I really have no idea what you are referring to, and I can’t see anything that corresponds. I see these two figures:

        But all I see are initializations and experiments. I can’t see anything that says to tune so that some 30 year period matches.

      • The cat is once again out of the bag!! “Nick, has the equilibrium state ever been reached? …”
        Curious George December 29, 2016 at 5:17 pm

        All the climate models use Stefan-Boltzman, and other basic physics equations that are, as Nick says, equilibrium equations. They do not give accurate results when both the radiating body( usually a molecule of gas) and the surroundings(usually a tiny pocket of the atmosphere at roughly 1bar with a mean free path of 6.7×10^-6cm and a velocity of 5×10^5cm/sec) are both changing by the micro second. The constant has relatively little to do with the physics involved in calculating how fast an energy difference between molecules moves through the system.
        A practical example of why equilibrium equations aren’t useful in dynamic situations Take an airliner cruising at 550 knots at 35,000 ft. It’s flying about .85Mach, or about 15 knots below starting to break up from air turbulence and 5 knots over stall speed. Coming in for a landing it may approach at 150 knots with a stall speed of 130 knots. Airliners are almost always flying it near peak performance for the maximum economic return. While from start to finish the flight is never at equilibrium, but because of good engineering calculations the various manuals an operating procedures allow the pilots to fly with very predictable results.

        Would you want to fly in an airliner that had a 60% chance of landing safely at an airport within a 600 mile radius of the ideal destination?

      • Ristvan,

        You write ‘ It had to be mainly natural variation.’

        That does not necessarily follow. Mankind does more than simply burn fossil fuels, and there are other technologies which could be of global reach.

        1. Nitrogen fixation. The Haber process means we fix as much nitrogen as Nature does. This will inevitably alter the planetary ecosystem.

        2. Large scale agriculture.

        3. Pollution

        4. Alteration of the ocean surface.

        I know that the IPCC only looks for the obvious. Have they also looked at, quantified and discarded these other effects?

        Here are some possible scenarios:

        2 leads to large dissolved silica run-off which prolongs the spring diatom bloom. Calcareous plankton bloom later. The combined result is less CO2 pulldown with a larger C13 proportion. Less DMS is produced. Fewer phytos means lower albedo. etc.

        3 What is general pollution doing (black carbon on snow, ecosystem modification, anaerobic deeps)?

        4. Alter the ocean surface and you change everything. I can wax lyrical about oil and surfactant pollution, and produce handwavey explanations of the ’40’s blip. A tiny reduction in low level stratocumulus cloud can easily account for all the warming, Reduced aerosol production is a demonstrable effect of an oil polluted ocean surface which is smoothed and has fewer breaking waves.*

        Yes, you may well be right that the early 20th century warming is natural, but it’s as well to examine other explanations before assuming that. Maybe we need a team of devil’s advocates, proper scientists not political yes men, who don’t just accept the current explanation but advance alternative theories.

        JF
        *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2H418M3V6M
        https://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/peril_oil_pollution.html

    • DWR54

      That’s a spaghetti graph from the latest IPCC report you’re looking at, with an overlay of the most reliable Lower Troposphere data sets we have.

      In case you have a problem with the troposphere data sets, remind yourself that the IPCC CAGW/CACC crowd told us for a couple of decades that the canary-in-the-coalmine “fingerprint”, the very proof for the human driver in the warming, would be found in the Lower Troposphere temp data.

      That was of course gospel truth until around 2007-2008 when IPCC luminaries like Trenberth realized there had been no warming for a decade or so, and famously complained in one of the Climategate emails to Jones “it’s a travesty we don’t know why”.

      There are a lot of skeptics who like me have followed the pea moving under the thimbles – the current efforts to “adjust” the data to conform to the models is just the latest attempt to fool the credulous..

      As I wrote above, you’re either completely clueless or you’re a troll.

      • “That’s a spaghetti graph from the latest IPCC report you’re looking at, with an overlay of the most reliable Lower Troposphere data sets we have.”

        Reliable (most).
        None of it is “reliable”.
        It,s all be adjusted to hell.
        See my posts on the “Voguing” thread.
        And the one on here to boot.

    • How can we check these against more recent values?

      DRW54 is suddenly sceptical. Good.

      But to your question. That graphs visualize the fact model runs project a tropical hot spot, which does not exist. This is pretty much kills the theory of CO2 GHE seriously amplified by water vapour as programmed into the models in question.

      I’m still lukewarmer, I really believe CO2 does have an effect, but I seriously doubt the scare story built on amplification, which is really fast in geological scale, but still lagged so that we do not yet see as it is coming in 2035 (as Mannian story goes, the end is nigh and this generation will not be gone before it comes – but I’ll manage to retire before it comes).

      I really hope Trump sets up a gambite to NOAA. Yeah, you’ll get the money to investigate climate and reasons for climate change, how much you ever want to ask – but, if your projection or past temperatures will be too much off, you’ll pay all the money back and an interest to it. That is, NOAA gets kind of market money for climate change investigation. They can keep it, if their projection becomes true, without cooling the past.

      Then we’d see how much belief they really have.

    • DWR54, You do know that AR5 in Table9.5 of Chapter9 points out the feedbacks they consider for the models? See how many say n/a, see how some feedbacks vary by a factor of 4 and 5. They are simply not credible.

  4. Interesting how “Climate Science” has become a battle between two cartoonists:

    . . .”I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist” – John Cook, Skeptical Science

      • “Excluded from models – man caused mandate only.”

        Not true.
        Both those things account for around 100 W/m2 of energy transported from the surface.
        If that wer not accounted for the result would be *b****ks* PDQ.

  5. There should be a restriction: the model must have input only to the date of the prediction.
    Then the subsequent readings should be compared only to the original prediction.
    The 97% figure has long been shown to be a fabrication.
    If the models worked, w,e would have 365 day weather predictions. We can’t get close to 7 day accuracy.
    The fact of the matter is that there are just too many input constants. And the butterfly effect always seems to intervene. I have tried to cost out providing sufficiently many recording stations over the entire earth, situated closely enough together to account for the weather cells. It would cost trillions.

  6. The Simplistic Approach is to ask if ANY model has successfully taken 50 or 100 years of unbiased and unadjusted past Climate data and produced current conditions. If any have, then maybe the could be considered a good predictor of future conditions. Unfortunately for the Climate Modelers, none have. With all the computer power available, accurate weather predictions for LOCAL 5 day forecasts have been dismal at best and often same day forecasts fizzle out as well. And Climate Modelers claim accuracy 10, 25, or even 50 years in the future? For the Entire Global Climate? I have some Beachfront Property in Arizona to sell such fools!

  7. Well, the fact that there are more than one climate model, with very different values for parameters such as climate sensitivity, implies that at least n-1 models are wrong.

    Think about gravitation. Can you have 2 gravitational models?, If you use a value for Earth´s gravity = 15.3 m/s2 in the first model and a value of 23.8 m/s2 in the second, one thing is for sure, one of them has to be wrong, and, in this case, both are wrong because none of them uses the right value for Earth´s gravity.

    The IPCC describes not two, but 32 or so different climate models. Models that differ in the values of the parameters they use. It is obvious that the value for climate sensitivity can only be one, and the models that do not use the correct value are wrong. So, the question(s) is(are): Have we got the correct climate model? And if we have it, which one is it? But that cannot be answered if we do not have an empirical measurement for climate sensitivity.

    • The models are not designed to predict “the” climate. Each time they are run they produce the characteristics of a “possible” climate. It may happen by chance that one particular set of inputs results in something that closely resembles what the actual climate has done. But they are trying to model a chaotic system. We do not know, and cannot measure what the actual correct starting conditions and parameters are. Even if we had them(temperature, pressure, wind speed, specific humidity, radiation, etc.) each run would be different because there are always minute errors between runs that propagate into different results.

      What you can show is that the imaginary climate will have a range of results within certain limits- the Lorenz attractor. There is some physical evidence that this result is somewhat true. The paleorecord show that the earth has been in an ice age for the last 2 or so million years, with warming periods of 10-20,000 years where the glaciers abruptly melt, and the temperatures gradually rise within a range of ~15degC

      The question no one can answer is whether or not a few gigatons of carbon dioxide over 300 years is enough to throw the climate out of the current pattern and into another one. There are geological records that show the climate has been changed by huge, long lasting eruptions, plate tectonics, and meteor strikes, but it’s always remained within a fairly narrow temperature range since life began on earth.

    • They’re doing what scientists do … investigating the hell out of it.

      Actually trying to learn from what the models come up with.
      That’s what models are for, a learning tool, with improvements being made from what is learnt and new science pinning things down with newer/better observations.
      The main aim is to quantify natural variation.
      Unfortunately that will prove very difficult, with the ensemble technique smoothing out NV as the forecasting of (say) PDO/ENSO not yet possible. They get averaged out via the differences the runs have in the start/end of such.
      That is why he *pause* was not signalled (along with overly projected forcings).

      GCM runs made where the PDO/ENSO regime coinincided with reality proved the science was correct.
      An example of learning from the models.

      http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAzOC9uY2xpbWF0ZTIzMTA=/risbey2014.pdf

      • Toneb what is the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of atmospheric air? You couldn’t answer that question a year or so ago, you can’t now.

        The models. You can’t name the law of thermodynamics the models better have in them, or else they’re falsified by not using the correct mathematics to solve for temperature of air.

        What is the name,
        of the law of thermodynamics,
        for solving the temperature of compressible fluids- gases, and vapors, atmospheric mix?

        Don’t claim there are many because a school child knows that, which one is the right one?

    • My premise exactly.
      114 models of which none agree with any other model means 113 MUST be wrong and only one MAY be right.

      • If even one of those many models was even remotely close to being correct the rest of them simply would not exist.

        The highest probability case is that NONE of them are even close to being correct models of earth’s climate.

        For one thing earth rotates about once in 24 hours. As a result NO point on the earth surface, ever reaches the thermodynamic equilibrium Temperature corresponding to the incident TSI of circa 1362 W/m^2 (annual orbital mean value). The sun always sets before the equilibrium temperature is reached. If it didn’t we would all fry big time.

        G

  8. I am an aeronautical engineer, and I challenge just one “scientist” to prove to me that bumblebees can fly against all the known laws of aerodynamics. Note the use of the word KNOWN. I’m the first to admit that if I knew half of what I thought I did,I would blow Mensa off the map.

    • Actually, how they can fly was figured out a wile back, according to an article I read. They rotate their wings on the backstroke. Wikipedia probably has it covered.

  9. You should make sure that any climate scientist who says, with a straight face, that the models are good enough, puts his actual name to it so that we can identify him or her. No skating in the shadows here.

  10. From my experience, the argument is always that of a high school bully: “97% scientists agree that 2+2=4, therefore you will now give me your lunch money”.

  11. I assume that 97% figure comes from the completely unscientific and stupidly designed “study” that Cook’s undergraduates did , which involved reading thru articles published in science journals and devining what the author of the study believed about the cause of global warming, if he stated any opiion or said something that they construed to be an opinion about same. The first problem we have in looking at this study’s strategy is that any opinions are liable to be quite old and before the pause in global warming, and therefore invalid. The second problem is the subjective manner in which they determined author’s opinion. No serious researcher would never have approached the issue in this manner. They would have, instead, contacted their sample of scientists and simply asked them the pertinent questions in order to determine EXACTLY what they believed about global warming. And upon what they based their opinion. As I recall, that 97% figure didn’t represent a specific opinion, but simply ws the number of scientists who believed that humans were the source of SOME global warming. That would include just about everyone, skeptics included. Of course, the question to be answered is actually quite simple – what is the Earth’s sensitivity to CO2 levels in the atmosphere, assuming the question actually makes sense to ask. THAT is what we want to know.

    • Naah, the first examples of “the 97%” came from “I’ll check with the guys on my mailing list and see if they agree with me on global warming.”

      After that fell through, they went with “we’ll ask all of the people who attend the Global Warming conference this week how they feel, and include the non-scientist attendees, too.”

      Later, they settled on “we’ll list a thousand or more studies, and pretend that most of them confirm AGW theory, even though they include subjects like ‘when AGW happens, it will make life harder for women in Africa to get water from the local well.’*”

      *not an exaggeration

    • IIRC, there was a poll of several thousand scientists of some sort or another that was whittled down to 77 of which 75 agreed with some vague statement regarding human influence on climate. Oreskes ran with it, as I recall, and the rest is history.

  12. I would distinguish between predicting global average surface temperature and climate.

    Aspects external to the atmosphere ( volcanoes, solar variation ) are not predictable.
    Circulation variation within the atmosphere is not predictable.

    However, the tendency toward warming of the troposphere with additional CO2 is predictable.

    Unlike the GCMs, the model of AGW ( radiative forcing from increased GHGs ) is pretty simple and there is a high degree of confidence.

    Global warming is a hoax, but not of the principle of warming, but rather of the exaggeration of the extent, significance, and impacts of global warming.

    • References:

      Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10

      This popular balance graphic and assorted variations are based on a power flux, W/m^2. A W is not energy, but energy over time, i.e. 3.4 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. The 342 W/m^2 ISR is determined by spreading the average 1,368 W/m^2 solar irradiance/constant over the spherical ToA surface area. (1,368/4 =342) There is no consideration of the elliptical orbit (perihelion = 1,416 W/m^2 to aphelion = 1,323 W/m^2) or day or night or seasons or tropospheric thickness or energy diffusion due to oblique incidence, etc. This popular balance models the earth as a ball suspended in a hot fluid with heat/energy/power entering evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. This is not even close to how the real earth energy balance works. Everybody uses it. Everybody should know better.

      An example of a real heat balance based on Btu/h follows. Basically (Incoming Solar Radiation spread over the cross sectional area) = (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the lit side perpendicular to the spherical surface ToA) + (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the dark side perpendicular to spherical surface area ToA) The atmosphere is just a simple HVAC heat balance problem.

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7373

      “Technically, there is no absolute dividing line between the Earth’s atmosphere and space, but for scientists studying the balance of incoming and outgoing energy on the Earth, it is conceptually useful to think of the altitude at about 100 kilometers above the Earth as the “top of the atmosphere.” The top of the atmosphere is the bottom line of Earth’s energy budget, the Grand Central Station of radiation. It is the place where solar energy (mostly visible light) enters the Earth system and where both reflected light and invisible, thermal radiation from the Sun-warmed Earth exit. The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earth’s average temperature. The ability of greenhouses gases to change the balance by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about.”

      ToA is 100 km or 62 miles. It is 68 miles between Denver and Colorado Springs. That’s not just thin, that’s ludicrous thin.

      The GHE/GHG loop as shown on Trenberth Figure 10 is made up of three main components: upwelling of 396 W/m^2 which has two parts: 63 W/m^2 and 333 W/m^2 and downwelling of 333 W/m^2.

      The 396 W/m^2 is determined by inserting 16 C or 279K in the S-B BB equation. This result produces 55 W/m^2 of power flux more than ISR entering ToA, an obvious violation of conservation of energy created out of nothing. That should have been a warning.

      ISR of 341 W/m^2 enter ToA, 102 W/m^2 are reflected by the albedo, leaving a net 239 W/m^2 entering ToA. 78 W/m^2 are absorbed by the atmosphere leaving 161 W/m^2 for the surface. To maintain the energy balance and steady temperature 160 W/m^2 rises from the surface (0.9 residual in ground) as 17 W/m^2 convection, 80 W/m^2 latent and 63 W/m^2 LWIR (S-B BB 183 K, -90 C or emissivity = .16) = 160 W/m^2. All of the graphic’s power fluxes are now present and accounted for. The remaining 333 W/m^2 are the spontaneous creation of an inappropriate application of the S-B BB equation violating conservation of energy.

      But let’s press on.

      The 333 W/m^2 upwelling/downwelling constitutes a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop violating thermodynamics. There is no net energy left at the surface to warm the earth and there is no net energy left in the troposphere to impact radiative balance at ToA.

      The 333 W/m^2, 97% of ISR, upwells into the troposphere where it is allegedly absorbed/trapped/blocked by a miniscule 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s a significant heat load for such a tiny share of atmospheric molecules and they should all be hotter than two dollar pistols.

      Except they aren’t.

      The troposphere is cold, -40 C at 30,000 ft, 9 km, < -60 C at ToA. Depending on how one models the troposphere, average or layered from surface to ToA, the S-B BB equation for the tropospheric temperatures ranges from 150 to 250 W/m^2, a considerable, 45% to 75% of, shortfall from 333.

      (99% of the atmosphere is below 32 km where energy moves by convection/conduction/latent/radiation & where ideal S-B does not apply. Above 32 km the low molecular density does not allow for convection/conduction/latent and energy moves by S-B ideal radiation et. al.)

      But wait!

      The GHGs reradiate in all directions not just back to the surface. Say a statistical 33% makes it back to the surface that means 50 to 80 W/m^2. A longer way away from 333, 15% to 24% of.

      But wait!

      Because the troposphere is not ideal the S-B equation must consider emissivity. Nasif Nahle suggests CO2 emissivity could be around 0.1 or 5 to 8 W/m^2 re-radiated back to the surface. Light years from 333, 1.5% to 2.4% of.

      But wait!

      All of the above really doesn’t even matter since there is no net connection or influence between the 333 W/m^2 thermodynamically impossible loop and the radiative balance at ToA. Just erase this loop from the graphic and nothing else about the balance changes.

      BTW 7 of the 8 reanalyzed (i.e. water board the data till it gives up the right answer) data sets/models show more power flux leaving OLR than entering ASR ToA or atmospheric cooling. Trenberth was not happy.
      Obviously, those seven data sets/models have it completely wrong because there can’t possibly be any flaw in the GHE theory.

      The GHE greenhouse analogy not only doesn’t apply to the atmosphere, it doesn’t even apply to warming a real greenhouse. (“The Discovery of Global Warming” Spencer Weart) It’s the physical barrier of walls, glass, plastic that traps convective heat, not some kind of handwavium glassy transparent radiative thermal diode.

      The surface of the earth is warm for the same reason a heated house is warm in the winter: Q = U * A * dT, the energy flow/heat resisting blanket of the insulated walls. The composite thermal conductivity of that paper thin atmosphere, conduction, convection, latent, LWIR, resists the flow of energy, i.e. heat, from surface to ToA and that requires a temperature differential, 213 K ToA and 288 K surface = 75 C.
      The flow through a fluid heat exchanger requires a pressure drop. A voltage differential is needed to push current through a resistor. Same for the atmospheric blanket. A blanket works by Q = U * A * dT, not S-B BB. The atmosphere is just a basic HVAC system boundary analysis.

      Open for rebuttal. If you can explain how this GHG/CO2 upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation actually works be certain to copy Jennifer Marohasy as she has posted a challenge for such an explanation.

      • Nicholas:
        “an obvious violation of conservation of energy created out of nothing.”
        No it’s reuse of the energy within the climate system.
        It’s an insulation process.
        A restriction on heat escaping to space.
        It’s not instantaneous.
        SW absorbed to all intents and purposes, is.

        That is there is lag between the 240 SW absorbed and the 240 emitted at TOA.
        If you do that then the system will heat up to compensate.
        While the heat has *dawdled* in leaving MORE SW has entered the system.
        Warming it.

        From the S-B Law we find that 240 W/m2 gives us a radiating temp of 255K (-18C).

        But the Earth’s ave temp is 15C
        So what adds the extra 33C ?
        The GHE.

        Calculating the forcing required for the Earth’s surface temp of 288K (15C).

        288=4th root (Forcing/5.67 10^-8)

        (288)^4 = F/5.67 10^-8
        = 68.8 10^8 x 5.67 10^-8 = F = 390 W/m^2

        That’s ~150 W/m2 more than enters

        But hang-on …
        The energy diagrams show ~490 W/m2 impinging the surface, so there is actually an extra 250 W/m2 back-radiated by GHG’s, but 100 is lost from the surface by convection/LH release …. which brings us back to 390.

        The extra 250 W/m2 is required to raise it’s surface temp from -18C to 15C (with convective/LH losses).
        So we have an extra 150 W/m^2 back radiating to the surface to raise Earth’s temp to 15C or 288K.

        IOW: GHG’s more than double the EM energy warming the surface than that that the Sun alone would do.
        That is what makes the Earth habitable.

        Seen from space the Earth’s temp is 255K and NOT 288K.
        The 255K has been elevated to ~7km in the troposphere due GHG warming and the LR is set there to the surface in the relation -gcp to make Earth’s LR (which is then modified via local convection/baroclinic-uplift/subsidence).

        Take away the non-condensing GHG’s (by far the most important is CO2) and WV/H2O would precipitate out in it’s solid form (over NH high lat land initially), taking longer to get back into the atmosphere and setting up a feed-back loop with increasing albedo > colder > less WV > colder etc.

        Lacis et al …..
        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html

        0.04% is CO2’s total atmospheric concentration. But 99% of it is transparent to LWIR.
        So it is 4% of GHG’s which has risen from 2.8% since pre-industrial
        (NB: actual W/m2 numbers vary a little depending on source)

      • “No it’s reuse of the energy within the climate system.”

        BUNK! You don’t “reuse” energy, that’s perpetual motion.

        “It’s an insulation process.”

        Q = U A dT!! Exactly my point!!

        “But the Earth’s ave temp is 15C
        So what adds the extra 33C ?
        The GHE.”

        Wrong, it’s Q = U A dT. Just like your house! And just like real greenhouse!

        “Calculating the forcing required for the Earth’s surface temp of 288K (15C).
        288=4th root (Forcing/5.67 10^-8)
        (288)^4 = F/5.67 10^-8
        = 68.8 10^8 x 5.67 10^-8 = F = 390 W/m^2
        That’s ~150 W/m2 more than enters”

        The above is totally BOGUS! You can’t apply S-B BB to the 15 C because IDEAL conditions don’t exist!

        “Seen from space the Earth’s temp is 255K and NOT 288K.”

        ToA 240 W/m^2 or S-B BB of 255 K. ToA measured is about -70 C or 203 K which yields an emissivity of about 0.4.

        “So it is 4% of GHG’s which has risen from 2.8% since pre-industrial”

        Atmospheric CO2 circa 1750 was about 1.3% of the total carbon cycle (278 ppmv). Circa 2011 about 1.8% (390 ppmv) an increase of 0.5%. Fossil fuel accounted for 0.34%. Too small to measure or allocate with confidence.

      • OK Nick:

        If you say so – then the worlds experts are
        a) incompetent
        b) perpetuating a fraud.
        c) know more than you.

        Try doing a “thought experiment” to alleviate your DK.
        What happens if more comes in than leaves a system??
        Venus perhaps?
        Or even a water tank that has an inlet flow a tad grater than the outlet?
        TatA my Sky-dragon slaying friend.

      • Sheesh Toneb, maybe you should take a step back and look at this argument from a bigger distance? Near as I can tell, neither of you think the models actually work. Nick tries to explain what he thinks is wrong with them, while you defend their structure all the while ignoring the important part, which is that they don’t work. Even if you win the battle, you lose the war and frankly the battle isn’t looking all that good.

        It’s sort of comical.

      • Well you seem to ignore the fact that because the real TSI (averaged) is 1362/6 W/m^2 and NOT 342, The surface below the solar point is heating towards a much higher equilibrium temperature than 255 or even 288 K, and some places it will routinely reach surface (solid) temperatures in excess of 333K; some surfaces even 363 K.

        Those ….. HOT ….. surfaces radiate at a very much higher rate than the 250 W/m^2 that Trenberth says the whole earth radiates at.

        So it is those really hot surfaces, usually also in very dry atmosphere places, where the principal COOLING of the earth occurs, during the hottest times of the day.

        Night time cooling and polar region cooling is a pitiful shadow of the real efficient radiating regions of the globe. Earths radiative cooling rate varies about 12:1 from the hottest dry summer deserts to the coldest Antarctic highlands winter nights. And could be doing all of that range somewhere simultaneously.
        G

    • You should watch the presentation by Pat Frank at the end of the OP. He lays out two really basic points that mean the models are completely useless either as a projection or as a prediction. The most important one is that every model contains systematic bias in the error. The error should be random, but instead shows strong linear correlations between models. That is, instead of some clear secular random noise, there errors are systematic. As Dr Frank lays it out, the only explanation would be an error in the physics of the models. He also makes the point that climate modelers as a class don’t distinguish between “accuracy” and “precision.”
      [https://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/Experimental%20Design/accuracyprecision.htm]

      Models can be highly precise while not being at all accurate. To mangle a metaphor, the models persistently yield very fine reproductions of sailing frigates (highly precise) but the desired outcome is a model of a ship-of-the-line (not at all accurate). The errors are consistent though, clustering tightly in a single class of sailing warship, and since the outcomes are consistently frigates, there is a clear bias in the modeling algorithm to that specific form.

  13. Me thinks Scott Adams has learnt much about the “Alarmed Ones” through his election experiences.
    The people who have attacked him over his POV, in recognizing Trumps skills, are the same who proclaim the new order of scientism.
    Definitely the beginning of end times for the Cult of Calamitous Climate.
    CAGW is one of those catch 22 items.
    Desperate to attract public attention and shape the narrative in the publics mind, the fools did things that cause attention to be focussed on themselves.
    The more attention people give the “Cause” the less credibility they grant it.
    Beautiful own goal.

    I especially loved the lament from one of the IPCC Team (TM),
    “The sceptics are obsessed with the evidence,refusing to move on..”.
    Or was that fixated on the quality of the evidence?
    Just another innocent example of shooting their own feet off.

    • About five years ago one of Adams’ Dilbert cartoons had Dogcart being snarky about the practicality of all supposed green power breakthroughs.

  14. The other elephant in this room is that the models produce absolute temperatures, not anomalies.

    In an atmosphere where absolute temperatures govern important changes (eg freezing and evaporation) the absolute temperatures the models run at are the critical measure, and they differ significantly across models. The range is 12.6C to 15.3C for the 1961-1990 mean temp base period with the actual being 14C – see IPCC AR5 WG1 Fig 9.8a. To put this in perspective this 2.7C difference high to low in the base period is similar to the range over all models over all RCPs shown for the 2060 projections for anomalies.

    Taking the anomalies conceals this variation across models in their output. The absolute temperatures are the actual model outputs.

    • “the absolute temperatures the models run at are the critical measure, and they differ significantly across models.”
      Yes, that’s true. But it’s not reassuring. It says that it doesn’t take much change in the way you model to make a big change in average global (absolute) temperature.

      And this mirrors behaviour of the Earth. Because the Milankovitch variations believed responsible for glacial periods are very small. It doesn’t take much to shift from current to glacial. The Earth can operate at both. Not so good for us.

      • Assuming of course the models accurately represent the behaviour of the earth, and of course the fact that they don’t accurately model historic absolute temps (even given significant levels of prior information) suggests they don’t.

        The variation in the different model outputs in absolute terms while there is some degree of convergence in the anomalies probably suggests over tuning with anomalies in mind – von Neumann’s elephant perhaps?

      • Nick, actually it is a really big deal because it means the modelled water phase changes are all wrong. Clouds, precipitation, WVF, latent heat of evaporation, the whole shebange is not right.

      • “while there is some degree of convergence in the anomalies probably suggests over tuning with anomalies in mind”
        No, it simply suggests that the workings of the climate aren’t that sensitive to the base level of absolute temperature. The anomalies, which describe how things change in the model, are much the same, regardless.

      • “Nick, actually it is a really big deal because it means the modelled water phase changes are all wrong.”
        It means that it is describing a moister etc climate than one running at lower abs T. But we knew it was different. The base T is higher. The question is whether it responds differently to forcings.

      • I think you will find that the range of absolute temperatures occurs because tuning the whole system is too resource hungry. The point though is we are agreed that GCMs don’t model a key emergent property, absolute temperatures, well.

        The second point is does it matter? Nick you are saying it doesn’t because anomalies are the key variable of policy interest, and by implication you are saying GCMs are reliable on that score. You are saying that regardless of the temperature of the globe (at least within some broad limits) in the face of the same forcing the same temperature change will occur. But feedbacks that depend on phase changes, for instance, will not be well modeled. Climate sensitivity changes with absolute temps.

        Apart from that it really calls into question any inferences about regional climates where local thresholds typically abound, and this is where much of the low rent climate science clusters.

        Sea ice collapse anyone? Pick your model.

      • HAS,
        “But feedbacks that depend on phase changes, for instance, will not be well modeled. Climate sensitivity changes with absolute temps.”
        I’m sure it would. But water vapor pressure, say, changes by about 7% per K at 15°C. On that basis, wv feedback might be out by 10-15%. Not nothing, but not disabling. Small on the scale of CS uncertainty.

      • “On that basis, wv feedback might be out by 10-15%. Not nothing, but not disabling. Small on the scale of CS uncertainty.”

        So we’ve agreed GCMs are poor in their ability to reproduce actual temperatures over the historic period (given the significance of the errors relative to any practical application of their output), but they can reproduce anomalies over that period more accurately (but still not particularly well), but this requires the range of models to have significant compensating errors in at least one critical process (wv feedback).

        You say “small on the scale of CS uncertainty”, I say significant enough alone not to offer these models for use in serious public policy.

      • It means that it is describing a moister etc climate than one running at lower abs T. But we knew it was different. The base T is higher. The question is whether it responds differently to forcings.

        No, I think the question is how much you can bias the result by choosing a wrong abs T.

      • NIck, sorry you don’t understand chaos theory and attractor states. You obviously need to spend a little time understanding these kind of systems. It isn’t the direct change that causes the shifts between glacial and interglacial, it is feedback. Hence comments like “It doesn’t take much to shift from current to glacial.” are just plain silly.

    • Climate modelers claim that subtracting the projected climate from the base climate removes the projection errors, leaving a physically reliable anomaly. There’s zero empirical support for the idea, but it’s prevalent.

      • A similar stance seems to dominate the attribution argument prevalent among modelers (shall we refer to them as “theoreticians” perhaps, and ourselves “empiricists”? It would revive and age old conflict and lend a certain missing dignity to the debate).

        The theoreticians often demonstrate the validity of the AGW hypothesis by noting that, although their model predictions (or “projections”, I don’t care) are unusabley bad, they get much worse when human released CO2 is removed as an input. So basically, they support their hypothesis by claiming a useless model becomes even more useless if human influences are removed.

        Brilliant. Compelling even. I’ve suggested they could test this attribution further by trying a third option; replacing CO2 increase with historic pork belly prices on the Chicago exchange. They might get an even better fit?

  15. A small thing perhaps. Just for clarification.
    After “He also tweeted this:” , you should put all of his tweet in quotes?
    The rules of written language don’t always work well when a video clip is (or maybe not?) part of the quote.

    Technology may claim to have given us “a whole new world” but it is still inhabited by the same old people with the same old faults and weaknesses and denseness.

    It’s not clear if he included the video clip or not. That’s all I’m pointing out.

  16. Hmm, so we’re discussing climate around 2100 and how close or not the models are…

    The campers paddling between flooded tents didn’t need to be told. Neither did the families huddling for shelter beside deserted beaches. But yesterday the [Met Office] weathermen officially admitted that their prediction of a ‘barbecue summer’ had been hopelessly wrong. And the bad news for millions of holidaymakers, many of whom had opted to stay in Britain on the strength of the optimistic forecast, is that after a soggy July, August will be no better.

    As the Met Office rather sheepishly announced that it had ‘revised’ its seasonal forecast, the tourism industry was asking how the experts got things so badly wrong.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202982/Met-Office-left-red-faced-Britains-forecast-barbecue-summer-turns-washout.html#ixzz4UGx3yqX3

    Predicting weather for the current year is more than error prone. The models are junk.

  17. Scientists never registered and voted on the AGW conjecture so consensus numbers are a matter of speculation. Science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some form of legislation. Scientific theroies are not validated through a voting process. Consensus does not change scientific conjecture into scientific fact.

    In part to provide evidence to support the AGW conjecture, the IPCC supported the development of a plethora of climate models. The large number of models is evidence that a lot of guess work was involved. Only one such modle can possible be correct. The large number of models have predicted a wide range of values for today’s global temperature but they do have one thing in comon, They have all been wrong and if they provide any evidence whatsoever it is that there is something wrong with the AGW conjecture. A major flaw in the IPCC supported climate simulations is that the idea that an increase in CO2 causes global warming is hard coded in and as such begs the question.

    Others have generated models that have done a better job of predicting today’s global temperatures and that do not include any CO2 based global warming. The best conclusion that one can come to based on the modeling excercises is that apparently the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans.

    Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. It is all a matter of science.

    It has been pointed our that the original calculations of the non-feedback climate effectrs of CO2 are too great by more than a factor of 20 because those calculations neglected the fact that a doubling of CO2 would cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect.. Then there is the issue of feedbacks. The AGW conjecture assumes that the H2O feedback is positive and amplifies the climate effects of CO2 but such ignores the fact that H2O, besides being the primary greenhouse gas, is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere. Part of the evidence is that wet lapse rate is significnatly less than the dry lapse rate which is a cooling effect. The H2O climate feedback has to be negative for the Earth’s climate to have been stable enough for life to evolve. Considering the modeling results, the factor of 20, and the negative feedback, the climate sensivity of CO2 must be a small number close to if not zero.

    In their first report, the IPCC published a wide range of possible values for the climate sensivity of CO2. Only one value can be the correct value. In their last report the IPCC publaihed the exact same range of values. So apparently after more than two decades of effort. the IPCC has learned nothing that would allow them to refine their range of guesses one iota. Clearly the IPCC does not want to consider a value less than their original range of guestamates for fear of loosing their funding.

    According to the AGW conjecture, so called called greenhouse gases, gases with LWIR absorption bands, act in the Earth’s atmosphere as a radiant greenhouse effect causing the Earth’s surface to be on average 33 degrees C warmer then it would be without an atmosphere. More CO2, a greenhouse gas, hence causes an enhanced radiant greenhouse effect which results in global waming. But a real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of LWIR absorbing gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. The mechanism is a convective greenhouse effect. There is no radiant greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm. So too on Earth. As derived from first principals, gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere act together to provide a convective greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. It is gravity that limits cooling by convection. The convective greenhouse effect accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room left for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, on Earth, on Venus, or anywhere in the solar system. A radiant greenhouse effect that the AGW conjecture depends upon just does not exist. Without a real radiant greenhouse effect, the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction. It is all a matter of science

  18. Dilbert is based on mocking: corporate BS and toeing the party line no matter how ridiculous and illogical it may be.

    Adams knows BS when he smells it. That’s what he sees in Climate Science.

  19. Re the Christy/Spencer graph:

    Just to see if we’re comparing apples with apples and also a product that is still supported.
    I assume that one sat products iis UAH?
    If so which version is plotted? (we are on V6(beta5) currently).
    And the other RSS?
    If so is it V3.3 or V4.0 and is it TLT or TTT (TLT is no longer supported in V4 due to sat “drift issues”).

    Oh, and a properly constructed graph should have a plot of uncertainties. What are the underlying structural uncertainties for the sat products?

    This is the graph you want ….

    And this is how far out of whack UAH in particular is compared to every other data series including radiosondes….

    • Tones,

      In your first chart, the CMIP5 climate model forecast for today is at about 0.8C so please fix your graph and use the same baseline for temperatures next time.

      Consequently, the second chart is probably made up of different baselines etc

      Nice try, but someone is misleading you with these charts if you are getting them from somewhere else. That is the problem in this climate science field. People don’t give a crap about accuracy.

      • Bill Illis, No clueless BS please…
        The second chart is certainly not made up, it is fully reproducible. I just use the old Christy trick to let the trendlines go through a common point in the beginning ( a trick that has been approved by the Great Audit himself, Mr SM).
        With the following link you can get the latest update of the maintained chart:
        https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewaYUdhcjdFOFJ3ZTA

        Regarding model-observation comparisons of surface temps, they should be done “apples to apples”, with the same blend of SST and land SAT. Here is my contribution:
        https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewaVEhJdWVpc0ozVmM

      • Bill Illis, everything I post is of course freely available…

        And who are You? A guy that posts dishonest comparison of the sort “find five errors” Try to do it better..
        Don’t compare monthly data with annual or 12 month running mean.
        Don’t compare spatially incomplete observations with spatially complete model data
        Don’t compare SST/SAT blended observations with model SAT
        Don’t compare TLT data with model SAT
        Don’t use RSS TLT 3.3 and pretend that it is ok, when it is no longer endorsed by RSS due to drift issues.

        If you do everything right, you will find that models and observations agree pretty well in all areas except in the stratosphere, where real world cool much faster than models.
        “Upper air specialists” like Spencer and Christy should know this, but they choose to decieve people by mixing stratosphere and troposphere in TLT or TMT layers, and claim that the troposphere isn’t warming as fast as models..

        A comparison in the free troposphere looks like this:
        https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewaUFFwWkZHYmo3b0E

      • “Upper air specialists” like Spencer and Christy should know this, but they choose to decieve people by mixing stratosphere and troposphere in TLT or TMT layers, and claim that the troposphere isn’t warming as fast as models..

        This is what you claim, and this becomes to a question do I believe you and think Spencer deceives people by claiming TLT and using stratospheric temps, or do I believe in Spencer’s integrity. Now, that question is not really a hard one.

        As Dan Kahan has noticed, people are dropping into two categories, and people like you are enhancing that polarization. You come here to tell how Spencer deceives – no, that won’t work here. It works at SS where you came from, but not here. Here you could represent data on how the satellite (and balloon….) TLT is biased by stratospheric cooling. You cannot do that because your audience couldn’t tell a tent from a nabla. Really don’t you believe this? You could also try to publish in a journal (if you are a scientist), but as Spencer says, he does not simply have time to publish to refute all the crap people sling on him. So we’re left in a situation where no true journal discussion exists on the matter.

      • “In your first chart, the CMIP5 climate model forecast for today is at about 0.8C so please fix your graph and use the same baseline for temperatures next time.”

        No because the graph says 2016 (est).
        2016 is not yet up.
        Or hadn’t you noticed?

        “Consequently, the second chart is probably made up of different baselines etc”

        “probably”
        Oh, really.

        “Nice try, but someone is misleading you with these charts if you are getting them from somewhere else. That is the problem in this climate science field. People don’t give a crap about accuracy.”

        You’ll have to try harder my friend.

      • “or do I believe in Spencer’s integrity. Now, that question is not really a hard one.”

        You don’t get the bizarre logic in that, do you?

        That the single source of data that you find so lovely is just dandy …. because you “believe in Spencer’s integrity”.
        Yet at the same time you don’t believe (presumably) in the multiple sources that contradict UAH.
        Why?
        Now let me guess…
        Because they “are in government pay” (that would be the Exxon scientists, would it?) (sarc).
        They are committing a fraud on behalf of the IPCC to install a world socialist gubburmint perhaps?

        That you don’t twig that that statemnet is patently a function of your ideological bias is QED of course.

    • As noted above, show the absolute temps for the first graph, and for the second it isn’t clear why you have chosen start points and end points at different phases of the ENSO cycle.

  20. IPCC AR5 Text Box 9.2 essentially admits that the AOGCM models don’t work, e.g specifically missing the pause because 1) the climate is waaaayyyyy too complicated and 2) the CO2 feedback is set waaaayyyy too high. (Climate Change in 12 Minutes)

    TS.6 Key Uncertainties admits that many if not most of the multi-variables that feed into the models are just WAGs and SWAGs.

    So why is any of this even still an issue?

  21. I’ve posted the links to Dr Brown’s article here and at slashdot.org about it.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
    and
    https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5790561&cid=48073849

    So far just the standard “he’s not a climate scientist” type reply. This one made me laugh and then crack a beer:
    “So a random Dr with no specialisation whatsoever in the subject?”

    Because physics has nothing to do with climate science. ROTFLMAO.

      • I’ll quote some of RGB’s words directly from that article, to reinforce why the models suck, so suckily.

        Some of these [models] run absurdly hot, so hot that if you saw even the average model trajectory by itself you would ask why it is being included at all. Others as noted are dangerously close to a reality that — if proven — means that you lose your funding (and then, Walmart looms). So they average them together, and present the resulting line as if that is a “physics based” “projection” of the future climate. Because they keep the absurdly hot, they balance the nearly realistically cool and hide them under a safely rapidly warming “central estimate”, and get the double bonus that by forming the envelope of all of the models they can create a lower bound (and completely, utterly unfounded) “error estimate” that is barely large enough to reach the actual climate trajectory, so far.

        And that is as good a description as you can get, as how supporters of the models bastardize reality to bend it to their will.

  22. Scott, and WUWT readers, may be interested in a current project by British Antarctic Survey.
    Project started April 2014 and ends March 2017. Title.
    ‘Poles apart: why has Antarctic sea ice increased, and why can’t coupled climate models reproduce observations?’
    So they have a 3 year study to come up with a convoluted answer to why The Computer Model Toys do not match observations.( We are all aware of Richard Feynman and his comment about Beautiful theories versus Observations and which wins the contest when they are conflicted)
    Not that it be Newish News. They are just slow to catch up.
    Climate Models Fail at Antarctic Warming Predictions.
    Anthony Watts / May 7, 2008.
    Maybe British Antarctic Survey can just declare The Antarctic The Worlds Biggest Denier in the pay of Big Ice and Big Snow Company. (A recently evil purchase by the ever more Evil Koch Boys)
    That will be just as fanciful as the ‘answer’ that they finally go with.

    • …maybe he wants material for his next series of Dilbert. I’ve seen few strips that have made me laugh as much.

    • True. He is a tricky one. Maybe he is testing to see who actually uses the persuasion techniques he’s taught over the last year on his blog. Maybe he just picked climate because he knows he’ll get a lot of responses and reposts.
      Tricky tricky. Got to keep our eyes on him (and not just his gorgeous neighbor).

    • Perhaps he actually wants to find someone who believes these models are predictive.
      Despite the sparring and point scoring seen on this thread, that person has not raised the flag.

    • Possibly because there is a i ln e -ikx component at real stations. A sawtooth forcing caused by land use changes. Mosher who goes hot on adjustments has never explained why he thinks you can cut a real station series in two without a good reason. No, he has explained it does nothing, but that is not true.

  23. The one thing that destroys any veracity climate modeling might have is the fact that a 95% confidence limit on GCM models is plus/minus 15 degrees 100 years out.

    Need we go further?

  24. Folks, listen up.

    Scott has issued a challenge. So far all we have heard is the usual highly informed arguments about the details of the climate models. Scott’s election prediction was based on his understanding of the fundamental principles of how Trump and people in general, use information. The Demos spent their time spewing bureaucratic technobabble, while Trump said “Build a wall.” Scott is suggesting we use the fundamental principles of information in just the way Trump did.

    We used to say, “When you are up to your ass in alligators, it’s easy to forget the initial objective was to clear the swamp.” Scott is suggesting how to clear the swamp. First we have to deal with the alligators.

    Get some frozen chickens (or fresh, whatever, just not your neighbors), and a fishing pole. Dangle the chickens in front of the biggest alligators – The Gavin, The Trenbeth, etc. Lure them out of the swamp. The lesser alligators will flee in terror of becoming handbags. Then drain it. Scott is providing the chickens.

    Anyone who doesn’t endorse the climate models 100% is damning them with faint praise. Failure to respond means that they don’t endorse. Check that box and make it public.

    Funny enough, just a few days ago I published a blog article about how Scott and Dr. Adrian Bejan, an eminent expert on thermodynamics. had independently predicted the Trump win – both on basic principles, which in fact arise from the fundamental connection between physics and information, my current topic of research. Trigger alert: Geeky stuff, but may provide insight on how to proceed with the challenge.

    http://constructalinfonomics.org/infonomics-thermodynamics-and-trump/

    • “Scott has issued a challenge. “
      It’s a bizarre challenge, as tweeted. There is a whole chapter, 9, in the AR9 on assessment of models, with many eminent scientists as authors. It includes FAQ 9.1, which concludes:

      “So, yes, climate models are getting better, and we can demonstrate this with quantitative performance metrics based on historical observations. Although future climate projections cannot be directly evaluated, climate models are based, to a large extent, on verifiable physical principles and are able to reproduce many important aspects of past response to external forcing. In this way, they provide a scientifically sound preview of the climate response to different scenarios of anthropogenic forcing”

      Sounds like credible.

      • “climate models are based, to a large extent, on verifiable physical principles”. And to a small extent on a pure fantasy. For example, a modelled latent heat of water evaporation does not depend on temperature.

      • Quote: So today’s challenge is to find a working scientist or PhD in some climate-related field who will agree with the idea that the climate science models do a good job of predicting the future.

        Nick, and despite all of your contributions to this thread you are yet to come up with a name. You don’t even put your own name forward.

        As the great man once said, why is it so?

      • “you are yet to come up with a name.”
        Well, I may not be climate-relatd enough, else I’m in. But As I said, the authors of Chap 9 of the AR5 clearly do qualify. That would include Gregory Flato (Canada), Jochem Marotzke (Germany) as coordinating authors.

      • Sorry, Nick, that quote from FAQ 9.1 sounds like something my buzzphrase generator creates. I bet one could take the phrases individually and mangle them into another, seemingly, authoritative piece of BS.

      • Yep. Love the feedbacks in Table 9.5. And the difference in some of the feedbacks that actually have numbers. Factors 4 to 5.

  25. But the models estimate reality… in limited frames of reference in both time and space. The conflation of logical domains in modern science has lead people to the edge of the universe, beginning of time, and beyond.

  26. To Scott Adams: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing , the formula for Forcing is “delta F” = 5.35 ln(C/C0) . This means that if CO2 is doubled, C/C0 = 2 , and “delta F” = 5.35 ln2 = 3.7 W/m^2. This supposedly results in global warming of 3 degrees (3K); see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity . From 1850 to 2016, CO2 increased from 280 to 400 ppmv (see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html ). Thus if C/C0 = 400/280 , then “delta F” = 5.35 ln(400/280) = 1.9 W/m^2. This would correspond to 3K(1.9/3.7) = 1.54 K warming. The ACTUAL warming from 1850-2016 was 0.8 +/- 0.1 K (see the first page at http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/ ). This is only 0.8/1.54 = 0.52 , or only HALF of that predicted if the value of 3K were correct. When theory does not match experimental measurements, the theory is WRONG. It doesn’t matter how smart the theorist, or who the theorist is, or how many Nobel Prizes she has won. This simple scientific truth is stated in the first 60 seconds by physicist Richard Feynman at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw (if this link doesn’t work, Google “Feynman scientific method”). Because there has been a hiatus in overall warming for the last 18 years, and three El Nino events came and went during that time, a decades- or centuries-long lag (time constant) for warming is BS (there would be a slow temperature increase even if CO2 stopped increasing, if such a long time constant existed). Therefore doubling CO2 can at most result in only 1.5 K warming. Detailed calculations from infrared (IR) spectra obtained by satellites show that doubling CO2 produces only 0.6-0.7 K warming (including water vapor and cloud feedbacks), not the 1.5 K easily shown above to be the maximum, Thus it should be no surprise that all computer projections of future warming based on a climate sensitivity of 3K will be shown to be increasingly in error when compared with actual observations over time.

      • “Nick Stokes December 30, 2016 at 1:42 am

        Because heat is still flowing into the ocean sinks.”

        What heat from where? Don’t say atmosphere as you would be wrong.

      • “What heat from where? Don’t say atmosphere as you would be wrong.”

        From the imbalance observered at the TOA.
        The LWIR that is inhibiting the ocean surface from cooling as efficiently as it was.
        That is the effect LW has on the skin surface. It reduces the deltaT from depth by warming the skin and so reduces it’s heat flux through and into the atmosphere.

        Heat is entering the oceans.
        It.s not from the Sun (ask Leif).
        It is because of GHG’s.
        It can be nothing else.

        No it’s not clouds (again ask Leif about GCR’s)

      • For the umpteenth time: the sun heats the surface, the surface heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere does NOT heat the surface. It is virtually always at a lower temperature than the surface.

        CO2 absorbs but does not radiate. It’s emissivity is .002.

        “the effect LW has on the skin surface. It reduces the deltaT from depth by warming the skin”

        It would actually Increase the delta T from depth if it did warm the skin during the day, but this is not important. The surface is cooler than the ~50 micron profile of the skin itself due to evaporation and radiation. You have it backwards. Increasing the surface temperature will increase energy transfer out of the ocean to the fourth power for radiation and by some amount by evaporation as well.

        If you want to warm the ocean, you must cool the surface.

      • Toneb: “Heat is entering the oceans. It.s not from the Sun (ask Leif). It is because of GHG’s. It can be nothing else.”

        Or, it could be something else such as less upwelling cold water. The only studies that have looked into this found the energy was flowing upward. Of course, you are in denial of a very simple explanation because it doesn’t support your bias.

    • What heat from where? Don’t say atmosphere as you would be wrong.

      I don’t want to be rude, but heat, almost all energy entering the system, comes from the Sun, as you know. The flow can either go back to space, or it may be out of balance so that the two flows are unequal. If oceans sink energy, the system is retaining heat. The more oceans take heat in, the more they can also deliver it into the air. Of course, serious upwelling would temporarily cool ocean surface, and theoretically improve heat uptake, and the cool atmosphere, so the ocean balance may be positive and yet we have a cooling atmosphere.

      Now, it is fairly difficult to say how much the balance has ever been perfect, but really the ocean takes more heat in than out. And the proof? Sea levels are rising. They must be warming up because Greenland and Antarctica are not melting, at least not nearly enough.

      What I fear currently is that while sea level rise is not accelerated for real, the continuous rise will eventually put some Antarctic ice forward and that could be a big issue for humans.

  27. Wow!

    I would ask, “Does there exist a ‘climate scientist’?”

    Of course the Politicians and Religions will elevate their favored ‘Hercules’ of the moment with big $$$ but doing so is nothing but a beauty contest and does not answer the question.

    Ha ha

  28. (repeated from thread where above Adams article was cited in a comment)

    Note: “The basic science of CO2” is of such limited use outside a highly controlled laboratory setting as to make it USELESS for knowing anything about climate shifts on earth.

    (See, e.g., “Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast and Climate Models,” Dr. Christopher Essex — this deals with “the basic science of CO2,” as well as the failed models, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19q1i-wAUpY&t=4s )

    That is, BOTH the “basic science of CO2” and the unfit-for-purpose, failed, GCMs are worthless (vis a vis climate projections).

    (Source: me, here, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/28/an-example-of-squeaky-clean-climate-science/#comment-2384165 )

    • Repeated also is Alx’s excellent amplification of the above:

      The basic science of CO2” is of such limited use outside a highly controlled laboratory setting…

      Absolutely, it is astoundingly obvious and yet…here we are with people like you and others having to repeat the obvious over and over.

      There is no basic science of climate, we understand parts. But of the chaotic, dynamic eco-system called earth we have only scratched the surface as to the complex relationships and components involved. Climate science is like the blind-man who having felt the tail of an elephant concluded that elephants were remarkably similar to snakes since he had felt snakes “in the lab”.

      (Source: Alx, here, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/28/an-example-of-squeaky-clean-climate-science/#comment-2384822 )

  29. I have said this before.
    I don’t see why anything needs to be adjusted. We just want to know “is it getting hotter or colder” so we measure the difference. any bias is there anyway so what should come out is the difference.

    • lol — Thank you, Arild, for sharing that. You come up with some great things to share around here. :)

      • If you read Scott’s book, “How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big” you will recognize where this come from. He worked for a big phone company putting together budgets from different departments. Their spreadsheets were full of calculation errors, but he ignored them because the input numbers provided by the departments were total BS anyway. If anything, he says the errors may have helped smooth out the BS.

  30. I believe there is a prediction boundary– the Lyapunov time boundary–for any chaotic, dynamical system, which has been accepted and studied for over a hundred years. Why do we continuously beat a dead horse? I don’t think it matters how many known fluid dynamic equations, grid averages, or finite initial conditions we define for input into super computers—the output is still not reflective of the climate system. Maybe it would be better if we used the models to analyze the number of angels on the point of a needle.

  31. As per usual when those with vested interest in misinterpreting models post on this site, they compare mid-troposphere data to projected surface temperatures. Then they kvetch that the observed apples do not look like the projected oranges. In point of fact, the modellers know exactly what they are doing. And by any normal standard of science these projections have confirmed that the augment in mean surface temperature best fits the hypothesis that the greenhouse effect has been augmented by an increase in atmospheric CO2. But the point is moot. Currently in fact the vast majority of AGW sceptics admit that AGW is real – they merely argue that it is weak and/or beneficial. These “sceptics” are lukewarmers or GW-is-gooders. However, the majority of comments on this page appear to be by people who do not understand what they are saying. These commenters seem to be either slayers or conspiracy theorists.

    • By what “normal standard of science” is a model able to predict the effects of a perturbation hundreds of times smaller than its limit of resolution?

    • ‘So today’s challenge is to find a working scientist or PhD in some climate-related field who will agree with the idea that the climate science models do a good job of predicting the future.’

      Can you step up to this mark?

    • I suppose, Mr. White, you hope to fool people into thinking that the enormous gaps in the AGWer’s computer grid are no problem anymore…

      Computer analysis requires that the earth be ‘cut’ into small, separate areas (actually volumes), each being analysed for heat input/outputs and other gas/vapour fluxes. Even so the computational analysis domain size (basic computer grid elements) is huge, 150km x 150km by 1km high, with the current computer power. It is so large that the effects of even the very large clouds are not individually included; and that includes clouds in our visual horizon. The spatial resolution is therefore very poor. Supercomputers cannot give us the accuracy we need.

      (From Dr. Geoffrey G. Duffy Report linked and quoted here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/04/even-doubling-or-tripling-the-amount-of-co2-will-have-little-impact-on-temps/ )

      Also discussed in detail by Dr. Christopher Essex in his “6 Impossible Things” lecture video linked within this WUWT article:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/20/believing-in-six-impossible-things-before-breakfast-and-climate-models/

      Dr. Essex in the above lecture on physics equations not yet solved and computer math gross inadequacies for climate modeling {with approx. times in video}:

      {25:17} 1. Solving the closure problem. {i.e., the “basic physics” equations have not even been SOLVED yet, e.g., the flow of fluids equation “Navier-St0kes Equations” — we still can’t even figure out what the flow of water in a PIPE would be if there were any turbulence}

      {30:20} 2. a. Impossible Thing #2: Computers with infinite representation and math skill. {gross overestimation and far, far, misplaced confidence in the ability of computers to do math accurately (esp. over many iterations) — in this section he discusses the 100 km square gaps {specifically mentioned at about 46:00} (i.e., cell size) — e.g., to analyze air movement, the cell would need to be, per Komogorov microscale, 1mm (aerosols even smaller, microns)).

      At about 44:00, Dr. Essex discusses the fact that even IF the basic equations were known, there isn’t enough time since time began to calculate even just a TEN–year forecast, even at super-fast speeds it would take approx. 10 to the 20th power years (the universe is only 10 to the 10th power years old)}.

      **********************************************

      If all that was too complex, explain this, Mr. White:

      CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

      *******************************************

      Finally, people who “admit that AGW is real” have proven nothing.

      The projected heat is still MISSING.

      A “travesty,” per Kevin Trenberth.

      Heh.

    • The “hot spot” in the mid troposphere has yet to be observed.

      Thousands of radiosondes, and three decades of satellite measurements show unequivocally that there is no hot spot, not a hint, or glimmer, nothing within a standard deviation of what the catastrophic models expected. Watch Cook struggle against the vast weight of the empirical evidence. He “knows” the hot spot pattern is there even though the thermometers disagree… “Unfortunately, that elusive hot spot has been devilishly hard to measure.” …

      Either the models or the radiosondes are wrong. The radiosondes agree with the UAH satellite {data} …

      (Source: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/ )

      • Ross McKittrick made that point (about the mid-tropespheric hot spot) a decade ago. He even placed a bet on it (that it would not occur).

      • Janice Moore,

        Notice that Nick Stokes,DWR54 and others who are in deep love over unverifiable long into the future (Year 2100) 100 plus climate models with a large projected temperature spread,are completely silent on what you posted here,which is based on the recent past and current time frame?

        The CURRENTLY missing “hotspot” modeling guesses is a massive failure.

      • “are completely silent on what you posted here”
        There’s only so much nonsense that can be chased down, and a 2010 blogpost by JoNova rates pretty low. There is a whole lot of modern evidence that contradicts stuff like
        “Thousands of radiosondes, and three decades of satellite measurements show unequivocally that there is no hot spot, not a hint, or glimmer, nothing within a standard deviation of what the catastrophic models expected”
        in 2011, an extensive review paper concluded:
        “The state of the observational and model science has progressed considerably since 1990. The uncertainty of both models and observations is currently wide enough, and the agreement in trends close enough, to support a finding of no fundamental discrepancy between the observations and model esti mates throughout the tropospheric column.”

        Here is a 2013 paper:
        ” Using these approaches, it is shown that within observational uncertainty, the 5–95 percentile range of temperature trends from both coupled-ocean and atmosphere-only models are consistent with the analyzed observations at all but the upper most tropospheric level (150 hPa), and models with ultra-high horizontal resolution (≤ 0.5° × 0.5°) perform particularly well. Other than model resolution, it is hypothesized that this remaining discrepancy could be due to a poor representation of stratospheric ozone or remaining observational uncertainty.”

        And Sherwood et al did a more careful analysis of the radiosonde data here in 2015
        “First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface. “
        There was a review paper on the matter in 2011

        And Po-Chedley et al, 2014, on satellite data:
        “It is shown that bias corrections for diurnal drift based on a GCM produce tropical trends very similar to those from the observationally based correction, with a trend difference smaller than 0.02 K decade. Differences between various TMT datasets are explored further. Large differences in tropical TMT trends between this work and that of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) are attributed to differences in the treatment of the NOAA-9 target factor and the diurnal cycle correction.”

      • “The CURRENTLY missing “hotspot” modeling guesses is a massive failure.”

        Try looking for the science my friend.
        As Nick has linked.
        it will (obviously) amaze you.

        Oh, and BTW, a hot-spot would occur whatever cause the warming.
        Whereas a cooling strat can only occur due to GHG accumulation.

    • Colour me confused. If climate scientists understood the climate, surely they wouldn’t have dozens of models… there’d only be one model. That’s why I have more respect for economists (admittedly the bar is very low) because they are willing to debate the flaws in their models. Climate models don’t appear to warrant any more respect than the CGE models of whole economies some economists use to justify their existence. I am the first in line to call them out as complete garbage.

      Another parallel I see, is the lack of certainty about key variables. It is as difficult to get agreement over something as simple as inflation, for example, as a measure of global temperature. Why is it that scepticism of economic models is acceptable, but scepticism of climate models is heresy? Both fields are heavily politicised, after all.

    • The 97% agreement with AGW by government funded climate scientists seems like the same result one would expect if a poll of evangelical preachers were made concerning the virgin birth. Their entire livelihood depends on a faith.

      • Then why did the Exxon climate scientists conclude AGW was a real risk back in the mid 70’s.
        Were they “government funded” (rhetorical).

        Get some perspective please.

  32. In support of Janice Moore’s above comment.

    Ask someone to explain the latitudinal warming paradox.

    Ask someone to explain the observational fact that the tropical troposphere (at roughly 8km above the earth’s surface in the tropics) did not warm as predicted by the greenhouse theory.

    1) Latitudinal Warming Paradox
    The latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox is the fact that the latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 150 years does not match the pattern of warming that would occur if the recent increase in planetary temperature was caused by the CO2 mechanism.

    The amount of CO2 gas warming observed is theoretically logarithmically proportional to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase.
    As gases are evenly distributed in the atmosphere the potential for warming due to CO2 should be the same at all latitudes.

    The amount of warming is also proportional the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Now we know that as the earth is a sphere the tropical region of the planet receives the most amount of short wave radiation and hence also emits the most amount long wave radiation to space. The tropical region of the planet should have hence warmed the most due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    There is in fact almost no warming in the tropical region of the planet. The observed warming is at high latitudes rather than in the tropics. This observational fact and the fact that same high latitude regions of the planet have warmed and cooled cyclically in the past correlating to solar cycle changes supports the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
    The atmospheric CO2 is slowly increasing with time [Keeling et al. (2004)]. The climate forcing according to the IPCC varies as ln (CO2) [IPCC (2001)] (The mathematical expression is given in section 4 below). The ΔT response would be expected to follow this function. A plot of ln (CO2) is found to be nearly linear in time over the interval 1979-2004. Thus ΔT from CO2 forcing should be nearly linear in time also.

    The atmospheric CO2 is well mixed and shows a variation with latitude which is less than 4% from pole to pole [Earth System Research Laboratory. 2008]. Thus one would expect that the latitude variation of ΔT from CO2 forcing to be also small. It is noted that low variability of trends with latitude is a result in some coupled atmosphere-ocean models. For example, the zonal-mean profiles of atmospheric temperature changes in models subject to “20CEN” forcing ( includes CO2 forcing) over 1979-1999 are discussed in Chap 5 of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program [Karl et al.2006]. The PCM model in Fig 5.7 shows little pole to pole variation in trends below altitudes corresponding to atmospheric pressures of 500hPa.

    If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that No Extropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels (2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].

    An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value. The trend expected from CO2 climate forcing is 0.070g ºC/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If the underlying trend is due to CO2 then g~1. Models giving values of g greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.

    These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

    Tropical Troposphere at 8km above surface of the planet did not warm paradox:
    http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era).

    Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed.

    • William Astley on December 29, 2016 at 8:30 pm

      Are you aware of the fact that you present here links to two papers which are
      – about 10 years old
      – written by the same people (David H. Douglass, John R. Christy)
      During these ten years, lots of things happened I guess.

  33. Hell, find a climate scientist who can explain how actual temperature at sea level affects thickness of atmosphere.

    They’ll look at you and get lost in their ignorance.

    Nobody ever checks the atmosphere’s DENSITY at sea level… just pressure with the assumption that the density doesn’t change.

    Why is density important? Because energy is held within molecules, not between them. It doesn’t matter how hot the air gets if the density drops off because there’s barely a difference in specific heat per cubic meter.

    This is what drives convection.

    And expands the atmosphere.

    Its *not* a closed system.

  34. I think that global climate forecast models can be accurate, if only they’re tuned to consider that about .2 possibly .22 degree C of the warming from around 1973 to around 2004-2005 was from a natural multidecadal oscillation or set of natural multidecadal oscillations as opposed to being man-made. But most scientists paid to study man-made climate change have a groupthink of not considering that a natural cycle or set thereof contributed to the warming during roughly the last 30-32 years of the CMIP5 models being hindcast (1975-2005).

    Notably, look at HadCRUT3 or HadCRUT4. My attempts at using Fourier on HadCRUT3 as of around 2009 showed a sinusoid with peak-to-peak amplitude of .218 degree C, period of 64 years, and most recent positive peak at 2005 and most recent negative peak at 1973. My method was a crude one, and I expect “more proper” methods to show slightly different figures – only slightly different.

    • Donald, I’ll point out what you’ve described here is a pure empirical model and though the technique you’ve used may give you a good fit to observation, it can’t be used for prediction, no empirical model can. It’s not to say your method may not have discovered a repeating pattern that’s worth investigation, but without capturing the underlying physical theory that drives the behavior you’ve observed, it doesn’t “take the brass ring” so to speak.

      To give a related example, regressing tree ring data against observed temperature results in an empirical model that can be used within the calibration range to estimate temperature, but it can’t be legitimately used to re-construct temperatures outside of that range (as so many, including Michael Mann, did during the 90’s). It’s never valid to use an empirical model outside the range it’s been validated in. They aren’t predictive.

      I think the only conclusion that can be drawn from the fine lecture Janice Moore cites above by Dr. Essex is one I’ve been trying to put similar words to for at least 15 years; climate models aren’t even wrong. The mathematical intractability alone should convince anyone, most especially scientists involved in that pursuit, that we don’t have the technology necessary to produce a useful theoretical model of Earth’s climate.

  35. I communicate with a bunch of “Climate Scientists” but it never occurred to ask the question posed by the amazing Scott Adams.

    I will get back to y’all.

  36. I don’t have a PhD in any climate-science related field; just an MS in geology, but I do have an answer:

    The models are all random and chaotic in their predictions.

    ….just like our climate.

    What’s more, the models are also biased (as a geologist I believe earth will eventually fall into another Ice Age) but none of the models indicate another onset although we’ve seen at least 30 in the past 5 million years.

    It wouldn’t matter how many thousands of years they project them out–they’ll still show temps going up!

    That the models are demonstrably biased toward warmer temperatures is irrefutable proof that this whole charade is contrived….that is, until an Ice Age is upon us and the “climate scientists” will conspire in the meme that CO2 is responsible for that, too.

    • Reply to Rocky Road comment on December 29, 2016, at 9:23pm

      The models start with the conclusion of runaway global warming.

      They are designed to reach that pre-existing conclusion.

      The models are not random or chaotic at all — their predictions just appear that way for the first few decades — but, these are 100 year predictions, so you must wait 100 years to know if they are right or wrong.

      You say you don’t have 100 years to wait — well, whose fault is that?

      A few decades where model predictions and actuals seem to have nothing in common, are just temporary — the actuals are obviously wrong, and will be gradually “adjusted” to better support the models.

      Since the goobermint that owns the models, also owns the temperature actuals, they have the authority to make the actuals fit the models … and have been doing just that … a little at a time, every year, so no one notices.

      So, you have no PhD?

      That means your opinions on the climate and the climate models must be discounted 100% — only PhD’s can understand the models, and predict the future climate.

      So, you have an MS in Geology?
      What’s that have to do with “climate science”?

      Geology is all in the past.

      Old stuff.

      “Climate Science” is all in the future … always in the future !

      New stuff>

      And since you are a geologist, or so you say, I shouldn’t have to correct you on this, but …

      We are now in an interglacial period (Holocene) of an ice age.

      The current ice age began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch.

      We have to be in an “ice age” in 2016 simply because there are huge ice sheets over Greenland, the Arctic, and Antarctica.

      Unless they have already melted, per Al Bore’s predictions in 2007, and I didn’t notice.

      Sorry I gave you a hard time — it’s my nature!

      You are skeptical, so could be a good geology scientist.

      There’s no skepticism allowed in “climate science”,
      just like there’s no crying in baseball.

      And don’t you forget it.

      • The current ice age actually began at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary (33.9 Ma), with the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet. Or maybe that was the start of an ice house.

        The Northern Hemisphere glaciations did however begin at the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary, making the ice age global.

    • When we finally run out of patience for this fake problem of “global Warming”, we may ( hopefully not too late) get around to concerning ourselves with a potential REAL problem. If, as I suspect, CO2 has no effect on global temperatures whatsoever, are we going to have a new glaciation and how will we cope with it? Unbelievable that our national and global governance organizations make mountains out of molehills on this tripe while ignoring the disaster that really could be coming.

  37. There are three issues here.

    One is : is the average temperature rising? The answer is “yes” and that is what the 97% answered .

    the second: is the rise in temperature correlated with the rise in CO2 in the data? The answer is “not really” imo, example :since CO2 is merrily rising and data have a hiatus of over fifteen years.

    the third is based on “correlation is not causation”. Is the rise in CO2 causing the rise in temperature?

    The models are all about modeling CO2 as a causative factor, with the feedback loop with H2O the lynch pin.

    When a model or the models are falsified it does not mean that there is no rise in temperature or that there is no correlation between the rise of CO2 and the rise in temperature. The CO2 feedback loop with H2O as the cause of the observed variation is what is falsified.

    In physics, when a model is falsified it is rejected, or goes back to the drawing board for drastic reformulation until it agrees with the data. This is not happening with these models.

    If one takes a complete set of functions, like a Fourier expansion, one can always fit the data. This fit gives no predictability for ranges of the variables not fitted. It is just a mathematical map of a contour. IMO this is what the models do, a map of the available contours. There is no guarantee that projecting the variables outside the region of the fit, new data will follow the contour fit. This claim is supported by the list of disagreements of models with data in unexplored variable regions.

    More than ten years ago I had a list of 7 strong disagreements with data .

    • There is no hot spot which is predicted in the troposphere data

    • There is no positive feedback

    • Specific humidity is decreasing, not increasing ι

    • The missing energy is not hiding in the oceans.

    • The models do not reproduce absolute temperatures

    • Hydrological predictions of the models fail with respect to data

    In physics , even one disagreement with data sends the model to the drawing board.

    I have links to papers for these claims , but they are from 2004 or so. When I was convinced that there is no solid physics coming from climate models which are just playing with functional fits on very complicated chaotic data, I got bored and stopped following in detail, though I look at this site every day.

    The CO2 meme is a king Canute over again, but it is costing us a lot of money.

    • To: anna V

      Assuming you are a woman, then you are a very bright woman … except for one thing: The computer models have nothing to do with science!

      – PhD scientists and their computer games are merely props for a scary story told by politicians.

      – The politicians want more power (more socialism).

      – They claim they don’t really WANT more power for themselves, but they NEED more power to save the Earth from the evil corporations and their satanic gas CO2.

      – One way to get more power is to scare people.

      – People have been scared by the false claims made about CO2.

      – The climate models start with the conclusion about CO2 (runaway warming) and work backwards to reach that pre-existing conclusion.

      – That’s not science.

      In fact, climate science concerning CO2’s greenhouse effect has made no progress since 1896 — in fact, I think it’s obvious “climate sciences” has regressed in the past 50 years, rather than progressed.

  38. Watch the video in the article about the climate models. He repetitively points out that they are simply “linear” extrapolations of climate “forcing.” He even point out you can do the calculation on a hand calculator. I’m not a climate scientist but I understand modeling, and I’ve repetitively pointed out that the fatal flaw of these models is that they are trying to make a logarithmic function linear. This flaw is so obvious that it is hard to believe that the actual climate “scientists” don’t understand that basic concept. If these climate “scientists” don’t understand the importance of that flaw, their degrees aren’t worth the paper they are written on. Also, that model is basically a single variable model, putting 100% of the variation of temperature on the variation of CO2. That alone is a complete joke. The climate is infinitely complex, and to try to reduce it down to a single variable is like me trying to model the S&P 500 using only the book value of a company. Complex models simply aren’t that simple, and the results you will get is pure garbage. If climate modelers were anywhere near as good as they seem to think they are they would all be working on Wall Street. The very fact that Wall Street ignores these people and their predictions pretty much proves the people that rely on objective facts and accuracy, don’t put much value in the field of climate “science.” This graphic demonstrates why linear climate models will never be very accurate, and the error will grow with each ppm increase in CO2, and the models will ALWAYS overestimate temperature with in increase in CO2, ALWAYS.

    • @co2islife,

      I’ve repetitively pointed out that the fatal flaw of these models is that they are trying to make a logarithmic function linear. This flaw is so obvious that it is hard to believe that the actual climate “scientists” don’t understand that basic concept.

      Could you write some more about this? How are the models making a logarithmic function linear?

  39. I don’t have a PhD either – but I do observe that sometimes meteorologists cannot even get a weather forecast correct 2 days ahead of time – sometimes not even hours. If weather models can be that faulty, what does it say about climate models? I can also gather from observation that we will, unless something upsets the poles, speed around the sun, and output from the sun somehow, have virtually the same climate next year, and the year after that, etc., with variable weather such as we’ve had over the last 50-100 years. Which is probably better than what a climate model would get. Just sayin’.

  40. The Issue is correlation or causation. Just because two things change together that does not show that one is causing the other. The basic method of science is

    * state a hypothesis (e.g. that light travels faster than sound, frogs mate for life or CO2 causes warming),
    * devise an experiment or test
    * predict the results of the experiment or test that you would expect if your hypothesis is true
    * perform the test or experiment
    * check the results against your prediction
    * publish your hypothesis, your experiment or test methods, the results/data and your conclusions

    Broadly, if your predictions were right your hypothesis becomes a theory and others devise experiments/tests to confirm your results. If on the other hand your prediction was wrong, it is “back to the drawing board” as your unconfirmed hypothesis remains an unconfirmed hypothesis.

    Here is a classical example of the process: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/natural_experiments

    Whether they choose to call them “projections” or “predictions”, these models are the only experiment or test on the CO2-related warming hypothesis, the only way way to show causation. If they fail we may still observe a changing climate but no confirmation that it is caused by anthropogenic CO2

    • MRW: It appears from more than one of your comments that you need to do a lot of background reading to get up to speed on the issue of human CO2. You come off as asking people to do your homework for you.

      CO2 lags temperature (in the ice core record) by a quarter cycle or, approximately, 800 years.

      Here is a video to help you get started:

      Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg, 2013

      (youtube)

      It is in English, after a brief introduction in German.

      Also see Allen M. R. MacRae’s comments on WUWT on this topic as well as many, many, other articles and comments by scientists affirming this fact about CO2.

      • Oh Janice, I know that.

        CO2 lags temperature (in the ice core record) by a quarter cycle or, approximately, 800 years.

        I’ve known it since Gore hid it in his Inconvenient Truth movie, and lied. And I’ve watched Salby’s talk twice. I realized after I saw my post in print that it was inartfully stated, confusing. What I meant to ask Nick was that if it’s his belief that CO2 drives increased temperature (his “We emitted CO2. It warmed) then how does he explain the hot 1930s in the US? There was no spectacular rise in CO2 before that heat hit. Furhtermore, how would he explain the CO2 rise of the past 15 years with the flat-lined gobal temp, the ‘pause’?

        I believe the opposite of Nick’s “We emitted CO2. It warmed,” and haven’t seen anything concrete and scientific that would prove otherwise.

      • Hi Janice and Happy New Year!

        Background information and my conclusions are in this 2015 paper.

        Best regards, Allan

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/

        Observations and Conclusions:

        1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record

        2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.

        3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

        4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

        5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.

        6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.

        7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.

        8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.

        9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.

        10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

        Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015

  41. Personally I think that global climate models do a good job of modelling the current climate. The can
    predict the average temperate of the earth to within 0.2 K which is an error of less than 0.1%. The models
    reproduce the large scale ocean currents (gulf stream, thermohaline circulation, etc) the show el niño like
    effects, monsoons etc.

    • well no, they can’t “predict the average temperate of the earth to within 0.2 K”

      Even supposing there was such a thing ….

    • -Geronimo
      They get it wrong 99.9% of the time. Maybe you should divide or multiply your number by that? Or carry the one at least. Your math is too advanced for me.

      • here’s why that trope is inane:
        let’s say you can read a thermometer to 1/3 of a degree.
        if you tell a computer 1/3, that’s going to come out as 0.33333333333333333333333333333333333333
        nobody in his right mind thinks a thermometer reads to 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001
        but if you round it down to the nearest tenth you get 0.3 (if you round it down to the nearest half, you get ZERO)
        now, when you multiply 1/3 by 3 you no longer get 1.
        so you don’t round down – you do your math with the highest precision you can.

  42. We cannot even model “weather” successfully more than 10-Days. “Until or if” there is a
    correct parametrization of cloud cover, no model ever created will be valid.

  43. WUWT: Still using that boilerplate plot for a slice in time (up to 2013), a slice of the atmosphere (mid-troposphere) and slice of the Earth: (20N-20S). Why?

  44. Any model should stand or fall on its own. To rely on model suites/averages is to have belief in the accuracy of the Texas sharpshooter.

  45. Some marvellous, reasoned and rational posts in this thread that show again and again which side is offering up evidence-based science and which is cheating, lying, obfuscating and deceiving its way through this debate. Trump cannot come soon enough and when his team start to drain the climate swamp the pained howls of protest from Team Climate will be magnificent to behold. Bring it on.

  46. What will our descendants be saying about climate in the year 2116 if global mean temperature increases at a long term rate averaging +0.1 C per decade over the next one-hundred years?

    In the year 2116, will America’s climate activists be cursing the memory of Barack Obama for not demonstrating the courage and the leadership needed to begin enforcing strict anti-carbon regulations against all major sources of carbon emissions in America, not just against emissions from coal-fired power plants?

    • +0.1 C per decade over the next one-hundred years

      So, +1.0 C in 100 years (10 x +0.1 C)? This is a worry?

      Please.

  47. Compare climatology with nuclear physics. Most of us don’t have our own atom smashers, and wouldn’t know where to start when questions regarding nuclear particles arise. In contrast, ALL of us have experienced climate, and most of us have traveled to different parts of the country or world, and experienced different climates. The average person knows quite a bit about weather and climate, and can come to reasonable conclusions based on personal experience, in contrast to some other fields of science.,

  48. Man, so many of you people keep banging on and on about who has the right data/chart/numbers. NOBODY has the right numbers! Reliable data for temperatures pre-1960 just do not exist. Sloppy records, poorly read thermometers that were never accurate much better than one degree F, inadequate geographic coverage, missing days/weeks/months, on and on, and yet we get these incessant debates.

    Cheer up, looks like a mild winter here, so far anyway…

  49. I am rather surprised that no one has referred to the Bray and van Storch latest study. It gives great distributions of scientist’s opinions on about 100 issues to do with climate change – e.g. How would you rate the ability of global climate models to simulate a global mean value for precipitation values for the next 50 years? https://www.hzg.de/imperia/md/content/hzg/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/hzg_reports_2016/hzg_report_2016_2.pdf One of the more interesting distributions is “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes?” Only 48% are absolutely convinced

  50. Wouldn’t it be fun if Trump turned the tables and funded research to prove that the primary reason for climate change is natural variability and that CO2 emissions are a minor contributor?

    Seriously, I consider the current, deliberate, imbalance in research to be a major factor in the incorrect attribution of the majority of climate change to greenhouse gases.

  51. There are two important aspects to come from this challenge. Firstly,Models that cannot predict the past certainly cannot predict the future. There is no doubt that all of the models need dubious adjustments to past data to even come close to replicating the past. As a layman sceptic I don’t concede even that there is any correlation between CO2 and temperature. Too many sceptics seem to concede the greenhouse effect that there is some causal link between increased CO2 and temperature. This concession by science trained sceptics concedes some credibility of models to the warmists. Perhaps the relationship is the other way round ie that there is a causal link between increased temperature and CO2 levels. Maybe any perceived link either way is random coincidence. Whatever the answer the lack of certainty is at such a level that to base GDP sapping expenditure on policies derived from such models is lunacy.
    Which brings one to the second point that many less fanatical supporters of AGW argue that yes there is some uncertainty but wouldn’t you want to take out insurance. That argument is the biggest crock out. I think when one analyses the response to the challenge in this post that the 97% is closer to 0% then one could just as easily argue we should be spending trillions to protect the world from destruction by asteroid collision. The 97% fraudulent certainty claim has been fundamental in justifying policy makers actions.

  52. Very late to this party, and have read through most of the comments. A serious question: aren’t different models testing different hypotheses? And if so, why is it valid to create an ensemble of them and an average?

    • There are MANY WUWT articles and articles from many other places which will answer your question about model ensemble averaging.

      The bottom line is, even if they models are not “averaged,” they are ALL proven failed and unfit for purpose.

    • Hey there Colin, you may want to forgive Janice for the terse response, she’s working on a 10 year retrospective of WUWT transactions and probably knows more about what’s already been discussed here than anyone else on the planet.

      If you follow Dr. Pat Frank’s video at the beginning of this article he does a very good job of describing not only invalid to combine and average the model’s predictions, it’s actually stupid. I highly recommend it, and I’m a measurement/stats guy.

      • I don’t always complete my sentences. That should read:

        “he does a very good job of describing not only why it’s invalid to combine and average the model’s predictions, it’s actually stupid.”

    • Some models are designed to try out different assumptions, but they all rest on the same repeatedly falsified hypothesis that the control knob on climate is man-made CO2.

      Which is why they fail so miserably and epically.

  53. Climate scientists remind me of the horse racing scam. [Spend] 10,000 tips on one race to mug punters for nothing. Some tips come true. Invite the winning punters to buy your tips. Like all scams eventually you run out of idiots.

  54. If a proposed theory does not accurately predict, it is merely a superstition. It does not matter if the method of testing its accuracy relies on tweaked up math models or sheep entrails stirred with a stick.

  55. “Nick Stokes December 30, 2016 at 1:19 am

    We emitted CO2. It warmed.”

    That simple minded understanding is the challenge we face. A scientific illiterate society lacks the critical thinking skills to even understand how wrong they are.
    1) We warmed plenty of times without CO2, that is how we emerge from ice ages
    2) Ice Ages begin when CO2 is at a peak, so temperatures tumble when CO2 is high
    3) Atmospheric CO2 is controlled by ocean temperatures
    4) We are at record high CO2 for the Holocene, and temperatures are below the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warming periods
    5) We both warm and cool when CO2 is high

    • No, it’s standard scientific reasoning. We figured emitting CO2 would cause warming; we did it and warming ensued. It doesn’t prove the hypothesis, but it supports it. You then have to analyse, as people do, to see if something else might have been causing the warming. And of course, observe to see if it continues.

      • No, it’s standard scientific reasoning. We figured emitting CO2 would cause warming; we did it and warming ensued. It doesn’t prove the hypothesis, but it supports it. You then have to analyze, as people do, to see if something else might have been causing the warming. And of course, observe to see if it continues.

        1) According to MODTRAN, CO2 in the lower atmosphere has a 0.0000000W/M^2 impact. It does not “cause” warming in the lower atmosphere where all the ground measurements reside.
        2) There is no statistical significant to the temperature variation over the past 50 to 150 years when compared to the entire Holocene.
        3) Never in 600 Million with an M years has CO2 caused catastrophic warming, even when it reached 7000 ppm.
        4) Coral and Sea Life developed during periods of much much much higher atmospheric CO2.
        5) The rate of change in temperature is linear, CO2 absorption of IR is logarithmic, the physics of CO2 doesn’t support the linear temperature increase.
        6) The atmospheric temperature follows sea temperatures which have nothing to do with CO2.
        7) If you can’t explain how CO2 can warm the oceans, you can’t explain how CO2 can warm the atmosphere.

      • Re Nick Stokes:
        ** We figured emitting CO2 would cause warming; we did it and warming ensued.**
        Which warming did CO2 cause? Why was there cooling from the 1940’s to 1970’s while CO2 increased?
        It was not “figured”. It was a bad assumption by a few looking for some excuse. Unfortunately, it was seized by those in charge, and the rest is history.
        You have not MEASURED the temperature change due to CO2.

      • “The simplicity of logic.”
        That is the difference between inductive and deductive inference. The difference here is that the prospect of warming was deduced from principles. It wasn’t based on past observation of emissions and warming. Unlike sunrise, the emission experiment is happening now for the first time.

      • Except that is not what you used. You clearly stated (falsely) “We emitted CO2. It warmed.”

        That is observational. Nor is it accurate. CO2 has been emitted since fauna walked the earth. It has not always warmed. Ergo your hypothesis is disproven. But I do understand it was a simplistic childish statement instead of a reasoned scientific argument (much like the rooster crowing).

        Perhaps if you crowed less, you would not make such simple mistakes.

      • Nick,

        Emission might be happening now for the first time, but that’s irrelevant, since for most of earth’s history, CO2 levels have been much higher than now, including during most of the past 550 million years, when solar output was at most only five percent less than at present. Indeed, for most of that time, CO2 concentration was two to twenty times current levels. Yet no sign of Hansen’s Venus Express.

        Just 55 Ma, when solar power was only half a percent less than now, CO2 was about five times current concentration, for instance.

  56. Can someone please explain to me why the feedback variable in every climate model is positive. If one looks at nature the vast majority of feedbacks are negative.

  57. Research starts with a hypothesis. The outcome of the study and credibility of its results are predicated on the clarity of the hypothesis.

    Then enters the Null Hypothesis. This superimposes the assumption that the initial hypothesis is wrong.

    Thereafter, methodology is developed that is designed to disprove the null hypothesis. If statistical analysis of well-chosen, well-measured variables show that the Null Hypothesis is incorrect, then the initial hypothesis can be deemed to be correct.

    The hypothesis of well designed research is not “part correct”, and thus “part wrong”. The only two choices are “correct” or “wrong”.

    All research should be judged on the basis of whether it meets these criteria.

    • “If statistical analysis of well-chosen, well-measured variables show that the Null Hypothesis is incorrect, then the initial hypothesis can be deemed to be correct.”
      This is a muddled version of statistical testing. The null hypothesis is an alternative hypothesis. It doesn’t assume that the initial was wrong. It just means that if the null hypothesis can explain it, then you can’t affirm the original. And stat testing never says that the original hypothesis is correct. It just says that one alternative (the NULL) won’t explain it. Maybe other hypotheses could.

      But stat testing isn’t all of science. Newton wouldn’t have understood what you were talking about.

      • The Null hypothesis is not “an alternate” hypothesis. It is the original hypothesis that must be disproven BEFORE alternate hypotheses can be considered.

      • Phil.

        The null hypothesis is that nothing out of the ordinary is happening which requires a special explanation. So rather than “disprove” the null hypothesis the usual formulation is to have a reason to reject it, ie there is reason to suppose that something unusual is happening.

        That is manifestly not the case with climate during the past 30 years, 60 years, 120 years, 240 or 320 years.

      • Chimp, two things.
        1) The “null hypothesis” is only applicable within the domain of statistical inference. For example neither Newton, nor Einstein formulated or used anything close to a “null hypothesis” when they did their science.
        2) Your claim that “nothing unusual is happening” is false. Sea levels are rising, mountain glaciers are melting, species are moving into areas once uninhabitable due to cold, and polar ice is melting. These observations show that the climate is not stable.

      • Rob,

        None of the things you mention are out of the ordinary. That’s the point. There is no need for an explanation beyond usual climatic fluctuation from natural causes.

        Glaciers grew during the Little Ice Age. Now in the Modern Warm Period, they are retreating in some places but growing in others. CO2 has virtually nothing to do with these natural waxings and wanings.

        Sea level has been rising at the same rate ever since the depths of the Little Ice Age, in the late 17th century during the Maunder Minimum. The rate of rise if anything has slowed down, not accelerated.

        Polar ice is accumulating, not melting. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains most of the fresh water on earth, is gaining mass. But even if polar ice were globally shrining, that would be well within the normal limits for natural fluctuations during the Holocene and prior interglacials.

        There was less polar ice during the Minoan Warm Period. The EAIS stopped retreating over 3000 years ago. The Holocene is getting colder, long-term. The Modern WP has so far been less warm than the Minoan, Roman and Medieval WPs.

        The ranges of animals naturally alter, following the normal centennial scale fluctuations of climate during an interglacial.

        As I said, nothing at all is happening that hasn’t happened before in the Holocene and other interglacials.

        Hence, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected and there is no scientific basis for CACA.

        Einstein most certainly did present an alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis, which was Newtonian universal gravitation. He showed that there were exceptions to the Newtonian system which enabled him to reject it and posit curvature of space time as a superior alternative hypothesis, which explained those exceptions.

        Similarly, Newtonian mechanics were a successful alternative hypothesis to the prevailing explanation for the observed orbits of the planets. His hypothesis of universal gravitation based upon the attractive force between massive objects explained Kepler’s observation of elliptical orbits.

      • 1) Chimp says: ” CO2 has virtually nothing to do with these natural waxings and wanings.” but provides no evidence. I believe that is called “hand waving”

        2) Chimp says: “Sea level has been rising at the same rate since the depths of the Little Ice Age” but fails to provide a cause. For example, melting ice and thermal expansion are explanations of rising sea levels, but Chimp doesn’t mention these.
        .
        3) Chimp says: “Polar ice is accumulating, not melting” without evidence. GRACE says you are wrong.
        .
        4) Next you say: ” But even if polar ice were globally shrining (sic)…..'” you claim the shrinkage is “natural.” Actually, ice melts only when heat energy is added, so you cannot say the shrinkage is “natural” because it’s caused by something.
        .
        5) Chimp says: “There was less polar ice during the Minoan Warm Period” of course, I assume you mean that the Minoans flew satellites around the earth and took pictures of the ice right? PS….The Minoans didn’t have ice breakers, so I don’t know how you found that out.
        ..
        6) Chimp says: ” the null hypothesis cannot be rejected and there is no scientific basis for CACA.” but I ask what is the statistical test you are using to determine acceptance or rejection? You see, you don’t have a clue about what a “null hypothesis” is…..it’s only applicable to statistical inference.
        .
        7) Newtonian universal gravitation has nothing to do with Special Relativity. Please refresh your understanding of the differences between General and Special Relativity.
        .
        8) Lastly, I will be interested in hearing from you what the ” prevailing explanation for the observed orbits of the planets” was prior to Newton. I think you need a refresher course in the history of science.

        The “null hypothesis” is a product of statistical inference. Trying to apply the concept of statistical inference to Newton or Einstein make me laugh at you.
        .
        4)

        Chimp says: “usual climatic fluctuation from natural causes.” Except you don’t tell us what the “natural causes” are. In fact you acknowledge that the earth is getting warmer, but you have no explanation for it. You do realize that things don’t get warmer without a cause. So, please provide one.

      • Rob – Chimp did provide an explanation, I am surprised you missed it. It is called Natural variation. It is the root of the Null Hypothesis. Alternate hypotheses are required to prove it is NOT natural variation.

        The hand waving is yours.

    • Research starts with a hypothesis. The outcome of the study and credibility of its results are predicated on the clarity of the hypothesis.

      For AGW the NULL Hypothesis is “Man Made/Anthropogenic CO2 is Not Causing Global Warming.”

      The Data is the ice core and Atmospheric measurements of CO2 and temperature.

      The analysis would be to examine if the past 150 and 50 years of temperature variation is statistically different from the previous 12,000 years of the Holocene.

      When you do this most fundamental analysis which would be the starting point of any real “science,” you will discover that the NULL is not rejected. There is absolutely nothing abnormal with the past 50 and 150 years’ temperature variation, we are not at peak temperatures, we do not exceed the Minoan, Roman or Medieval warming periods. Crop yields and our quality of life is infinitely better with higher CO2 and a temperate climate.

      • Looking at the chart up-thread, from about 1913 to 1935, US temps rose from 49.7F to 55.2F, 5.5F. From 1980 to 1998 US temps rose from 50.3F to 55.3F, 5.0F. Nobody claims the increase of anthropogenic CO2 caused the early 20th Century increase, so how can it be claimed that CO2 caused the late 20th Century increase?

        Seems to me that if one is creating a hypothesis for an two observed events, separated in time, one can’t use as a possible cause for the second event something that was known to not be happening during the first.

      • James,

        Add to those observations the fact that for more than 30 years after WWII, CO2 rose steadily while global temperature plummeted, and one not only can’t reject the null hypothesis, but must conclude that the hypothesis of man-made catastrophic global warming was born falsified. Or reborn, since it had been hypothesized before, in the early 20th century, when any such warming was considered beneficial.

      • Chimp there is no hypothesis of man-made catastrophic global warming. Adding the word “catastrophic” is a strawman. Arrhenius never used that word when he formulated the AGW hypothesis.

      • Rob,

        There most certainly is an hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming. It has been in all the papers. Dunno how you missed it.

        If it’s not catastrophic, then why is the world spending trillions of dollars to combat AGW?

        True, Arrhenius and Callendar thought that AGW, if it existed, would be beneficial. But the whole sc@m of IPCC and its adherents is based upon the urgent need to save the earth from getting too hot, to avert all manner of bad things happening.

        Which aren’t. So far more plant food in the air has been a good thing. More would be better.

      • Rob,

        Essay on the null hypotheses of Galileo, Newton and Einstein:

        https://byrslf.co/the-null-hypothesis-loves-you-and-wants-you-to-be-happy-3189413d8cd0#.v67rxntad

        I could add Kepler. His (correct) alternative to the null hypothesis of circular orbits was elliptical orbits.

        And Copernicus, whose heliocentric system was the (correct) alternative hypothesis to the geocentric null hypothesis.

        See how the scientific method works? Isn’t it wonderful? Too bad that CACA acolytes have abandoned a system that has produced such wonders since the 16th century.

      • Chimp says (with regard to the “catastrophic” label: ” It has been in all the papers.”
        ..
        Excellent, please provide a link to one.

      • Chimp, you still don’t understand what a “null hypothesis” is.
        ..
        Prevailing viewpoints are not considered “null hypothesis” when doing science. Revolutionary theories are not a rejection of the “null hypothesis.” When Einstein came up with both Special and General Relativity, he did not “reject the null hypothesis” he came up with a unique and creative way of describing reality which did a better job of explaining things than Newton could.

  58. This reminds me of the James Randi challenge. A lot of money available to anyone that can prove psychic powers. Randi retired and the fund was still intact. I suspect that Scott Adams will retire before he receives an actual response.

  59. There will NEVER be a mid-tropospheric “Hotspot.” The reason is very very very simple. CO2 has a black body temperature of -80°C. At 10km the atmospheric temperature is 237°K, and H20 is 0.06mbar. Doubling CO2 to 800ppm the atmosphere has a temperatures of 237°K and H20 of .06mbrs. CO2 puts in a temperature floor which has already been reached. CO2’s IR temperature signature in 13 to 18µ, which puts the temperature at around 237°K. Change the CO2 level to any level you want and you will see that looking down from 10km you will never be able to get CO2 to drop below that 240°K black body curve. The only way CO2 will be able to warm the upper troposphere is by changing the amount of H2O in the atmosphere, which it can’t at that cold of a temperature.The basic physics behind this AGW nonsense is simply missing. Doubt me? Do the calculations yourself.
    http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

  60. Gnomish said…..
    hi joel.
    you know i’m gonna card you again for asserting that “Positive “proofs” in science are rare to non-existent.”

    Sorry Gnomish, Joel is right.

    You can prove that something works within given parameters [if you know what they are] but you can never say that anything is universally true.

    A good example is Newtonian physics, gravity in particular.
    Newton’s laws work perfectly on Earth and within the limits that they could be measured up until the start of the 20th century. Along comes Einstein who shows that Newton’s laws are an approximation within the more encompassing physics he envisaged [ who would’ve thunk it ? ]. So Newton’s laws are locally true but not universally. Then along comes someone else with a bit of deep thinking who says Einstein’s laws only apply to this universe, but not all universes [or something like that, we don’t know yet]

    And so it goes…

    • lolz-
      “You can prove that something works within given parameters”

      wowza- you’ve learned that truth exists in context! *pats you on the head*

      and you declare that positive proof is possible *sticks gold star on your forehead*

      but after you affirm that joel was wrong, then you assert he was right?

      see how that makes you an amateur? you’re not ready for prime time.
      but i think you are sincere.
      maybe you are even sincere enough to continue your studies. you’ll discover ever more and finer cognitive tools once you know truth exists. that is your advantage over joel.

      truth or fiction’s glossary is a very good place to begin to get serious if you are serious.

    • oh- i forgot cuz it’s such a rerun for me – but for you i’ll toss in this unsolicited observation:
      you said- without cracking a smile:
      “you can never say that anything is universally true.”
      you were completely oblivious to the fact that you asserted this a universal truth.
      you were completely unaware that this was a self contradiction- which means it is a lie.
      not ready for prime time, buddy.

      • too easy, right?
        but if you want to let loose with a real smackdown:
        a single contradiction falsifies a proposition
        sadly, that’s as far as popper was able to get… half way.
        he’s not even an authority worth a fallacy

      • Gnomish, your problem is that you conflate the scientific with the glib. “Truth” is not the same as “proof.” It’s “true” to say “The sun will probably come up tomorrow.” It always has. However in a scientific sense, the sun never rises, and it NEVER has.

      • Not a new argument…

        “I am a Cretan
        All Cretans are liars”

        It’s language you are playing with, not physical laws.

      • James Schrumpf
        you are incorrect in all you said.
        i perceive the basis of it is that you have no firm idea what truth is.
        if i’m wrong, you can prove it easily by defining ‘truth’ in a simple declarative sentence.
        then, perhaps, you might try to define ‘science’ which is the systematic pursuit of truth. oops…lol
        and then you might explain how you can know anything to be true without proof?
        and then you might comment with intelligence on the topic of epistemology rather than just licking the window.

        these are all beginner exercises. have you mastered them?

        GregK:
        it’s logic i’m playing with – which is what proofs are made of. did you know that?
        but you are just abusing language. you don’t really give any reason to believe you understand what you’re talking about. is it divine revelation that supports your metaphysics, then?
        you are a Cretin. all cretins are lawyers….lol
        seriously, tho- you would have to pay me to educate you because it would be no pleasure and such a chore – assuming it’s even possible to get past what you think you know that isn’t so. mystics are primarily useful as kicking dogs – but i don’t need one atm.

  61. I hope that Mr. Trump to take advantage of their knowledge which is confirmed by the work of Nikola Tesla and it will not be “stranded” in the shallows of knowledge on climate change that are based on stupid basis that the human factor is stronger than natural, and the natural factor is formed and the people .
    I would ask Trump to explain when the main “culprit” of climate change, and in short, it is a magnetism that is a kind of “network magnetism” of the planets and the sun.
    What man is so ignorant that claims that people are stronger than this overwhelming force produced by the planets and the sun, their mutual effect.

  62. 97% of apprentices have the same opinion about the causes lkimatskih changes. If you say that this is a consequence of human factors, we can conclude that before the birth of these experts epidemic of the mosquito zik, and therefore their knowledge so little. If there is anyone influential that it can draw the attention of these experts on the impact of natural law.
    Climate change resulting from the mutual relations of the planets and the sun and its magnetic field.
    I own evidence that planets cause the 4 cycles of sunspots from 11.2, and a diagram of the solar PLEG 123 years (11.2×11, approximately).

  63. No, it’s standard scientific reasoning, we figured the temperature has risen similarly over the Holocene like 100 times, but this time it is different. Believe us, we know what we are talking about…..

  64. Climate models are the core of the climate scare, but even the scientists who produce them know their predictive powers are weak.

    v’

Comments are closed.