Climate modelers can’t predict future, so now concentrate on the past

WUWT regular Alan Tomalty writes:

This new study seems to be one of the first studies to admit to internal climate variability for the 20th century. The IPCC is always loath to admit this. However, since the study conclusions are built upon computer climate model simulations, I contend this is still junk science even though it bolsters the skeptic position somewhat. I draw your attention to the following quote:

“We have for example noted that the temporal variance of the majority of ensemble members is larger than what can be inferred from available observations. The result of the study must be assessed with that in mind. We have no simple explanation to this but it might be that the model projects the variance on larger scales than nature as a consequence of limited resolution. We would consequently encourage other modeling groups to undertake similar studies which will hopefully make use of the latest high resolution models coupled models (Haarsma et al. 2016). Intuitively we might have expected the opposite and that reality might expose a higher level of variance than the climate model.”

Why the climate modeler would expect that the climate model would exhibit a lower variability than the real life situation, I have no idea. I guess this is another case of the climate scientist falling in love with his model.

So, it seems that the climate scientists are working their way back in time so that they will have something to do when their CO2 alarmist study of future climate falls apart. However I don’t think that trying to model past climate will capture the public’s imagination quite the way that modelling the doomsday future climate has.

It seems that we will indeed be inundated with climate studies as per the one above,(I predict 1 per week) all steming from the following.

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/noaa-20th-century-reanalysis-version-2-and-2c

I will quote from the NCAR/UCAR website even though it is NOAA’s project.

“The Twentieth Century Reanalysis (20CR) provides a comprehensive global atmospheric circulation data set spanning 1850-2014. Its chief motivation is to provide an observational validation data set, with quantified uncertainties, for assessing climate model simulations of the 20th century, with emphasis on the statistics of daily weather. The analyses are generated by assimilating only surface pressures and using monthly SST and sea ice distributions as boundary conditions within a ‘deterministic’ Ensemble Kalman Filter (EKF). A unique feature of the 20CR is that estimates of uncertainty are derived using a 56 member ensemble. Overall, the quality is approximately that of current three-day NWP forecasts.”

So they are saying that the quality is as good as a 3 day weather forecast. Hmmmmm. So does that mean that 3 days backward is as good as 3 days forward, or that the hindcast for June 21, 1852 is as good as a 3 day weather forecast? If the latter; that would be very good quality indeed.

Fig. 2a Annual global mean 2 m temperature as a function of time for all ensemble members (light blue), ensemble mean and ± 1 standard deviation (black). Observational results from HadCRUT4 (red) and JRA55 (green) are superimposed. All results are relative to the respective 1961–1990 mean as for HadCRUT4. Major volcanic eruptions are indicated, a ‘?’ indicates uncertainty to attribution. b Distribution of ensemble linear trends (gray) and linear trends for the ensemble mean (black), HadCRUT4 (red) and JRA55 (green) for the common 1958–2005 period. c Ensemble standard deviation as a function of time for the ensemble (black) and standard deviation when masked by the HadCRUT4 observations (red)

So it is obviously the former. So that must mean the accuracy of hindcasting the climate in 1850 is about as accurate as forecasting the climate of the year 2185. So come to think of it, I don’t understand the statement “Overall, the quality is approximately that of current three-day NWP forecasts.”

Their other statement:

“A unique feature of the 20CR is that estimates of uncertainty are derived using a 56 member ensemble.”

This certainly sounds like an ensemble of computer climate models but in the new language of climate scientists it means 56 simulations run on the same climate model with each simulation set to different starting parameters. So, they are using 56 different sets of computer climate model simulations, each of which do not fully understand the underlying science of the planet; and averaging the uncertainty to give one estimate of uncertainty and are calling this a strength of their project!!!!!!!!!

Is the objective here to tell you at what hours of the day it rained on June 21 in 1852 in Mobile Alabama? Or is it something grander than that? Your tax dollars, folks, being spent here..

What national security, or national economic. or national pride reasons would we have to fund past studies of weather/climate that go only as far back as 1850. Oh , I can certainly see the long range goal of this is to wipe out any warming that ever appeared without massive mounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Once they have fiddled their way back to 1850, why stop there? The next target will be the medieval warming period. It certainly looks like the climate scientists want to put the paleoclimatologists out of business. Computer models are always “sexier” than proxies for climate and so much faster in data generation. Whenever you read the word “Reanalysis”, always remember at some point it is computer generated data even if some real world data is mixed in with it. On another page of the site I found this under Key Limitations

“Does not provide the best estimate of the atmospheric state since ~1979, when more complete observations and more comprehensive reanalyses are available”

Duhhhhh, 1979 was the year when the UAH led by Christy started to provide real data.

PS: I obtained a graph of one of their (UAH) temperature data reanalysis for the US Average Annual temperature degrees Celsius at 2 metres from surface from 1870 to 2010 at 25 degrees N – 50 degrees N and 55 W – 114W.

The graph looked like a long gentle sloping sine/cosine curve with variability from 12.5C to 15 C and no upward trend. Interestingly, the highest was in the 1930s. I guess NOAA hadn’t gotten around to adjusting this computer generated reanalysis data yet.


For the open access study online, see the below link.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-018-4343-8

Advertisements

155 thoughts on “Climate modelers can’t predict future, so now concentrate on the past

  1. Yet another proof that models are running hot. The green line and the black line do not coincide with the observations of the red line (fig 2b)

  2. We can’t predict the future. We can only infer the past. Science is, with cause, a philosophy to characterize observations in a limited frame of reference in time and space.

    • n.n. “We can’t predict the future.”

      We have tide charts and eclipse calendars that ‘predict the future’. We just need quantifiable science.

      • I’d say though, Thomas, that we can ‘predict the future’ of our normal movements of Earth and other planets and heavenly bodies in the solar system (thus tides and eclipses). But what if in 2-5 years, a 700 mile diameter asteroid struck Earth (or even the moon) at one of the poles, say 15-20 degrees off the polar axis, subsequently changing Earth’s precession and relationship with the sun and moon (and thus the tides and eclipse calendars). Can we say with certainty that that won’t happen? I’d say no, and thus the future cannot be predicted, except for what you will find in Daniel and Revelation in the Bible.

      • Neil deGrasse Tyson: Believe In Science Behind Eclipse? Believe Climate Change, Too.

        Here’s one for Neil: Suppose someone wanted to watch the August 21, 2017 solar eclipse shadow coming in over the ocean as it approached the Oregon coast that morning. Is there any weather forecaster in the world who could guarantee it wouldn’t be too cloudy or foggy to see that happen then at that location?

        Some people don’t understand the difference in the impact of a small number of relevant (and known) variables versus a large number of them in processes that are not well understood.

      • The key to science is observable, reproducible, deductive reasoning, and constraining characterization to a limited frame of reference in time and space. The alternative is prophecy with a forward looking perspective, and myth looking back with circumstantial evidence and assertions about the nature of time and space.

      • Actually, we do a “fairly good job” (That is Nick Stokes’ vocabulary) of predicting future seasons. We have yet to confuse a Winter with a Summer. It is those annoying variations down at the noise level that prevent us from having perfect predictions — the same ones that create problems for annual, average temperatures!

        • It’s ACTUALLY because climate scientists can predict seasons with their models that they trust those models for long term climate prediction.

          True story.

          Well, at least, real claim. Whether they believe what they say is in debate. But they say what they say, and they say that being able to model summer and winter should make people trust their models. Well, yes, they can model the SUN “forcing”.

    • Science is not philosophy. The Greek Sophists thought they could explain things by clear thinking, but it wasn’t until the realization that data needed to be selected and added to the mix that Science began to evolve. The evolution was mostly complete when it was realized that experiments could be designed to test the interpretation and validate it. Then Peer Review came along and it all went to hell.

      • Peer review works if the editors actually enforce its ethical underpinnings.

        The climate cabal infiltrated the big, high impact journals and put in place sympathetic editorial staffs that would allow pal-review. Science and Nature magazine were targeted, and the Climateers succeeded in controlling the narrative and limiting its acceptable bounds for dissent. Smaller journal editors that do not cooperate with the climateers, and allow high quality, but skeptical papers to pass peer review, are then targeted. The Climate Gate emails demonstrated that tactic.

      • Ron writes

        Science is not philosophy.

        AGW science is. There is no future data and no way to test it. GCMs can’t determine future climate but AGW scientists can’t admit that either or their primary pillar disappears.

    • I successfully predict the future hundreds of times a day – spark to gas, battery to terminal, foot to accelerator, shove to a stuck door., sun rising in the east, water dissolving sugar.

      And NASA used to be able to predict the future, that’s how Armstrong ended up on the moon.

      • That’s because all those things rely on proven laws of physics. W Climate models make up their own science to meet the grant objectives, prove CO2 creates global warming. Climate models are not and can never be, hard proven science. Always a guess.

        Statistical models whose designers pick which variables they will include and what sensitivities they apply to them can prove no deterministic laws, just a degree of fit to reality. Nor can they prove cause and effect, just correlation with relative confidence limits, so they cannot predict anything with certainty as an engineer expects to do.

        Climate science is closer to economics, biology, bookmaking, astrology, etc., . and chooses to select its own variables to force as a dominant effect according to what they are paid to do, not find cause but prove that one factor is dominant. It isn’t. As the science facts of natural reality are making clear.No runaway effects, plants absorbing CO2, lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature, no evidence of the predicted tropospheric warming. The heat isn’t hidden, it was never created to lose, and CO2 is a weak and relatively insignificant effect, with logartithmically declining effect with concentration, and not amplified by water vapour – AKA clouds. Obs. QED

    • Not only the models wrong, they were all wrong in the same direction.
      Also, I’d like have the real 1940s back.

    • Even when a model correlates well with observations globally when it comes temperature anomalies, they fail miserably regionally and usually with other parameters as well. So they have lots of wrong that add up to one “correct answer.” Hansen’s 1988 predictions are a simple example.

  3. ““We have for example noted that the temporal variance of the majority of ensemble members is larger than what can be inferred from available observations. ………….. We have no simple explanation to this”

    …just justify adjusting the past colder and you’ve got it

    • The simple explanation is that the models are very poor. The slightly more interesting explanation is that it is utterly impossible to know the starting conditions for their models, so even if the models are “good”, in that they get processes right etc. they will never be remotely accurate except by pure luck.

      A complex, non-linear system that has chaotic features is impossible to model because of the starting conditions problem. You need to know what everything is doing at the moment you start your model, and “everything” in this case is just about everything down to very small levels of detail. We can’t even get that right at macro levels.

      Climate models are slightly interesting, but climate modellers are fooling themselves that they produce anything other than vague possibilities of what might happen.

    • @ Latitude,
      The fact is that man made co2 was being released after the Industrial Revolution and the only way to warm the present is to cool the past? Shouldn’t have co2 been warming the past too? How much warmer should 1958 have been than the record shows? There was 10% more co2 and the temperature rise should have been exponential. ( the positive feedback loop? or has AGW forgotten this as well as the run a way greenhouse)
      Today there is 44% more co2 than pre industrial times and measuring temps from below the baseline ( which is what the temps should have been without any additional co2) the colder temps, a maximum rise of 0.82 C . How much co2 does it take to raise the temp by 1 C? Evidently, 126 ppm/v increase isn’t enough.
      Maybe a 10% increase in co2 wasn’t enough, a 25% increase in co2 in 1993?
      Is AGW still arguing that co2 is warming the planet?

      ” …just justify adjusting the past colder and you’ve got it”. AGW can’t do that either. It disproves the theory. It should be a dead theory… so dead it should never have been taken seriously in 1988.

  4. We would consequently encourage other modeling groups to undertake similar studies which will hopefully make use of the latest high resolution models coupled models (Haarsma et al. 2016).

    They’re digging in the wrong place. Indiana Jones

    Here’s a version of how Edward Lorenz discovered chaos theory.

    Dr. Lorenz was running simulations of weather using a simple computer model. One day, he wanted to repeat one of the simulations for a longer time, but instead of repeating the whole simulation, he started the second run in the middle, typing in numbers from the first run for the initial conditions.

    The computer program was the same, so the weather patterns of the second run should have exactly followed those of the first. Instead, the two weather trajectories quickly diverged on completely separate paths.

    At first, he thought the computer was malfunctioning. Then he realized that he had not entered the initial conditions exactly. The computer stored numbers to an accuracy of six decimal places, like 0.506127, while, to save space, the printout of results shortened the numbers to three decimal places, 0.506. When typing in the new conditions, Dr. Lorenz had entered the rounded-off numbers, and even this small discrepancy, of less than 0.1 percent, completely changed the end result. link

    You can never get enough resolution and enough initial data and enough science to model the climate that way. And yet they keep trying.

    • Yes, very small errors in starting conditions can produce wildly different results. And we cannot know the actual starting conditions for these models in any way whatsoever.

      That means the models cannot predict the future.

    • …and never will be….the past was adjusted down to fit the global warming hysteria and give a faster slope up
      It’s going to hit them on both ends….if they tune to the past….they get what they have now
      …a faster slope up that does not match reality
      if they hindcast…they get a warmer past…which doesn’t match the adjusted past

      No matter what they do….they will never get a climate model to work

    • MarkW: In the “it’s even worse than we thought” category, they can’t predict either past- the actual one or the adjusted one. Wouldn’t I enjoy being a fly on the wall of the CliSci conference room while they discuss which “past” is correct!

  5. The fly in the ointment:

    What are the photon absorption bands of CO2?
    What are the photon absorption bands of water vapor?
    What is the overlap?
    What does it mean?

  6. Alan – This appears to be mostly a copy and paste of a comment you made. I suggest you read my reply. It would help your position if you had a better understanding of the research before criticizing it.

    • Kristi Silber

      It also would help your position if you had a better understanding of the research before criticizing others.

      Fire, aim, draw seems to be your default position.

      • It is apparent that Alan is guessing. “So does that mean that 3 days backward is as good as 3 days forward, or that the hindcast for June 21, 1852 is as good as a 3 day weather forecast? If the latter; that would be very good quality indeed. So it is obviously the former.”

        He asks a question, then answers it himself with, “So it is obviously the former.” Is this obvious?

        “So that must mean the accuracy of hindcasting the climate in 1850 is about as accurate as forecasting the climate of the year 2185.”

        No, why would that be the case? And this isn’t hindcasting in the usual sense. As I understand it, they are creating a data set for the validation of hindcasting. I may be wrong.

        “So come to think of it, I don’t understand the statement ‘Overall, the quality is approximately that of current three-day NWP forecasts.'”

        >>>He doesn’t understand, he admits it.<<<

        "Their other statement:

        “'A unique feature of the 20CR is that estimates of uncertainty are derived using a 56 member ensemble.'

        "This certainly sounds like an ensemble of computer climate models"

        He's guessing.

        He changed what he said the first time, though, from "So they are using 56 junk computer climate models , each of which do not understand the underlying science; and averaging the uncertainty to give one estimate of uncertainty and are calling this a strength of their project!!!!!!!!!" to, "in the new language of climate scientists it means 56 simulations run on the same climate model with each simulation set to different starting parameters. So, they are using 56 different sets of computer climate model simulations, each of which do not fully understand the underlying science of the planet; and averaging.." etc. So maybe he did read my post, which is here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/19/worse-and-worser-claim-more-category-5-hurricanes-forecasted-by-scientists/#comment-2408828

        HotScot, why should I have a better understanding of the research before I criticize someone for writing a post trashing science he doesn't understand? At least I bothered to try to understand it. Alan asserts, "Oh , I can certainly see the long range goal of this is to wipe out any warming that ever appeared without massive mounts of CO2 in the atmosphere." Where did that come from??? It's assumption, that's all. This kind of unfounded assertion is so pervasive on WUWT, it just gives skepticism a bad name. One doesn't have to have a deep understanding of climate change to identify bias and lack of reason. Many alarmists are guilty of the same thing, and I have just as little patience with them. No one seems very interested in seeking the truth; everyone thinks they know it already. (I'm sure many people here think I think I know the truth, but they are wrong. I have beliefs, but they change as I learn.)

        If skeptics want to live up to their chosen label, they need to act like skeptics and not deniers. Skeptics question, deniers reject and dismiss any evidence and argument that doesn't suit their agenda. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

        • Yes Kristi, this website is full of skeptics who are wholely unskeptical of attacks on the science. They lap up the likes of this ignorant and opinionated article. So that plainly makes them something else – which you gave a name to. How brave of you. But I expect they have moved on to the next and have largely not noted your comment. If they had you would have had replies in the usual vein.
          Sometimes you just have to call a spade a “bloody shovel” ( Yorkshire-ism).
          And what’s more, posters such as you and the redoubtable Nick, who shout that the “Emperor is naked” to the crowd, are v few and far between here, having been driven away by the vitriol coming their way (me included a few times). I just think it doesn’t matter anyway. This is just a Blog. But well done anyway.

          • Oh look at me, I am superior.

            Great argument. Totally inaccurate and lazy ad homs but who cares when you are so obviously right – because its you.

            Very few bothered to reply because the post is devoid of content. Just a long cut and paste with a “but you are wrong” conclusion justfied by an utterly subjective assertion of what sceptics who are not really sceptics do. Sadly people who believe they are clever because they hold an opinion they think is right cannot usually dissect what is being said and so just pat themselves on the back. Your post is a classic of its type.

          • I was providing evidence for my suggestion that Alan understand the science before criticizing it, as requested. To me both the suggestion and my response seem reasonable.

            My comment about skeptics and skepticism should have been qualified by a definition, since “skepticism” can have different meanings. What I meant is that skeptics question and doubt not only the ideas they think are wrong, but ideas in general, including their own. The Truth is very difficult to know with certainty, and this is a central tenet of scientific methodology; science is always open to better understanding. Denial, on the other hand, simply rejects what is uncomfortable to believe, regardless of whether it might be true. I”m not saying there aren’t skeptics among climate change “skeptics,” but I see a lot of denial here. There is also denial among alarmists.

          • Anthony Banton

            “Yes Kristi, this website is full of skeptics who are wholely unskeptical of attacks on the science.”

            What science? There is no science.

            No one has empirically demonstrated CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm.

            Tyndal himself demonstrated it was water vapour that caused warming:

            “He was the first to correctly measure the relative infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, etc. (year 1859). He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature.”

            But somehow, that’s irrelevant to you people.

            One of the great scientific minds, who had no axe to grind on the subject of AGW, is consigned to the backwater of science by the alarmist community because he doesn’t conform to their narrative.

            And you say sceptics aren’t sceptical of attacks on the science? Try being sceptical of your own claims based on:

            1. Tyndall demonstrated water vapour is the warming agent.
            2. No one has yet demonstrated empirically that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
            3. The only empirical manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet has greened according to NASA.
            4. Observed global temperatures are barely maintaining the minimum the IPCC predicted.

            It doesn’t take a sceptical mind to question the AGW theory based on those alone, just a little curiosity.

            And as water vapour makes up some 95% of all greenhouse gases, and CO2 3%, you would call me insane if I suggested you fill your car with 95% water and 3% petrol and it would run. Yet we’re all supposed to believe 3% CO2 dominates 95% water vapour.

            Get real and question your own shonky science.

          • “Get real and question your own shonky science.”

            Science questions itself – that’s how it becomes empirical.

            So you get real and write a paper that refutes 150+ years of scientific enquiry and endeavour.
            Hand-waving on Blogs doesn’t refute anything.
            And do find some scientists other that the usual handful of motivated types to “come-out” and reveal the scam.
            In the end the entrenched ideological bias on display here is bullet-proof.
            As it would be if you only read these pages and those of other “skeptic” Blogs.
            Anyone with a more nuanced and expert view gets trashed here – Nick and Leif (quite often) … yet it is only their like that pulls the thread back to credibility.
            Sorry, an extreme view, your extreme view (that any and all science supporting AGW is wrong), by the balance of probability, is going to be wrong.
            The world’s climate scientists (and other Earth scientists too) are not …
            Incompetent
            or Frauds
            They just know more than you.
            As of course is just common-sense as seen from outside the “skeptical” Blogosphere, where motivated thinking rules.
            I repeat and concur with Kristi.
            Most on here have another name.
            Try being skeptical of skeptics and watch Potholer on Monckton to reveal the “false-Gods” you follow for their “science” as there is no critical mass of whistle-blowing scientists to give the semblance of credibility to the naysayer’s view.

            Oh, and of course I know I have ruffled feathers, I’m not as polite as Kristi.
            But as the Yorkshire-ism I quoted, sometimes you have to call a spade a bloody shovel.
            If you want an echo-chamber then this is the sort of post that will occasionally come your way.
            There is no discussion to be had here.
            Skeptics can reason.
            Naysayer’s cannot.
            I see it on every post here.

          • Anthony Banton

            Sceptics can’t reason? That’s rich after your post.

            “Science questions itself – that’s how it becomes empirical.”

            Eh?!

            You simply avoided the issue central to the whole AGW narrative.

            “Sorry, an extreme view, your extreme view (that any and all science supporting AGW is wrong), by the balance of probability, is going to be wrong.”

            But there is no science is there?

            Where is your empirical evidence that demonstrates CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm?

            Never mind anything else, that’s the science we all want to see, yet after 40 years of this nonsense, no one can produce it.

            Least of all you and Kristi.

            Now be a good chap and scurry off and find it.

            And whilst I’m at it, please do try to get your metaphors right. A spade is a digging tool commonly used by gardeners. A shovel is used for scooping, typically used by builders. https://www.screwfix.com/c/outdoor-gardening/shovels-spades/cat840568

            It is also considered an ethnically derogatory term in some parts of America, so you might want to be careful when using it.

          • Oh please, Anthony. First of all, brevity is the soul of wit. Why does it take you a thousand words to say in effect “you people offend me because you reject my beliefs”?

            “Hand waving”? Of course there are many assertions made by regular participants on this blog, where the evidence (having been hashed out at length at one point or another), is not revisited in detail each and every time. As Kristi said, quite appropriately, we have beliefs, and they change as we learn. Just because a group of likeminded people make shorthand references to things we believe have good evidence, is not itself evidence that our views lack evidence or are anti-scientific.

            If you bring evidence, many people here are happy to engage in a civil if sometimes spirited discussion.

          • “If you bring evidence, many people here are happy to engage in a civil if sometimes spirited discussion.”

            I have not found that to generally be the case, in my case. I wish it were. There may be a slow (very slow) increase in civil discussion with me, but it’s far outweighed by insulting comments. Maybe that’s partly my fault for the way I phrase things – I’m no master of diplomacy.

          • Well, Kristi, I did say “many people”, not all. And it is nice to see you acknowledge that you may be part of the problem. I probably should have added “most of the time”. I’m trying to be less a part of the problem too.

            Human nature being what it is, we are all wired to infer friend or foe based on scant evidence, and to attack when we detect a foe. It’s an evolutionary legacy that is not conducive to civil discussion.

          • I don’t agree with everything Anthony says here, but I do agree that Potholer has some excellent videos on youtube about Monckton.

          • 1. Just because water vapor is the principle GHG does not make it the only one.

            2. It has been empirically demonstrated that CO2 is capable of acting as a GHG, so there is no reason to believe that is doesn’t.

            3. You choose to believe a single empirical manifestation of increased CO2 and reject the rest.

            4. Why does the fact that temperatures are following the minimum projected by the IPCC make it any less plausible?

            Since CO2 is a GHG, and is increasing in the atmosphere, it is a driver of change in the Earth’s energy budget. The fact that it is a small amount doesn’t make it inconsequential.

            Before insulting me about my knowledge of the science, maybe you should consider the idea that your own knowledge might not be complete (mine certainly isn’t – I have no problem admitting that – nobody’s knowledge is ever complete). Here’s a nice introduction: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page1.php (and following pages – I particularly recommend page 7, which addresses the wavelengths of radiation absorbed by water vapor and CO2; page 5 notes that the Earth’s surface emits radiation primarily around 12.5 micrometers.)

            P.S. Continue to insult me, and I will simply ignore your comments.

          • Kristi Silber

            1. When water vapour forms 95% of all greenhouse gases and CO2 3%, it’s ridiculous to maintain that CO2 controls atmospheric change. Are you saying Tyndall was wrong?

            2. That’s not the question I posed and your response is a clumsy diversion. Where and when has it been empirically demonstrated that CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm? It may be a GHG, but it is a minor one, another of Tyndalls statements you persistently contradict.

            3. What other empirical manifestations of CO2 are there? Sea levels rise isn’t accelerating, weather events aren’t getting worse, wildfires are no more frequent than in the past, and global temperatures are barely within the bounds of IPCC predictions. So please, demonstrate the physical manifestations of increased atmospheric CO2.

            4. Because the projected rise in temperatures predicted by the IPCC is now not credible according to observations. Yet governments are wasting trillions of taxpayers $’s, £’s and €’s on a wraith by subsidising inefficient renewables projects that benefit no one but the rent seekers. Their justification? IPCC predictions.

            The fact CO2 is tiny part of the energy budget (see 1.) and mans contribution is even tinier, it renders man’s effect on climate inconsequential. There are 91 recently identified volcano’s under the Antarctic. How can you possibly blame increasing CO2 and a changing climate on man alone when no one knows what these things are doing? It’s preposturous and anti scientific.

            My knowledge is anything but complete, I’m not even educated, but that doesn’t mean I can’t think logically. When the entire climate chage theory is based on CO2’s effect on the atmosphere, yet no one can empirically demonstrate that effect, something is very wrong.

            Your link to NASA is very interesting, but once again, merely diverts the subject away from the central issue, that no one has empirically demonstrated that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.

            If you can’t count it, it doesn’t count.

            Ignore me if you wish, it’ll be no loss.

          • “When water vapour forms 95% of all greenhouse gases and CO2 3%, it’s ridiculous to maintain that CO2 controls atmospheric change” I never said that CO2 was the only control of climate change, but it is not at all ridiculous to say that it is one control of it. CO2 absorbs radiation, and the energy is not only emitted in different directions, but also passed to other gases in the atmosphere, warming the whole. That radiation “window” (from the link I posted) is important!

            Tyndall, according to your quote, said water vapor was the *principle* GHG, he didn’t say it was the only one. The fact that CO2 is a small part of the atmospheric gases doesn’t mean it’s not important. Nils Ekholm built on the work of his colleague Svante Arrhenius, concluding that burning coal would eventually double the CO2 in the atmosphere, and that it would “undoubtedly cause a very obvious rise of the mean temperature of the Earth.”

            What kind of evidence do you want, that is possible to provide? There is theoretical evidence. There is evidence from satellite and ground-based measurements of the energy budget (radiation entering and leaving the atmosphere, presumably). There is evidence from observable changes in climate (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/), phenology (https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01059.x) and ecology:

            “There is now ample evidence of the ecological impacts of recent climate change, from polar terrestrial to tropical marine
            environments. The responses of both ¯flora and fauna span an array of ecosystems and organizational hierarchies, from the species
            to the community levels. Despite continued uncertainty as to community and ecosystem trajectories under global change, our
            review exposes a coherent pattern of ecological change across systems. Although we are only at an early stage in the projected trends of global warming, ecological responses to recent climate change are already clearly visible.”
            (http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol206/Walther%20et%20al%20Nature%202002.pdf)

            The problem is, there is no *direct* way to show that anthropogenic CO2 is changing the climate. It’s impossible. But the case supporting it is very strong (except to those who think scientists are stupid and corrupt – there is no convincing them of anything, which is why I don’t usually bother with the evidence side of things. Too frustrating).

            I’m no physicist, either. But my uncle is – he was the station chief of the Mauna Loa Observatory, and still heads the LIDAR work there studying aerosols (from NOAA in Boulder, which I visited earlier this year). 20 years ago I asked him about his views on climate change, and his response surprised me: he wasn’t sure because of the uncertainty of the role that water vapor played relative to CO2. He didn’t hop on any bandwagon. Now he’s convinced. He’s brilliant and has integrity. There are many, many other scientists like him.

            There are also many people who claim that climate science isn’t a science, or that it’s been corrupted by greed, groupthink, politics, etc. I think this attitude is not only wrong and unjustifiable, but damaging to our society. It’s based not on evidence, but on assumption. I’m well aware that not all scientists are squeaky clean and that some have acted unprofessionally, but that doesn’t mean the whole profession is corrupt. Those who complain about data adjustments don’t seem to care that it would be scientifically inexcusable not to do so when problems are found (such as a temperature bias in measurements or satellite drift), or that it is done not by eye-balling a graph, but through statistical procedures that are validated, sometimes by independent researchers.

            “Yet governments are wasting trillions of taxpayers $’s, £’s and €’s on a wraith by subsidising inefficient renewables projects that benefit no one but the rent seekers. ”

            This is an entirely different topic, and should have absolutely nothing to do with evaluation (or practice) of the science. It is another problem with many of the discussions here that science is viewed through the lens of policy. Science should inform policy, not determine it. Policy should take many other factors into consideration. I don’t think renewables are the answer to climate change, but I do think there is a place for renewables in some circumstances (e.g. African villages that have little likelihood of getting electricity any other way). I believe they can play a role in lowering CO2 emissions, along with energy conservation and efficiency, natural gas and nuclear energy, appropriate land use (particularly forest management), and technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. But none of this is relevant to whether the science is right; whether the science is right is relevant to policy.

            I believe the climate is changing and that humans are playing a large (but not the only) role in it, and that an increase in net CO2 emissions is responsible. I think that some regions will profit from it, but that overall the effects are likely to be negative based on what we already see happening (even greater plant growth may not be wholly beneficial…but that’s another issue, too complex to go into here*). I don’t trust the models for timelines, but I think the faster it happens, the greater the cost, economically and in terms of human well-being. People are very adaptable, but not everyone has the resources to adapt.

            These are my beliefs as they stand now. Sometimes I feel like I should write an article for WUWT explaining them in greater detail, if only to attempt to show that (some) “warmists” can actually learn and think independently – but maybe nothing I can say would convince you and others like you that’s the case. For all I know, I sound like just another stupid alarmist to those who wish to see me that way.

            * My master’s is in ecology and evolution, with a stress on plant communities. I see planetary greening and climate change in general differently from most others here.

          • Kristi Silber

            Classically, you go round the houses to avoid the simple fact that the very source of the AGW debate can’t be demonstrated in a real world environment.

            My limited education is in law. Circumstantial evidence, almost without exception, cannot solely be used to convict someone of a crime, yet what the alarmist community do is provide overwhelming amounts of circumstantial evidence, then present CO2 as the silver bullet solution to global warming.

            The qualities of CO2 are undeniable, they have all been reproduced in laboratories, but cures for diseases have been found to work in laboratories, just not in patients.

            This is 30 or 40 years of science dedicated to the single theory that CO2 is the AGW culprit, yet not one of tens of thousands of scientists have been able to demonstrate it in the environment.

            It”s like attempting to convict a man of murdering his wife. The knife is his, his fingerprints are on it, her blood is on it, the knife wound matches the blade, and the husband has the motive. But no one can place him at the scene of the crime. In fact he has considerable evidence to suggest it was someone else, a guy almost 10 times his size who has expressed both his motive and his presence at the scene of the crime. But you would convict the husband.

            “The problem is, there is no *direct* way to show that anthropogenic CO2 is changing the climate. It’s impossible.”

            Then it must be concluded it isn’t. By civilised evidential standards, CO2 is innocent until proven guilty. What you are saying is, we believe it’s true but can’t ‘prove’ it other than circumstantially. You have the knife, and the motive but are ignoring the big guy. The contention is logically bizarre.

            By that metric, science doesn’t seem to conform to the normal standards of evidence the rest of the civilised world demands.

            “There are also many people who claim that climate science isn’t a science, or that it’s been corrupted by greed, groupthink, politics, etc. I think this attitude is not only wrong and unjustifiable, but damaging to our society. It’s based not on evidence, but on assumption.”

            Which was the historic attitude to the catholic church until it was revealed as a nest of paedophiles.

            Nor is it based on assumption. Amongst others explicitly expressing the political imperative of AGW to change world order, including Maurice Strong, is Christiana Figueres, [former] executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change who announced “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,”. Which is democratic Capitalism, the most successful political and social movement ever conceived. Yet Christina Figueres is determined to use climate change as an means to tear it down.

            How can you possibly claim climate change science isn’t being distorted for political purposes? It’s there in black and white.

            And the cost? I pointed out before to you that the WHO predicts at least 120,000,000 will die by 2050 thanks to energy poverty. You sneered and asked me to detail precisely how. You have clearly ignored the evidence I provided. Yet it is a very real consequence of the alarmists’s devotion to the magic CO2 molecule.

            Is there any evidence whatsoever that CO2 has had anything to do with planetary temperatures?

            http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

            Clearly not judging by historic evidence. Or has CO2 somehow magically changed it’s composition without us noticing?

            Your wind and solar solutions are a fudge, a sticking plaster over a gaping wound. It’s not just outlying villages in developing worlds suffering energy poverty, it’s towns and cities where residents are forced to burn timber for fuel.

            If we’re going to compare notes on personal influences, my late father in law was a senior UN forester from almost the UN’s inception. He saw first hand the ignorant and destructive influence of the greens. Their ideological left wing policies that caused widespread damage to people and environments based on their ‘science’. Read the article by Paul Driessen and David Wojick posted on WUWT today.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/22/luddite-eco-imperialists-claim-to-be-virtuous/

            From which: “Banks and other carbon colonialists glorify limited wind and solar energy for poor villages, while denying financial support for fossil fuel electricity generation.”

            A point I have made to you in the past. I didn’t just make it up, my father in law was telling us all this for decades. Nor was he a desk jockey, he was an active forester, out in the fields, jungles and forest’s and living amongst communities where the evidence was clear. He utterly despised the virtue signalling greens and pseudo socialists like Bob Geldof and his self publicising Band Aid etc. stunts. At the time, the UN could barely get 50% of aid past the crime syndicates masquerading as governments in developing countries. He maintained Geldof would see less than 10% of his efforts getting through, further fuelling the corrupt and perpetuating the problem. The same is true of climate change aid. $400Bn dollars syphoned out Nigeria’s system by corrupt government officials since independence, I daresay a considerable amount of that devoted to climate change mitigation.

            Even were AGW true, nothing cataclysmic is going to happen, it would be a gradual process which could be adapted to. Mitigation is literally killing millions of people.

            And you support that. No wonder the sceptical community despise alarmists.

            So, now examine the observed temperature rises since the IPCC’s inception.

            https://drinkingwateradvisor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/pages-from-christyjr_epa_2014_publiccomment.jpg

            Clearly, they are bumping along the bottom of IPCC predictions. Extract the so called human element from that warming and we are very likely to be left with global cooling. Or don’t you recognise cooling as far more destructive to humanity than warming, which has historically seen mankind flourish.

            Irrespective of Michael Mann’s erasing of the MWP from his global investigation into climate change, the fact remains that even if warming was local, it was entirely beneficial.

            If the theory of CO2 induced global warming is true, then mankind isn’t destroying the planet, he’s saving it from global cooling, but only just.

            “and technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.” Why would you suggest embarking on a practical route to remove atmospheric CO2 when you can’t demonstrate, practically, that it’s doing any harm? That’s just insane. Why not remove all the water from the planet because people drown whilst you’re at it?

            There is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes climate change and there is a huge body of empirical evidence to demonstrate that mitigation of an unproven hypothesis is immensely destructive.

            Your link to NASA is nothing short of hysterically funny. One of the first headlines: “Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal. – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” And whilst I agree with what it says, I don’t believe the inference that it’s man that’s causing it.

            NASA then goes on to say: “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.” With a link to this: “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations.”

            Yet the Wikipedia page on Tyndall cited by the Royal Institute states: “He [Tyndall] was the first to correctly measure the relative infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, etc. (year 1859). He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.”

            Talk about a distortion!

            It then goes onto describe Arrhenius’ work as “seminal”, and Tyndall’s isn’t? Clearly it’s described as seminal because the term bolsters the authors claims. Whatever happened to scientific impartiality?

            The rest of your NASA link is simply a recital of popular media presentations on the subject.

            So why am I, a scientific illiterate, questioning all this, and not you, a Masters qualified scientist? Perhaps because of your immersion in the belief of sciences infallibility having been inducted into the mindset by the education process?

            How did I manage to spot, immediately, that Tyndall was entirely misrepresented by NASA yet you didn’t.

            Just where is this desire to learn you expressed in another post? Just where is your ability to critically examine evidence? I have cited two glaring inconsistencies/misrepresentations in that NASA link, and I only bothered reading the first few paragraphs.

            Dare I go through the rest? Imagine that, a scientific illiterate savaging a document presented as evidence by a Masters qualified scientist.

          • “Yes Kristi, this website is full of skeptics who are wholely unskeptical of attacks on the science. They lap up the likes of this ignorant and opinionated article. So that plainly makes them something else – which you gave a name to. How brave of you. But I expect they have moved on to the next and have largely not noted your comment. If they had you would have had replies in the usual vein.”

            I noted Kristi’s comments and yours.

            Both of you are welcome to your opinions. Other people have other opinions.

            Skeptics just want a little evidence. They aren’t denying anything. If anyone can prove CO2 is affecting the weather enough to be visible then please present it. It looks like natural variation to me. Show me where I’m wrong.

          • “If anyone can prove CO2 is affecting the weather enough to be visible then please present it. It looks like natural variation to me. Show me where I’m wrong.”
            This is pretty compelling.
            chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf
            Although I admit it is talking about climate rather than weather. But it is logical if you warm the climate then weather will follow.

          • Simon,

            Surely, you jest!

            Berkeley Earth! All the cooked books we can make fit for donor dollars.

            Thanks for the laugh.

          • This is the problem with trying to present evidence – it just gets rejected with an accusation that someone fudged it (or it’s part of “natural variation” or we are still coming out of the Little Ice Age). To people think any scientists who support the idea of climate change lack scientific integrity, evidence doesn’t count for anything unless it supports their views.

          • Tom,

            Many skeptics DO deny the evidence – they think it’s falsified, or are convinced by others that it is all natural variation. The evidence is from theory and observation, but there is no way of directly “proving” CO2 is affecting climate. (Science never “proves” something anyway – it’s not part of the philosophy of science to do so. Proof means something can no longer be questioned or improved, and that is the opposite of what science is about.)

            See my comment above, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/20/climate-modelers-cant-predict-future-so-now-concentrate-on-the-past/#comment-2411099

          • “Many skeptics DO deny the evidence – they think it’s falsified, or are convinced by others that it is all natural variation. The evidence is from theory and observation, but there is no way of directly “proving” CO2 is affecting climate.”

            Kristi, in my opinion there is no evidence to deny. As you say there is no direct way at the present time to prove CO2 is affecting the Earth’s climate.

            I don’t dispute the theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and acts as such in the atmosphere, but there are legitimate questions as to just how much of an effect CO2 has on the Earth’s temperature.

            There is also a question about why it looks like CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere follow temperature increases rather than leading them, and we see today that CO2 is continuing to increase but the temperatures are not, or just barely.

            Lots of questions that haven’t been answered are still outstanding.

            Until these questions are answered, we must go with the most obvious control knob for the Earth’s climate: Mother Nature. Mother Nature was in control before humans came on the scene and I see no reason not to assume She is still in control.

        • Blah blah blah. What is your argument though? Just long cut and paste an then sanctimonious lectures are not an argument. Where is he wrong?

          Models do not produce real emergent results from assumptions., despite the claims – they cannot because they are simply based on assumptions. Any claimed emergent result can only be the product of maths being done to assumptions. If the assumptions are proven facts then the supposedly emergent results can be obtained from just doing the maths – you don’t need a huge model running multi-year simulations.

          So if a model shows increased CO2 causing warming it is because the model is built to show that.

        • Kristi Silber

          As I said in another post, why not try contributing something yourself.

          It’s a blog, as you rightly say, and it gives some the opportunity to submit their views. They may not be academic or thoroughly vetted, but then neither are many peer-reviewed, published papers. So how about sorting that out first before criticising people on here who are simply having a go at making sense of this whole thing.

          If the subject of climate change is as done and dusted as you claim, where is the empirical evidence that CO2 causes atmospheric warming? Without that the entire artificial construct of climate change falls flat on its face. If it’s such a slam dunk certainty, why aren’t there dozens of studies demonstrating CO2 causes the world to warm? That would pretty well make the whole debate go away, wouldn’t it?

          There’s your own denial right there. You refuse to accept the foundation on which the subject is based can’t be demonstrated. So you’ll find other, more convoluted methods to prove a point that can’t be proven.

          Why is that Kristi? Why do you resolutely believe CO2 is causing the climate to change when no one can show how it works? Even the IPCC temperature models are running too hot, observed temperatures are bumping along the bottom of their predictions and are likely, very soon, to drop below them.

          What will you be saying then?

          Will it just be a ‘pause’, a ‘hiatus’ the alarmist community is so sneeringly dismissive of when sceptics make that observation of the pause in warming? As each day passes and temperatures fail to reach even the mean the IPCC predicts, the larger the single event will need to be to get global temperatures to conform to what they want. So, manifestly, if CO2 is the problem, humankind couldn’t possibly produce enough of the stuff to achieve the targets of the IPCC. It will be a cataclysm that gets the temperatures back up, nothing to do with CO2.

          Nor can the IPCC possibly adjust their numbers to conform to observations because if they did, and showed the observed temperatures as the mean, the lower limit would probably drop into global cooling, and they just couldn’t have that, could they?

          And if the quality of submissions here are so poor, why do you bother turning up? Clearly, you know better than anyone here so what can you possibly gain from reading anything here? Other than simply sniping and trolling, both of which you excel at.

          Go on Kristy, have a go yourself. Use your immense intellect and post an article that convinces us all human-caused climate change is real. But remember to include empirical evidence that CO2 is causing it, and be careful not to use the single, discredited paper out there that claims to do so.

          • “If it’s such a slam dunk certainty, why aren’t there dozens of studies demonstrating CO2 causes the world to warm? That would pretty well make the whole debate go away, wouldn’t it?”

            Yes, it would.

            Instead we get a blizzard of studies that speculate on what would happen IF CAGW was real. They never prove CAGW is real, but if it is, then this or that disaster is going to happen. The basic fact that CAGW is real is never established, except in the minds of alarmists.

            The whole of Alarmist Climate Science is built on a foundation of sand, and on Climategate dishonesty. One of these days that foundation is going to be washed out from underneath all those numerous CAGW speculations about the future.

          • It’s a blog, as you rightly say, and it gives some the opportunity to submit their views. They may not be academic or thoroughly vetted, but then neither are many peer-reviewed, published papers. So how about sorting that out first before criticising people on here who are simply having a go at making sense of this whole thing.

            Because it would appear that under your assumptions both scenarios are equivalent, in which case why should Kristi be required to sort out that which we do not before expressing her opinion? Wouldn’t we contradict ourself in such a case?

            I think she did exactly what MarkW asked of her, i.e., made her case that Mr. Tomalty appeared to struggle a bit with the assumptions behind the article he presented. Whether this was simply because of how he worded the article, or whether he truly did struggle with those assumptions isn’t my call (I can’t see into his mind), however, from his wording alone I can certainly appreciate her position as she presented it.

            I’m sure Mr. Tomalty would agree that constructive criticisms of his writing, i.e., those not fused with fallacies and other specious nonsense, can only help him going forward to present his case successfully. Kristi’s criticisms appeared reasoned and properly toned given the vitriol that one of her current persuasion is subject to experience here.

            If the subject of climate change is as done and dusted as you claim, where is the empirical evidence that CO2 causes atmospheric warming?

            Was this Kristi’s claim? I could be wrong but I don’t recall ever seeing her express that opinion, here or elsewhere. In fact, as far as I know, she’s remained consistent to this opinion (expressed again in the post above):

            “No one seems very interested in seeking the truth; everyone thinks they know it already. (I’m sure many people here think I think I know the truth, but they are wrong. I have beliefs, but they change as I learn.)

            What in the world could be wrong with that?

            HotScot, I normally appreciate your sense of fairness and good use of critical thinking skills, but am I wrong that you’ve dropped the ball just a bit in Kristi’s case?

          • sycomputing

            A blog, even one with informed comment, is not comparable to the influence of scientific papers produced, then waved through the peer review process. And if you doubt studies are waved through, consider the number of hoaxes that have been successful in passing peer review.

            Whilst a blog may be a persuasive medium, scientific studies are often used to support government decisions. For example, the fraudulent 97% consensus underpins many government decisions on both sides of the pond, and into Europe. It was a ‘scientific’ study, passed through the peer review process despite its manifest flaws which, according to Christopher Monckton, had the figure at 0.3% of scientists, not 97%.

            I somehow doubt WUWT has contributed directly to any changes in government policy.

            So no, “your [my] assumptions both scenarios are equivalent” is a misunderstanding on your part. I believe it evident to even a casual observer that peer-reviewed science and a climate blog, no matter how popular, are incomparable. Peer review carries an enormous responsibility to be diligent and critical of any study it examines. Clearly, it is no longer the case.

            I guess you could call it leading by example. Deal with the important matters e.g the peer review process, then perhaps people will be more circumspect in their criticism.

            So I stand by my contention that Kristi ought to get her own house in order before criticising others.

            And whilst her criticisms of Alan’s article may not be entirely unfounded, she leaps to defend nonsense presented by alarmist’s. A recent one being the claims that “Sea Level Rise will Kill the Internet in Fifteen Years” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/19/claim-sea-level-rise-will-kill-the-internet-in-fifteen-years/

            Patent nonsense, riddled with silly claims, assumptions and absolute claptrap, authored by one “Paul Barford, a UW–Madison professor of computer science.” with claims like “Most of the damage that’s going to be done in the next 100 years will be done sooner than later,”. I’m sure you’re familiar with the article. This is a man with no climatological authority whatsoever clutching at the more extreme alarmist narrative and distorting it to his own ends. But that doesn’t matter to Kristi.

            “(I’m sure many people here think I think I know the truth, but they are wrong. I have beliefs, but they change as I learn.)”

            Which is admirable in principle, but when it’s pointed out to Kristi, as I have done on occasions, that CO2 has yet to be demonstrated as the cause of AGW, she resolutely refuses to learn from that. So I just keep rubbing it in, at every opportunity.

            I’m flattered you consider other posts of mine as fair and critical. I’m not afraid to call into question, nor be sceptical of, sceptics. So when I’m confronted by people like Kristi who presents themselves as informed, reasonable scientists, but who resolutely pursue the cause of AGW and will brook no criticism, I sharpen my talons.

          • I believe it evident to even a casual observer that peer-reviewed science and a climate blog, no matter how popular, are incomparable.

            True enough.

            Yet if I grant this assumption, i.e., the two houses have nothing to do with one other, then still the question remains why a speaker should be required to order one house in order to speak in the other? They haven’t anything to do with one another?

            …but when it’s pointed out to Kristi, as I have done on occasions, that CO2 has yet to be demonstrated as the cause of AGW, she resolutely refuses to learn from that. So I just keep rubbing it in, at every opportunity.

            Well massaging the wounds with sharpened talons is certainly one way to go about things. 🙂

            I notice, however, you spared another of this particular treatment recently, choosing instead an especially impressive (in my opinion), calm and well-argued approach against long diatribes of venomous nonsense against you personally. Was that because he/she was one of our ilk? Wasn’t this a much worse offense than this one has done?

            And then surely you don’t expect someone to believe you just because on occasion you’ve claimed something as true? For example, you wouldn’t expect me to abandon my faith simply because you’ve expressed your lack of it? Such things take time, and you can’t expect someone not to defend what they believe to be true or reasonable, else you contradict yourself by defending your own positions.

            I argue for gentleness here knowing that it’s entirely possible my hope for this particular one is unfounded, but who can know who will be convinced to abandon the nowhere train in favor of ours? At least this one professes to be seeking truth. That’s more than what one usually finds here. One more off their side is one more on ours.

            EDIT: I just had a thought…all the above presupposes you give a flip about convincing anyone in the first place. I realize now that I made an assumption that something was true when it certainly may not be true at all. If so, sorry, never mind and take care!

            [Cleared another “joke” down here…haven’t learned and probably won’t]

          • sycomputing

            “Yet if I grant this assumption”

            Generous of you. ~ahem~

            Of course the two houses have something in common. One is a blog devoted to science, more often than not, climate science. The other, a scientific method devoted to excellence, including climate science.

            If the subject the blog springs from can’t exhibit impeccable professional standards, how can the subject possibly expect anything approaching quality from its adherents?

            My talons are only revealed in the face of uncompromising stubbornness. I’m not clever (not by a long shot) but as I will concede my failings and lack of knowledge, I expect others to do the same. Haughty indifference and dogma mean nothing to me, I have witnessed death thanks to them.

            “I notice, however, you spared another of this particular treatment recently”

            I don’t know what post you are referring to. But I don’t spare anyone when I think they are wrong. Revenge is a dish best served cold, sometimes I adopt that approach, sometimes I don’t. If it’s someone I respect on this blog because of their previous posts, I won’t launch into them because they have proven to me at least, they have the capacity to consider things beyond hysteria. You are one of those people. You have the ability to question, criticise, and concede. You have the grace to do all those politely and without leaving a barbed final comment. Inevitably to either provoke a response or just to defer a futile debate.

            I never expect anyone to abandon their beliefs unless the evidence is so overwhelming that they must. e.g. CO2 has never been demonstrated empirically to cause AGW.

            Your religious beliefs are your own, and I respect your right to retain them. I would never seek to actively dissuade anyone from holding a religious belief. I might consider them ridiculous, but that’s my belief. I do in fact respect people who have reasonable religious faith, it takes courage to believe in something that’s not, in scientific terms, provable. Sometimes I wish I had faith, it must be comforting in times of trouble. I just can’t justify it, but that’s my problem.

            Do I care about convincing people I’m right? Yes, I do. I’m not sure I would be a meaningful, functioning member of society if I didn’t. That doesn’t mean I’m unreasonable, although when faced with people like Kristi I may appear so. Nick Stokes is the only alarmist I have any time for although he never concedes anything, however, he is calm and reasoned with some very persuasive points. As I’m not a scientist, nor even well educated, I have to leave it to others to debate with him. Unless I have a little barb I can launch in…… ~ahem~

            And gentleness isn’t everything. Didn’t Jesus himself berate the money lenders and smash their stalls? Or was that someone else?

          • Generous of you. ~ahem~

            Why, you’re welcome! Good of you to notice!

            🙂

            I don’t know what post you are referring to.

            I was thinking of one who believes him/herself to be honest about liberty.

            And gentleness isn’t everything. Didn’t Jesus himself berate the money lenders and smash their stalls? Or was that someone else?

            Good sir say it isn’t so! Have I been wrong about you the entire time?!? Are you not at the very least here guilty of hypocrisy, and at worst haven’t you contradicted yourself?!?

            If I’m not allowed to compare DJT to God, then is it not the case that you also are not allowed to compare yourself to Him?

            “~ahem~”

            🙂

            (And btw, not only did He do as you said, but He made a whip of cords and beat them with it as well. It was His house after all…)

            As to the rest I say, “Fair enough and take care!”

          • sycomputing

            I think my debate with Honest Liberty was interrupted by one of my comments being snipped by the MOD’s. Perhaps why I was careful to remain calm. I’m not above overt rudeness when provoked.

            I didn’t compare myself to anyone. If anything, I compared you to Jesus when you claimed gentleness is the route you preferred. I simply cited the case of Jesus who didn’t agree with you.

            I’m not a gentle character, never have been, so it would be inappropriate of me to compare myself to Jesus. However, whilst I don’t believe in his virgin birth, or resurrection, his messages are ones I value. Which is more than I can say for the catholic church. I frequently remind myself of the examples Jesus set.

            I wonder if he would agree with me on the peer review question. Does one lead by example, or merely set a standard for others to achieve?

            It also puzzles me why you refer to Jesus as ‘Him’. Apart from anything else, your sentence: “If I’m not allowed to compare DJT to God, then is it not the case that you also are not allowed to compare yourself to Him?” implies I’m comparing myself to God.

            It seems to me ‘He’ or ‘Him’ would be humble enough to prefer to be referred to by his given name. But if that’s your convention, that’s fine by me.

          • I think my debate with Honest Liberty was interrupted by one of my comments being snipped by the MOD’s. Perhaps why I was careful to remain calm. I’m not above overt rudeness when provoked.

            Ah, alas…my mistake!

            I wonder if he would agree with me on the peer review question. Does one lead by example, or merely set a standard for others to achieve?

            Interesting thought. I’d have to argue Jesus did both.

            I didn’t compare myself to anyone.

            I know…see below.

            It also puzzles me why you refer to Jesus as ‘Him’. Apart from anything else, your sentence: “If I’m not allowed to compare DJT to God, then is it not the case that you also are not allowed to compare yourself to Him?” implies I’m comparing myself to God.

            Well…yeah, exactly…that was kind of the joke? If you contradict yourself or are guilty of hypocrisy, then you couldn’t be the powerhouse of reason I assumed you to be from your conversations with HL. See what I mean now?

            There I go again!

            It’s hard to get lighthearted banter across in a forum where all one sees is the written word. Had we been having a beer the effect would’ve been there, I’m sure of it!

            Take care…

          • sycomputing

            A beer sounds good to me. I suspect we would end up in the wee small hours debating. And one wouldn’t be enough.

            🙂

          • I have often thought that sitting down in person with some of the people here would make a dramatic difference in the way they perceive me. A beer sounds good to me, too!

            Thank you for defending me. It truly makes a great difference to have people here who don’t see me as the enemy.

            (I’m an atheist, but I believe that the teachings of Jesus were an invaluable gift to humanity – especially the ones about loving one’s neighbor and one’s enemy. It’s difficult to do in practice, but in the abstract notsomuch. I wish Americans as a nation could “love” each other all a little more.)

          • “I’m an atheist, but I believe that the teachings of Jesus were an invaluable gift to humanity”

            There’s something you and HotScot can agree on. 🙂

          • Thank you for defending me. It truly makes a great difference to have people here who don’t see me as the enemy.

            You betcha…

            I’m an atheist, but I believe that the teachings of Jesus were an invaluable gift to humanity – especially the ones about loving one’s neighbor…

            Agreed. He’s been trying to get that one across for a long time.

            Leviticus 19:18

            “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am YHVH.”

          • Kristi Silber

            “BS. I said that article was sloppy and doubted it would get through peer review.”

            I don’t recall you saying that to me.

            And wasn’t that a published and therefore peer-reviewed paper? If not, my apologies.

          • HotScot,

            Do I have to say it to you for it to count?

            As presented in the link, I don’t think it was published. Looked like a final draft to me.

          • Kristi Silber

            As this short passage of discussion is between you and I, and you sneeringly presented the comment as though I should recognise it, yep, I think you should have said it to me to count.

          • It wasn’t sneeringly presented. You were wrong because of an assumption you made. That’s your fault, not mine.

            And it’s “between you and me.”

        • Kristi writes

          Skeptics question, deniers reject and dismiss any evidence and argument that doesn’t suit their agenda.

          And Warmists have faith, if we’re generalizing. There are plenty of skeptics here, Kristi.

          • Kristi Silber

            You may agree, but you don’t question the tenet of AGW, that CO2 controls global temperatures, despite never having been empirically demonstrated to do so.

            Which consigns you as either a denier or a faith devotee, by your own contention, not mine.

          • HotScot,

            How do you know what I’ve questioned? I have looked into the matter, and find the evidence convincing.

            I have beliefs, just like everyone. However, I have not denied the evidence of contrarian scientists before looking into their claims. Some are worthy. Some I consider misled (or misleading). I have not yet found a good argument against AGW. Those who claim there is no evidence either haven’t looked hard enough or tend to reject the evidence based on assumptions that it’s corrupt or meaningless. If there were no evidence, this wouldn’t be an issue. No matter what people may say, the thousands of scientists around the world who work on AGW-related issues are not all stupid or corrupt or greedy or following the pack. And it’s certainly not the case that the only intelligent ones with integrity are contrarians.

            WUWT is a biased blog, not a bastion of truth.

            From my perspective, WUWT is filled with propaganda. Assumptions abound. Insults are pervasive. Over and over again you hear that there is no evidence. Research is attacked and rejected without anyone ever reading it, much less understanding it. People attack alarmists as being unreasonable and indoctrinated (which they are) without recognizing the indoctrination that happens on the opposite end of the spectrum.

            You, for instance, have been indoctrinated to make false assumptions about me and what I think. I most certainly did not defend that idiotic paper. What I did do was point out the false reasoning in the comments: the 3.2 mm rise in sea level is a global average and doesn’t include vertical land movement, which is relevant to coastal inundation.

            I can make a simple statement like that, and people down-vote it. That’s revealing. You thought I was defending the research. That, too, is revealing.

            Maybe in the future you will consider some of this before you judge me, and maybe you will even think about it before judging others. I hate to think I’ve spent all this time for nothing.

          • Kristi writes

            I have not yet found a good argument against AGW.

            By “AGW” do you mean the IPCC’s view that more than half the recently observed warming (since 1955) is attributable to anthropogenic CO2? Or something else?

            Kristi quotes

            Over and over again you hear that there is no evidence.

            Like it or not, there is no empirical evidence. Frequently claims of “no evidence” are often followed by pointing out a correlation does not equal causation.

            I’m sure not all people who make that argument believe that the warming IS natural…but instead come from the position that the science is lacking.

            The idea that any warming will be net detrimental to the earth is similarly evidence free.

            Assumptions abound.

            …on both sides of the fence.

          • Kristi Silber

            “Skeptics question, deniers reject and dismiss any evidence and argument that doesn’t suit their agenda.”

            “Tim, I agree.”

            You said it luv, not me.

            I merely pointed out that you refuse to question the lack of empirical evidence that CO2 causes global warming which, logically, since you agreed with Tim’s post, makes you either a denier or a devotee of climate faith.

            Don’t blame me if you can’t conduct a logical debate. And no point in lashing out at WUWT when you contribute to it. It tars you with the same brush you accuse sceptics of using.

          • Kristi Silber

            You can’t answer the question that needs to be answered so you find an excuse to back out the debate.

            Very scientific.

          • Nope. I said that once you start insulting me, I wasn’t going to answer. And you bore me. Your logic is abysmal. Like this: ” And no point in lashing out at WUWT when you contribute to it. It tars you with the same brush you accuse sceptics of using.” My complaint about WUWT was about bias and indoctrination. I contribute a different perspective, opposed to the indoctrination, so how does my complaint reflect on me? I could just as easily go to an alarmist site and argue for reason there. Would I then be contributing to indoctrination?

          • Kristi Silber

            “Nope. I said that once you start insulting me, I wasn’t going to answer.”

            That’s not what you said. This is what you said:

            “P.S. Continue to insult me, and I will simply ignore your comments.”

            Make up your mind.

            “My complaint about WUWT was about bias and indoctrination.”

            And you’re not biased or indoctrinated.

            “I contribute a different perspective, opposed to the indoctrination”

            So the all seeing Kristi is now the independent arbiter of indoctrination, and also the WUWT Policeman on perspective.

            “so how does my complaint reflect on me?”

            Because by your engagement on WUWT you help perpetuate the “bias and indoctrination” Notwithstanding your own bias and indoctrination.

            I only bore you because I keep asking you the question you can’t answer: where is the empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 is the principle driver of global warming. You told me it was “impossible” to establish, yet I’m aware others have tried, and failed, to produce that evidence. They didn’t think it was impossible.

            The reality is, it’s your bias and indoctrination that’s the problem. My bias and indoctrination was instilled by the alarmist community until I questioned it, then my perceptions changed. So at least I’m willing to concede I’m wrong. You , on the other hand, simply will not allow yourself to say: ‘You’re right HoScot, no one has empirically demonstrated atmospheric CO2 causes climate change’.

            It just sticks in your craw, doesn’t it.

          • Kristi writes

            Those who claim there is no evidence either haven’t looked hard enough or tend to reject the evidence based on assumptions that it’s corrupt or meaningless.

            So what piece of evidence most strongly supports AGW in your view?

          • Tim and Tom,

            The fact that statistical models incorporating fluctuations in the solar radiation can’t account for the climate effects we are seeing without including a rise in CO2 levels, and much of that rise is known through isotope ratios to be due to fossil fuel carbon sources.

          • Kristi writes

            The fact that statistical models incorporating fluctuations in the solar radiation can’t account for the climate effects we are seeing

            I had half expected the answer “models” in one form or another. They are (IMO) the very least convincing argument for AGW as described by the IPCC. They are (again IMO) much more closely aligned to AGW expectation/opinion than they are to AGW fact for many reasons already covered in threads on models.

          • HotScot, That’s just slimy. Someone gives me a compliment, and you insult him for it? Stuff like that shows just how unreasonable you are. What a waste of time it was talking to you.

          • Kristi Silber

            If it was a good comment, I might agree with him, but it wasn’t.

            And I’m sure Simon can stick up for himself.

            And you call me unreasonable when you refuse to admit there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate CO2 causes climate change.

            Circumstantial evidence is the best you can come up with, as you continue to regurgitate: “The fact that statistical models incorporating fluctuations in the solar radiation can’t account for the climate effects we are seeing”

            Therefore, it must be CO2. What an utterly ill considered assumption. It must be CO2 because we can’t find anything else to blame, and as humans produce CO2 it must be our fault. And yet the entire scientific community agrees that we don’t understand how clouds contribute to climate change.

            What kind of scientist are you if you don’t understand that only after all other variables have been eliminated, can one draw a conclusion about the remaining one.

  7. “Is the objective here to tell you at what hours of the day it rained on June 21 in 1852 in Mobile Alabama?” Their objective is much grander. It is to say, with nearly complete certainty, that it may rain in June in Mobile, AL. in 2040. Great careers are launced by such startling results.

  8. Higher resolution data will only mean that incorrect models are curve fit to higher resolution data. It will have no bearing on the ability of those models to predict the future. An energy conserving model will converge to the same result independent of initial conditions. The observed variance is not so much the difference between models, but the range of results from different runs of the same model after small changes to the initial conditions which they attempt to ‘cancel out’ by averaging all the wrong runs and hoping that a proper average emerges.

    The fundamental problem is that the modelers assume far too many possible steady state average surface temperatures given a constant system and constant solar input, when in fact, there’s only one possible steady state average once the system is given sufficient time to arrive at a new steady state. This is just how thermodynamic systems operate based on the definition of the thermodynamic steady state. Understanding that it takes work to increase the temperature and that the only source of this work (Joules) is the incoming forcing from the Sun makes the relative invariance of the climate system, relative to the models, much easier to blame on the models, rather than on nature.

    • Might it be that climate is deterministic, and not chaotic, but that Man has neither the means or knowledge to measure and model every forcing that influences weather? And, even if we had perfect knowledge, would it take an analog computer of the complexity of Earth, running much faster than Earth, to properly model Earth weather?

      The question then would be, can the system be approximated with sufficient precision and accuracy to be of any predictive value? Can we avoid compounded errors in the outputs resulting from digital computer round-off errors. Can we avoid runaway oscillations in the output resulting from round-off errors? (This begs the question of whether numerical approximations of differential equations are of sufficient accuracy to be usable.)

      As things stand, it seems only the modelers, whose salaries depend on delivering useful results (and members of the public with liberal arts degrees or less), have faith in their ability to produce what they are being paid to deliver. What is needed is some public soul searching with mathematicians and computer scientists involved, with no skin in the game, to ask hard questions of the modelers and decide if they are on a fool’s errand, or that there is actually hope of success before the end of the 21st century.

      • Chaotic is really just massively complex determinism, but it is a useful description of the climate. Your are right though, but as I keep saying, every model needs starting conditions – Earth here, Moon there for example. Get those wrong and the model is modelling something else, even if the model is very good. So say 1st January 2018 to start my model: what are the starting conditions of every important part of the climate? My bet would be every one used would be wrong at lest slightly and a few very wrong, possibly even directionally. So there is then zero chance of an accurate forecast.

      • The chaos is not about the equilibrium state itself, but the path from one equilibrium state to another is somewhat chaotic, where the attractor is the new equilibrium state.

  9. I’m reminded of Mark Steyn’s remark at the senate hearing on reliability of climate data. He quipped that how can we feel confident what the temperature wiil be in 2100, when we don’t know what it will be in 1950 – a reference to an algorithm used by NOAA that continuously alters the past record as we go forward!

    The late 1930s temperatures remained the high temperature mark in the USA until it was shoved down a half degree in GISS’s manipulations in 2007!! They said yabut the US represents less than 3% of the earth’s surface – actually its 6% of the land surface. Moreover Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia/Siberia, South Africa, Uruguay, Ecuador and others have similar patterns to the USA. Here is Capetown South Africa’s before being GISSed:

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/clip_image0022.gif

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/28/homogenization-of-temperature-data-makes-capetown-south-africa-have-a-warmer-climate-record/

    I believe such widespread patterns corroborate each other.It will be one of the indices used when we eventually recover all this valuable data.

    • exactly Gary…..”a reference to an algorithm used by NOAA that continuously alters the past record as we go forward!”

      No climate model will ever be right…it can’t be
      When the temps they tune/hindcast to today…are not the same past temps tomorrow

      Climate Models prove that adjusting past temps down is fake….the models carry that fake slope right into the present…and they are all wrong

    • Not just GISS. Berkeley Earth also found that Capetown contained a warm bias until around 1960. When they adjusted the various breakpoints, particularly station moves, they found a warming trend of 0.8 C/century, with the warmest temperatures occurring more recently: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/158976

    • >>
      Winston Smith . . . .
      <<

      He's not available, because he's an unperson. And it's a thoughtcrime to even mention his name.

      Jim

  10. “We have for example noted that the temporal variance of the majority of ensemble members is larger than what can be inferred from available observations.”

    the “scientific body” yields:

    “The result of the study must be assessed with that in mind.”
    _____________________________________________________

    “We have no simple explanation to this but it might be that the model projects the variance on larger scales than nature as a consequence of limited resolution. We would consequently encourage other modeling groups to undertake similar studies which will hopefully make use of the latest high resolution models coupled models (Haarsma et al. 2016). Intuitively we might have expected the opposite and that reality might expose a higher level of variance than the climate model.” :

    it’s about “modeling”.
    _____________________________________________________

    “We would consequently encourage other modeling groups to undertake similar studies which will hopefully make use of the latest high resolution models coupled models (Haarsma et al. 2016).”
    _____________________________________________________

    So the same models yielding

    “The result of the study must be assessed with that in mind.”

    shall contribute to give a depiction of the real world.

    Dream on.

  11. “it is important to determine how long a hiatus or a temporary cooling can last while being simultaneously exposed to an externally forced climate warming.”
    Straight from the “we need to find another, better excuse to add to the long list of excuses we have for the “Pause” department.

  12. Re: ““A unique feature of the 20CR is that estimates of uncertainty are derived using a 56 member ensemble.”

    Given the results, I’m thinking that is a ‘wind and strings’ ensemble, with a few kettle drums to provide emphasis at the alarmist conclusion of their latest ‘Ode To AGW’.

  13. To paraphrase Cardinal Richelieu: give me 56 predictions of the future and I’ll give you the past…

  14. “The future is certain, only the past is unpredictable”
    Polish saying from Soviet times

  15. A simple explanation is that the modellers use aerosols forcing values that are far too high (that is, more negative) than actually occurs. The modellers must do this (i.e., use high aerosol sensitivity, that is more negative than −1.0 W m−2 ) in order to cool their models to match observations (of the 20th Century). But like any lie, it creates inconsistencies elsewhere, such as creating too high a variability in the model output response compared to observation (which is the subject of this paper).

    For climate modellers, it is classic Marmion-ism:
    Oh! What A Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice To Deceive problem.”

    This problem of too high aerosol sensitivity has been lamented before by Trenberth and is the subject of much research by Bjorn Stevens and discussed here at WUWT , Bishop Hill’s and Judith Curry’s climate blogs.
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1

    Also discussions on this aerosol sensitivity problem here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/20/new-study-climate-alarmism-takes-one-helluva-beating/
    (and see blog links within).

    And furthermore, without high model aerosol sensitivity, then it means future CO2 sensitivity model runs must also dramatically lower their GHG-centric ECS than their models currently project. They dogmatically can’t allow that, so the climateers simply weave more tangled webs of lies to make it work fixing the immediate problem at hand, but inevitably somewhere else inconsistencies again arise. A very similar scenario to the increasingly complex epicircle-equant mathematics that Ptolemaic astronomers had to employ to match increasingly accurate telescopic observations of the heavens in the 17th Century.

    And just like 17th Century astronomy, that the bad paradigm of geo-centrism had to be swept away as religious resistance finally crumbled to a sun-centered solar system, so too must anthropogenic CO2-centric climate models must crumble in the face of new observation. And dogmatic CO2 alarmism will be swept away.

    • Plus the realization after Kepler, using Tycho’s naked eyeball observations, that planetary orbits are elliptical.

      • The Ptolemaic astronomers continued to make adjustments to their model to keep up with observation. From the Earth relative observations, the model works relatively well (except for Jupiter moons which they could see with telescopes). This correct prediction of where say Venus, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn would appear in the night sky convinced them of the correctness of their model. It worked so well, it had to be correct in their mind. The same fundamental mistake today’s climate modellers make.

        • Galileo’s observation of the phases of Venus showed the Ptolemaic system false, without necessarily confirming pure heliocentrism. But even Copernicus’ system needed “adjustments” because he still proposed circular orbits.

        • With one subtle difference. None of the predictions being made by the climate modelers have come true.

          • Not such a subtle difference! If the forecasts were even skillful some of the time, it might be a clue as to what is wrong the other times.

          • Their “skill” is in their hindcasts… to which they were also calibrated. Pure Circular.
            But still, it fools them into thinking their models have skill when they can match the past.

      • At the time, there were no good theories of force or gravitation. Circular motion could be described anecdotally: set something in a circular orbit and if left alone it would circle forever. But elliptical orbits means that planets’ distance from the sun and speeds are constantly changing. Describing that kind of dynamic motion wasn’t possible before Newton’s theories of motion and gravity.

        • It was possible to describe it. Newtonian mechanics offered an explanation.

          Newton claimed not to make hypotheses, but that’s exactly what he did, then had to invent calculus to confirm his guess that the inverse square law would confirm Kepler’s observation of elliptical orbits.

  16. Apparently the observational data is not good, so use a climate model instead of all that adjusting.

  17. I would think that the headline is misleading. It should be…

    …climate modelers can’t predict the past, so now concentrate on the future.

    It’s easier to be proven wrong about the past.

  18. Modeling climate is just clouds of hubristic delusions.
    The basic movements of interacting warmed/cooled fluids are highly unpredictable. This planet has it’s mobile, CLOUDY atmosphere of variable chemistry, and it’s oceans vary in chemistry, density and temperature at many levels. And our measurement of these parameters will never be good enough.
    The basic science and the underlying measurement resolution, make such notions that the climate is predictable (and all its aspects ) is very suspect, and in all probably very wrong.

    That confounding damned butterfly, or is it a jellyfish, or that blooming flower?!

    Even the wannabe world rulers of the UN, are muddled in their thinking. The UN-IPCC says it’s not predictable…

    The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

    However they still assert that –

    This predictive capability is both a valuable test of model performance and a useful contribution in natural resource and economic management.

    In other words they wish to build on to an acknowledged unpredictable system a method by which to control the world’s natural resource, and national economic management.

  19. I must admit to being a hardened skeptic when graphs are presented in such fuzzy detail.
    It seems that from HADCRUT4 global temperatures for a couple of years in the 1870s exceeded the 1960-1990 average. Further, compare the warming in the early twentieth century with that post 1975. There is not much difference. If the CO2 impact is there, it is a minority one against other factors, or noisy data.
    Let me clarify a little.
    Global average temperature series page of the Met Office Hadley Centre Observation Datasets has the average annual temperature anomalies for CRUTEM4 (land-surface air temperature) and HADSST3 (sea-surface temperature) and HADCRUT4 (combined). From these datasets, I have derived the graph in Figure 7 year centred moving averages.

    https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/hadley-global-land-ocean-7yr.jpg

    The sea-surface temperature rise post-1975 is about the same magnitude in the early twentieth century. The source of the overall global HADCRUT4 having greater warming in the later period is almost entirely down to the greater increase in land surface temperatures, despite land only covering 30% of the globe. Does CO2 derived warming cause land to heat up quicker than natural warming? I am a bit fuzzy on the physics. Or does the evidence of biases in the land-based thermometers, UHI impacts and temperature homogenizations have some significant impact?

    There is a similar impact on the NOAA data set. I could not find the split for Gistemp.
    https://manicbeancounter.com/2018/04/01/hadcrut4-crutem4-and-hadsst3-compared/

  20. Real world:

    ancient Iran / bevor Alexander / the great hope was: returning to the great PAST.

    reerecting the great past.

    nowadays Iran’s hope again is: the glorious past.
    _____________________________________________________

    Ancient Persia must have gone through NATURAL climate change, droughts and unfertile soils.

    So UTOPIA was the past.

    https://www.google.at/search?q=ancient+Persian+future+is+past&oq=ancient+Persian+future+is+past&aqs=chrome.

  21. “Whenever you read the word “Reanalysis”, always remember at some point it is computer generated data even if some real world data is mixed in with it.”

    Computers do not generate data, not even un-real world data. Data are collected from instruments; after that, it is all estimates.

    • Technically you are correct Ed, but in practice it amounts to the same thing.

      EX: There are no global data for soil moisture . So what the modellers do is use satellite data that has a complex formula to come up with a world map of soil moisture. This data which is subject to huge errors (because the satellites are not actually sampling water content of soil) is then inputted into the models as reanalysis data. I will quote from the following web site:
      https://www.ecmwf.int/en/about

      “A climate reanalysis gives a numerical description of the recent climate, produced by combining models with observations. It contains estimates of atmospheric parameters such as air temperature, pressure and wind at different altitudes, and surface parameters such as rainfall, soil moisture content, and sea-surface temperature. The estimates are produced for all locations on earth, and they span a long time period that can extend back by decades or more. Climate reanalyses generate large DATASETS that can take up many terabytes of space. “

    • Perhaps it would be better to call adjusted data “faux-data,” or “simulated-data.”

  22. I only read part of the article and it sounds to me a bunch of modelers want to get paid for doing nothing meaningful.

  23. In the Adjustocene. the changes to the Climate Data and Record are so numerous and so complex that NOAA and the rest f the adjusters simply cannot keep up with the task and occasionally the Truth creeps through the Maelstrom.

  24. Oh this will be fun… Modeling so we can predict the past. This means…we need to fudge the data of the future to be in line with our predictions of the past… right? I mean, to predict the past you need corrected data from the future, that just makes sense! (Make the stupid stop! Argh!)

    • “Overall, the quality is approximately that of current three-day NWP forecasts.”
      So does that mean that 3 days backward is as good as 3 days forward, or that the hindcast for June 21, 1852 is as good as a 3 day weather forecast?

      Think of it this way: It’s like someone claiming they have a model that can predict the outcome of any NFL game with 100% accuracy, 3 days after the game is played. But they’re quick to point out that their model sucks at predicting the outcome of a game 3 days before it’s played.

      It’s easy for climate witch doctors to tweak their models to spit out a desired result when they know what the answer is. But when they don’t, it’s like Yogi Berra said: “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

  25. As the amazingly intelligent Brad Keyes once wrote: “Oscar Wilde once quipped that people “can’t predict crap-all—especially in advance.” In these increasingly unforeseeable times his words are looking more and more prescient.”

  26. OK, how does one get a higher resolution computer model without more and better data? Just running the same model over and over again cannot increase resolution no matter how much one wishes. We know what the basic data looks like today and all its shortcomings. We have a pretty good idea that we had lot less data and less precise data in the past most especially in geographical coverage.

    These folks are just making it up as they go. Sadly, they have convinced themselves that since it is a computer model being used that somehow it is reflecting reality.

  27. A somebody said, an unvalidated model is no more than an illustration of someone’s hypothesis. (And all climate models are unvalidated, inherently, because of the lack of adequate real data to validate them against.)

  28. Just a bit of fun

    I have been playing with the England Temperature and Sun Hours data from: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/datasets.
    The temperature to sun hours correlation is 0.72.

    The average 10 year ratio between the two is approximately 0.009 so I assumed that if I multiply the sun hours by 0.009 for each year I should get the temperature due to the Sun.

    I subtracted the 0.009 x Sun hours from temperature data and plotted it. The trend line shows an increase of 0.15C since 1929 which I am assuming is all due CO2.

  29. An engineering rule for models is they can’t be used to forecast till they can accurately replicate the past. Climate scientists have ignored this rule. Also if you don’t have a handle on the natural variations, you can’t identify an anthropogenic signal. This purposeful ignorance in climate science has caused modellers to chase their tail.

  30. Soppose their simplistic and partial models can’t match reality, as should be the case given what they ignore by assertion and what they over amplify based on guesswork. sorry, consensus assumptions. We will have to pass laws to change reality, and subsidise the effort. Once they have a version that tracks reality, perhaps they could extrapolate that?

    PS I still want to know, how does the increasing water vapour that ends the fastest natural change of an interglacial while CO2 is still rising fast, with clouds and precipitation, suddenly do the opposite in their models from a little bit of CO2 warming, simply because they say it does? J’accuse!

    AND we already knew plant/life response to more CO2 is almost instant, from horticulture, 1,000ppm seems the benchmark. IPCC denied that as well to assume the response was too slow to reduce temperature, which of course was utter BS (Bad Science) – but a heresy of the inconvenient truth to the IPCC. Plants respond in three separate ways, growth, respiration rate and reproduction, FAST, , as we do, e.g. human birth rate response to longer life/lower infant mortality, Lovelock had the response of life to to climate nailed, I suggest.

  31. The result is a pseudo random noise generator with an accelerating warming drift. Could be done with a simple recursion AlGore rhythm.

  32. ALAN : “I guess this is another case of the climate scientist falling in love with his model.”
    WHY NOT……….lots of “creative ” artists do it !
    Although they are usually referred to as “their muse” !

  33. The future climate is known with great certainty,
    according to the global warmunists — hot enough
    to melt every living creature on our planet
    into an ugly blob on the ground … unless we all
    do as the warmunists say, without question !

    Isn’t that what runaway warming really means?

    It’s a tough task to make predictions like that
    without bursting into laughter — leftists can do it
    because they have no sense of humor !

    It’s the past climate that’s impossible to predict,
    with all the government bureaucrat adjustin’
    and re-adjustin’
    and re-re-adjustin’

  34. Are they laying the groundwork for getting rid of all those troublesome satellite and ground station measurements? I can see the headlines now: “Studies show there were no hurricanes before 1950. “

  35. The July 2018 study “Can an ensemble climate simulation be used to separate climate change signals from internal unforced variability?”that is referenced at the end of my article is a pure demonstration of a climate modeller who has actually ventured inside of his virtual climate world and believes totally in his model.

    Witness the following doozy quotes :

    “With relevance to climate change studies it should be pointed out that this range of uncertainty is only a consequence of unpredictable processes and not to additional uncertainties caused by model deficiencies such as related to physical parameterizations and model resolution.”

    “We have for example noted that the temporal variance of the majority of ensemble members is larger than what can be inferred from available observations. The result of the study must be assessed with that in mind. We have no simple explanation to this but it might be that the model projects the variance on larger scales than nature as a consequence of limited resolution.”
    “Intuitively we might have expected the opposite and that reality might expose a higher level of variance than the climate model.”

    My head just shakes in astonishment at the above quotes.

Comments are closed.