Reposted from theclimatebet.com
2018 year ends on a low note, temperature wise
The UAH global mean temperature anomaly data for December 2018 is out: the figure of 0.25°C.
The average for the year was 0.23°C, with a maximum anomaly of 0.32°C and a minimum of 0.15°C. None of those figure is much different from the 2007 Bet base year average of 0.16°C, and are all well within the base year range of -0.04°C to +0.43°C.
Interestingly, in the now 11 years since 2007, monthly global mean temperature anomalies have fallen outside the 2007 range on only 32 of the 132 months, with nearly half of those months (15) falling below the 2007 minimum.
The 2018 year was cooler than any of the previous three years, and cooler also than 2010. In other words, 2018 was cooler than 40% of the previous ten years.
So how do things stand with the extended “Bet” between the no-change model forecasts and the IPCC’s 3°C-per-century “dangerous” warming projection (standing in for Mr Gore’s “tipping point” warnings)?
After 11 years, the Bet’s summary measure—the cumulative absolute error of the warming projection relative to that of the no-change forecasts—is 1.211. In other words, the errors of the “dangerous” warming projection have been 21.1% larger then the errors of the forecasts from a simple model that assumes that we do not know enough about the causes of climate change to make predictions over policy-relevant horizons that are more accurate than an extrapolation of the previous year’s average into the distant future.
Note also that unbiased forecasts would be expected be warmer than the actual temperature as often as they were cooler. To date, the actual temperature has been equal to or warmer than the IPCC/Gore projection for only 18.2% of months. That figure compares with the 40.9% of months that the temperature anomaly has been less than or equal to no-change projection.
For the latest data and chart summarising the Bet, click on the Whole-Earth Thermometer on the top right of theclimatebet.com site. [current chart embedded below~ctm]
Written by admin
January 7th, 2019 at 2:10 pm
Posted in al gore,forecasting,global warming,public policy,the challenge
Any statement from Al “Icecap” Gore yet?
Apparently he was seen in Athens this week:
“Temperatures in Greece have hit record lows and Athens has seen a rare dusting [blanketing!] of snow, as deadly winter weather continues to pummel Europe. Northern Greece saw an all-time low of -23C on Tuesday, which was recorded in the city of Florina, disrupting roads, rail and bus services.”
Interestingly, Greece holds the record for the highest recorded temperature in Europe with 48.0 °C in Athens on July 10, 1977*
I’m not seeing anything much in the MSM about the ‘enormous’ snow dumps in Europe.
They barely made mention of it here, when reporting the tragic death of an Australian in an avalanche.
“Forecasters reported “enormous” amounts of snow being dumped in Pizzoferrato, a town in southern Italy.”
“At least 14 weather-related deaths have been reported in Europe over the last week.”
“Schools remained closed in parts of Austria and southern Germany on Wednesday. Several roads and highways were also blocked leading to a 20km traffic jam near Munich and trucks had to deliver food to the snowed-in Bavarian community of Buchenhöhe near Berchtesgaden as snow continued falling across the northern Alps.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1070364/Europe-Weather-snow-chart-forecast-latest-news-BBC-long-range-warning-January
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-weather-latest-cold-mediterranean-europe-snow-temperatures-dead-a8719051.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/alps-avalanche-latest-dead-killed-snow-winds-austria-germany-norway-switzerland-netherlands-a8717586.html
*It has been reported by some sources that the thermometer actually reached 48.7 °C on the same day in the town of Elefsina.
It is a rare but repeating event happening in Austria and Germany. The analogy is the Pineapple Express event in California in January two years ago. It has happened before, but sometimes the distribution of who gets the most snow may shift westwards into Switzerland.
Reading the Austrian newspapers, they discuss several other years when big Nordstau events occurred: 2012, 2009 and 1999. Further back, big events occurred on a SW wind in 1990 to different parts of the Alps and the records show 1951 was a famous year for Nordstau and avalanches.
What you have is Atlantic blocking, a wavy jet stream and a channel of longitude driving moist air south to the northern Alps.
So nothing new then. 68 yrs of global warming (since 1950) hasnt modified this in the least.
It is well known that the jet stream didn’t wave at anybody prior to man-made Global Warming, so I reject your reality based history and replace it with the one provided by modern “science”.
Was the jet stream ever studied enough to understand prior to development of high-altitude (pressurized) aircraft? Is the jet stream waviness influenced at all by the solar wind & magntic field? Just asking.
Or “non”science . Say it quickly and it sounds like “nonsense” 🙂
And, Meteorology was unaware of the Jet Stream prior to WWII.
Foul! You stop that “fact-mongering,” right now.
I am currently in Austria. The snow is epic. Fortunately there are ample supplies of emergency Apple strudel.
The low level roads are still surprisingly snowy as they have run to of grit.
There have been a number of deaths, mostly amongst skiers who really shouldn’t be venturing up mountain in this weather. Our nearest ski resort has had some twelve feet of snow in the last week.
Tonyb
Is there anything to drink with that Apple Strudel?
Let’s not forget the party crashing blizzards that hit the WEF in Davos with the heaviest snowfall in 20 years last year. France was calling it a ‘once-in-a-generation’ weather event when it dumped almost 2 meters of snow in less than 48 hours.
A blanket of snow also fell in the Sahara – the hottest desert in the world – that was described as a once a decade event last winter.
Record snowfall hit Moscow in 2018 too, with half a metre of snow in less than 24 hours. “Russia’s Meteorological Office said on Monday (February 5, 2018) that more than a month’s average of snow fell over the weekend. It’s the heaviest amount of snow logged since weather records began.”
It is all just weather but the MSM would be shovelling it down our throats if it was about record heat!
If you have to keep shoveling snow away at later times of the year it means that it is cooling in your area.
It is not the end of snowfall in Bavaria.
It is not the beginning of the end for Bavaria either.
Sometimes weather is just weather.
We are not at the end of the end , nor even at the beginning of the end nor even at the end of the beginning , but in fact are still at the beginning of the beginning of this enormous farce of global warming. My fellow skeptics, we shall fight their lies on the sea , on the land and in the skies to overturn this monstrosity of science.
Forgot to mention the beaches, the landing grounds, the fields, the streets and the hills? At the end we shall ban them to a desolate UHI, to live under the small shades of their manipulated Stevenson screens.
Another wave of snowfall will reach Germany at night.
Apparently he was seen in Athens this week:
“Temperatures in Greece have hit record lows and Athens has seen a rare dusting [blanketing!] of snow, as deadly winter weather continues to pummel Europe. Northern Greece saw an all-time low of -23C on Tuesday, which was recorded in the city of Florina, disrupting roads, rail and bus services.”
Interestingly, Greece holds the record for the highest recorded temperature in Europe with 48.0 °C in Athens on July 10, 1977*
I’m not seeing anything much in the MSM about the ‘enormous’ snow dumps in Europe.
They barely made mention of it here, when reporting the tragic death of an Australian in an avalanche.
“Forecasters reported “enormous” amounts of snow being dumped in Pizzoferrato, a town in southern Italy.”
“At least 14 weather-related deaths have been reported in Europe over the last week.”
“Schools remained closed in parts of Austria and southern Germany on Wednesday. Several roads and highways were also blocked leading to a 20km traffic jam near Munich and trucks had to deliver food to the snowed-in Bavarian community of Buchenhöhe near Berchtesgaden as snow continued falling across the northern Alps.”
*It has been reported by some sources that the thermometer actually reached 48.7 °C on the same day in the town of Elefsina.
Good ol’ “Gore Effect” strikes again!! Brett
Correction:
Any statement from Al $$$ Gore yet?
Yes he says “we have MANNipulated the ALGOREithms and everything (cash flow) is going to plan
The usual nonsense from these economists. The IPCC does not predict 3°C/century warming over this period, anywhere. And it made no predictions at all that could be tested with UAH data for the lower troposphere.
Yes correct Nick. To paraphrase Doris Day, que sera, sera. Whatever will be, was predicted. The future’s not yours to see, only IPCC.
Loved Doris Day. Indeed the future…..
She’s still around, at 96.
From Keston Green’s description of the evolution of the bet in Feb 2018 we see the following:
“In the end, the bet was offered, and monitored, on the basis of satellite temperature data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). In contrast to surface data, the lower troposphere satellite data covers the whole Earth, is fully disclosed, and is not contaminated by poor maintenance and location of weather stations, changes from mercury to electronic measurement, and unexplained adjustments.”
Which in the light of the major adjustment to that data, a totally different data processing technique which results in a product which now covers a different region of the troposphere, is rather ironic.
Instead they chose a source which requires a sequence of different satellites (15+?) which have to be cross calibrated, the orbits of which drift and decay requiring adjustments, and a changeover to different sensor systems, and unexplained deterioration in some of the sensors. Also suffered from a rather ad hoc processing system which ultimately had to be upgraded resulting in a different product.
“Since 1979 we have had 15 satellites that lasted various lengths of time, having slightly different calibration (requiring intercalibration between satellites), some of which drifted in their calibration, slightly different channel frequencies (and thus weighting functions), and generally on satellite platforms whose orbits drift and thus observe at somewhat different local times of day in different years. All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results.”
“Finally, much of the previous software has been a hodgepodge of code snippets written by different scientists, run in stepwise fashion during every monthly update, some of it over 25 years old”
The adjustments to the data for the satellites is out there for all to see.
Care to demonstrate how any of it is wrong?
As you noted, the ground based system is worthless because of all the known uncorrectable problems with the system.
That quote was from Keston Green, one of Armstrong’s co-authors, not from me.
If such a bet had been made I would imagine that the terms of the bet would invalidate it if the source of the data on which the bet was made were radically changed as happened in this case.
Good point. We should make this comparison with the data from the previous version of UAH and see how the “bet” fares.
“Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions”
IPCC Special Report, December 2018, Summary for Policymakers
Let’s see, 0.3 degrees per decade is….help me out Nick, what’s 0,3 times ten?
Or does the higher end of the range they give not count somehow?
Nick, lets be honest. They were predicting numbers up to double this and more for 2100. 30 yrs ago, there were predictions of of cataclysmic changes by 2000 (Westside Highway under 10ft of water- Hansen argued no he meant by some later date and it too will fail). After finding predictions (changed to ‘projections’) 300% too warm by 2007 and a “Dreaded Pause” evident, yeah IPCC began to trim expectations and record keepers began doctoring data. Now a piddling 1.5C by 2100 measured from 1850 is the threshold to disaster, not 2C measured from 1950! They now know we are highly unlikely to even get that high with bizazuzual. Note, 1.5C is really just double the natural rise of 1850-1950 as we recover from the LIA. I wish I could get in on the bet, but I’d have to be Methuselah to collect.
As I recall it, the IPCC predicted 3C increase for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial time based on taking the average of climate change models. This was an ‘expert judgement’. Now they are not making any prediction.
Yea, we know. They don’t make predictions, they make projections.
And while predictions can’t be compared to real world data, they can be used to justify the wasting of trillions of dollars in real world money.
I was just reading a college general chemistry textbook that I’ve had for 40 years. Do you know that no significant amounts of crude oil would be discovered after 2000? At least that was the projection made at that time.
Interestingly, on climate, the textbook said that carbon dioxide (not carbon) played a secondary role and that climate is extraordinarily complex and involves numerous interacting factors and that no one factor is responsible for climate change.
CO2 wasn’t a concern back then at all because, in any case, essentially all oil will have been consumed by 2050, as well as 70% of coal.
Back then, the major environmental concern was acid rain and the effect of SST (supersonic transport) planes on the ozone layer. No mention of polar bears, although chloroflorocarbons were, as well as the decay of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris due to SO2.
“I was just reading a college general chemistry textbook that I’ve had for 40 years…”
Your comment reminded me of an article Isaac Asimov wrote for Time Magazine in 1977, “The Nightmare Life Without Fuel”. In it Mr. Asimov describes the world of 1997, a bleak world that has nearly run out of fossil fuels. His final comment in the article has stuck with me after all of these years: “And what can we do to prevent all this now? Now? Almost nothing. If we had started 20 years ago, that might have been another matter. If we had only started 50 years ago, it would have been easy.”
https://peakoilindiablog.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/isaac-asimov-the-nightmare-life-without-fuel/
Was his description a prediction or projection? In either case, it was wrong.
Correct, Nick; the UN IPCC AR5 declined to estimate a “consensus” ECS and simply regurgitated the 40+ y/o 1.5 to 4.5 nonsense. Instead, it plastered the colorful CMIP5 “projections” all over the place and every rent-seeker hyped and published the high-end hot stuff.
Collective government science at its best. Let Senegal vote on the consensus SPM.
Conclusion
After examining the reports, and removing double counting, calculations show that from Fiscal Year 1993 to FY 2014 total U.S. expenditures on climate change amount to more than $166 billion in 2012 dollars. By way of comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the entire Apollo program, operating from 1962 to 1973 with 17 missions—seven of them sending men to the moon and back—cost $170 billion in 2005 dollars, which equals about $200 billion in 2012 dollars, if we use the Consumer Price Index to adjust that figure. In “fighting” climate change, the United States government is spending almost as much as it did on all the Apollo missions.
https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/
Nothing like wasting stolen money to fight a non-existent, benevolent boogeyman.
Nick,
The IPCC did say way back when, before the pause that is, that we should all watch the lower tropical troposphere temps because these would go 30% higher than surface temps and there we would find the “human fingerprint”.
Conveniently shelved somewhere to be forgotten together with all the other bogus forecasts like an ice free Arctic and such.
Being a hunter I’m used to moving targets and memories of the ones I missed.
–
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
IPCC Second Assessment
Climate Change 1995 The corresponding projection for the highest IPCC scenario (IS92e)
combined with a “high” value of climate sensitivity gives a warming of about 3.5°C
–
Caught so look out for the weasel words.
Nick Stokes “The IPCC does projections not predictions”
Saved a response there.
Er, scuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between a prediction and a projection?
The difference is that a projection takes data, has a trend line, and carries that forward, even if the trend has no meaning. Since a line is y = mx + b, it means for every x, a y is calculated, so y is dependent on x. However, all that we get to see for climate projections are time series and since time does not make climate, the projections have no causative, that is, predictable meaning. Another way to put it is that changes in the trend can occur at any time with a time series projection, but since the real relationships are unknown and not being graphed, there is no meaningful prediction of the future climate possible.
So Donald Kasper,
For the lay person not wanting all the technicalities, projection=prediction!
And just like the majority of the MSM tells it and sells it, the UN-IPCC is in the prediction business.
Actually, the UN IPCC is i the de-industrialisation business.
A distinction without a difference!
The first time I saw a distinction drawn between “prediction” and “projection” was in Limits to Growth. The authors took great pains to make the distinction, and stated that their study was making projections. It has been quite a while since I read the book, but IIRC, a prediction is stated with some certainty, whereas a projection is along the lines of “if things continue as they are, the it is possible that these are the consequences”.
Rod,spot on!
it is so much easier to control the plebs when they are focused on how they are going to scrape by just enough to stay warm through the upcoming cold spell, or how they are going to keep food on the table while trying to pay outrageous carbon taxed utilities.
weak, cold, dying populations aren’t as able to put up a good fight when it finally comes to that
So if a projection turns out to be horse manure you can hold up your hands and say, “not my fault, guv, honest. I just took the data and followed where the trend led me!”
Prezaxtly.
At 3 a.m. it was 2°C, by 8 a.m. it was 7°C, so by 6 p.m. it will be 17°C!
That’s Climb-it Cyanse!
My favorite projection (projection): if one passenger cruise ship can cross the Atlantic in four days, then two can do it in two days.
“The difference is that a projection takes data, has a trend line…”
No, that isn’t the difference. And is isn’t how the IPCC makes its projections.
One thing the IPCC is well known for is a belief that what will happen depends on what we do. So they can’t make a blanket prediction. Instead they say – if you do (scenario) A, this will happen, if you do B, this etc. It doesn’t even have the form of a prediction. But it becomes one, once you have learnt what people did actually decide to do. It is conditional on that.
Since actual data show the UN IPCC CMIP5 models’ consensus ECS is in error, what now? Their output for every scenario is automatically wrong, no?
“Since actual data show the UN IPCC CMIP5 models’ consensus ECS is in error”
No, it doesn’t. An “actual data” proof would need actual equilibrium data.
B.S. Empirically based studies are converging on TCS and ECS values below the UN IPCC climate model-derived. That is in addition to the models’ running hot. Also, see analyses of tropical tropospheric actuals vs modeled.
TCS and ECS =?
“One thing the IPCC is well known for is a belief that what will happen depends on what we do. So they can’t make a blanket prediction. Instead they say – if you do (scenario) A, this will happen, if you do B, this etc. It doesn’t even have the form of a prediction. But it becomes one, once you have learnt what people did actually decide to do. It is conditional on that.”
just more alarmist sophistry to weasel out of incorrect predictions. oh wait. projections?
Funny how the both SJWs and the IPCC PROJECTS. I doth think the IPCC project too much!
“B.S. Empirically based studies are converging on TCS and ECS…”
“Empirically based” is not the same as “actual data show”. They are just another kind of model, and cannot get an ECS based on “actual data”.
Here we go again, Nick. Actual (estimated by satellite measurements) tropical tropospheric temperature trends do not follow the physics as described by current estimates of ECS. There.
“tropical tropospheric temperature trends do not follow the physics as described by current estimates of ECS”
Estimates of ECS, current or not, do not describe tropical tropospheric temperature trends.
A projection is a prediction based on the extension of an existing trend line.
nope
Yep
Moshe is correct. A projection is made based on stated conditions. It is the reason they give three projections depending on what happens to CO2 growth going into the future.
Arguing these niggling points is fruitless. Arguing that there is much more of significance that goes into changes in climate than simply CO2, is the nub.
‘Arguing these niggling points is fruitless.’
But it does muddy the water, doesn’t it?
Yep.
Nick Stokes claimed the IPCC had never projected/predicted a 3 degrees per century rise.
IPCC Special Report, December 2018, Summary for Policymakers states that projection/prediction very clearly…….
…. but Nick Stokes and Steve Mosher ignore that and prefer to debate definitions of the words ‘projection’ and ‘prediction’.
A prediction is a statement but the future that could be true or false.
A projection as a statement about the future that is accepted on faith and so cannot be questioned.
It’s a science vs religion thing.
Err no.
A projection is merely a what if. there is no probability of being true assigned to it
If there is no probability then why are we spending trillions of dollars because of something that is undeterminable? Why is everyone assuming that there will be catastrophic warming if there is no probability that it will happen? If there is no probability, then why does the IPCC assign confidence levels, which by any other definition is assigning probability? With no probability, why isn’t it just as likely that cooling will occur?
Your response is what astrologers and palm readers say about their prognostications!
Rubbish. There is a probability of above zero assigned to it, otherwise you are saying it is not going to happen. Which is also assigning a probability to it.
Sayin something is possible is assigning probability.
If it’s merely a what if with no probability of being true, then it is entirely pointless (especially for basing policy off of). I can give you millions of what ifs that have “no probability of being true”, but you’d find no use in them, and rightly so. ditto any “projection” you care to name.
So, Steve, when the Summary for Policymakers uses terms like “very likely” (>90% probability) and “high confidence” (about an 8 out of 10 chance), what exactly is NOT being assigned a probability?
So, what you’re saying is, a projection is utterly useless as a basis for public policy.
Mosher
“there is no probability of being true…” How true!
Mosher you know that is BS.
That’s what I said.
There is no probability of being true assigned to it. Truth is just assumed without any doubt.
Hi Steven
err no.
pro·jec·tion
/prəˈjekSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
an estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones.
“plans based on projections of slow but positive growth”
synonyms: estimate, forecast, prediction, calculation, prognosis, prognostication, reckoning, expectation; More
Always good to check the dictionary, because that is what the normal everyday people will see. It is also how people will recognize the usage of said word.
notice the synonyms, “PREDICTION”
We don’t get to redetermine the meaning of words for our own inconvenience.
Otherwise how you doing today, did you get any of the rain?
michael
Like a weather forecast, except 80 years in the future. We know how well that works out.
Exactly.
It’s ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?’ all over again.
The answer was always, ‘as many as God wants to do so.’
Except, now the IPCC is deemed to be “god” by the Wamunists.
I make a similar point at the end of my latest blog post
here
http://breadonthewater.co.za/2019/01/06/does-man-made-climate-change-exist/
The main difference between a projection and a prediction is that the projection is conditional on a set of circumstances that must be all true for the projection to be valid.
If I say Jesus Christ, the religious God, will show up on St. Patrick’s cathedral in New York on December 25 2019, that is a prediction and if He doesn’t it fails.
If I say my model shows that if everybody on Earth converts to Christianity, Jesus Christ, the religious God, will show up on St. Patrick’s cathedral in New York on December 25 2019, if He doesn’t appear the projection has not failed because the condition wasn’t met.
That is the crucial difference between predictions and projections. Even when saying the same about the future, predictions have a huge probability of failing, while projections have a huge probability of not failing. Scientists, not being stupid, always project.
Well, since the “Raw Data” (The Scriptures) says that no one knows just when He’ll return, any predictions or projections as to when that will be must be accompanied by astronomically HUGE error bars! 😎
As far as “Climate Science” and it’s models go, from Hansen on, how many “projections” have failed?
How many “predictions” have failed?
Or, to make any replies shorter, How many have NOT failed?
The definition of a projection is as follows.
You define a PATHWAY that defines a future condition.
Examples
1. RCP 8.5.. this is a emission pathway, it assumes a future emission
2. Hold forcing constant. assume no more emissions
3. Increase emissions for 30 years then drop
Projections are WHAT IFS. what if we do x, what if we do y?
here is the salient point. unlike a lab where you could control the situation
in this type of modelling you can only build what ifs.
If a Projection is a part of a CONSISTENT, plausible future world state it is called a
SCENARIO
so.
Assume that c02 goes to 4x immediately ( this is a 4x PROJECTION) these are run
every time there is a new IPCC report.
This PROJECTION ( what if) is not a SCENARIO, because it doesnt represent a
PLAUSIBLE future. Its just a what if, a test.
So, assume that all emissions stop ( a COMMITMENT Projection) this projection
assumes we stop emitting immediately. Its not a scenario. its a mere what if.
Now take RCP 6. this is a SCENARIO and a PROJECTION. because its a PLAUSIBLE
what if.
So, with me?
what makes a PROJECTION into a prediction?
In IPCC termenology a PREDICTION is the MOST LIKELY projection.
So if you thought RCP 4 was MOST LIKELY you would stand up and say
RCP 4 is our prediction. It is the most likely scenario projection.
the IPCC doesnt do PREDICTIONS, that is when you look at the scenarios and the projections
( the what ifs) the DONT SAY which one is most likely
They cant say which is most likely because our decision about how much to emit is unknown.
To recap
A projection is just set of assumptions about a future state. It can range from impossible
to highly likely or maybe even certain. You can project what will happen if c02 goes
4X overnight (done for ECS), you can project a 1% increase ( done for TCR) you can
project no more emissions. You can ALSO think of these as sensitivities studies
around the most important unknown? how much will we emit.
A scenario is a projection that is internally consistent and plausible. 4x c02 is not plausible
so it is a mere projection.
A prediction or forecast is a Scenario projection that you think is most likely.
You are predicting the future pathway of emissions and saying this is most likely.
IPCC doesnt do forecasts or predictions.
When you have your projection ready, you run the model.
The model gives you the expected climate GIVEN the projection. So if you project
4x c02, you get that result. Its not a scenario, not a forecast, its a projection result.
No it is not, that is your idea of a projection.
The dictionary definition of a projection is
“the act of visualizing and regarding an idea or the like as an objective reality.”
“something that is so visualized and regarded.”
“calculation of some future thing:”
As far as climate is concerned it is first 2 of the 3, thinking their ideas are reality.
Years ago the … can you believe years now…. climate projection had a 95% high confidence … confidence, like confidence men… I have a bridge to sell you….. that as business as usual the temperature would be at a given value. As it turned out, it wasn’t business as usual, co2 production took off. However, actual temperatures were below the projected values if we had stopped ALL production of co2 in 2001. ( you know co2 stays in the atmosphere ‘for thousands of years’) I actually had a conversation with a true believer in AGW, most likely a recent brain washed nut case, who didn’t know what ‘run away greenhouse effect’ was, never heard of it or the ‘tipping point’ …. what was it 350 ppm/v then later revised to 400 ppm/v?
People that support AGW are like a large sign banging in the wind. Very annoying and meaning nothing.
So if your model is wrong then your “projection result” is invalid? Thank you for explaining all this.
So far the projection results haven’t quite matched up to reality so maybe you need to go back and rework the model.. or rework the “data” to more match up with the projection results.
We all know how incredibly complex the Earth’s climate system is and how you think you have your models even close to being right is beyond me. And if they aren’t right, well I guess what you project is not right either.
It is all projection with the true believers:
CAGW
SJW
feminists
LGBTQABC123=+-#
socialists
ALL. PROJECTION.
Projections are WHAT IFS. what if we do x, what if we do y?
And despite all their WHAT IFS they’ve yet to issue one projection of “if we do x” where the real world results of doing x turned out to be the y that they projected. That’s called a FAIL in common parlance. (in science it’s also called FASLIFICATION as the hypothesis that “if we do x then y happens” failed to be confirmed by evidence when we did x)
Mosher
What a ‘projection’ is, is a prediction for a given scenario. There can be an infinite number of projections, all of which will be invalid if the conditions of the scenarios fail to be met. However, even for a ‘prediction’ there are (usually) unstated assumptions such as, “things continue as they have in the past, or the model the prediction is based on is correct.” The model(s) often implicitly contain scenarios in the form of assumptions. It is a word game to avoid taking responsibility for not producing a model that has skill for telling us what the future holds.
There are two primary reason for building models; 1) to gain insight on how a complex dynamic system works, and 2) to predict the future behavior of such a dynamic system, particularly when it is disturbed. Current climate models are like a flight simulator that only behaves predictably for a particular temperature or altitude. That is, the ‘scenario’ is so restrictive as to make it useless.
No matter the CO2 projection scenario, if your model’s ECS is off, the results are nonsense. Since it has been demonstrated that the UN IPCC CMIP5 models incorporate assumptions that result in excessive ECSs, their results are nonsense.
here is the salient point. unlike a lab where you could control the situation
in this type of modelling you can only build what ifs.
salient, indeed.
“in this type of modelling you can only build what ifs”
How much better when the what ifs are never correct? shame all that money is wasted on never materializing “what-ifs”
🙂
As I understand it:
A prediction reflects commitment to an invariable outcome (e.g., “Thus sayeth so-and-so: ‘the world will end on such-and-such date'”).
A projection reflects commitment to an outcome based on specific data (e.g., “We’re merely projecting the data forward. If data does this, result will be this”). Multiple data sets produce multiple projections.
So what climate modelers do is limit the range of possibilities (framing the argument), average all model outputs together and make that average a prediction (due to there being no other possibilities). In the meanwhile, the most accurate model (INM-CM5), that actually does back forecast reasonably well, is discarded and ruined by the projection-to-prediction homogenization process.
Imagine if they did hurricane forecasts like they do climate forecasts: average all of the different hurricane models together to get an average that predicts its path and strength, and never update and adjust any model with current conditions. That’s basically what you have with climate models. It’s ludicrous. Virtually all climate models started diverging from reality around 1995. They should all be reset to historical data and current conditions.
The real problem with the models is the built in ASSUMPTION that CO2 level changes drive temperature changes. When you turn off the CO2 “sensitivity,” the models suddenly look a lot more like reality.
Which should tell you something about the notion that CO2 “drives” temperature. But then, if you look at the Earth’s paleoclimate record, you already know this.
Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.
Projection is easy, especially about the future.
Arguing projection prediction is a mugs game. Moshe is correct about projection’s use. What should get all the argument is that the science is not settled that CO2 is even the most significant factor in climate changing. That is to say that the projections themselves are invalid because the tight relationship of temperature with CO2 has been repeatedly falsified.
They can’t be held accountable for a projection, however they can still use projections to justify government spending.
theft:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#7e30921b7ebb
Martin A
A projection is an unaccountable estimate of what will happen if things continue as they have been.
A prediction is an accountable estimate of what will happen based on the output of a validated model. There are no validated climate models. We have one man to thank for forcing the IPCC, the late Prof Gray (sp?) for persisting in his efforts to have them stop misusing the latter term. He was eventually successful. (2001?)
Note that a prediction is based on some model of reality such as the L-cubed relationship between the length of a uniform beam and it’s deflection under load, or the T-to-the-fourth factor for the relationship between temperature and energy radiation. These are validated models.
Projections, on the other hand, are based on assuming that whatever happened and how the system being described is thought to have responded will continue to exhibit the same relationship going forward; in brief, that there are no emergent phenomena. It is an educated guess, not the output of a validated tool.
A further clarification is that a beam deflection model works (is valid) within a range, outside which it is known to fail. If an enormous load is placed on a beam it will, according to the model, deflect some large amount, but in reality will fail completely at some unknowable point. Steel beam deflections for 1/360 L are really accurate. For 1/10 L they are pretty much useless.
Therefore we can say that a prediction is made by a validated model when all the parameters are constrained within the prescribed limits of that model. A P. Eng. can make projections over a beer after work but on the job she is held accountable for her predictions.
You can guess where the IPCC sits on the spectrum of dark-to-pale. Others are beyond the pale.
FWIW and because it doesn’t look as though it’s been properly clarified, a projection typically starts with a model (in the broadest sense) of a phenomenon. The model is then used to project the phenomenon on a dimension. Thus in geometry we project 3D shapes onto 2D and visa versa. In film we project a small image onto a larger. The term abounds in engineering and architecture for example.
In the case of the time dimension we can project what our model might look like going forward and backwards in time. Thinking about the climate the model could be a simple linear time series or a GCM, but all the projection is telling you is what the model shows when projected through the particular dimension.
Technically projections aren’t typically right or wrong. We tend more to talk about their fidelity i.e. how good was the projection process. To widen the scope beyond that we need to bring in the quality of the model, both its structure and the likelihood of assumptions.
Predictions on the other hand are much wider, and definitely testable statements about what might happen if one moves beyond the observed. They might be based on a model and a projection, they might be based on mystical insight. They can, if the predictor wishes be made contingent on certain assuptions, and the prediction can include uncertainty.
But the fundamental point is that unlike projections, predictions can be tested. Did the bridge fall down, did the temperature go up? In this way predictions based on projections are a strong basis for testing the underlying models.
The IPCC gets modellers to produce models of the climate, and then do standardised projections on certain assumptions eg forcings. As projections they are no more than representations of the individual models taken forward in time using some standard assumptions.
However the IPCC make numerous “findings” about the current and future climate, and these are “predictions” (if they aren’t what value do they have?) Its use of the terms “certainties” and “likelihoods” in conjunction with the findings is no more than part of the prediction.
So Steven Mosher is wrong in his claims in this regard, although in some cases the IPCC findings/predictions are contingent upon key assumptions, particularly the RCPs and the levels of certainty. By way of example there is no doubt that SPM WG1AR5 was making a testable prediction when it said: “Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6.”, and that prediction wasn’t contingent on the GCMs being accurate.
So IPCC findings are predictions and are used as predictions, so it’s fair game to test them.
“But the fundamental point is that unlike projections, predictions can be tested. “
Just not true. Projections can be tested. They are conditional, but here at least scenarios cover the range. So you only need to decide which scenario is appropriate, and you have a testable projection.
Projections are almost universal in science, and predictions are restricted to areas like astronomy where it doesn’t matter what humans do. But in physics? A man drops a ball from a 10 m cliff. How long will it take to reach the ground? That isn’t a prediction that a man will drop a ball. It sets up a scenario and says what science predicts if the scenario is realised.
Can you think of a prediction in chemistry? Zinc dissolves in hydrochloric acid. But only if someone brings them together. Science can predict the consequences of our decisions. But it can’t predict our decisions.
The result of a projection aka the prediction is what you test in science.
We don’t project that a ball gets dropped, that’s nonsense. I think you are confused. Newton projected (from his model) that the ball would accelerate at a constant independent of mass, and therefore predicted the time it would take. The projection was neither true nor false, it was the prediction that made him famous.
Similarly we routinely predict the result of chemical reactions from models. It’s what chemist researchers get asked to do.
The situation with climate is exactly analogous to, say, the ball dropping. If you drop a ball from rest, 100m, it will take 4.5s . If you initial down vel velocity 10 m/s, it will take 3.6s. You can’t predict without the scenario.
If you put 500 Gtons CO2 in the air (Scen B) it will rise 1°C. If you put 1000 Gtons in the air (scen A), it will rise 2°C. Exactly the same – predictions not absolute but conditional on what you choose to do. Equally testable.
B.S., again, Nick. Resultant temperatures entirely depend on all the model assumptions leading to an “emergent” TCS/ECS. Modelturbation.
Nick, your point is becoming more and more obscure.
We are talking about the difference between a projection (output of a model) and a prediction (statement about what will happen). Science does a lot of modelling and projections, and studying these is the heart of formal systems and disciplines like logic and mathematic, but the empirical side of the sciences like physics and climate science need to make predictions to be useful.
So it is rubbish to say “predictions are restricted to areas like astronomy where it doesn’t matter what humans do”. You seem to be saying that predictions can’t be made in the company of humans. The IPCC makes predictions (it would be useless if it didn’t), and as in all sciences they are contingent upon assumptions.
HAS,
“We are talking about the difference between a projection (output of a model) and a prediction (statement about what will happen).”
That is not the distinction. It has nothing to do with whether it is a model output. A projection is just the consequence of a scenario. If you declare that a scenario is likely, rather than just possible, then you can call it a prediction. But in climate, the IPCC does not usually declare a most likely in advance. Of course, eventually you can find out what happened, and test the projection.
The IPCC sets it all out here:
“Projection
The term “projection” is used in two senses in the climate change literature. In general usage, a projection can be regarded as any description of the future and the pathway leading to it. However, a more specific interpretation has been attached to the term “climate projection” by the IPCC when referring to model-derived estimates of future climate.
Forecast/Prediction
When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.
Scenario
A scenario is a coherent, internally consistent and plausible description of a possible future state of the world. It is not a forecast; rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future can unfold. A projection may serve as the raw material for a scenario, but scenarios often require additional information (e.g., about baseline conditions). A set of scenarios is often adopted to reflect, as well as possible, the range of uncertainty in projections. Other terms that have been used as synonyms for scenario are “characterisation”, “storyline” and “construction”.”
Absolute hand-waiving B.S., Nick. CO2 up, but temperatures as projected by the UN IPCC climate models not so much.
“By way of example there is no doubt that SPM WG1AR5 was making a testable prediction when it said: “Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6.””
So what if it turns out we follow RCP2.6?
What if they had said “…1900 for RCP4.5”? It makes no different that they cover 3 scenarios with one statement. And that is likewise testable, if RCP4.5 unfolds. Of course, there is never an exact fit. But science wasn’t created to resolve economists’ fantasy bets. We create scenarios to allow science to inform us about what might happen. Without them, it can’t.
Nick, you miss the point. IPCC predicted what the temperature would be independent of any statement that it was contingent on an individual or some collection of GCMs. They moved from the GCM output being the subject of the finding to making a statement about Nature.
Their finding was if all but RCP2.6 occurs the temp will do X with Y degree of uncertainty.
And the truth of the matter is that that is precisely how the policy makers have interpreted what they said. Only that way can you explain the clamour for investment in mitigation and so little relatively going into evaluating GCMs.
“Their finding was if all but RCP2.6 occurs the temp will do X with Y degree of uncertainty”
So what is Y? In fact they didn’t say what would happen. They gave a lower bound applicable to three separate cases. I don’t know why they didn’t just specify each with an actual value, but this is just amalgamating three different conditionals. But they are still there. You have to exceed 2.6. That is a contingent statement.
Nick, try reading what I wrote: ” IPCC predicted what the temperature would be independent of any statement that it was contingent on an individual or some collection of GCMs. ”
I didn’t say that that particular prediction wasn’t contingent on the RCP. But what they did was assert was the models give a reasonable prediction of what the climate would really do, provided you got the RCP right.
But the point is none of these statements aren’t projections (although based on them), they’re predictions, and all testable.
And scenarios are just sets of assumptions used in models. They can be used to create projections, and if trust the models, predictions of what might happen (in fact scenarios are pretty useless if you don’t think they can potentially represent reality).
Double negative, should be “none ….. are projections”.
Then the politicians and rent-seekers take whatever they want to scare the bejesus out of the gullible.
Martin
If you push a a barrel full of Alarmist BS off a cliff, being familiar with effects of gravity, I can confidently make the prediction it will fall – not hover or rise (the large volume of hot gasses associated with said BS notwithstanding).
Absent information about e.g. the height of the cliff and the nature of the terrain at the bottom, I can make no proper forecast about how far the shit will splatter.
See the distinction?
The usual public interpretation of these “projctions” is “predictions”
The usual educated response, to these projections from the IPCC is, they are baloney.
+42
Thats WHY they define it and explain what the diference is
http://ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/definitions.html
“Note also that unbiased forecasts would be expected be warmer than the actual temperature as often as they were cooler. To date, the actual temperature has been equal to or warmer than the IPCC/Gore projection for only 18.2% of months. That figure compares with the 40.9% of months that the temperature anomaly has been less than or equal to no-change projection.”
Err , the closest the IPCC ever came to making a short range prediction for temperature growth is this
around .2C per decade , not 3C for the century.
FFS we kicked this around for months back in 2009, 2010ish at Lucias
Ah I see Nick commented, does he have some references handy, I cant get to lucias with VPN on
“Note also that unbiased forecasts would be expected be warmer than the actual temperature as often as they were cooler.”
This means that if a forecast is accurately predicting the future climate, we will get a certain variability around the observed trend. Since climate models predict temperatures that are always too high except for the calibration period used at the start, what this means is that the models predict nothing at all and are basically random noise generators that will continue to diverge from observations, infinitely.
(Edited, to separate quote from personal comment body for easier reading) MOD
Moshy-Dude:
You wrote,
“Err , the closest the IPCC ever came to making a short range prediction for temperature growth is this –
around .2C per decade , not 3C for the century.”
Well, no.
IPCC FAR (1990), as well as Hansen (1988) most certainly published a “best estimate” BaU Scenario decadal Temperature projection of 0.3 deg. C, which works out to 3 deg. C per Century.
Only when this began to appear highly improbable a decade later was this estimate reduced to 0.2 deg. C per decade (smoothed, 5-y running mean GMST).
Be careful, or your name might become synonymous with an adjective describing weak, at times duplicitous, hand-waving arguments attempting to stand up for the credibility of mainstream climate science.
“Moshy”
“IPCC FAR (1990), as well as Hansen (1988) most certainly published a “best estimate” BaU Scenario decadal Temperature projection of 0.3 deg. C, which works out to 3 deg. C per Century.”
A SCENARIO is only a prediction if they say it is MOST LIKELY.
at least in how the IPCC differentiates between scenarios, projections and predictions
Mosh:
Here’s the verbatim from the IPCC FAR,
Policymaker Summary of Working Group I
(Scientific Assessment of Climate Change),
Executive Summary:
“§3. Based on current model results, we predict: under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global-mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors…”
Do you not deduce that this summary assessment of the World’s Best™ Climate Scientists was ascribing a ‘Best / Most Likely Estimate” of about 0.3°C per decade, with error bars of +0.2 / -0.1°C per decade?
But perhaps my ability to read and decipher the tea leaves of Climate Science prediction/projection/scenario semantics is not so sufficiently honed as is yours.
Or perhaps you’ll just claim their models were not sufficiently robust three decades ago, so we should all just ignore that and focus on the more serious models developed later by the World’s Newest and Greatest™ Climate Scientists.
The FAR quote is conditional on something that didn’t happen. But it is also not projecting the next three decades, but an average for the next century. And if you look at any scen A projection, it is pretty much exponential rise. Most of that average increase happens in the later years.
In any case the IPCC issued later estimates, which just illustrate the cherry picking of this concocted “bet”. Who would actually bet in 2007 based on a projection from 1990 when there are much more recent available.
Nick Stokes,
You wrote,
“The FAR quote is conditional on something that didn’t happen. But it is also not projecting the next three decades, but an average for the next century. And if you look at any scen A projection, it is pretty much exponential rise. Most of that average increase happens in the later years.”
You are attempting to rationalize an abject failure. The FAR prediction was set by the IPCC experts. It foresaw a rise in the GMST of 0.3°C per decade, based on Business as Usual emissions, which were calculated to be and increase in 1.5% per annum (of human CO2). Since actual emissions of human CO2 increased at 2.0% per annum, so not only did Scenario A “not happen”, the actual was “worse” than the experts’ expectations.
Granted, the CFCs were reduced from the BaU predictions. I do not consider it unreasonable to postulate that the increased CO2 emissions should have more than outweighed the effect of the reduced CFC emissions.
“The FAR prediction was set by the IPCC experts. It foresaw a rise in the GMST of 0.3°C per decade, based on Business as Usual emissions, which were calculated to be and increase in 1.5% per annum (of human CO2). Since actual emissions of human CO2 increased at 2.0% per annum, so not only did Scenario A “not happen”, the actual was “worse” than the experts’ expectations.”
Nothing given to substantiate. And it isn’t true. I think you are mixing up with Hansen, who based his scen A on a rise of 1.5% per annum in the annual increment of CO2 measured in the air. Not tonnage of C burnt, which he didn’t know accurately (nor did the IPCC in 1990). In fact, Hansen’s measure did rise at just under 1.5% per annum.
Moshy-Dude:
OK, I think I get it:
When the IPCC said, “§3. Based on current model results, we predict: under the BaU emissions of greenhouse gases … a rate of increase of global-mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade) …”
… they weren’t really predicting after all, since nobody used the words “most likely” (despite the use of the words “we predict” as well as the upper and lower temperature range being numerically stated).
… and the stated “likely increase in global-mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the end of the next century” weren’t really predictions either, since they didn’t use the adjective most before likely.
Are we on track for the FAR’s plus 1 C prediction for 2025? Ignoring the recent Super El Nino, that is.
Dave Fair,
You wrote: “Are we on track for the FAR’s plus 1 C prediction for 2025?”
Nowhwere near it. Per GISTEMP LOTI five-year running mean, the current temperature anomaly since 1990 is about 0.5℃.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:60
Barring a massive planetary warming in the coming years, this is not going to happen.
Sounds like all you did is insert “MOST LIKELY” in place of “SIMON SAYS”. No grin attached, I’m freaking serious.
We called it a “Mikey,” named after a brother that had such tendencies.
Not true. They predicted +1°C by 2025 in 1990.
That ain’t gonna happen.
Javier,
“The predicted +1.0 ℃ by 2025 “ain’t gonna happen.”
Probably not, since we’ve traveled about 4/5 of the way down that path in time (29/35 years), yet the global mean surface temperature has only warmed about half the way to one degree Celsius from the 1990 starting point (looking at the GISTEMP LOTI five-year running mean, which is Hansen’s own dataset, and not just incidentally, the one showing the most warming).
But we won’t really KNOW till 2025, right? Ya never know, the global warming rate over the past 3 decades might just quadruple over the coming six years!
/ sarc off
Err no
Thats a projection under a BAU scenario..
So they would use verbiage like
We predict X, under a BAU scenario
But in their terminology it’s not a forecast or prediction unless they say the
scenario is Most likely.
The other way to look at this is as follows
when the IPCC tells you they dont do predictions, BELIEVE THEM.
Now of course you can read any of their texts in such a way that makes it look like
a prediction. Heck even folks on my side can read it that way, but in truth they dont
make predictions. Scenarios and projections yes.. Predictions? they are smarter than that.
you might be wrong if you did one of those.
In any case, the “prediction” of “3C” might be justified on SOME reading of the FAR
but at the time of this bet the closest thing to a prediction the IPCC made was .2C per decade
AR4. the discussion was that under all scenarios this is what you would see
when the IPCC tells you they dont do predictions, BELIEVE THEM.
So when they say “Based on current model results, we predict…” that is *not* them doing a prediction despite the clear words “we predict” in that sentence. So we should believe what they “tell” us (that they don’t do predictions) but not believe what they actually say in their reports (“we predict”). got it.
Wrong again, as usual Mosher. You don’t have a good knowledge of IPCC reports. What they exactly say is:
“Based on current model results, we predict:
• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors.”
Since they say they predict, it is a prediction. Since emissions have followed a business-as-usual scenario, the prediction should come true if they are correct.
Considering how little you say, that it is mostly wrong is quite an achievement.
Javier,
You wrote, “Since emissions have followed a business-as-usual scenario…”
‘Cept they haven’t followed BaU.
BaU corresponded to an annual increase in human CO2 emissions of 1.5%, whereas actual human CO2 emissions were 1/3 higher, or 2.0% per annum.
So their guesstimations were even more off the mark.
Looking at the IPCC scenario A graph so far emissions have fallen short.
The statement that was quoted amounts to: If a certain level of emissions occur then we expect the following temperature rise to occur. That’s a conditional statement, if the condition isn’t met then the prediction is invalid.
if the condition isn’t met then the prediction is invalid.
But that’s rather then point, all their predictions have been invalid. They have yet to get a single one right.
“Since emissions have followed a business-as-usual scenario…”
They have not.
In fact, the IPCC did not specify emissions quantitatively. But they said of scenario B, marking the distinctions from A:
“In Scenario B the energy supply mix shifts towards lower carbon fuels, notably natural gas Large efficiency increases are achieved Carbon monoxide controls are stringent, deforestation is reversed and the Montreal Protocol implemented with full participation.
In Scenario C a shift towards renewables…”
Much of that happened.
Nick & Phil,
Allow me to attempt to appeal to your intellectual curiosity. You wrote,
“In fact, the IPCC did not specify emissions quantitatively.” (N)
“Looking at the IPCC scenario A graph so far emissions have fallen short.” (P)
Questions:
1) Do you think that the temperature projections from the IPCC FAR Scenarios were based on merely qualitative or indeed quantitative estimates of human GHG emissions?
2) Do you think that it was an oversight by the IPCC FAR Lead Authors to refer only qualitatively to human CO2 emissions in the text and relevant appendices?
3) Do you consider the graphs provided in the report texts to have numerical relevance, or should these be ignored, e.g., when attempting to compare the robustness of the projected scenarios three decades hence?
Steven is correct! 😉
The IPCC glossary of terms employs despicable language – through its torturously circular reasoning – that amounts to a self evident disclaimer. When followed logically it admits to being a completely meaningless set of narratives, a fictitious storyline* in fact.
Here is a fine example of the ouroboros that is the IPCC eating its own tail and disappearing up its own fundamental:
*[A scenario] “…is not a forecast; rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future can unfold. A projection may serve as the raw material for a scenario, but scenarios often require additional information (e.g., about baseline conditions). A set of scenarios is often adopted to reflect, as well as possible, the range of uncertainty in projections. Other terms that have been used as synonyms for scenario are ‘characterisation’, ‘storyline’ and ‘construction’. – IPCC
Stop and think for a moment.
After all these years, the global temperature anomaly is 0.25C – you can’t even feel a change 0.25C.
And we are supposed to destroy our energy systems, our economies and our society because of 0.25C warming?
Global warming alarmism is promoted by scoundrels and believed in my imbeciles – it is biggest scam in human history.
Agreed – but it is unfortunately also believed by far too many who are not imbeciles, but who adopt the “belief” based on emotional reactions and/or lack of attention and/or political “identity.”
AGW wrote:
Agreed – but it is unfortunately also believed by far too many who are not imbeciles, but who adopt the “belief” based on emotional reactions and/or lack of attention and/or political “identity.”
_____________
Yes AGW – and to me, you have just defined one group of ïmbeciles”.
Best, Allan
but it is unfortunately also believed by far too many who are not imbeciles, but who adopt the “belief” based on emotional reactions and/or lack of attention and/or political “identity.”
While those people may not be “imbeciles” they certainly are “useful idiots”.
You need to add that it is also used by those who don’t believe it but pretend it is true as a lever to achieve an end. That “end” could be personal profit and/or a political goal.
As someone who (successfully) lobbied his State Legislature for utility portfolio standards that benefited his geothermal project under development, I know personally that most of the climate hysteria push is rent-seeking.
Ummmm… I’m not sure what to say… Congratulations on a job well done…? I am aware that geothermal does well under certain specific conditions, but I am also aware those conditions only exist in maybe 2% of the country, and if it was a really good idea it wouldn’t have needed the assistance of a “renewable portfolio standard”.
Does your project now have measurement and verification? Does it show you are actually saving the state/residents/rate payers money (I’m also a little less curious about how well your forecasts upon which you sold the project matched up to the measured savings(costs), but we know you can never control all the variables, and you don’t even know which ones you forgot to measure or forecast)? If so, I can sincerely support my congratulations. If not…
Sadly, after I left my successor was unable to secure a transmission interconnection to the grid. A bust, but great for the rent-seekers forcing uneconomic and grid-disrupting solar PV on the taxpayers and electric ratepayers.
“You need to add that it is also used by those who don’t believe it but pretend it is true as a lever to achieve an end. That “end” could be personal profit and/or a political goal.”
A very valid and important point by Gunga Din.
And nicely illustrated by Dave Fair’s comment.
The temperature graph (green line trend) shows global temperature at a standstill, but is there one further decade of the hiatus?
It appears to me that it is beyond any human being, engaging all their available brain power with the intricacies of the global temperature, which by the way is an abstract and has no physical meaning, to comprehend in detail complexity of the phenomenon.
Sadly, I too fell into this quasi-intellectual trap and concluded that only method ( shown here ) that envisaged and accurately identified the global temperature pause, but without even the fundamental understanding, suggests that the pause will continue for at least another decade, but any further direction is an unknown.
The rest of humanity, however large or small, with the possible capacity to comprehend what is going on there or more generally in the evolution of the global climate trends, has better things to do.
Global sea surface temperature is extremely stable (only grows during El Niño).
News on radio here was that SST is rising ….more than expected .
Could someone cleverer than me explain why I should take any climate projection seriously? The climate is a chaotic, stochastic system. Any projection of a linear trend into the future is nonsense by definition. Imagine I was to be given a dollar for every time a tossed coin landed heads, and was to pay a dollar for a tails. After a run of (say) 10 heads, I could “project” that I would be a millionaire in a week.
“… I was to be given a dollar for every time a tossed coin ”
if you want to make it in a week try to toss two coins at the time.
let’s say it takes you one sec for you to toss a coin register you got a head and pick it up, and the every single throw is a head. There are 86400 seconds in a day x 7 days = $604800.
You will need to take 12 days, have no rest, no sleep to make your million.
/sarc
well he didn’t say only one coin was being tossed nor the he was the one doing the tossing. Just that “every time a tossed coin landed” there could any number of coin tossers involved. Besides he was only “projecting”, there was “no probability of being true assigned to it” so you can’t hold him to the “millionaire in a week” if it turns out his “projection” is impossible and/or otherwise wrong. just “BELIEVE HIM” when he says it, just don’t call it a “prediction”. /sarc
I wouldn’t trust anyone tossing other coins on my behalf. I paid hundreds of $US to a well known climate scientist, for my specially minted coin, I call it ‘double headed eagle’, after the my native country’s flag simply for sentimental reasons, it wins every time. 🙂
My coin wins for me every time as well, when I call it: Heads I win, tails you lose. 😉
John,
It think you just explained the terminology change from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”!
Vukcvic’s “double headed eagle” can be examined and shown to be false.
But change the terminology … Whatever happens, we lose
Still waiting on that global temperature page on either Weather.com or Accuweather. I want to know what the global temp will be this coming Monday.
The bet was never accepted. It doesn’t make much sense IMHO to follow an unaccepted bet. Recent warming (or lack of it) is being discussed in more proper ways and with better methodology, as Christopher Mockton showed yesterday here at WUWT.
The bet was never accepted
So? The results that the bet would have been resolved on are themselves is of interest as it serves to highlight the reasons the bet was issued in the first place (IE how accurate or not the “predictions/projections” of official climatology are) and as such very much make sense -the challengers, so far, were right (as they’d be on track to “winning” the bet) and those challenged were wise to not have the confidence in their predictions/projections to take up the bet (as they’d be on track to “losing” the bet).
Since the bet was not accepted, nobody took on defending one of the sides as it is formulated.
This non-bet has been reported previously here at WUWT. It has significant problems. By cherry picking the evaluating conditions, starting point, and temperature database you can get one result or the opposite. It is all pointless.
Since the bet was not accepted, nobody took on defending one of the sides as it is formulated.
the bet conditions were set out when the challenge was issued and the results based on those conditions are what they are – no amount of “defending one side” could possibly change them (if they could, it wouldn’t be any kind of bet as that’s not how bets work) so it doesn’t matter if the bet was accepted – the conditions remain what they were and the results are the same regardless of whether the bet was accepted or not. The only difference between accepting and not of the bet is that the “losing” side doesn’t have to “pay up” at the end set forth in the bet conditions.
That is incorrect. You assume that the other side agreed with the conditions assigned to their side. Since they did not accept the bet you cannot make that assumption.
The whole thing is pointless. You pick somebody famous, like Gore, that has no clue about what he talks about and is simply repeating what others are saying. Then you set the conditions on your favor and make a bet. The famous one doesn’t even bother to answer. Then you expend years telling everybody how you were right and that famous person was wrong.
It is so silly as not deserving comment. Some of us are under the impression that the climate change issue should be solved in the scientific arena, and there is no science in that bet.
That is incorrect
NONSENSE!
You assume that the other side agreed with the conditions assigned to their side
The bet is what it is. If I bet you x will happen, you either accept the bet or not. If you don’t accept the bet you can counter offer with your own, different bet that I would then have to either accept or not. but as that didn’t happen we can only look at the bet that was on the table.
Then you set the conditions on your favor and make a bet
How does one set the conditions on your favor regarding something that will take place 10 years from the time of the bet? Unless the bet maker is psychic, they have no idea what the future holds. The whole point of the bet is to determine what the future outcome is and which side of the bet was closest to it. So more nonsense from you.
The famous one doesn’t even bother to answer
There was correspondence between Gore’s office and the bet maker, just no acceptance of the bet, so not only more nonsense from you but demonstrably untrue nonsense to boot.
It is so silly as not deserving comment
and yet here you are commenting your nonsense about it, repeatedly.
Some of us are under the impression that the climate change issue should be solved in the scientific arena, and there is no science in that bet.
Well many here do consider the IPCC “projection” isn’t very scientific, as the bet is based off that you may just be right on that one point (just not in the way you meant).
By cherry picking the evaluating conditions, starting point, and temperature database you can get one result or the opposite
1) as you say this bet has been reported on previously here at WUWT. Can you point to any discrepancy in any of those things between the current report and previous reports, because if not your accusations of cherry picking are so much yah boo as Lord M would say.
2) if the cherries are so free to pick, please demonstrate by doing so – pick those cherry such that they are consistent with the bet that was issued and show us the “opposite” result. otherwise we are back to the yah boo from you.
The ‘bet’ was proposed in 2007 to be based on the UAH LT data, since then the methodology used and the product have been changed giving a reduction in the trend of ~0.025º. I can’t imagine anyone taking a bet under those conditions.
That UAH would change it’s methodology and product (and what effect that would have) during the time period of the proposed bet was unknown as the time the bet was made (and out of the hands of the parties to the proposed bet) – so the parties to the bet would have no cause to reject joining the bet at that time for that reason. (they literally would not be “taking a bet under those conditions” because “those conditions” were not the conditions at the time of the bet).
Now, that would certainly constitute an understandable reason for one of the parties (likely the one that thinks it stands to lose the most ground from such a change) to drop out of the bet if they so chose and no one could rightly blame them for doing so at the time (IE “this isn’t what I agreed to” would be the given reason for dropping out), but as the bet didn’t get accepted we have no way of knowing if either party would have dropped out after the change or if they would have agreed to continue forward anyway (as the bet wasn’t about a specific methodology/product but about the predictions/projections of “climate change” continuing forward anyway is an equally reasonable possibility)
in short you ” I can’t imagine anyone taking a bet under those conditions” is irrelevant and doesn’t apply.
OK John let’s put it this way, the originally proposed ‘bet’ was based on UAH LT version 5, that no longer exists as a result of substantial changes, so the ‘bet’ would be null and void.
As I previously said Phil “Now, that would certainly constitute an understandable reason for one of the parties (likely the one that thinks it stands to lose the most ground from such a change) to drop out of the bet if they so chose and no one could rightly blame them for doing so at the time (IE “this isn’t what I agreed to” would be the given reason for dropping out), but as the bet didn’t get accepted we have no way of knowing if either party would have dropped out after the change or if they would have agreed to continue forward anyway (as the bet wasn’t about a specific methodology/product but about the predictions/projections of “climate change” continuing forward anyway is an equally reasonable possibility)”
And in any case your so-called point is a completely unrelated tangent to the post in which you were replying. Javier claimed how easy it is to cherry pick and was asked to show us by doing the cherry picking while being consistent with the bet. He has not done so and neither have you, so your distraction from that challenge is thus noted and it has not worked.
While UAH may be closest to the truth, too many times can be seen that some new ideas are shown to be correct by comparing them to GISS, that is of course wrong. Here in Finland our own FMI, Finnish Meteorological Insitute is just as corrupted as other ones under WMO influence. But, as it is illegal to actually lie (by them) to Finnish people, FMI pages in Finnish are different than those in English. Finnish pages show clearly that the climate of Finland is just as warm or cold as it was about 80 years ago. No global warming here for 80 years, so that is a long pause. Just check yourselves :Google Ilmatieteen Laitos (FMI) there “Ilmasto” (climate) , then “Vuositilastot” (yearly statistics), and there is the graph “Sodankylä (a city in Lapland, northern Finland) and Helsinki Kaisaniemi” (our capital,southern Finland). Those are oldest unchanged measuring stations we have, and UHI in Helsinki has increased so it does not show slight cooling like Sodankylä.
As the whole northern Siberia is just like Sodankylä if the data from individual measuring stations is looked at, one might ask where is that “two times the warming of the Arctic than the rest of the globe…”
On the English language version of the climate pages, the graph starts at 1960. This has the effect of hiding the fall in temperature from 1938 to 1972, giving more of an impression of a constant increase.
A sin of omission perhaps?
Thanks for that post, Timo!
Here is the url for the temprature charts for a couple of cities in Finland:
https://ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/vuositilastot
As you can see this is another case of local and regional surface temperature records showing that the 1930’s/40’s were as warm or warmer than subsequent years. There is no unprecedented warming in the 21st century. It’s been this warm before.
I bet lots if not most local and regional surface temperature readings show the same thing. I bet none of them show a Hockey Stick configuration.
And Timo, to your point about the Finnish Weather Service hiding things: I went to the English version of their website and there was no category for (yearly statistics). It was on the Finnish language version but not on the English version. There were 12 categories to pick from on the Finnish version but only seven categories to pick from on the English version. That’s pretty deceptive and would cause me to distrust whoever it is that would suppress information that way.
The Climategate Charlatans changed and modified numerous temperature records to make it appear that the Earth’s temperatures were at unprecedented levels are were going higher. They couldn’t make that claim going by Helsinki’s temperature profile so they set about changing all the records and making them look like “hotter and hotter” Hockey Sticks, but they didn’t have the means to destroy all the old records, and all the old records, if gathered together would prove their “hotter and hotter: CAGW nightmare is science fiction. It was just as warm in the 1930’s, no CO2 required, which means no CO2 is required for current warming since both are of the same magnitude.
Thanks, Timo! I’ll add your charts to my list of other charts from around the world showing the same temperature profile, i.e., It was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s than in subsequent years. Nothing to see here in the 21st century. It’s not necessary to spend trillions of dollars on fixing things that don’t need fixing.
When authors in the future here on WUWT do temperature chart comparisons, they should include the Helsinki temperature chart in there. See how that compares with all those speculations we see day after day.
Same here.
Click on my name to read my final report.
So sayeth the prophet, St Mosh of Gosh
‘and lo, we project 1,5 degrees by the end of time, but we only predict 1.1. Yes we also extrapolate 1.4 and best guess at 1.3. Inductively 1 and deductively 0.9’
so sayeth the good book. and yea, were all our bases covered
Lol, Mosh is doing his best to defend the weaseling weasels with their weasel words: predictiction bersus projection. It is even more funny than any Monty Python skit.
Speaking of, maybe this “crisis” will eventually be an “ex-crisis” but I don’t think it is dead yet. In fact, think it would like to go for a walk.
So keep up the CPR on the CAGW, Mosh, I haven’t been this mirthfully entertained in a while!!
the Public: I wish to complainabout this crisis what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Mosh: Oh yes, the, uh, the IPCC Blue…What’s,uh…What’s wrong with it?
the Public: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, my lad.’E’s dead, that’s what’s wrong with it!
Mosh: No, no, ‘e’s uh,…he’s resting.
the Public: Look, matey, I know a dead crisis when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now.
Mosh: No no he’s not dead, he’s, he’s restin’! Remarkable crisis, the IPCC Blue, idn’it, ay? Beautiful projections!
the Public: The projections don’t enter into it. It’s stone dead.
Mosh: Nononono, no, no! ‘E’s resting!
the Public: All right then, if he’s restin’, I’ll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) ‘Ello, Mister Polly crisis! I’ve got a lovely fresh warming trend for you if you show…
(Mosh hits the cage)
Mosh: There, he moved!
the Public: No, he didn’t, that was you hitting the cage!
Mosh: I never!!
the Public: Yes, you did!
Mosh: I never, never did anything…
the Public: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) ‘ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o’clock alarm call!
(Takes crisis out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
the Public: Now that’s what I call a dead crisis.
Mosh: No, no…..No, ‘e’s stunned!
the Public: STUNNED?!?
Mosh: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin’ up! IPCC Blues stun easily, major.
the Public: Um…now look…now look, mate, I’ve definitely ‘ad enough of this. That crisis is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not ‘alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein’ tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.
Mosh: Well, he’s…he’s, ah…probably pining for the pause.
the Public: PININ’ for the PAUSE?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got ‘im home?
Mosh: The IPCC Blue prefers keepin’ on it’s back! Remarkable bird, id’nit, squire? Lovely projections!
the Public: Look, I took the liberty of examining that crisis when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it’s past data had been adjusted down.
(pause)
Mosh: Well, o’course it was adjusted there! If I hadn’t adjusted the past down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent’em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
the Public: “VOOM”?!? Mate, this bird wouldn’t “voom” if you put four million volts through it! ‘E’s bleedin’ demised!
Mosh: No no! ‘E’s pining!
the Public: ‘E’s not pinin’! ‘E’s passed on! This crisis is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! ‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t adjusted the data ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies! ‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig! ‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-crisis!!
(pause)
Mosh: Well, I’d better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I’ve had a look’ round the back of the shop, and uh, we’re right out of crisises.
ergo: dead as a parrot
John, thank you – good laugh and excellent paraphrasing. But there is a new crisis behind the curtain – plastics in the ocean. It’s just getting warmed up.
You’ll have to go to his brother’s shop in Bolton for that.
Chortle.
Then “pinin’ for the pause”. 😀
Top work JE
Does being projected to be doomed by CAGW result in different policies or trillions more or less wasted dollars than being predicted to be doomed by CAGW? How many politicians understand the difference? Can I refuse to pay asinine carbon dioxide taxes on the grounds that the International Panel on Climate Catastrophe makes projections and not predictions?
Does this mean that the new “pause” is now 11 years long?
Go back and see what the “experts” predicted 30 years ago. It’s a complete absolute joke, but I fell for it……then.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vAAAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=global%20warming&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q=global%20warming&f=false
It seems to me that we are beginning to see climate change folks becoming wishy washy about projections/predictions. The politicians need to read this and take heed. The educators brainwashing our children need to read this and stop.
Basically, the scenario goes like this.
I say to a guy carrying a sign saying the world will end, “When is going to end?”
He says, “I don’t know for sure?”
I say, “How is it going to end?”
He says, “Aliens are going to come!”
I say, “That’s unlikely.”
He says, “But, it can happen so start preparing.”
Which makes it the joint 6th warmest December in the UAH record. A “low note”?
The reality that the UAH data presents is why the Climate Propaganda machine has increased its volume past level 11 now. And it will only get worse (the volume level and the stupid alarmist claims going up further still) in the coming months and several years until the climate fever breaks under the weight of reality.
For example, 2018 as no F4 or F5 tornado year was likely just a statistical fluke, a feature of true randomness. Similar to how 2005 to 2017 was a 12-year period of no CONUS land-falling major hurricanes. Then when the first major hurricanes finally did hit, all the maximum volume, shrill cries of climate scam alarmism came out. The same will likely happen this coming spring with the first out-break of severe tornadoes.
My favorite, ” it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future “. Attributed to Yogi Berra.
I said ” attributed” because he said ” I never said a lot of the things I said”.
must say
heard on the news here today that SST is rising much more than expected…
is it true?
Can you see here?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
Thx.
Just a bunch of stupid semantics. The IPCC may not explicitly state they are making “predictions,” but they present the GCM model results of future conditions and use them as evidence for the sky falling.
Yes, it’s somewhat like an option in finance. As witching hour arrives, the option only has a “look I told you so” value if the data (price) is at or above the “projection”.
Otherwise, its value immediately becomes zero, total history.
On numerous occasions, I have tried to explain what is meant when the word “normal” is used when referring to temperature. I have also suggested that folks should write temperature degrees, not degree of temperature when a change of temperature is mentioned. EX: if the temperature goes up 3 units, this a change, and should be written as 3 C degrees, not 3°C. The later is a temperature, and not a change.
No one pays a bit of attention.
Here is an idea. Put some cash into a mutual fund with a large company, such as Vanguard or Fidelity, …
Ask them how to invest it so you expire before your money does.
They will do this with Monte Carlo simulation methods, computational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to obtain numerical results. Then they will tell you that under one situation, you die with a bundle of money unspent. Under another situation, you live to 100 and have no money for the last 25 years of your life. You can pick one from many you think is most likely, and base decisions about expenses. Good luck.
People in both the real world, and “climate” research have to define their words, and as with the word “normal” (temperature), others can complain — or learn what is going on.
Or, just go on complaining.
Me? I thank Nick S. and Steve M. for the explanations.
“… I have also suggested that folks should write temperature degrees, not degree of temperature when a change of temperature is mentioned. EX: if the temperature goes up 3 units, this a change, and should be written as 3 C degrees, not 3°C. The later is a temperature, and not a change…”
You don’t seem to know how units work. It’s obvious why no one pays a bit of attention to your suggestion.
“…Here is an idea. Put some cash into a mutual fund with a large company, such as Vanguard or Fidelity, …
Ask them…”
Ask them sometime in the future how much your account value has grown (or lost). They’ll tell you in dollars even though it is a currency “and not a change.”
The way I see it is that you make a projection and based on that projection, you then make your prediction.
In other words, the projection is the path and the prediction is the destination.
Simple….I think….
I yet other words, if you make a projection, you also make a prediction.
It’s like projecting an image onto a screen, the image is the prediction.
Of course that does not mean your projection is correct!
Regarding new crises, yes very funny. The next new one may well be plastic, but look out for fresh water, that’s the big one, especially in the dry countries such as the very volatile Middle East or the South East Asian ones. The Mekong Delta with countries erecting Dams. Think of the possibilities there.
MJE
There’s a dead easy way to find out what the warming rate in UAH has been since 2007. You just get the data and run a linear trend line through it:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2007/plot/uah6/from:2007/trend
A glance at the raw data table shows that the warming trend in UAH since 2007 is 0.0287 per year, which translates to, yes, “the IPCC’s 3°C-per-century”.
Pretty clear who won this ‘bet.’
Only with a Super El Nino at the end, DWR54.
We can hardly blame Al Gore for that! It was these guys who set the terms of the ‘bet’, wasn’t it?
Tis marvellous stuff; the deep, deep snow.
Rarely have I seen Nick Stokes and Steve Mosher flounder so.