Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Vox has just demonstrated their intolerance for any but the most extreme climate views – even positions which are within the bounds of official IPCC climate science.
Don’t expect climate action from Rex Tillerson. He’s a lukewarmer.
Updated by David Roberts @drvox david@vox.com Feb 2, 2017, 9:15am EST
The Secretary of State doesn’t seem to think the US should lead on climate change.
Rex Tillerson, until very recently the CEO of the world’s largest private oil company and a close chum of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is now the US secretary of state. This is not some ham-handed satire or lurid dystopian novel. It’s real life.
This makes Tillerson’s views on climate change a matter of great interest. Most countries in the world send their minister of the environment (the equivalent of our EPA administrator) to represent them at international climate talks. The US is different — we send our minister of international affairs, i.e., our secretary of state.
…
What does Tillerson think about climate change?
Judging from what we learned at his confirmation hearing on January 11, Tillerson is a “lukewarmer,” someone who acknowledges that the climate is changing, but doesn’t think it will be that bad and doesn’t think we know enough to take serious action anyway.
Functionally, a lukewarmer isn’t much different than an outright denier — they do not support serious policy. But politically, lukewarmism is a much smarter, more soothing stance, because it dodges the uncomfortable “denier” label.
At his hearing, Tillerson tried to get away with lukewarmism. Usually it works; very few US politicians scratch more than an inch deep on climate change, and lukewarmism has very nice-sounding inch-deep answers.
…
Read more: http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/2/2/14478566/tillerson-climate-lukewarmer
The IPCC admits climate sensitivity, the amount of warming to be expected if CO2 is doubled, might be as low as 1.5C. For the sake of argument, lets assume a climate sensitivity of 1.5C / doubling – the minimum sensitivity estimate which the IPCC considers to be acceptable.
NOAA estimates atmospheric CO2 is rising at around 3ppm / year. Assuming this rate of growth continues until the end of the century, by 2100 CO2 levels will peak at around 680ppm – around 2.5x pre-industrial CO2 levels of 260ppm – 280ppm.
At 1.5C / doubling;
calibrate: 1.5C = factor x log(2) ← the impact of CO2 climate forcing is logarithmic
factor = 1.5C / log(2) = 4.9
Warming from a 2.5x increase in CO2 (climate sensitivity = 1.5C / doubling)
= factor x log(2.5)
= 4.9 x log(2.5)
= 1.9C
We’ve already had around 1C of global warming since pre-industrial times, give or take, without any noticeable climate “disasters”. An extra 0.9C on top of current global temperatures doesn’t seem such a big deal.
Of course, the 1.5C / doubling is equilibrium climate sensitivity. If the Earth takes several centuries to achieve equilibrium, and equilibrium climate sensitivity is 1.5C / doubling, we won’t even see an additional 0.9C by the year 2100.
As for what happens after the year 2100 – does anyone seriously believe fossil fuels will be as significant a component of the energy mix in the year 2100, as they are in today’s world?
My point is, being a lukewarmer like Tillerson is completely within the bounds of IPCC science.
Yet Vox have treated Tillerson’s lukewarmer views as if they are utterly unacceptable. In rejecting the legitimacy of being a Lukewarmer, Vox are as out of step with IPCC science as any climate skeptic.
And we give Vox oxygen here for what reason?
The key to victory is to know the enemy!
Roughly paraphrased from every great general, mongol prince, far eastern philosopher, Roman commander, and also uttered at some point, in some fashion, in a few Harold and Kumar movies.
don’t need to know em if you have a big dunking vat of midol for em.
Know thy enemy. This is the same David Roberts from Vox who attempted to pin a 17 year old unsupportable talking point characterization to Trump’s EPA transition team leader Myron Ebell. I detailed that wipeout here: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=4638
gnomish,
“don’t need to know em if you have a big dunking vat of
midolboiling oil for em.”There, FIFY.
STOP THE PRESSES
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
She said very casually:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
Military combat plans work great right up until the point where you first make contact with the enemy. ((very) old Kiwi saying !)
G
“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” -Mike Tyson
What plan does Christiana Figueres have to replace capitalism? Socialism? That hasn’t worked. Communism? That really hasn’t worked. Capitalism has done more for humanity than any other plan, bar none.
Apparently Ms. Figueres hates humans to the point she’d rather they not progress, except for the very few at the top. Talk about a nefarious elitist!
Hey RockyRoad! “What plan does Christiana Figueres have to replace capitalism? ”
She supports a new economic system, one which we can name “Figueresism”. In it she gets to keep a cushy governmental position that pays her well and allows her to indulge her dreams of power and prestige. She will be paid to fly around the world to exotic locations, stay in luxury resorts and travel in chauffeured limousines. Of course the masses will be taxed, restricted and impoverished, but hey! You know…omelettes, broken eggs, etc.
So how about giving us the extreme high slope and the extreme low slope out of those 102 IPCC CMIP-5 runs to go with that average.
In what way is that red curve “The Average” ??
Is it a run in which every parameter that is in the model is given the average value for that parameter as given in the specification of the model.
For example extreme temperature values observed on earth (weather/climate wise) is -94 to +60 deg. C So average is -17 deg. C (based on the max/min thermometer strategy).
Taking an average can be useful when you are repeating an experimental measurement of what purports to be some fixed value, and you want to get what you believe (on faith) is a more accurate likely value than any individual measurement. Of course that presumes some sort of normal distribution of errors; and normal distributions aren’t all that normal in practice. Unknown systematic errors plague most experimental observations.
Other than that; the computation of the average value of the members of a finite data set of finite real numbers, is simply a numerical origami exercise.
It works equally well on a data set of numbers that are actually calculable from a closed form mathematical formula (e.g y=exp(-1/x^2) ) or for a data set in which no two numbers have any relationship of any kind whatsoever; such as the numbers in this morning’s issue of the New York Times.
It always yields an exact answer since all set members are exactly known and they are finite in number and magnitude.
But the resulting “average” or ANY other statistical computational result has no meaning whatsoever other than that endowed by the definition of the algorithm, and it conveys no more information than was in the original set of numbers (which might be no information at all).
So show us the range of spread for these 102 golden IPCC runs, that are such earth shattering discoveries.
G
no, thats meaningless … look them up yourself if you care … the modelers claim to be able to model a “global” average temp. … fine, if a avg is good enough for them then as average of their model runs is good enough for us … 🙂
When you are claiming the hottest year on record by 0.01C the scattergun approach of countless scenarios in 102 models cannot be applied.
Unless you are a warmist.
“102 golden runs..” that alone tells us that they don’t have a clue, except to waste our and many others precious tax dollars. Sure several independent runs makes business sense, but when the results vary considerably, it is time to get back to basics and sort out the integrity of the assumptions and”calculations” ,not run with the same nonsense 100 more times! Personally I don’t believe the science/physics/thermodynamics of the climate is sufficiently well known that any valid computer model predicting decades in the future is even possible. As an Engineer, I have reviewed many computer models mostly in the field of solid mechanics and CFD and understand even these better defined models are difficult to get close to reality. No responsible engineer depends on these computer models without independent verification hopefully real data, obviously many climate scientists believe they have no immediate consequences except to ruin the world economy. .
I don’t but they obviously do or they wouldn’t need 102 runs.
Well you might want to do say 1002 runs if your climate model admits of a possible asteroid collision happening during the run.
g
It doesn’t matter. You would come to the same conclusion no matter how you view the data. There are a number of people who have completed this comparison in a number of different ways. The vast majority of climate models overstate the projected temperature. I’ve actually read scientific reports that support global warming with conclusions like “You can’t say with 95% confidence that the models are wrong.” (You would think they would try to prove that the models are right.)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013-1024×921.png
most will say things like, “but you’re using the wrong temperature data” or “They use the wrong starting point”. Judith Curry discusses those reservations here:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/
“We demonstrate this fact with our comparison of the observed warming rate to that of the range of climate model-predicted warming rates for all periods from 1951 ending with the most recent available data. In our AGU presentation, we included the observations of the global average surface temperature compiled by the UK’s Hadley Center. The Hadley Centre compilation has long been preferred by the IPCC.”
Lorcanbonda:
Looks like you got one of them shifted graphs to mislead.
ATheoK — I’m not sure what you’re implying. The graph comes from Roy Spencer (there are a number of these graphs.) My point was that it does not matter if you use the average curve or plot all 90 or 102 computer model projections. I pointed out that some people consider these graphs as misleading. Judith Curry gives her take on the subject where she illustrates a number of the ways to remove those criticisms with the same conclusions.
They gave it all away in the 5th paragraph: “they do not support serious policy”
If you aren’t in favor of giving the UN control of the global economy, you are EVIL!!!
Yes, “serious policy” is ambiguous in that it means different things to folks of different ideologies and prioritization. I happen to think that Mr. Trump will replace the fanatic inspired, self-conflicting, agenda serving policies with serious and sane policy, inspired by the people whose contributions to the private sector have benefitted society, rather than living on the backs of the hoards.
Seriously. The only people who read Vox, let alone believe anything they say, are blue-nosed progs from the deep blue bubble; it’s their “safe space.” The fewer clicks these propaganda mills get, the better.
It wouldn’t occur to me to try to recite the skeptical view point as if it were some sort
of catechism. Doesn’t that seem at all presumptuous? I’m a skeptic and I have a different
take on things. I’d go so far as to suppose others do too. For one, I think the “trace gas” argument
is not a good one. The physics are correct as far as they go. Arguments based on what
you think are just “common sense,” are often anything but.
Amazing that the left has now reached the point that all religious fanatics reach sooner or later, the one in which they say “ALL WHO DO NOT SWEAR A SOLEMN OATH TO OUR GOD MUST BE BURNED!!!”
And they will have creeds and confessions and apologia which all must be acknowledged and worshiped, so that they can be sure that no sneaky petes are trying to slip through their grasp without being totally sincere. That’s the tools the old Inquisition used to root out the crypto-jews in imperial Spain, after all. Torquemada could have been a writer for Vox.
Incidentally, the Inquisition was about enforcing Catholic orthodoxy from those who converted to Catholicism from Judaism but most importantly from ISLAM. After spending 800 years and the lives of tens of thousands of knights to rid Hispania of Islam the Inquisition was designed to regulate the process for rooting out stealth-jihadis (rather than have crazed mobs do it).
For its time the Inquisition was designed to be more humane than the alternatives, while defending Christendom from the lingering effects of the First Great Jihad which destroyed the Ancient World and ushered in the Dark Ages (the Dark Ages did not start with the fall of Rome, as is commonly believed, but with the advent of Arab Imperialism which destroyed the civilizations of the Levant and North Africa and eventually morphed into the fabricated Submission ideology, which is called “Islam” in Arabic). Note, we’re now in the Third Great Jihad, the Second involved the Ottoman attempts to fulfill Koran 9:29 and subjugate Europe under Sharia and the Islamic political order.
Since we like to be precise and investigate the true nature of the climate I thought some of you might like to gain a more accurate perspective on history too, starting with modern distortions about the Inquisition and how it came about – as a way of detecting the stealth jihadis which remained after the Spanish Reconquista.
Are you a Dinornis ??
Some like to claim that the Boston Marathon bombers were home grown terrorists.
Not so; although they may have been born here (don’t know).
But the older one who was killed, was named by his mother after one of the most bloodthirsty savages of history. So she was his guiding star.
Nobody would name their kid ” Cain ” so why would any loving mother name her brat after Timor The Lame ??
G
Clicks dude, clicks. Look at em pile up. Its how Eric gets his gratification.
Climate skeptics don’t deny that climate changes – they just don’t believe it is caused by CO2. Firstly, 95% of all CO2 emitted each year is natural – earth itself emits that much CO2 on an annual bases. Thus the warmers would have us believe that the 5% that is human created is what is driving the climate. How utterly stupid is that??? I should really believe that 5% of a 0.01% trace gas has climate implications? Yes, I am skeptical of that. I know climate changes, always has, always will. No skepticism there. But the IPCC doesn’t study natural causes – they have one and only one charter: identify the MAN-CAUSED climate changes. CO2 is their last life ring – The IPCC is not a scientific organization, it is a political one. Its very name proves that: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Fully agree with everything you’ve said!
Ditto
Me too. 100%
Auto
When the only tool the IPCC has is a hammer, very problem starts to resemble a nail.
should say ‘every problem…
Well what a jewel that is !
Do you mind if I borrow that for use in some other situations ??
g
Most naturally emitted CO2 is reabsorbed in the Spring. Don’t take credit away from Man for restoring our depleted CO2.
+97 Mr. Shotsky. Very well said!
…which would more correctly read “The Intergovernmental Propaganda on Climate Control.”
That is, after all it’s reason for existence.
Take out the word ‘Climate’ and you’d be closer to the real agenda.
Intergovernmental panel of climate conspirators
IGPOCC
The IPCC assumes that the 95% of the CO2 emitted by natural sources is in equilibrium. Science based on assumptions is not science.
Earth rotates every 24 hours or so, and that is slowing down; so nothing on earth is ever in equilibrium.
In particular for thermal equilibrium as in world temperatures; it is required that the entire system be isothermal (same temperature) otherwise it isn’t in equilibrium.
Sunnyvale CA temperature changes more in 24 hours on a typical day than the entire globe average temperature has changed in the last 650 million years.
Whoopee !!
g
“…the 95% of the CO2 emitted by natural sources is in equilibrium.”
That hoary old chestnut of the greens… If it is nature, it is pure and therefore perfect.
And it’s corollary… If it’s man-made, it’s corrupt and evil.
Spot on Mr Shotsky.
JS
“Thus the warmers would have us believe that the 5% that is human created is what is driving the climate.”
Murray Salby has presented the analysis showing why the warmers are wrong.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM)
Humlum et all.( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature?enrichId=rgreq-9cd45871f5c4b32573881229a9638562-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NzM0MzA1MztBUzozMzg4NzQyODM5MDUwMjRAMTQ1NzgwNTMzMzYyOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf ) provide the data analysis to support Salby.
Anthropogenic CO2 does NOT control atmospheric CO2 or global temperature.
This should be greeted as great news but is scoffed at as lukewarm science prevarication.
Well said, John.
It all started with the U.N.
“Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually”
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-is-about-destroying-capitalism/
I’ve seen this 95% number debunked on both sides. So what’s the truth of it? Ignoring carbon sinks and supposed carbon loops and carbon equilibrium, is there an objective list of the top gross CO2 emitters? From what I have seen this 95% number is fiercely debunked on the warming side. It’s hard to see where the truth is on this issue.
“I’ve seen this 95% number debunked on both sides.”
Try watching this video from Kilauea Volcano and still convince yourself that 95% of CO2 emissions aren’t natural.
This is from IPPC AR5.
http://ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2006/Fig6-01.jpg
Source Amount Percent (PgC/yr) Natural Respiration and fire 118.7 57.3% Ocean out gassing 78.4 37.9% Fresh water out gassing 1.0 0.5% Volcanism 0.1 0.0% ----- ------ 198.2 95.7% Man made Fossil fuels 7.8 3.8% Land use changes 1.1 0.5% ------ ------ 8.9 4.3% ====== ====== Total 207.1 100.0%My reply above was incorrectly attached to an irrelevant (to my response) post. Sorry about that.
I’m sure it was my fault. I’ll try again.
It wouldn’t occur to me to try to recite the skeptical view point as if it were some sort
of catechism. Doesn’t that seem at all presumptuous? I’m a skeptic and I have a different
take on things. I’d go so far as to suppose others do too. For one, I think the “trace gas” argument
is not a good one. The physics are correct as far as they go. Arguments based on what
you think are just “common sense,” are often anything but.
John Shotsky. Earth emits and absorbs huge amounts of carbon. Still, if you add to the amount of carbon int the atmosphere, then that amount of carbon in the atmosphere will increase.
Think of it like a pump that takes water from the bottom of a pond and puts it back through a fountain. It is obvious that the water level will remain constant (ignoring evaporation). Lets say the flow through the pump is 100gpm. It is accurate to say that 100gpm is added from the fountain. Now we start adding 5 gpm from a hose. Will the level of water rise or stay the same?
If you think that it will stay the same you are suffering from a logical error. This is the same error you are making when you say that nature adds 95% of the carbon to the atmosphere. Yes, sure, 95% of the water added to the pond comes from the fountain, but exactly the same amount is removed. The addition of the 5% from the hose can will raise the level of the pond. This should not be hard to understand.
When you apply this to the atmosphere, we have the equivalent of 100gpm being removed and added to the atmosphere. The level stays the same. We now introduce 5gpm from burning fossil fuels. The level rises. This is really very basic and there is no simple way to explain why the level would not rise with the added carbon.
You need a much more sophisticated argument to explain why the levels of CO2 would not rise. Logic dictates that it will rise.
seaice you’ve obviously never measured anything for money, in your life.
“If you think that it will stay the same you are suffering from a logical error. [after adding 5 gpm from a hose]”
You misunderstand the nature of our pump removing CO2 from the atmosphere. It doesn’t work at constant speed, like a water pump. Instead, it works better at the higher CO2 concentration. Yes, the CO2 level will rise initially, but it will quickly reach a new equilibrium point and not rise after that.
Nope. There’s a hidden assumption in there, that outflow will be constant, and independent of inflow. That’s the logic flaw.
I said you need a much more sophisticated argument than 95% is natural. That is just the argument that only 5% of the water comes from the hose. That argument is worthless.
The argument that a new equilibrium is reached is much better. If true it means that if we constantly add CO2 the level will continue to rise.
In fact, we know approximately what happens. About half the added CO2 is fairly quickly removed by the natural sinks and the other half stays in the atmosphere. That second half is very slowly removed.
J. Hellberg, can you say what words you disagree with please?
Seaice1, now you quit talking “trash”, ….. ya hear.
It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference in the “level” of the pond water iffen you are pumping the water from the bottom of the pond up through a pipe to a fountain from where it flows back into the top of the pond …… or whether you are pumping the water from the bottom of the pond up through a hose from where it flows back into the top of the pond ……. or whether you are pumping pond water up through the pipe and the hose at the same time, ……… the water level in the pond will remain the same.
Course now, iffen you want to claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is providing “cosmic” water for the hose to be squirting into the pond …… then we will believe yu.
Joh, what is the reference for 95% of CO2 as being natural? That is a great statistic.
the real number is 97%- – –
anything less that total climate alarmism and expensive energy “solutions” which help to kill off millions of the world’s poor is simply unacceptable for these Malthusians.
roy you never answer -but i’ll ask again.
How are the poor going to be helped by cheap energy when the cannot afford food .
More industry?
move to a city live in slums get paid a pittance whilst making over priced clothing for the west?
I will take a crack at answering your question for Dr. Spencer. Fossil fuels make it easier to produce food. If you don’t have to rely on your back to get water but can afford an electric pump then you can grow more of your own food or the food produced will be more plentiful and cheaper. If you use fossil fuels to produce cheaper fertilizer then you can grow more of your own food or the food produced will be more plentiful and cheaper. I could go on but I refer you to The Moral Case for Fossil Fuel (http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/) that documents all the many ways fossil fuels are a better solution for the world’s poor than more expensive fossil free energy.
Yes. You recognize the right thinking from statements like ‘100% of the warming since 1950 is caused by fossil fuels, and 150% of the warming since 1950 is caused by the AGW’. The IPCC statement ‘more than half’ is a lukewarmer position which is there just because denialists have so strong foothold in the IPCC.
I’m not kidding. This is what they think.
Not trying to sidetrack but can anyone point to an explanation for (on the global bulk temp graph at top) the much greater disparity between satellite and surface temps between roughly 1994 and 2005?
Here’s one view:
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/no-global-warming-for-25-years-2/
Hugs:
Yes, the disparity after 1994 is because the models were “hindcasting” as of the late 1990s, and therefore were forced to follow the reality of the temperature increase.
Sorry–the comment should have been addressed to Harkin
Thanks
Perhaps the question shoyl be why the balloon and sat were different 1995 to 2004.
I said “surface” but I meant “balloon” – thx for pointing that out.
“Perhaps the question should be why the balloon and sat were different 1995 to 2004.”
Another question is why the satellite profile in that chart (above) does not resemble the UAH or RSS satellite charts (below), which show 1998 as being hotter than any subsequent year but 2016. The profile of the satellite/model comparison above more closely resembles the bastardized surface temperature charts, which show a cool 1998, than it does the UAH or RSS satellite charts.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2017_v6.jpg
Here is another graph of basically the same thing.
When recently asked this, Michael Mann replied “mostly due to difference in magnitude of 98 El Niño in satellites.” calling it the “El Nino fingerprint in satellite and surface datasets”.
He did not mention the Arctic, I may have also read, not sure, a claim the satellites do not cover the Arctic as well, and of course the surface dataset involves lots and lots of infilling in remote areas like the Arctic. So maybe El Nino triggered polar amplification? … or bad infilling? I am no expert
Tobias , i have also read the same about satellites ,you can find more on this if you google
Hi Tobias ,i have also read that they cannot cross over the poles directly .iam not an ‘engineer’,but i believe it is due to increased gravity force over the poles, .&insufficient centripetal(/centifugal?) force .i believe most of them orbit in a more or less equatorial plane ,thus pictures of the poles are poorer resolution due to the angle of incidencenot being vertical to the earths surface .maybe someone else can be more preciseabout this .
I agree with Vox. A lukewarmer isn’t much different than a denier. However, I would also add that a lukewarmer isn’t much different than an alarmist either. He or she is sort of middle-of-the-road, you might say. It’s sort of stating the obvious, isn’t it? Fence-sitting is like that. That’s what fence-sitters do. They occupy the middle ground so that no matter what happens, they can always say (in retrospect) I sort of knew something like X was going to happen, where X is one of the 2 extreme (denier/alarmist in this case) positions. If something in the middle happens, then they look like absolute geniuses, and they can shout from the rooftops that I KNEW that X/2 was going to happen! Way to go Tillerson.
That is the new journalism which Vox is a creature of. Really this is just a return to journalism’s deep roots in politics. Each party or interest group had its own paper to disseminate its views and mobilize its adherents. Journalists were generally low paid hacks fir hire fond of free peanuts and cheap beer at the bar.
With the economic demise of the newspaper business model electronic media has recreated that earlier time. Anyone can be a journalist but they must have a wealthy benefactor with strong opinions behind them.
So Vox is fake news and really nothing more that a special interest broadsheet.
I think that you mean that Vox is a tabloid. Here is the definition of “tabloid” from dictionary.com
“noun
1.
a newspaper whose pages, usually five columns wide, are about one-half the size of a standard-sized newspaper page.
2.
a newspaper this size concentrating on sensational and lurid news, usually heavily illustrated.”
Journalists have always been primarily advocates for one position or another.
It’s just that for a few decades they managed to convince a majority of the people that they were honest purveyors of facts.
And also for generations there were two sides (at least) being published in rival media but, around the 60’s, the conservative side seems to have gone out of business. Now the internet reflects that old model and provides a healthy variety of opinions and facts.
How many of the talking heads of CNN are still alive; or have they all had heart attacks and died.
It sure beats watching “Comedy Central” for entertainment value. It’s not unlike watching a big Anaconda wrapped around an even bigger Caiman, trying to squeeze the life out of it, and not even thinking about how the hell it is going to eat it, if the croc doesn’t kill it first.
I prefer MMA myself or even WWE for serious programming.
g
“the conservative side seems to have gone out of business.” Either Murdoch is not conservative or he has gone out of business. Since he has not gone out of business I presume you think he is a pinko?
“And also for generations there were two sides (at least) being published in rival media but, around the 60’s, the conservative side seems to have gone out of business.”
Opposition to the Vietnam war is what galvanized the Liberals in the News Media to start pushing the Liberal/Socialist/Pacifist narrative. Before the war, they were fairly even-handed, but during and after the war, they went completely ideological, and haven’t stopped since.
“So Vox is fake news and really nothing more that a special interest broadsheet.”
Just like Breitbart and Zero Hedge.
“Just like Breitbart”
As far as I know, Breitbart has not produced any fake news. If you have any examples, I would be interested to see them. Breitbart is usually debunking fake news, not creating it.
This may be a bit off topic but what is the relevance of the average of 102 model runs? Shouldn’t the approach to modelling be to see who gets closest to reality and determine what they are doing that the others aren’t doing so the others can maybe get a little closer? Lumping the most inaccurate with the least inaccurate says nothing useful whatever. It’s like averaging all our telephone numbers or ages or whatever.
It’s averaging 102 wrong answers and claiming that the average is the right answer. That’s the logic of idiots, not scientists.
“95% of the models agree, therefore the observations must be wrong.”, Dr. Roy Spencer
Those who believe that simulation modeling is the “be all and end all” are traveling down the path of the lemmings.
To be fair to Dr. Spencer, he was ridiculing the warmist position with that statement. It’s not a statement of his own beliefs.
I am aware that Dr. Spencer’s tongue was planted firmly in his cheek when he made that quip. 😉
fire: You may be, but not all of our readers are. Don’t what anyone to get the wrong impression of the good doctor.
Same question applies to ‘climate’.
each model run has its own natural, somewhat random, variability which on this time scale (35 yrs or so) can significantly impact the trend. So, if you average all of the models together, you remove this element of the model forecasts and get at their overall, average warming trend…which, btw, is basically what is followed for the IPCC global warming predictions, and thus guidance for energy policy. If an individual model happens to get closer to the observations than all the other models, that’s mostly by chance…not because of skill.
Roy:
Except maybe for the Russian model, which has a smaller (perhaps more realistic) aerosol cooling effect and thus matches up rather well with the temperature increase?
that’s mostly by chance…
You know, oddly enough…..the models exactly match the adjusted temp data
….and real world temps exactly match the raw unadjusted data
if the stochastic element is greater than the signal then averaging it can only make mud.
and what’s the evidence that the errors are ‘somewhat random’ anyway?
Well they are just working their little A**** off trying to match you chaps at UAH Dr. Roy, and you and Prof John are driving them all nuts !
G
Because of chance
=======
That could be true, or it could also be false if some of the models were more skillful than others.
The problem with all the models is that none of them can be right because the future is not predicted by the average of all possibilities, any more than 7 will be the next roll of a pair of dice.
Errors are somewhat random.
======
There is huge significance in knowing in the error term has a constant variance (white noise) which can be averaged out, or if the noise is pink or brown, which cannot be averaged out.
There is a large body of science that tells us the future is more likely pink noise and does not converge to zero the way that white noise does.
I think the average of a Messerschmidt is still a Messerschmidt.
Roy,
I can see that averaging many runs from a particular model may reveal the trends for that model. That should probably be done for each and every model to understand how they differ (if at all) from other models, if that isn’t already the case. However, assuming that there actually are differences in the assumptions and tuning parameters of the different models, so that the work isn’t entirely redundant, logically, there can only be one ‘best’ model among them all. To average the results of many poor models with that of the best one only insures that the average is going to be poorer than the best. I think that one needs to compare the poor models with the better models to see how they differ. That might provide some insight on how to improve the under-performing models. It might also provide some insight on what assumptions built in to the models are wrong.
If there are substantive differences in models, such as the Russian models, then while differences might be chance, it also might be that their assumptions show greater expertise in understanding the problem.
Roy,
It seems to me that the Lower Troposphere data from satellites record data from significantly more mass of the atmosphere at different elevations rather than a ground station which records at a single elevation. If indeed there is more mass, Satellites are recording a temperature representing a greater amount of energy which possibly changes in temperature more slowly than ground station recordings which can change significantly from day to night? Is this correct? Thanks for enlightenment.
Any model that approaches reality may simply be right at the time for the wrong reasons.
If you have one foot in a bucket of boiling water, and the other frozen solid in block of ice, on the average you feel just fine.
So….anyone who disagrees with my policy prescriptions is an evil person, no matter how reasonable they sound. Gotcha. Guess you must be a ‘Liberal’.
Your quotation marks around liberal are justified. Not liberals, authoritarian collectivists.
In this case, authoritarian is redundant. In practice all collectivists are authoritarian. It’s the only way those systems can “work”.
The veil comes off. It’s not about the science — it’s about the policies!
“very few US politicians scratch more than an inch deep on climate change”
That’s quite an admission!
Imagine if there were actual science to bolster the claims of a greenhouse gas property, then the believers could employ it in their defense.
“very few US politicians scratch more than an inch deep on climate change”
That’s especially true of the politicians who also call themselves climate scientists.
“very few US politicians scratch more than an inch deep on climate change”
There’s little need to go any deeper. Scratching the top millimeter reveals Lysenkoism, falsehoods, cherry-picked data, correlation hunting, faulty methodology, logical fallacies, “novel” statistics, and hubris,
And even that inch is more than the alarmist politicians are capable of understanding.
Man contributes to global warming in three ways: emissions; land use changes; and, data “adjustment”. Nature contributes to global warming in multiple ways as well, not all well understood. Climate science is not currently capable of measuring the individual impacts of these anthropogenic and natural contributions, though the anthropogenic contribution of data “adjustment” might be the easiest to estimate.
Fire, do you know of a single Warmunist that is not in it for the money or is a useful idiot along for the ride?
Another reason to keep Kenji safe.
I stopped reading anything from Vox about six months ago. There is value is reading opposing viewpoints, but Vox is so biased liberal and distorts the facts so much it is a waste of time to read. I’m sure they have their group of readers who want to live in their own bubbles that block out any other viewpoints that don’t agree with theirs, but that is not healthy. I would love it if Trump had his own 30 minute TV show each week to have debates about subjects like climate change, where everything presented is pre-vetted to make sure it is true, and let both sides have their say and a rebuttal period afterwards. The left wants to shut down the debate because they know the facts expose their alarmism as an attempt to keep the money flowing into climate change research, so now that the left is not in charge anymore I would like to see a meaningful public debate on global warming. That would be healthy for everyone.
Steve, “I stopped reading anything from Vox about six months ago.” What took you so long? Vox made me violently ill from the very beginning, and I smartened up real quick.
There used to be a Vox that made gramophone records.
They were famous for two things. (a) They could squeeze more music onto one side of a 12 inch LP record than anybody else (maybe 35-40 minutes) and (b) they believed you could make the most accurate recordings with just a single microphone paced in the proper place relative to the orchestra of opera stage.
Well they were also famous for a third reason. They made the lousiest records that were available at the time.
Seems like this new Vox is following in the footsteps of their incestors.
g
There were also Vox guitar amps. I had one for a while back in the day. I went back to Fender fast. Their compact organs had some good points, but once I got my B3, I never looked back. Not a great pedigree there either. 🙂
“incestors”? Are you saying they are in-bred?
When I see VOX and think music, it’s Brian Jones’ teardrop-shaped guitar.
When I see VOX and think political commentary, it’s Ezra Klein VOX-splaining that healthcare under The ACA will be just as awesome as healthcare under the Veterans Administration.
You would hope that publicly funded NPR and PBS (and CBC in Canada) would encourage such a show. Sure thing!
Vox is pablum. We have too many distractions for most to understand complex issues so media distills and imparts its own flavor to reality.
In reality, we have tried to make life idiot proof. Nature comes up with better idiots.
Tillerson had to be a luke warmer. As a CEO of Exxon you can not say AGW is a hoax. But as a SOS you are free to say what you think. Lets see what he really is.
A SOS is even less free to say what he thinks than a CEO of Exxon.
We’ll see. It might well be in some cases. I doubt that is the case with climate issues.
Depends on who’s President, and who’s the market for the CEO’s company. Green is trendy, and CAGW is an article of faith among many of the most sought marketing demographic, so that constrains what the CEO’s feel free to say. In this case, I think has more freedom as SOS than he had as CEO.
As CEO of Exxon he didn’t have to say a thing because he knew that as long as 20-30,000 delegates to climate conferences every 6 months he was making money for his company. He also knew that the hypocrites were not stopping their use of cars, boats, planes trains, computers and all materials made out of fossil fuels, let alone turn off the heat this time of the year
delegates to climate conferences every 6 months
sorry should have read
as long as 20-30,000 delegates were travelling to climate conferences every 6 months ( fingers got way ahead of brain)
Why please misanthropic extremists by seeking for common ground, Mr Trump?
That is President Trump; POTUS. He worked hard for that title; just as Sen, Babs (Mrs.) Boxer did as she told the general who called her Ma’am.
g
Wasn’t handing over the Nobel prize to Obama, Gore or Pachauri and will not suggest it for Trump or Babs, whoever she is.
“Babs” is the clueless senator from my home state who derided a military officer for calling her “ma’am”.
The officer had too much class to inform her that in the military book of protocol a female senator should be addressed as “senator” or “ma’am”.
Ma’am is good enough for the Queen of England after the initial greeting but I suppose Democrats have a better opinion of themselves.
Mjw:
Nit picking I know, but there hasn’t been a Queen of England since 1707 when both England and Scotland abolished themselves as Sovereign States and united to become a new State called The United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Otherwise your comment is correct.
Sometimes referred to Babs “Bouncer” Boxer who wrote so many bouncing checks on some Senate bank account, and never got thrown in jail for bank fraud, or maybe it would be grand theft.
g
I wonder if anyone asked her if she thought it would be disrespectful for the general to call one of the male senators “sir”.
Equality!
Climate hysteria has been ramped up since Trump won, for obvious reasons. These guys know they’re about to take the single biggest hit in 30 years of climate propaganda so are trying to get their retaliation in first however sadly for them it’ll be to no avail because the science simply doesn’t support their theory. Low sensitivity is the death of AGW alarmism.
The Weather Channel is becoming unwatchable with their pounding of the rising oceans drum. Even during their actual weather broadcasts.
Wait until the tide goes out and they are resting on the keel.
Well, I already know this enemy, which is why I stopped reading at “Vox”. When 90% of a website’s output are “listicles”, time to get off the internet and take your dog for a walk.
Seriously, as bad as the traditional media is (remember how little they got right about Trump’s ascendancy), the “new” media is just many times worse (its just easier to “change the channel” to places like WUWT).
First clue is how many “senior editors” there are at places like Vox, and how many of these “senior editors” are still in their early and mid-twenties…
Caligula: They give them the title “senior editor” to (maybe, partially) mollify them for being paid on the same scale as garment workers in Bangladesh. This is the business model of internet journalism.
and the cost of living in Bangladesh is so much lower to to boot
You mean that a progressive organization like Vox would expect people to work for almost free?
Doesn’t seem possible…
(Yeah, I worked co-op at a local newspaper – at least I realized that this was for my high school education, and at the end I at least received a credit. But hey, Vox probably has a kewl games room or something equally amazing that will keep them applying for those internships.)
The true irony is that global temps will likely be colder by 2100 than they are now from the cooling effects a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) event starting from 2032 and lasting 50~100 years.
Any CO2 induced warming enjoyed between now and 2100 will help offset some of the cooling from the coming GSM.
Even without a GSM, CO2 forcing between now and 2100 will likely be around 0.4C, in addition to the 0.2~0.3C we’ve enjoyed since 1850..
The Leftists’ brilliant plan is for global governments to waste $76 trillion (2008 UN estimate) over 40 years to keep CO2 induced warming below 2C….
Let’s not waste a dime and enjoy around 0.6C of total CO2 induced warming by 2100….
Elections have consequences. The left’s words are coming back to bite them.
Now is the time for real debate. And Vox is not included – hate-filled rhetoric is confined to the elementary school yards.
Yes POTUS The Trump, is simply implementing the immigration hold law that his predecessor Obama signed into law. And that law was co-sponsored by some liberal Democrat from Connecticut.
You might call her ‘ A Connecticut Yankee in King Obummer’s court. ‘
g
This is just part of the “science is settled” “debate is over” decree over a decade ago.
Most scientists know that we continue to learn more about the climate system and adjust views/projections. However, a large group of non scientifically thinking people have made the incorrect assumption that the role of CO2 in the atmosphere and biosphere had/has quickly reached the same level of our understanding as that of gravity(9.8m/sxs).
It would be great if the physics of climate modeling and response of the biosphere could be represented as precisely, with mathematical equations as we can with the force of gravity.
Those of us who understand the tremendous range of uncertainty(that has been shrinking as we learn more) are skeptics……….of those that make assumptions of certainty.
Theory of Gravity vs Theory of Climate Change
With the Theory of Gravity, man does not have an understanding of how it works. But man has been able to quantify how it behaves with such precision that the planet Neptune was determined to exist before it was ever seen. We can also land a spacecraft on an asteroid.
With the Theory of Climate Change, the believers claim to know how it works (just ask and they’ll tell you). But man has been unable to quantify how it behaves. This leaves us with a theory that has no axioms, no postulates, no formulas, and nothing to reason with. IOW, it has no scientific value.
Well put. +1
Well lots of folks, not including me understand perfectly how the theory of gravity works. That is relativistically easy to understand for folks unlike me.
But when it comes to how gravity works; that is a totally different story.
Nobody understands that; but we ALL understand that gravity sucks !
But hell; we don’t know why that is either.
G
Yet temperatures continue to rise, even as the solar minimum is here. How astounding. A theory with no scientific value somehow manages to get that right.
You’re nothing more nor less than a hick
If memory serves, Neptune was discovered via Newtonian physics, which were later proved to be inaccurate under certain circumstances.
Then again, those who developed quantum physics and other new fields didn’t gad about calling those still using Newtonian physics (such as NASA for the Apollo moon landings) “deniers” either. 😉
but we need socialized globalization right now!
Their entire house of cards is being blown away…
…so they crank it up…and do more of what cost them the election
Not too bright
That’s why they’ve weaponized black people and “feminists.” Ultima ratio regum, and all that.
Well those feministas are out to eliminate the human race, in a sort of “planned” extinction process.
g
Vox has proven itself closed minded and ideological – the natural state of all humans, but not tolerable.
IPCC AR4: “Best estimate for a “low scenario”[13] is 1.8 °C [per century]”
Actual warming rates: 1.6C per century.
Sorry Vox, you’re in denial of the observations.
In denial for now, past observations have a habit of changing.
Rates of radiative forcing peaked around 1989.
It would not be surprising for rates of warming to decelerate as well.
They don’t exactly get changed; more like unmisremembered.
g
Not sure people realize how devastating the basic equilibrium model is to the IPCC temperature forecasts — when you throw on another blanket, the heat flow only changes for a very short time before the equilibrium between the new level of insulation and the new temperature is reached — and the CO2 effect is logarithmic anyway.
So every year that the temperature doesn’t immediately rocket to vast new heights suggests the eventual equilibrium state with additional CO2 is either closer than they guess to current temperatures, or (more likely) just not very significant next to other unrelated changes.
Like everything else in their (with my hat off to the Brits) “dodgy” pseudo-science, they argue it both ways. They try to blame us for the warming that has supposedly occurred since [fill in the blank], i.e., as if it occurs instantly. But when the amount is too small [even after all of their data manipulations] to cause alarm, then they argue that it’s because the system isn’t yet at “equilibrium” and more warming is yet to come [the old “doom is always just around the corner” meme to keep people in fear].
Sort of like the “The children won’t know what snow is” attempt to pull at our heartstrings, when we were having winters with comparatively little snow, which then shifted gears to “More snow is “consistent with” global warming,” when we started to experience winters with lots of snow.
Basically, their arguments constantly morph to fit the latest condition of [fill in the blank]. The skeptical among us see through this as a clear indicator that their claims are based on ignorance and shoddy pseudo science, and a clear indicator that we should not only stop listening to them, but not waste another nickel in support of their braying.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!” – Sir Walter Scott
talldave2. You agree that the new equilibrium temperature for each “blanket” is higher than before, yes? So you agree that the “blanket” will cause warming? I don’t see how that is in any way devastating to the IPCC forecasts.
Apart from the fact that there has not been any warming since 1998 even though CO2 levels have been going up consistently and therefore the CO2 causes warming theory is totally debunked?
Hivemind, have you not seen the graphs? Have you not heard that the last three years were each the hottest in the record? Why do you say there has been no warming? Is it that you reject data that doesn’t agree with you?
The Medieval Warming Period, The Roman Warming Period, The Minoan Warming Period, The Holocene Optimum, and most of the Eemian were all warmer than today.
We aren’t setting any records.
There are very few actual “deniers”, those who proclaim that CO2 has no impact on temperatures.
But it doesn’t suit the narrative of the alarmists to admit that.
In their thinking, they have to discredit anyone who doesn’t support their desire to drastically change everything.
There are a few posting regularly here.
I say CO2 has no impact on temperatures and defy you personally to show me the mathematical principle you claim upholds it. You had better have a lot of familiarity with the basic laws of physics because there’s gonna be a hole rip in the sky when you try to show that. Because the law of thermodynamics for solving the temperature of volumes of atmospheric air, specifically forbids CO2 changing the temperature of atmospheric mix.
Hilarious Mark. “Very few”, they just all happen to congregate here.
Maybe Mark W will point out why J. Hellberg is wrong.
Evidence shows CO2 follows temperature. Ergo, rising CO2 cannot significantly affect temperature. To do so, CO2 would need to lead temperature. It doesn’t. Case closed. Go find another dead horse, another windmill, another Lamb to fleece.
The greatest single argument against CO2 warming the planet has been CO2 follows temperatures, not the other way round.
Why is this the case for greatest argument against CO2 warming the planet even remotely?
An affect can’t also be a cause at the same time because this would lead to uncontrollable warming with nothing to stop it. This has never been found during any time during the planets history going back billions of years. In fact if this scenario could had even happened then we, humans certainly would not be around today to even discuss this issue.
For example)
A – Ocean warming causing increase in global temperatures.
B – Atmosphere increasing with CO2.
Any warming from A) causes warming towards B)
Any warming from B) cause warming towards A)
This is positive feedback with no way of stopping it, if it goes beyond the slight variation in the first place.
CAGW has been dead for many years because this scenario has never been remotely supported in any scientific form using observations and evidence. There is no mechanism that exists that can even remotely support it. Alarmism has come from this positive feedback being true, but the planet clearly refutes it.
Regarding the Observation vs Models chart used in the present blog post:
Only lukewarmers with confirmation bias blends troposphere with stratosphere, by using the broad TMT-layer, and claim that the troposphere isn’t warming as fast as predicted by the models..
According to radiosonde data, the “truth” is that the troposphere warming follow the models quite well, but the stratosphere is cooling much faster than the models:
http://postmyimage.com/img2/588_Ratpaclayersvsmodels.png
So the models are still wrong?
O R, please consider writing an original post (rather than just a comment) with your second graph. If WUWT is uninterested in publishing it, please ask the Skeptical Science team.
The hot spot has not occurred for the satellite era, though for the entire RAOB era, there is some indication of a closer trend:
There’s a good reason the Hot Spot hasn’t occurred.
That is, the models create too much precipitation and a “double ITCZ”.
Unfortunately, this problem seems to have gotten worse, not better from CMIP3 to CMIP5.
Well, a mighty hotspot has suddenly occurred in the AMSU-era in UAH v6 data:
http://postmyimage.com/img2/441_UAH_hotspot.png
I guess all we needed to find the hotspot was those superior “Cadillac calibrated” instruments (according to Spencer).
‘OR’
Your above graphs are an average tropospheric and stratospheric temperature for the entire planet, not for the tropical tropospheric. i.e. Your graph has nothing to due with the tropical tropospheric paradox.
Tropospheric Tropospheric Paradox is:
The IPCC general circulation models (GCM) predicted that the most amount of warming on the planet should occur in the tropical region, in the troposphere at roughly 8km above the planet. This is not observed. There is almost no warming in the tropical region at 8km above the planet.
The high latitude stratosphere was cooled (not the tropical stratosphere has not cooled), much faster than the general circulation models, as the cause of the warming in the last 150 years was due changes in cloud cover, not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. I.e. You are pointing out another observational fact that disproves CAGW and in fact supports super low lukewarm global warming.
Less cloud cover (any region of the planet) results in less solar radiation reflected off into space which will of course cause the planet to warm and will of course also cause the stratosphere to cool as the ozone in the stratosphere is heated by the short wave solar radiation. The sunlight that is reflected off of clouds warms the stratosphere.
An observation that supports the assertion that the warming in the last 150 years is due to changes in cloud cover rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the latitudinal warming paradox.
The latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox is the fact that the latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 150 years does 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 forcing is theoretically logarithmically proportional to the increase in atmospheric CO2 times 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 the increase in atmospheric CO2 should be the same at all latitudes.
This is not observed. The majority of the warming in the last 150 years has been in high latitude regions which is the same region that was warmed and then cooled in the paleo record with the warming and cooling cycles correlating to solar cycle changes.
There is almost no observed tropical warming.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
As the amount of warming is also proportional to amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2, the greatest amount of warming should have occurred at the equator.
There is in fact almost no warming in the tropical region of the planet. This observational fact supports the assertion that majority of the warming in the last 50 years was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/rad_balance_ERBE_1987.jpg
OR does what he condemns others for doing.
How typical.
William Astley,
You assert that the tropics behave differently from the rest of the globe, ie less troposphere warming and less stratosphere cooling.
I see no evidence for that in data. Once again, Ratpac A vs models but for the tropics only:
http://postmyimage.com/img2/179_TropicalRatpaclayersvsCMIP5.png
There are fewer stations in the tropics and noisier graphs, but the picture is similar to the global.
Possibly the stratospheric cooling is even more diverging from the models…
Tropical hotspots and coolspots come and go with the swings of ENSO:
http://postmyimage.com/img2/860_TropicalHotandCoolspot.png
An interesting thing is that models (in average) predict a satellite-era increase in nino 3.4 temps of 0.19 C/decade, whereas the observed (ERSSTv4) nino 3.4 trend is virtually zero, although global SST has risen.
Thus, models are seemingly reacting to AGW by becoming more el Nino like, whereas real world become more la Nina like.
A La Nina-state doesn’t mean that the global warming is absent. It means that the tropical troposphere warming isn’t rising in altitude, it means stronger trade wind, stronger circulation, ocean overturning, and that the heat is transported poleward and deeper down into the oceans.
just my 50 cents…