Everything about associations and committees is so paralyzingly slow. But nearly four and a half years after 160 members bitterly complained about the American Physical Society (APS) statement on climate change, they are finally revisiting it, and there are very promising signs. They’ve appointed Richard Lindzen, John Christie, and Judith Curry, all either longstanding skeptics or sympathetic to skeptical arguments. That’s three of six. (Though I stress that I will remain skeptical until the new statement comes out. One other member, Ben Santer, has a record of rewriting conclusions of much larger committees, and other shenanigans*.)
In 2007, the APS improbably stepped out of the world of physics and into the world of policy and proclaimed:
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
In 2009, when 160 members of the APS protested, the council “overwhelmingly” voted to reject their proposal. (See how these things work? There are 47,000 members, of which 160 people took the effort and time to publicly protest, and then a council of what, six people, gets to use the word “overwhelming” as if it means something.) They also wrote: “APS adheres to rigorous scientific standards in developing its statements. The Society is always open to review of its statements when significant numbers of its members request it to do so.” It’s all about the PR isn’t it? It’s about the importance of seeming to be transparent and open, when the reality is the APS statement of 2007 was profoundly unscientific, misleading, and against the wishes of many of the members, yet even in 2014, the statement still stands.
Prominent scientists like Nobel Prize winning Ivar Gievar and long standing Professor Hal Lewis resigned in disgust. The IPCC was exposed again and again as having poor quality control, an unscientific attitude, using magazine articles as references, and allowing activists to help review their work. One of their leading scientists was caught saying he used “tricks” to “hide declines” and other scientists were caught saying they approved of his approach. Evidence accumulated that the IPCC projections were wrong, double wrong, useless, unskilled and failed on all the major predictions. Still the APS supported them.
This is why Science-by-committee is such a hopelessly unscientific approach.
Now finally, the APS announces it will Review that 2007 Statement on Climate Change, February 20, 2014.
There are six members of the new committee, and it is indeed the most broad spectrum and balanced climate science committee I’ve seen. The other three members are Ben Santer, William Collins, and Isaac Held (all essentially climate modelers).
It could be that years after individual physicists and bloggers saw the writing on the wall, the APS has finally realized their support of the IPCC is shredding their scientific reputation. They have a 115 year history as one of the largest hard-science societies. They should never have supported a religion with a trillion dollar price tag.
If they jump ship, the quickening will start… that acceleration on the curve where other agencies and groups rush to dump the dying meme. The moment is coming when the phase change occurs and everyone starts to say “I was always a skeptic”.
Tony Thomas has an excellent article in Quadrant, arguing that this is “finally some real climate science” and the tide has turned. (Perhaps it has, but I’m waiting for the outcome). If the APS really is being transparent, open, and are willing to objectively assess the evidence, then it will cause a storm.
The APS audit of the IPCC makes a contrast with the Australian Science Academy’s (AAS) equivalent efforts. In 2010 the AAS put out a booklet, mainly for schools, ”The Science of Climate Change, Questions and Answers”, drafted behind closed doors. The drafters and overseers totalled 16 people, and the original lone sceptic, Garth Paltridge, was forced out by the machinations of then-President Kurt Lambeck.[5] The Academy is currently revising the booklet, without any skeptic input at all. Of the 16 drafters and overseers, at least nine have been IPCC contributors and others have been petition-signing climate-policy lobbyists, hardly appropriate to do any arm’s length audit of the IPCC version of the science. Once again, the process is without any public transparency or consulting with the broad membership. –– Tony Thomas
As Thomas notes, the questions posed are “trenchant”. I would say they also cut to the core of the points that really matter:
While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…[The APS notes that neither the 4th nor 5th IPCC report modeling suggested any stasis would occur, and then asks] …
To what would you attribute the stasis?
If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?
What are the implications of this statis for confidence in the models and their projections?
What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the statis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (ie sunspot activity) in about a century?
Some have suggested that the ‘missing heat’ is going into the deep ocean…
Are deep ocean observations sufficient in coverage and precision to bear on this hypothesis quantitatively?
Why would the heat sequestration have ‘turned on’ at the turn of this century?
What could make it ‘turn off’ and when might that occur?
* Thanks to Baa Humbug for that reminder of the great John Daly’s site.
Should do a running commentary as it unfolds, Jo.
Popcorn futures are looking good.
110
Claiming the missing heat is in the ocean falsifies CAGW. CAGW relies on atmospheric amplification, (water vapour positive feedback). If the heat is going into the ocean instead the atmospheric amplification obviously cannot occur. Of Course the declining water vapour in the upper troposphere also falsifies CAGW, but its fun to point out to alarmist that the new location of their goalposts is stuffed even before the concrete has set.
351
Quite so, Robert. And the warmists also have not explained how the energy supposedly trapped by the CO2 in the atmosphere has supposedly dived down into the deep ocean without first showing an increase in atmospheric temperatures.
160
As far as I can tell, the ocean was always considered part of the energy balance. The scientists did really push this, but it was out there. Sure, it looks suspicious when they bring out something “new” when the major theory is said to be failing, but I don’t see how it falsifies the theory.
212
Oops, “did not really push this”.
I also agree that currently I cannot find why the majority of the heat seems to go into the ocean, except the ocean has more capacity to hold heat than the air.
28
It falsifies the theory because “atmospheric amplification” cannot happen beneath the ocean surface. Without atmospheric amplification CO2 cannot cause enough warming.
Actually reminds me of alternative theory to explain the missing hot spot/declining water vapour in the upper troposphere.
Simply put increased temp causes convection to increase exponentially (Known but incorrectly modelled as linear relationship) The increased convection causes increased precipitation drying out the upper atmosphere.
Hopefully APS picks this up as well and asks the question of why climate model deliberately underestimate convective cooling.
100
Doesn’t it mean that the “atmospheric amplification” is causing heating which is then absorbed by the oceans, keeping the atmosphere cooler than expected?
16
It’s astounding that they don’t get you to write all their research papers for them, seeing how far ahead of the published science you and your enormous brain are on this…
28
Maybe one day you will be smart enough to catch up.
20
Sherri, the new bit is the deep oceans. 90% of the extra heat energy was supposed to warm up the oceans. It was assumed that about 100 m of ocean was in equilibrium with the atmosphere but with 3m of ocean having the same heat capacity as the atmosphere, the top 29m churning over would give you the 90% value. It just shows how off any calculation of the increase in atmospheric temperatures could be, even if the calculation of the extra energy was spot on. This was then spun into an excuse for the temperature not going up this century.
60
Actually , the sun heats the ocean and the ocean heats the air .
100
Colour me sceptical, but I wonder whether this APS committee isn’t a last gasp effort by alarmists to go through the motions of appearing to consider the sceptics’ case, only to slam the door shut on them by manipulating the conclusions. Anything ben Santer is even peripherally involved in has to be highly suspect.
351
Yes that’s a distint possibility Winston however Judith Curry is quite tenacious so I doubt she’d let them get away with too much.
Jo’s link to Ben Santers 1995 exploits is quite good, but the defining post on Ben Santers despicable shennanigins is at the late great John L Dalys site ‘Still Waiting for Greenhouse’.
Anyone who hasn’t visited John L Dalys blog (currently being kept on-line by volunteers) may wish to enrich themselves by doing so.
110
No matter what the report may conclude, the ‘Summary for Policymakers’, or ‘Draft Report’, or whatever title they give it, is the final filter. This précis that politicians and the MSM draw their information from is open to manipulation. I would hope the participants would have a say in this critical statement in a truly democratic process.
Let’s hope it doesn’t include a ‘Santer Clause’.
70
Three and three? Usually there is an odd number in a committee to save from tie votes. What happens if this ends up as a “hung jury”.
My bet is that this will result in a softy neutral statement that fails to redeem or excite either side.
60
I think we’re going to see quality ducking and weaving the likes not seen since Ali was the champ, except empirical evidence is the opposition and mother nature the referee and no punches will be pulled.
I wonder in a few years pro CAGW scientists will be lamenting they’re lives with “I could have been a denier, I could have been somebody!”
180
Yonniestone: I’ve also often said that were I a politician, I’d jump the CAGW ship now and forge a better future for myself. Let’s see what happens!
50
And I quote one of the not so liberated thinkers of our time from a previous post…
blackadderthe4th March 19, 2014 at 10:13 pm · Reply
“‘Engineers and Physicists and Mathematicians and Real Scientists’
That maybe so! But because of their agendas they have seemed to become economical with the truth!”
Own goal buddy, BIG own goal!
110
and away goals score double.
90
I will be happy when climate science becomes a small, poorly-funded section at the back of most universities and attracts little to no attention. The amount of research money that has been utterly wasted in this ‘scientific’ field is appalling. Might as well have spent it on the social sciences for all the good it has done society …
Wonder if I will cop some for that last bit 😀
161
As a taxpayer, we like to see some sort of return on investment for government-funded research. I.e., justification for the level of funding.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of different research fields (i.e. including climate science) showing the amount invested and the return or benefit back to the taxpayer.
60
“I’ve asked very frequently at universities: ‘Of the brightest people you know, how many people were studying climate […or meteorology or oceanography…]?’ And the answer is usually ‘No one.'”
And – warming to his theme:
“You look at the credentials of some of these people [on the IPCC] and you realise that the world doesn’t have that many experts, that many ‘leading climate scientists'”.
Was Lindzen suggesting, asked Tim Yeo at this point, that scientists in the field of climate were academically inferior.
“Oh yeah,” said Lindzen. “I don’t think there’s any question that the brightest minds went into physics, math, chemistry…”
70
Bruce the nub of the matter is that we have achieved a saturation point of academics/scientists,there is not enough research to go around,so that when some major international group/s wanted to tax/raise more money they turned to an underachieved under paid under utilised group and said “here for thirty pieces of silver make me a new tax with an abstract scientific base”.
40
And thanks to Prof Curry for breaking this story on 19 March
http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/19/aps-reviews-its-climate-change-statement/
70
oops, 19 February of course
10
Good news.
What they did in 2007 was embarrassing—I’ve often said most “climate scientists” weren’t scientists in the same sense that physicists are, hinting strongly that physicists tend to be smarter.
That’s what I was hinting at; that’s what I meant.
So it was both not surprising that so many more physicists protested this abomination of a position in 2007, and disappointing that the committee which is the APA took it.
150
If your remember Richard Lindzen’s comment to Tim Yeo during the UK Parliament’s Science & technology Committee hearing recently, he also said that climate scientists weren’t as smart as Physicists, Chemists, etc.
40
I didn’t hear Lindzen’s comment, but great minds think alike (well, not really, but at least they think).
40
Here it is. Pretty subtle (or not):
“”I’ve asked very frequently at universities: ‘Of the brightest people you know, how many people were studying climate […or meteorology or oceanography…]?’ And the answer is usually ‘No one.'”
40
I accident pressed the report button on my ‘phone…not meant…sorry.
30
You bastard!
Ha ha, I forgive you.
20
I only got diverted into this battle for rationality because of the abysmal understanding of the most classical essential math and physics I saw displayed on both sides of the argument . You apparently can have a well remunerated sinecure as a “climate scientist” never even having learned how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball .
60
Bolt also has a story regarding this today…….
Finally, a real audit of the global warming science:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/finally_a_real_audit_of_the_global_warming_science/
51
Just as when BEST studied and then confirmed the validity of the US temperature record, the results of this “real audit” will be quickly thrown under the bus when it doesn’t say what Bolt and his sheep want it to say.
314
Jen, more namecalling. “congrats”. Muller who ran BEST was never a real skeptic, he just pretended to be — read his previous statements. The co-director, his daughter, ran a company called GreenGov, which “reduces carbon footprints” and profits from investments in alternative energy. Together BEST found the utterly predictable “insight” that the world has indeed warmed — which most skeptics agree with. This non-point was beat up into confounded press releases. Yawn.
I am not pre-empting the APS report, maybe Ben Santer will find the evidence everyone has been looking for?
Or maybe, yet again, another committee will fail to produce something sensible. It happens.
130
Which US temperature data set? If I recall, there are more than one. Which is interesting considering temperature should be easy enough to measure.
12
JenJ,
“Bolt and his sheep” that statement would imply that Andrew Bolt is followed blindly by a mindless herd which seems oddly inconsistent with the accepted description of sceptics by people such as yourself.
Of necessity climate sceptics are forthright, independent thinkers prepared to stand up for what they believe regardless of the amount of intimidation, threat and abuse levelled by the very groups that profess to be above intimidation, threats and abuse.
Don’t forget you store carbon the same way as the rest of us.
50
Wow. All the legitimate and rational questions that get people BANNED… But there are so many unasked questions, chief of which is this: Who in their right mind would rely on a MODEL to tell them what temperature the entire planet SHOULD be?
180
Just regarding the first of these questions:
While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…
The plot of the mean of the of the HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS and data sets and trends for these periods show that there is no real difference between the two time periods. The statistically significant warming trend for the whole period from 1980 to the present is also shown.
http://tinyurl.com/m39jp2c
The mean rise and 2σ error in temperature for Gistemp, NOAA, Hadcrut4, RSS, and UAH for 1980 to 1998 is
0.10 ±0.14 °C/decade
and for the last 15 years
0.08 ±0.16 °C/decade.
So a trend of 0.10 °C/decade is “strong warming” but a trend of 0.08
°C/decade shows “no significant rise”?
In fact neither of these periods shows statistically significant warming, because the short data sets give a low signal to noise ratio and therefore large error margins. Moreover, the 1980 to 1998 and 1999 to the present trends are statistically in agreement.
And again even this result depends on cherry picking to tack the extreme el nino southern summer of 1997/1998, which has nothing to do with the effect of CO2 concentration on temperature, onto the end the earlier period to give a boost to the allegedly “strong rise”.
The mean trend and 2σ error for the entire period from 1980 to the present is
0.15 ±0.05 °C/decade
215
Energy In < Energy Out = Decrease
50
Ahh.. the linear monkey returns !! roflmao !!
50
You seem to be a better mathematician than me Griss. When I calculate the standard deviation using this (random variations with normal distribution) I get half the values that Philip gets.
Here is a plot I did a while back that doesn’t seem to get through to him. Its calculations of 15 and 10 year linear regressions going back from every month until late 2013. The x axis shows the end month. Any suggestions as to how to present it so as to stop this lunacy?
40
Vic: Griss’s mathematics here are confined to the presentation of graphs which have nothing to do with the nominated 18 and 15 years time scales but demonstrate a complete failure to understand the importance of statistical significance.
They do however further confirm what I have noted, that the shorter the time scales chosen, the less the signal to noise ration (the noise being the variable reduction and enhancing effects of the larger the error margins rendering the trends he has plotted virtually meaningless. For example I will cherry pick his best example of a fall in temperature over the period, RSS:
Trend: -0.060 ±0.252 °C/decade (2σ)
The error margins indicate that the data gives a 95% probability that the real trend lies between a fall of 0.312 and a rise of 0.192 °C/decade.
Thus the data shows that there is either a very large cooling trend or a very large warming trend in progress since 2001, wich also includes the possibility of “stasis”.
In other words this short term data set is useless for telling us what is actually happening.
Over the longer statistically significant term there is however an excellent correlation between the temperature trend and CO2 concentration:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1958/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/normalise/scale:0.5/offset:0.02/plot/uah/from:1979/trend
The usual measure of statistical significance is the 95% confidence level. That is 2σ, where σ (sigma) is one standard deviation.
I remember your plot and commented that I found it very interesting. But it only provides more evidence for what I have stated. That the contribution of “natural” variations to the temperature data for short periods at times enhances and others reduces the effect of anthropogenic warming, and that for the longer period (15 years) this short term variation is reduced compared to the 10 year period.
Note that the error margins indicated by the distance between the maximum and minimum values of your 10 and 15 year plots are commensurate with the calculated 2σ values I give above (approximately 0.6 and 0.4 °C/decade for 10 and 15 year periods respectively.
110
I leave the assumption of any linearity to the linear monkey. 😉
31
For the benefit of those who are unaware, I have on many occasions gone into detail on the uses and limitations of linear fits to data.
11
Then why do you keep up your farcical comments using cherry-picked linear trends. DOH !!!!!
20
Again Griss, the time periods I have analysed are not chosen by me but by those who posed the question:
They are the questioner’s cherries not mine.
If you and bullocky do not understand this very simple point…
14
My plot shows that the rate of warming is significantly different to what it was during the last century. Do you need me to add a plot of fossil fuel use to the graph (per year it increases exponentially from 1 billion tonnes to 10) ?
There is no correlation.
20
Vic, your link did not work.
And I repeat. I like your plot. It is useful. But it does not demonstrate a rate of warming significantly greater than what it was during the last century.
I don’t know what the baseline rate is but the midpoint line through your plots are at the 0.1 K/decade (= °C/decade.level on the y-axis.
Like this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/trend
1900 to present trend: 0.08 ±0.01 °C/decade (2σ)
“Do you need me to add a plot of fossil fuel use to the graph (per year it increases exponentially from 1 billion tonnes to 10) ?”
No. But it is the emissions of CO2 not the use of fossil fuels that are important.
And yes they are rising (approximately) exponentially.
http://tinyurl.com/aj2us99
And that is why plots of temperature rise vs log CO2 concentration rise are linear as expected by theory, and for the graph I presented above gives temperature rise for doubling of CO2 concentration of 2.0 ± 0.4 ° This value agrees with those from 1850 and 1979 of 1850 2.0 ± 0.1 and 1.8 ± 0.9 °C respectively. (Again the error increases as the time period decreases)
Your assertion that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration in the face of this plot and the calculated slopes of the temperature vs log CO2 means you are In Denial.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1958/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/normalise/scale:0.5/offset:0.02/plot/uah/from:1979/trend
Unless you can explain where the temperature and CO2 data are wrong.
11
Philip Shehan;
“Just regarding the first of these questions:
=
While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…’
–
Where’s the question mark?????????????????????????????
–
Cherry picking, Pea and Thimble or Cherry and Thimble?
10
You can’t expect me to take seriously a combination of Mauna Loa data with Antarctic ice-core data. CO2 is no where near an even concentration throughout the atmosphere. There are actual chemical measurements that contradict that graph.
The oceans themselves are a big source of CO2 the is temperature dependent, so you are looking for a correlation between rate of fossil fuel use and rate of temperature rise.
My plots are for the cherry picking argument (all possible start and end points of a linear regression over 10/15 years). I’ll do a proper analysis of rolling linear regressions over 12 months and smoothing by adjacent averaging for the weekend unthreaded. I’ll post this with a comparison with rate of fossil fuel use. This will show that rate of temperature rise during the last 100 years is not well correlated with the rate of fossil fuel use, and that cessation of warming that was not predicted has indeed occurred.
20
Philip–You are showing correlation, correct? Not causality? Also, why do they measure CO2 at one place only and do they use the summer or winter measurement? CO varies by temperature and the top of a volcano in Hawaii probably shows the maximum, but how do they then get to using that one value? If it’s taken at higher temperature than much of planet, or lower, that will affect the calculations of the effect of CO2 on temperature. I realize scientists have added other measurements more recently, but you can’t actually incorporate those values without an adequate number (no mulitple measurements tacked onto a single one). This is something that I really don’t get–extrapolation from one value.
10
Vic and (Sheri)
Vic agrees that burning of fossil fuels over the last century and a half is (approximately)exponential, so I suggest that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere also being (approximately)exponential as shown by the graph above is entirely to be expected.
The top of the volcano in Hawaii is well within the lower troposphere, and is selected because it is away from industrial centres so that the concentration there is well mixed and representative of the northern hemisphere.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2
This data matches very well with that from Cape Grimm Tasmania, where the winds from the “roaring forties” are similarly well mixed
http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/,
And indeed numerous other locations around the globe.
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/other_stations/global_stations_co2_concentration_trends.html
CO2 concentration of air bubbles trapped in polar ice are a reliable source of pre-instrumental CO2 concentrations.
The graphs show that CO2 concentrations are in very good agreement regardless of altitude, latitude, or temperature. They are monthly measurements and show the seasonal variations in CO2 concentration.
So I think I can safely use the Muana Loa data (the only data available for WFT plots) as a good representation of global concentrations.
The large error in the noisy temperature data is a much bigger problem than the relatively small error for the various CO2 concentration data sets, singly or combined, and which I use to calculate the error in the temperature rise per doubling of CO2 as the error in the CO2.
I use the temperature data UAH data from 1979 (the furthest it goes back) and Hadcrut 4 data (the middle range of the temperature rise for the available data sets) from 1958 (when Muana Loa data begins)to calculate the temperature rise per doubling of CO2.
The slope for data from 1850 comes from this graph which directly plots temp vs log CO2 concentration. (pardon the small size of the image):
http://oi46.tinypic.com/29faz45.jpg
So I am not I made no claim of cause and effect above, but the rise in CO2 concentration precedes that of temperature (see the CO2 concentration graph in the preceeding post) as shown in the (note Griss) non linear fits of the temperature data shown in the following two graphs (Fig 2 in the second link). In itself far from a slam dunk cause and effect argument, but since you asked…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/oh-wait-the-earth-really_b_3003216.html
21
Thank you for the info on the Scripps CO2. I’m not as appreciative of the other information–especially an article from the Huffington Post. I try to stick to real science. The graph was fine, but I’m also familiar with said graphs. You answered my question in your last sentence before the links. No need for the other information.
10
No problem Sheri. Although I think you should be wary of rejecting data because it appears on a site you generally don’t approve of. It’s not very scientific. I often use stuff from “skeptic” sites which I accept as credible without checking unless it looks wrong. It’s the interpretation I usually disagree with skeptics about, not the data. If you are unsure about a graph or data from any source you can usually use links to check the original source.
I included the Huffington Post graph of a non-linear fit (partly because of Griss’s complaints about linear fits) which i stumbled across looking for CO2 data.
When I display the very similar fit in the first link, some people think it suffient to reject it because it is from Skeptical Science and they don’t like SkS and they think that’s all they have to say.
Never mind that I then reference the entire piece by Dr Robert Way where he explains precisely where the data comes from (which is in fact an average of 10 data sets), and as expected looks just like all the other data sets covering that period, and the fitted curve clearly is an accelerating curve with the r2 parameter provided and the critics cannot point out where the is anything wrong with it.
So I included the very similar curve on the Huffington Post site (so similar I wonder if the SkS fit is not also a second order polynomial – my one complaint about Way’s graph is that he does not tell us.
And again the information given with the graph explains Its “provenance” very well and looks entirely as one would expect the temperature data and a second order polynomial to look like. So those who reject either plot kindly explain what is wrong with the data or the curves.
Figure 2. The global average temperature has risen rapidly over the past century. These temperature data come from NASA GHCN-M version 3.1.0 datasets since 1880. I’ve fitted a standard, second-order polynomial trend line.
Here is another one with a third order polynomial fit, but I have no further information on where it comes from.
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/11901124/img/Anonymous/hadsst2-with-3rd-order-polynomial-fit.jpeg
02
Philip: I don’t reject data from sites such as SkS. What I have problems with is graphs and so forth that I cannot verify where the data came from. There are some very attentive people out there that can catch the fact that a graph has inadequate documentation on its source. As a result, I tend to stay away from graphs in newspaper columns. His graphs do have considerable information on where they came from and what he did to calculate them. I can use the graphs as starting points, but I have to further research them, so if I have time, I will do so. It’s not that your sources are inherently bad–I reject graphs from similar sources on the skeptic side. The graph that tripped me up was from a skeptic site and I never could find the source. Once bitten…..
10
Correlation does not mean causation. From http://www.astro.umd.edu/~peel/CPSP118D/Stork_article.pdf.
10
Pardon me Sheri, I thought you had something against Huffington post in particular. You are absolutely correct to be skeptical of the sources of graphs data etc. So am I, and for the reasons I gave above I thought the graphs in the link OK. I prefer material from the peer reviewed literature.
I might also add again that I like Vic’s graph which he produced himself (I think). An impressive and useful piece of work. When I first saw it I examined it for the peaks and troughs to see whether they matched the accelerating/decelerating regions of the temperature time data graphs as usually presented and decided it did indeed represent what Vic said it did.
And again Vic, I agree thet correletions by themselves are not (always) meaningful, but in the case of the temperature CO2 correlation, a body of theory predicted such a correlation many many decades before the data became available. Further it predicted a logarithmic correlation which is born out by a graph with an r value of 0.91 since 1850 and a slope whithin the theoretical range of the IPCC.
This is not “proof” of the cause and effect relationship, but I submit it is pretty good evidence in support of it. At the very least it is consistent with theory and does not contradict it.
01
Even the monkey seems to have a basic grasp of linear trends and significance.
Pity it has no understanding of reality.
At the top of the slippery slide, he is still trending upwards.
Just a monkey with a calculator. 🙂
23
Poor little PS.. still shows ZERO understanding of the analysis of non-linear systems.
Maybe you should go back and brush up on your basic high school maths then actually try to get past 1st year Uni maths level.
You have much to learn, but I am not paid to teach you.
[Griss, Phillip has been one against many and has battled manfully for a long time now on this blog. He deserves better than pointless, snarky, adds-nothing comments. Please be polite, target comments not the person making them. By he way, Phillip is quite capable regards maths. Mod oggi]
12
Thank you oggi. Griss needs to learn that he only does his own “side” a disservice by arguing in that manner.
32
Spot on, Phil.
Being thoughtful and armed with facts apparently makes you a “monkey”. So there.
35
Ignoring the many previous valid arguments made on the same topic makes him a monkey.
31
JenJ,
Don’t go selling monkeys short.
The fact is that climate models didn’t come close to predicting actual observations and climate modellers didn’t come close to forecasting actual events.
A monkey probably would have have gotten something right in the last 30 years since the ‘global warming scare’ was adopted when the ‘global cooling scare’ didn’t pan out – your people sure haven’t.
Your resorting to threat, intimidation, sanction and abuse neatly proves how fearful you all are of the facts.
30
Yes JenJ. You get used to it here.
02
Philip Shehan;
“The mean rise and 2σ error in temperature for Gistemp, NOAA, Hadcrut4, RSS, and UAH for 1980 to 1998 …/”
–
18YEARS
–
Philip Shehan; “and for the last 15 YEARS”
–
Did skepticalscience authorise this CHERRYPICK?
60
Not my cherries bullocky, these are the cherries picked in the question:
While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…
But let’s move on:
…[The APS notes that neither the 4th nor 5th IPCC report modeling suggested any stasis would occur, and then asks] …
To what would you attribute the stasis?
If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?
What are the implications of this statis for confidence in the models and their projections?
Well, there is no more “stasis” for the the last 15 years than there is for the period 1980 to 1998 – both periods have a non statistically significant warming trend.
But given that the basis for this whole “stasis” “pause”, “hiatus” thing is the el nino effect of 1998, and models do not attempt to “predict” the effects of particular el nino events any more than they attempt to predict the effects of volcanic eruptions because they no-one knows when in the future they will occur…
Non anthropogenic influences DO reduce the effect of anthropogenic warming at some periods and enhance it at others!!!
Anyone who does not understand this knows nothing about climatology!!!
That is why only multidecadal periods where the short term reduction and enhancement factors cancel out are meaningful in terms of trends.
211
Philiop Shehan; (@responding to David Stephens)
“Not my cherries bullocky, these are the cherries picked in the question..”
–
Ah! So you’ve cherry picked the question too!
31
bullocky your comments are becoming increasingly idiotic. When you have something sensible to say, I will reply.
25
Philip Shehan
March 21, 2014 at 9:59 am · Reply
bullocky your comments are becoming increasingly idiotic. When you have something sensible to say, I will reply.
–
“Philip Shehan
March 8, 2014 at 1:27 pm
“When you resort to name calling you’ve lost the argument.”
Anthony Watts.”
33
bullocky=his comments
Interesting self-description.
20
bullocky: I said your posts were becoming increasingly idiotic.
In fact I came to the conclusion a while back that you are no fool and your more senseless comments are simply aimed at getting a rise out of me.
02
“bullocky: I said your posts were becoming increasingly idiotic.”
hey.. he’s just trying to get down to your level so you can understand !!
Keep trying bullocky.. a LONG way to go ! 🙂
21
Philip Shehan;
“bullocky: I said your posts were becoming increasingly idiotic.
In fact I came to the conclusion a while back that you are no fool and your more senseless comments are simply aimed at getting a rise out of me.”
–
By contrast, most readers here seem still to be perplexed by your senseless comments.
[Actually Bullocky no, Phils comments make a lot of sense. Although I profoundly disagree with Phillip re AGW, his comments are in the main coherent and express his views quite well. We would all do well to tackle Phils comments, opinions and the facts he presents (as he believes them) rather than him personally. mod oggi]
11
bullocky: Maybe your self-description is more accurate than I thought. Like it or not, Philip can actually present science to support his point and he does not demand you agree with him. If you actually read what he writes, he’s not saying what you think. If you are perplexed by his comments, you might want to study the science a bit more. His references to lack of statistical significance, for example. And he has written on the limits of some statistics. While don’t agree with Philip’s conclusions in some cases, he can explain his position, which helps me clarify mine. How do those of you who just insult people for saying things you don’t agree with ever LEARN anything? How do you ever build upon the science and data that you supposedly use to justify your positions? Or are you just like the “warmest trolls” who do nothing but insult? Try having a civil discussion. You might actually enjoy it.
20
Thank you again oggi. I recognise that there are many here who disagree with my conclusions but put an intelligent and polite argument. That’s normal and important in science.
02
Oggi, I have to disagree because Philip’s arguments are very shallow and tarted up to look like a lot of thought has gone into them. You need to have read many of his previous posts (also elsewhere) to appreciate how shallow his comments are e.g. his calculations of standard deviations come from pressing the sigma button on his HP calculator. He has been told politely to do them properly and how.
Redo his calculations first before defending him.
Also his inability to accept what all other alarmists seem to accept, the hiatus/pause/cessation of warming, is annoying.
20
Vic,
I think you can tell from his posts above that Philip is just an inner city “trendy”.
Nonetheless, I thought this was interesting:
This admission nearly pulls Philip toward the sceptical position, kicking and screaming. He clearly believes that 150 years nullifies any non-anthropogenic effects because that is sufficient time period to define “climate” (on his terms at least) and rule out any short term non-anthropogenic influences to the trend, ipso facto that the “long term” trend line over 150 years is all anthropogenic. The fact that fossil fuel impacts don’t of themselves correlate well with the temperature record, and that insufficient fossil fuel derived CO2 was capable of a magnitude sufficient to influence the temperature record in any material way prior to 1945 is conveniently ignored.
This is in spite of the fact that the geological record doesn’t correlate well with that time frame at all, when well prior to any effect from human influence upon the environment, swings in global temperatures and climate throughout the earlier Holocene interglacial were over time frames far longer than that, characterised with often rapid onsets of change which were then sustained for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Various independent proxy data from around the globe shows that the temperature since the last glacial period ~11,000 years ago has varied widely naturally over the entire Holocene interglacial period till the present day, without any possible influence from anthropogenic activity. Clear peaks coinciding most recently with the known Minoan Warming Period (3,300 yrs BP, i.e. Before Present), the later Roman Warming Period (2,150 yrs BP) and finally the Medieval Warming Period (1,100 yrs BP) have preceded the current rise in temperature, which might be termed the Modern Warming Period (150yrs BP till present), for the sake of convenience.
The early Holocene, called the Holocene Climate Optimum, was a period of temperatures much in excess (possibly between up to 2-6 deg C higher) of those found today, yet this cannot be attributed to human activity, nor to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or to any other known effect that climate computer models can simulate or attribute. Within the early Holocene, there were also rapid swings in temperature with periods with cooling of the poles, tropical aridity and major atmospheric circulation changes notable during the periods 9,000 to 8,000, 6,000 to 5,000, and 4,200 to 3,800 B.P, these cooling periods are in addition to the aforesaid warming periods mentioned previously, as well in the intervals between abrupt cooling phases (Mayewski, et al.- Quaternary Research 62 (2004) 243-255). These unexplained climate changes were often very rapid in onset and independent of CO2 variability, thereby calling into question the idea of a stable, non-fluctuating global climate as proposed by Mann et al in his (in)famous “Hockey Stick” paper, which Philip inexplicably (?) continues to defend.
So the question is, given the historical record, how can Philip defend his contention that 150 years is sufficient time to remove ALL significant non-anthropogenic influences, without actually being able to define what they are, their magnitude, or their present day impact on the current warming trend, such that it is.
50
The models don’t attempt to predict anything, they dabble in a bit of “projecting”, but conveniently they don’t have to be within 2-sigma bull’s roars of actual observations*. That would be expecting too much.
*Please note that the standard disclaimer applies to these “projections”, which hereafter remain the sole property of “Flim-flam Soothsayer” IncTM. Any resemblance of these projections to actual predictions is purely coincidental, as these projections should not be expected to show any accuracy or validity for future events, either immediately or distantly. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of this advice, we accept no liability whatsoever for the accuracy of or inferences from this projection, or any action as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretation, deduction, conclusion or actions in relying on said projection.
70
The corollary to my frivolity is this:
Since this bears a startling similarity to the disclaimer from Will Steffen’s Climate Commission. So the question is:
If they won’t warrant the certainty of their recommendations, why should the taxpayer?
Why should the taxpayer indulge them in acting as financial guarantor to their opinions and assertions, when they continue to be paid whether they are right or wrong, and have no skin in the game at risk if their position is falsified?
Over to you Phil.
50
Philip Shehan;
” 15 years ..both periods have a non statistically significant warming trend.”
–
Negligible warming for the most recent 17yrs (approx.)
40
Philip Shehan;
“The mean rise and 2σ error in temperature for Gistemp, NOAA, Hadcrut4, RSS, and UAH for 1980 to 1998 is
0.10 ±0.14 °C/decade
and for the last 15 years
0.08 ±0.16 °C/decade. ”
–
From the beginning of 1980 to the beginning of 1998 is 18 years. It conveniently removes the inconvenient El Nino of 1998.
–
PHILIP SHEHAN; THIS IS YOUR CHERRY!
20
–
1998 is a maverick.
–
Eschewed in future temperature trends for fear of cooling, it is now spurned in pre-1998 trends for fear of warming.
A kind of ‘double hiatus hernia’.
–
Climate science is as unpredictable as the weather.
20
1998 is a maverick.
A non-idiotic observation so I will give a considered answer.
Well, yes bullocky. In the sense that it was an exeptionally hot year caused by an exeptionally extreme occurance of an important “natural” factor in global temperature (ENSO).
And it is not to be spurned.
It is however to be treated with extreme caution when chosen (cherry picked) to overweight one end of a short time period like a fat kid on a see-saw which can give an unreliable and misleading picture of what is going on.
It causes no difficulties if included in a sufficiently long time period which does not give rise to large error margins.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1980/mean:12/plot/wti/from:1980/to/trend
If occuring in the centre of a short time period where it does not overweight the slope still get a misleading impression of what is going on simply because of the error margins associated with short time periods.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1992/to:2003/trend
Trend: 0.33 ±0.26 °C/decade (2σ)
An interesting point here which I was not anticipating.
This 11 warming trend is actually statistically significant.
An unusual example of a short term data set being able to tell us something definitive. The trend value is so high that even though the error margins are are large, the lowest trend within the 95% probability margin is still positive: 0.07 °C/decade.
But the whole warming range is so large (0.07 to 0.59 °C/decade) that the only thing we can say with confidence is that it is a warming trend; the headline trend value, (0.33 °C/decade) is still unlikely to be representative of the true multidecadal trend.
14
Philip:
Your basic assumption is that recent warming has to be due to CO2 because temperature responds to the level of CO2. Enormous efforts are going into making the model output resemble the recent past, but the “recent” warming has been happening (in cycles) since 1710, possibly sooner. None of the models would have any chance of replicating that time length because they all have built in a factor referring to the CO2 level.
Because “The Science” says that the level of CO2 never varied for the past 10,000 years, neither the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age nor the Holocene Optimum would be deemed possible. Yet the finds at Tassili show that at that last time the Sahara was warm and wet and supported giraffes, elephants, assorted bovines and hippopotami (indicating permanent warmish water holes). We know from recent archaeological finds that passes in the Alps have opened up, as they have several times before from the different artefacts. The Grindlwald glacier has retreated and exposed the remains of a forest crushed in 1240 but has not yet got back to the known mark in 1205. Surely proof of at least one temperature cycle not due to CO2.
Back in the Eemian interglacial there were lions, giraffes, elephants and hippos in the Thames Valley when it is claimed that the CO2 level couldn’t possibly have exceeded 280 ppm. Indeed the previous 3 interglacials all got to higher temperatures than at present with lower CO2 levels. Going further back in time you find many examples of the temperature being at odds with the current theory.
The ice records all show that the rise in temperature preceded the rise in CO2, although that has been disputed. Supposing that claim was correct and the rise of CO2 started 800 years sooner; that would mean that the cooling phase then started nearly 3,000 years before the CO2 level started to drop. Would you say that shows the response to CO2 is transient?
The recent temperature rise has been exaggerated by ‘adjustments’ to make it fit the theory and that makes all your graphs questionable. You talk (correctly) of the need for a proper length of time, so try making your CO2 theory fit the last 1200 years.
30
Philip Shehan;
“A non-idiotic observation so I will give a considered answer”
and earlier;
“an intelligent and polite argument. That’s normal and important in science.”
–
Philip Shehan;
(1998) “Well, yes bullocky. In the sense that it was an exeptionally hot year caused by an exeptionally extreme occurance of an important “natural” factor in global temperature (ENSO).”
–
–
Well now, let’s see!
An 18 year period and a 15 year period, each with statistically non significant temperature trends, as Philip has persistently assured us.
These two periods are separated by ‘an important “natural” factor in global temperature (ENSO)’
–
34 YEARS AND NO APPARENT CO2 WARMING !!!!!
–
(stand by for some surgical enhancement to the word “natural”. – Get some pop-corn!)
–
With respect, Philip Shehan, the rest of your post is probably of a similar quality.
00
Philip Shehan,
Here is a (non-woodfortrees) graph (Mauna Loa) showing the rise of CO2 concentrations in the the earth’s atmosphere from 1980 to 2014 of approx. 60ppm
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=ts
And virtually all of us agree that CO2 causes atmospheric warming.
–
According to your last post (and let’s hope it’s not your last!), the only (statistically significant) warming event during this time span is the El Nino of 1998:
(Philip Shehan)”… it was an exeptionally hot year caused by an exeptionally extreme occurance of an important “natural” factor in global temperature (ENSO).”
which you describe as a ‘NATURAL factor’.
–
Here, again, is Dr Roy Spencer’s graph for perspective:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
–
Your predicament is this: For the identified time span, and consistent with your posted assertions, where is the additional warming, caused by the additional CO2, accounted for?
–
It is not to be spurned!
00
Philip Shehan,
–
Whilst I understand and sympathise with your reticence in responding to my critique of your position on recent atmospheric warming, I trust that there is no residual enmity on your part as there is most certainly, none on mine.
–
Absent too, it would seem, is any statistically significant warming of the earth’s atmosphere over the most recent 17 years (approx.).
00
For those of you who have grown tired of the thickening plots with woodfromcherrytrees.com, here is a nice graph from the very respectable Dr Roy;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
–
It gives a good indication of why it is necessary to excise 1998 in order to arrive at Philip Shehan’s 18yr = 15 yr equation.
10
It’s the watermelons who’ve given models a bad name . Boeing couldn’t create what it does without them . But then , Boeing has a lot riding on them being physically correct .
41
Models are just fine, when they are confined to the known laws of Physics, and the principles of Engineering.
They are not so hot when it comes to the fields of Astrology or Herbology or Tantric Chants.
And they are absolutely useless when it comes to simulating chaotic systems, like the climate.
71
Models are just tools. They’re usually fine until they start getting used by other tools.
A tradesman knows and works within the limits of his tools. Experts lacking in real world experience can be handicapped by overuse of their tools.
10
I’m not going to hold my breath. They have to actually jump the fence publically in the media – and its quite a high fence to jump.
We might get a magical double blow to AGW if Mann is forced to show all – but the odds look long at the moment.
drip… drip…
40
On the adopted statement itself, I’m not surprised some people objected.
Well yes, insomuch as averaged temperature readings have increased over recent decades, but not all of them. But so what? That happens. Climate changes.
But what, if anything, can be said to be the proximal cause? Nothing proven. Nothing even offered by the statement.
Maybe. Maybe not. And if they do, they may actually be mostly beneficial “disruptions”. And guess what?….not only does climate change naturally, but so too do Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health. If nothing ever changed again at all, then that really would be surprising (but, paradoxically, also rather dull).
But what, if anything, can be said to be the proximal cause? Again, nothing proven and no justifications or explanations offered by the existing statement. And there is no basis for accepting that “mitigating actions” would be desirable or effective.
Derrrrrr….No. How does that logically arise from the previous sentences? It does not.
And why does this “now” never disappear. Funny how it always seems to be “Now, before it’s too late. We only have five years to save the planet” And then, maybe five years and no disaster later, it is still “Now, before it’s too late. We only have five years to save the planet”. How does that work?
130
How easy would it be to just do this? (my bold)
More than 40% of all CO2 emissions come from Coal fired power generation and Natural Gas fired power generation.
That word NOW is as simple as turning them all off.
While all these people have been saying ….. NOW for so many years, have they actually done that?
Not on your life.
Absolute 100% certain political suicide!
All these fools saying ….. NOW just have absolutely no concept of what that word ….. NOW really means.
Pi$$ing in the wind. (pardon my French)
Tony.
140
I think many of that persuasion would need to overcome their congenital objection to nuclear power first, which they cannot do.
They’ve been led down the garden path, thinking they can make principled objections to everything in life that is useful. They can, in principle. But then they are faced with the practice of living a life with medieval predations.
I’d rather be me, now, than a King of medieval England.
140
Tony that’s the crux of it for sure, you could use many analogies to question why procrastinate when there is apparent peril?
– Someone’s drowning let’s stop and discuss the best action to take.
– That house is on fire so calculate if we can waste water on putting it out.
– There’s a big LPG gas leak, let’s distribute flyers explaining the dangers of smoking.
and now,
– The trace gas CO2 is heating the planet catastrophically, give us all your wealth and we’ll ask everyone pretty please to stop living.
With such honest and earnest conviction I could smell the BS a long way off too.
60
Michael,
Try adding the following phrase to the end of each statement:
“Our operators are waiting for your call, so don’t delay, phone this number now, and have your credit card handy”.
That puts it into perspective, for me.
20
Judith Curry is one of those six initially asked to advise the APS sub-committee
She posted on this about 4 weeks ago:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/19/aps-reviews-its-climate-change-statement/
60
I just wonder whether any of the APS panel are willing to go all the way to pointing out that the really bad error** in Climate Alchemy has been as fundamental as was Phlogiston in the 18th Century.
**It was to assume that the Earth’s surface emits to the atmosphere net real IR energy at the same rate as an isolated black body to a sink at absolute zero. All process engineers like me, and competent physicists, know this not to be true. However, tell a died-in-the-wool Climate Alchemists that for >= 31 deg C, the oceans emit no net IR, all the energy being lost as latent heat, i.e. the operational emissivity is zero, and they throw a wobbly then react, saying ‘We’re going to put you deniers in the camps, matey!’.
There are 12 other physics’ errors, some so elementary as to be embarrassing.
120
Cuck-oo!
Think about it: there are hundreds of universities around the world with physics departments and large numbers of graduates, preofessors, etc…, not to mention the many thousands of physicists engaged in actual rocket science, designing hypersonic planes, etc….
*ALL* of them are wrong and *you* have thought of something *NONE* of them ever have?
Seriously…
26
Not ALL. There are a lot of physicists that do not believe manmade warming will be catastrophic and that we must do something about. Seriously.
20
but there are not “a lot of physicists” who think that turnedoutdice’s opinion that “All process engineers like me, and competent physicists” agree with him on basic physics errors.
I’m not even sure that any of the three more skeptical review committee members would agree with TOD.
14
But notice the assumption underlying the whole thing: that these wise clowns monitor the world and everything in it for signs of alarming non-compliance with how they think things should be, and advise politicians to tax and restrict people’s liberties accordingly? A completely unscientific mindset that just happens to regurgitate all the nostrums of socialism – with its belief in unlimited governmental power, goodness and competence, and which just happens to have caused the deaths of 200 million people in the last century.
90
Yes, because the APS is clearly intending to pin yellow triangles on people they don’t like, and a professional science body engaging with its members to foster a debate is clearly an example of rampant Communo-nazi-socialism gone mad and mass-murdering people.
Alternatively, you are a nutter.
Let’s take a vote…
———————-
Jen, I wanted to quickly approve your well thought, critical and substantiated comments, instead all I’m seeing is hyped up namecalling. – Jo
29
Timing is everything.
The UN-IPCC ar5 next report is due the end of March.
10
Considering that the APS has over 50,000 members the number of 162 members motivated to signing a statement declaring that there is no consensus on the climate peril is in fact a statement that there IS a consensus, as the 2.5% that these signitaries represents fit within the margin of error so statistically there is complete agreement that there needs to be urgent action to reduce CO2 emissions.
97.5% for action, to 2.5% against. Where is the confusion? This sounds like a sour grapes pitch.
025
Upon what do you base the assertion that the other 49,838 members agree with AGW, let alone CAGW, rather than merely remain mum or abstain from proffering an opinion? Just what action are they all in favour of exactly- please be specific and name names by all means? Just how many of them had no opinion whatsoever because it was nothing to do with their field of expertise or interest, or even took the trouble to consider the position statement or its implications?
As a member of the AMA, who announce positions on a variety of academic subjects, most of which I tend to disagree or take issue with, yet I have never once bothered to resign from it, nor write letters of complaint or otherwise castigate the executive for their stance. That 162 felt so inclined to take such drastic steps to register their objection is quite obviously extraordinary, risking tenure and retribution in their careers as a consequence. But, hey, it wouldn’t be like you or your fellow travellers to be completely disingenuous and manipulative by trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes with dodgy manipulation of statistics, now would it?
190
I’ve been an APS member for nearly 40 years. I was neither asked for, nor gave, my opinion on climate change to the APS. If I had been, I would have supported the gang of 162. It is actually quite remarkable, given the political nature of this topic and the steps that warmists threaten and sometimes take against those that express heretical views, that this large a number of physicists felt the need to go public.
It would have been quite simple for the APS to poll the membership as to their opinions. They chose not to do so. I’ve have had private discussions with many Ph.D. physicists and engineers. I would say the vast majority that are reasonably well informed on the topic are very sceptical of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. But they aren’t generally asked and they don’t volunteer because such a move can be dangerous to your career or simply cause you grief you do not need.
200
It’s also the case that most scientists want to get on with the job of scientific discovery, using proper methods, not get embroiled in political debates. A proper scientists would also refrain from using a political belief to guide his/her research, correctly recognising politics is irrelevant to scientific theory and law.
50
That is very brave of you, Dr P, to admit to being a scientivistic person, here on this blog site, where all scientists are declared by most Novarians to be scheming scammers who will stop at nothing to extract money from a perpetually suffering public. As an insider you might be able to elucidate on how the scams work, and how do they begin? Is it a compulsory subject in which all aspiring Phd’s must demonstrate competency as a prerequisite to being accepted into the scammers fold (almost sounds like the old NSW Police force)?
I have to say that I personally do not believe any of that rubbish, sadly though, many do. So, as your being a normal, though probably poor, Phd I’m keen to get your opinion on what you think is happening with this
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131125172113.htm and
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/p/potential-for-methane-release.html
….is this just a passing phase, a natural cyclic climate event, or “just a little gas” and nothing to worry about? What is your feeling on this and, out of interest, which field of knowledge is your expertise in?
————————————–
Bil, I know you really hate us, but try and restrain yourself from fabricating things. Please use actual quotes instead of inventing imaginary declarations en masse which were never made. – Jo
010
BilB,
Nice evasion regarding how you know what the APS scientists all believe and the other issues raised above, as well as a personal testament to how the APS bypassed its membership to speak on their behalf, but anyway….not exactly unexpected now was it.
As to the “science daily” link- methane, which is so potent a GHG and is being released sooooo much faster than anyone could possibly have ever expected, gasp, and yet global temperatures haven’t even budged a jot in response in the entirety of this century- doesn’t strike you as a bit of a contradiction? But I’m sure it will eventually, in the fullness of time, when it gets around to it, after it gets back from its break…….Yea, right.
“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
to the last syllable of recorded time…………” from a certain Scottish play, with witches and other beasties.
30
Further to my previous remark, DrP, a little research demonstrates that impressions gained from your lunchtime conversations are not reflected in the published works of the science community.
http://thenewstalkers.com/forum/topics/why-don-t-climate-change-deniers-publish-scientific-papers
[When you have no published empirical observations to back up your case, you think a survey of keywords will substitute for satellite records. Ha ha… poor you. “Keywords” don’t measure atmospheric energy, but they might be a proxy for the influence of government funding – Jo]
14
BOY, did you miss the boat! The number of adherents doesn’t even matter! Facts are facts, if popular or not.
“This is why Science-by-committee is such a hopelessly unscientific approach.”
60
The same rubbery figures used to convince the malleable minds of this world of a consensus in the first place.
70
The only statement the new committee should put out is:
“The APS is a scientific organisation, dedicated to the advancement of scientific knowledge. As such, the Society makes no statement of or judgement on social, economic and political policy, but will only encourage the exploration and examination of the physical world around us. No question is unacceptable and no vote determines fact. Only the scientific method and the data openly reported and tested from repeated experimentation and observation will demonstrate what is true and what is not.”
110
Ilma,
Your proposal just would not work, it is completely contrary to the scientific method.
All scientific endeavor must draw conclusions. It is for the others to study the material and draw their own conclusions, and propose further research to either prove or disprove those conclusions.
Caning scientists, or bodies of scientists for doing their job is another “shoot the messenger” act.
The fact is that skeptics have failed to deliver any believable proof that the AGW evidence is false.
—————-
Bilb, It doesn’t matter what we provide, you’ wouldn’t believe it. – Jo
19
Bilb. You have it the wrong way around, those proposing CAGW need to present the evidence (that they believe makes it true), and unlike Mann, make it fully available for testing and falsification. You test the evidence presented by the proposer to support the hypothesis, *not* propose an hypothesis and ask others to present evidence that it’s false.
A scientist may present conclusions, but only based on the data resulting from the observation or experiment. Anything outside that is conjecture/belief, which is not science. Further, the conclusions must be as testable as the data. Belief only comes into it when forming the hypothesis. After that, objectivity must rule, hence my statement, that no question (e.g. of the hypothesis) is unacceptable, and no vote (aka: authority) overrides what the data says.
A scientist may of course form new hypotheses from the data resulting from a previous experiment/observation, but cannot then just assert that the hypothesis is true (‘science settled’). Even Einstein’s theory of relativity is still just a theory.
You say all scientific endeavour must draw conclusions, so what conclusion to you draw from the fact that CO2 is an IR reactive gas, that in the atmosphere, absorbs IR and spontaneously dissipates that energy by collision with cooler molecules, mostly N2 and O2, as it cannot, as any physicist would tell you, ‘hold’ or ‘trap’ that energy?
60
“absorbs IR and spontaneously dissipates that energy by collision”
Quite so, Ilma. However the special feature of CO2 is that it is reacting with the IR being radiated back from the surface which would otherwise escape into space if it is not blocked by methane water vapour or clouds, and, as you say, heating up the other molecules in the atmosphere. This effect continues into the night as the earth attempts to cool down.
The AGW aspect to this is that doubling the CO2 presence in the atmosphere doubles the heating effect day and night. This has been proven over and over again through experiment and observation. There is even an experiment available on the internet that you can do your self in your own space to prove to yourself that this works. [Reference required -Fly]
[SNIP waste of time. Plus, if “there is even an experiment” on the whole entire WWW. Why don’t you find it? – Jo]
03
There is no experiment using a complex system that involves atmosphere, land, ocean, wind, currents, etc. Taking one part out of the whole proves nothing, unless you are claiming that other factors have no effect. Even SkS is not so foolish as to claim this. That’s why models require MORE than CO2 to work. It’s not just the CO2 and pulling just the CO2 is totally unscientific on either side. You failed to note that clouds have far more effect than CO2–that you can see in the real world. Cloudy nights are warmer than cooler ones most of the time. You can see the effect of wind on temperature. You can see the interaction. The real world is screaming “It’s NOT the CO2” and you’re putting on earmuffs to avoid the sound.
10
Special feature? The one that rewrites all physic laws? Yea, that is the ticket!
00
Why do I not believe what you provide?
If I were trying to make a solid case, Jo, your linked article is not what I would have put forward.
“It takes only one experiment to disprove a theory” This statement on its own disqualifies the Nova theory that climate change is a non event based on the first failed claim.
[So you still can’t find any empirical observations to back up the assumptions on feedback from water vapor, otherwise you’d have supplied them right here… The silence is deafening. – Jo]
So lets go through the claims:
Para 2 very boldly states false information as though it were true. Your claims are completely contrary to the published evidence. You use miss-leading assumptions to reinforce the false information ie “and quite possibly decreased [ocean heat content]”
[Contrary to what published evidence? You have no statistically significant evidence that ocean heat is increasing, or that models are accurate or that feedbacks are correct, but I’ll give you 9/10 for empty bluffing. – Jo]
Para 4 is completely demolished by the recent Berkeley reevaluation of surface temperature information.
[BEST? You are serious? BEST didn’t remove the bad stations. They could have, which tells you all you need to know. See “Thank God! BEST project rescues us from thousands of lying global thermometers” See also BEST statistics show hot air doesn’t rise off concrete! – Jo]
Para 5 is just wild claims with no basis at all
[Koutsoyiannis and Anagnostopoulos are nothing at all to BilB? Sure thats convincing. – Jo]
1 utilises the debunked Knox and Douglas paper which used short term noise over long term trends while only considering ocean depths to 700 metres all to claim that there is no increased energy content in the oceans. And all of this is simply debunked by the simple fact that satellite data shows sea level rise steadily increasing which is impossible considering that according to Novarians the Arctic is cooling, there is no melt of Antarctica and ocean energy content is decreasing. Mega fail.
[Bilb — there were no predictions from models to 2000m (only to 700m). And their predictions to 700m were wildly too high (inasmuch as the inadequate but best data we’ve got can tell us). As for sea levels, the satellites show the rate of rise has slowed since 2004. See Chen et al 2013. So much for your theory eh? – Jo]
2 “As the world warms satellites show the outgoing radiation (red line) increases” this is an impossible statement. You can’t have a heating planet releasing more energy than it collects. Fail on that point alone, and that is before one integrates all of the previous claims of cooling oceans falling surface temperatures, etc. make up your mind it is either heating or cooling.
Lindzen and Choi’s paper (LC09) has been thoroughly studied and exposed for its limited study area, miss-understandings, incorrect calculations and false conclusions.
[Pure bluster. Lindzen and Choi have responded to the criticisms and republished (after struggling against the biased peer review system for two years), and their conclusions were the same. Lindzen, R. & Yong-Sang Choi, Y, (2011). – Jo]
3 further refers to LC09 previously written down, and then introduces Miskolczi. Miskolczi is easily discredited with the simple logic that if he were correct then the earth would not have cycled between ice and fire as it has done repeatedly. That was my inexpert impression upon reading his arguments. but here is a more thorough explanation as to why his paper was shunned.
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Miskolczi.html
[You emotively call it ice and fire, but over 500m years the planet has cycled between 283K – 298K. Looks pretty stable to me. — Jo]
4 Clouds are an ongoing study as their presence and involvement is highly variable
[Exactly. Thank you. Where is that 95% certainty now? – Jo]
5 Very contentious claim. the models are proving to be ever more accurate in their correlation with empirical data.
[The IPCC predictions were utterly and completely wrong in 1990. The newer models are “less wrong” but your claim they are “proving to be more accurate” belies your faith in the religion. The latest models can only be tested in hindsight, and even then, they still don’t get it right on water-vapor. AR5 admits it. – Jo]
6 This a hand waving bluff. The Idso family are an energy industry funded mouthpiece for expanded CO2 release with a 1 million pa budget, I believe, to obfuscate climate science. Not credible.
[Ah. Straight for the ad hom. Show your true unscientific colors Bill. You have nothing… – Jo]
7 can’t be bothered
[McKitrick’s stats too hard for you eh? – Jo]
8 Self refutes all previous claims and then self refutes previous claim that climate sensitivity of .4 degrees which would require a climate feedback higher than zero to be true. Apart from that I have to go with thousands of climate researchers over Jo Nova.
[Argument from authority. You just can’t help following the herd eh? PS: It self refutes nothing. There has not been enough warming. The decadal trend in the 80s and 90s was the same as the 1870s = 0.16C. More CO2 made no difference to the peak trends. – Jo]
9 as usual it is what do you want to believe. this is my choice of graph (from Wikipaedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
against your choice of graph.
[Well you would “believe” the spaghetti hockey stick based on Yamal/Bristlecones/Tjilander etc. I prefer the more scientific Ljundqvist et al and 120 proxies. – Jo]
I could go on and on but the repetition of false claims and the self contradictions, not to mention the reintroduction of Ferenc Miskolczi into the conclusion, make it an unworthy time pursuit.
[No. I understand. You had better stop. It hurts doesnt’ it? – Jo]
06
‘[The IPCC predictions were utterly and completely wrong in 1990.]’ whoops!
Did the IPCC get its early projections right?
‘Were the early projections skillful? Did Hansen get it right? Did IPCC get it right? And the answer is, yes…what is going on in the world is more or less what was expected by the earlier climate scientists…the early working is proving to be skillful …this is a predictive science…the climate scientists can turn it into a future with pretty high confidence’
Now watch for yourself:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJlaPJWjD-I
Edited from, under fair usage policy.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
[Delusion at work? How else can we explain that 0.18 does not equal 3? The IPCC predicted a best estimate of 0.3°C per decade with a range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C. Even with the most generous overestimate of current trends, the observed temperature trend has fallen below their lowest estimate, while CO2 emissions were higher than expected. The 1990 predictions can not be called “true”, “consistent” or to have “occurred” by any definition in any English dictionary. -Jo]
04
No boiling oceans yet. I have James Hansen on YouTube (your favorite authoritative source) saying the oceans WILL boil. He didn’t give a date–maybe you’ve worked out that math for him????
11
But Jo, the “best estimate” you talk about refers to “Scenario A”.
Emissions in the intervening years did not evolve to match the parameters of Scenario A.
So, comparing Scenario A with real-world results is obviously invalid.
I thought you had some kind of science training?
23
I did not say “best estimates”. I did not mention “Scenario A”. Please write accurately. You appear to be trying to change the topic.
I said: David actually bothered to graph the satellites against Hansen. BilB says that there is a “near match” visible in his mind. So?
I was pointing out Bils sloppy commenting style.
61
“I did not say “best estimates”.
Nor did I.
This is what *you* said:
“The IPCC predicted a best estimate of 0.3°C”
That “best estimate” you refer to was for their “Scenario A”. Scenario A was based on a set mix of values for greenhouse gases. As it turned out, those values were not reached *in reality*, therefore this “best estimate” was an over-estimate due in part to the *data* it used, and in part due to the value for sensitivity it used, which science has now determined to be around 0.5 to 1 degree lower.
Science has advanced.
Meanwhile your arguments go nowhere.
24
If you go to a relevant thread, you’ll find I’ve quoted the IPCC exactly with references. This is as usual a distractor for a losing argument posted late on a thread about something else.
As it happens, their best estimate was their best estimate. It was wrong. The observations fell not just below it, but below their lowest estimate.
You can twist it all you want, you can do what Cook does and make out that based on “radiative forcings” or some such new measure that they might possibly have been not so wrong. We are just discussing different versions of wrongness. They got methane wrong — it stabilized, which they didn’t predict. CO2 emissions rose more than they predicted, but had less effect both on atmospheric concentration and on the temperature.
Just because the detailed assumptions of scenario A were wrong does not make them “right”. They were primarily talking about CO2, and CO2 emissions outdid their estimates, yet they were Still Completely Wrong.
See also:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/
30
It’s a fair point though… the best estimate was based upon a scenario which was not the scenario that eventuated. Now that enables criticism of what they thought the GHG emissions would be, but maybe not on the actual models of what would happen with a given GHG scenario.
02
If the CO2 went up more than they estimated, this means the temperature should have gone up more than expected too, if the first causes the second.
Since the temperature didn’t get anywhere near what was forecast by the IPCC report, despite the extra CO2, clinging to claims of future warming are acts of religious fervour, not rational science.
20
well no actually graeme. it’s more than CO2
02
Mattb, it’s not a fair point — it’s a waste of time distraction.
The models were not only wrong about CO2 emissions, they were wrong about CH4 emissions, and they were wrong about the temperature rise. They were wrong about the upper tropospheric trends, which their amplification depends on, and they were wrong about the missing heat in the ocean.
The idea that their predictions might have been “right” if they had known some things in 1990 that they now know, is mere post hoc cherry picking — they just selected the right few variables to look at, to pretend that they are less wrong in the other variables.
This is merely defending the “Not Wrong Yet!” declaration of losers still trying to stay in the game. It’s the best possible, most symptomatic interpretation of failure. It isn’t science.
21
One thing I ran into on my blog was the constant statements that “The Arctic ice is melting faster than predicted” and this means we are in real trouble. No, this means the models are wrong–it doesn’t matter which direction the error is in, it’s an error and means the model failed. I guess once you have decided AGW is real and probably catastrophic, you start finding all kinds of excuses that you would not use if your stock brocker’s model failed. Or a medical model, etc. “I want to believe” seems to be the mantra. (Xfiles fans will recognize that.) A miss, is miss.
00
Here is a contribution on your widely published (including a number of other languages) article, Jo.
http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/global-warming-disproved-has-nova-flipped/
—-
Poor Bill. You are so easily fooled. Didn’t you notice that the sum total of Brendons argument was a graph which he claimed showed something about ARGO, but was mostly with data from XBT’s and buckets? There is a reason there are only two comments there. You scoff at us for links to blogs, then do it yourself? – Jo
27
BilB, Please forward step by step instructions on how we should go about proving a negative.
Your arguments are on a par with the old nursery rhyme: “Yesterday, upon the stair, I met a man, who wasn’t there. He wasn’t there again today. I wish that man would go away.
Skeptics do not have to deliver proof of anything. We merely need to show that one item of proof presented in support of a hypothesis, is actually false. That, dear BilB is the scientific method.
I suggest you read this excellent article, about Karl Popper, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It was Karl Popper who defined the Scientific Method. And research by other philosophers has yet to demonstrate that it is flawed. It contains one of the best descriptions of the scientific method.
Albert Einstein brilliantly distilled the Scientific Method down into his famous quotation, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Experimentation in climate science, is done by computer simulations (erroneously referred to as “models”). They prove nothing. But they do make verifiable predictions, which inevitably fail to pass the test of post hoc observation. But that is actually the purpose of computer simulations. Their intent, is to identify factors in the natural world, that are not accounted for in the current hypothesis. This, of course allows the those factors to be researched, defined, quantified, and verified, and then inserted into the simulation, to repeat the process.
In the normal course of events, I personally would expect the simulations should be fairly accurate, by now, given the years of development, and the amount of investment. But unfortunately, there are some political requirements placed upon the output of the simulations, that they find difficult to meet, especially if they are expected to protect the integrity of the scientific results.
And so we arrive at a point where those embroiled in the climate issues, are faced with having to meet two contrary outcomes. They can do science, according to the scientific method (ibid), and fail to meet the political requirements. Or they can justify the political requirements, by ignoring or redefining the scientific method, to remove the requirement for falsifiability, and therefore stop “doing science”.
You seem to be in latter camp.
60
What’s very strange is that the scientific method seems to be very alien to BilB yet he/she gets into a lather thinking that he/she is defending it against the enemies of science, who happen to be scientists and engineers who have spotted flaws. Shutting up when you spot a flaw is anti-science. BilB is being a fascist (you must listen to your superiors).
30
Here’s the transcript of the Review Panel.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf
40
Scientific storm on the way? Whiny alarmist mega-tantrum more likely.
30
We really do need a skeptics register with an early cut off date.
I don’t want any of these fraudsters jumping on my band wagon.
70
That isn’t my friend Leigh, is it?
Anyway, great comment. Speaking for myself, I bought in early. 😛
50
No sorry Chris I don’t know you.
30
I’m Chris. Nice to meet you.
40
Have been a paid up member for many years…..
30
I would welcome a skeptic’s register.
—————————
There already is a public record of who is skeptical — and it’s in thousands of comments all over blogs. One day, I expect, I’ll be able to reveal who the anonymous skeptical commenters were. – Jo
14
That is good, Jo. Having a list will make the delivery of humble pie so much easier. Not that there will be any pleasure in the so doing as it will mean that our climate has become unlivable in many more parts of the world and economies will be collapsing systematically, but I suspect that our then adult offspring are the ones who will be wanting to point accusing fingers.
—-
You are all bluster — you can’t post evidence to back up your faith. – Jo
17
BilB,
It is sad that this is about the only forum that will acknowledge your beliefs.
I checked the stats on Skeptical Science.
No wonder you guys are falling all over each other to support Jonova – at least you get recognition here.
40
I used to be skeptical, but now I am not so sure …
The old jokes are the best jokes, and they don’t come much older than that. 🙂
30
So “They’ve appointed Richard Lindzen, John Christie, and Judith Curry” have they? And these people are supposed to have a full understanding of atmospheric thermodynamics and radiative transfer theory, are they?
I can’t say that I can detect such an understanding in their writings. They all seem to believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics says heat transfers only from hot to cold, but that’s not what it says at all. Try looking it up even on Wikipedia will do in this case, although it changes there every few days, but never mind. This current version will do for the purpose of this discussion …
“The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium— a state depending on the maximum entropy.”
Now, the BIG MISTAKE that Lindzen, Christie and Curry make is to assume that isothermal conditions in a planet’s troposphere (never observed, by the way) would be a state of maximum entropy. It is a mistake because there would be unbalanced energy potentials because there is more gravitational potential energy per molecule in the higher altitudes than in the lower ones.
The import of this huge mistake amounts to a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars, because carbon dioxide cools by 0.1 degree and cannot warm.
72
Around the time shortly after Climate Gate and the disastrous from the alarmist point of view, Copenhagen Conference in Nov 2009 I read a short comment on one of the skeptic blogs but darned if I can remember which one.
The commenter posted that he had read a paper / survey which analysed the media;’s attitudes and approaches to controversial subjects and the way in which those attitudes changed over time.
The poster wrote that the paper, based on a survey of the media, claimed that it took about seven years for the media to abandon a fixated position on a subject and to switch to a new position on the subject.
I noted that seven years claim as the time required for the media to change attitudes very clearly at the time of reading that short post as both the very recent Climate Gate and the failed Copenhagen Conference had created an enormous trauma amongst the global warming cultists and amongst it’s running dog media supporters.
Being called a “Running Dog,” ; ie; a close supporter if not a full on member or participant is of course one of the deepest insults that any communist or rabid leftist can throw at a supporter of an opposing faction or ideology.
The thinking being that dogs run along side of their masters, follow their masters most closely and do their master’s bidding without question and without ever having any say in the matter. Nor do they ever get to see any of the glory and power their masters acquire through theirs, the Running Dog’s efforts. Therefore running dogs are just an inferior species not worthy of any respect by a power hungry rabid leftist out to shape the world in the image of their merciless and corrupted ideology .
All of which explains the bulk of the media very well in the way it has kowtowed and most of it still does, to the hate promoting, power and influence hungry far left ideologists who are still promoting to the max their catastrophic global warming meme in a world where temperatures are going nowhere for all of more than 16 years and are in fact now starting to show signs of trending down, not up.
If we look at that seven years time period for a media rethink and change in approach and attitudes, from the time of Climate Gate and Copenhagen in the last couple of months of 2009 then the big switcheroo by the media should be about over and done and dusted by around the end of 2016.
And to me at least it is starting to look as if the whole media rethink and switch is running right to that time table.
Seven years in a business such as the media almost certainly means that some completely committed [ read grossly “biased” ] reporters will have retired or moved on. Sub editors who are the filters that the reporters have to get past and boy, have I heard a couple of major paper reporters after a few interviews I have had with big city papers over the decades [ my 15 minutes of fame !! ] sounding off about their sub editors and how those sub editors change the reporters story around.
Plus of course the Editor who sets the paper’s approach and policy will in all probability have also moved on to newer pastures in that seven years.
So throughout the media there is quite likely a whole new generation of personnel after that seven years have elapsed who will have different attitudes and approaches to the reporting of the stories and opinions of the day.
The old approaches and thinking and subjects and opinions will change in many facets particularly when the newer blood sees the stars of public opinion on their reported subject matter are becoming aligned against them.
Media people abhor being on the wrong side of public opinion as they rely on the public and it’s approach and attitudes towards a subject for both sales and therefore ensuring their own employment. As well as nobody who depends on the public for it’s stories likes to be known as that media a*** **** who never reports a story accurately or truthfully. You won’t get long lasting reliable and good contacts or many stories or scoops when that starts to get around amongst the usual big wheel contacts.
For an example we only have to look at the main bulk of the media’s very recent and far more circumspect approach to the forceable “foot in the door” salesman type techniques of the boat illegals and how that has gone down with the public and see how the media has responded accordingly.
[ Perhaps few have now noticed the very recent complete lack of what was a plethora of illegals interviews in the media only a couple of months ago.
My information from internal sources working to control and limit the illegals is that the word was passed around that ANY illegaL seen talking to reporters or named as a contact by the media was finished, kaput, as far as any residency in Australia was concerned. The word is that when the media is now spotted there is now, contrary to previous practice, a fast exodus away from the perimeter fence and out of range of the media reporters.]
From the latest public surveys now that the catastrophic global warming meme resides at the second lowest level of the populace’s concerns the media will and no doubt, has taken note and is now in a very carefully orchestrated about face as it very quietly starts to back pedal, publish some articles that question the CAGW meme and casts doubts on the agendas of the promoters behind so much of the CAGW lies and no doubt is starting to hope like hell that nobody notices the vast amounts of egg plastered all over their lying faces.
They have buckleys and none of the skeptics forgetting the nefariousness and bias and bigotry of the media during the period of the great CAGW scam and are unlikely to forget the media’s role in promoting the stupidity of the scam during their lifetimes.
This attitude on the part of a very large section of the public has the potential to create a long term ongoing problem for the media with still unknown consequences for much of the media who have consistently demonstrated gross bias, a strong tendency to fail to tell the whole truth and a marked and seriously bad tendency to be highly selective in their reporting, who have quite deliberately distorted and in some cases slandered skeptics, who have deliberately distorted, exaggerated the worst case scenarios while playing down any counter catastrophe claims and deliberately denigrating those who suggest that the climate change meme is merely an adaption process if there is even such a problem .
Which even some still small admittedly, parts of the media who are now starting to realise that there may not be a warming problem but maybe they had it all very wrong and it could be a climate cooling problem mankind could soon be unfortunately facing. and having to deal with .
And a cold world, history tells us in no uncertain manner, is a harsh world where food may be short, war may be common and disease and death rampant.
That is the true lesson of our climate through out mankind’s history.
_______________________
As the NZ Climate Science Coalition has put it;
For the first time in history those who are running around shouting to the world, “the end is nigh” are supposedly the “sane” ones.
Those who say “No it’s not” are supposedly the “nutters”.
100
” unknown consequences for much of the media”
There is a reason such as blogs like jonova, Michael Smith news, wuwt and etc.are forging ahead with increasing readership.
And msm medias publications are losing readership.
You’ve pretty well summed it up.
With technology advances every day readers can quickly work out what is factual and of use to them very quickly.
Ten years ago it wasn’t as simple.
Msm media and outrageous claims by anybody are quickly being exposed.
Global warmists are finding it increasingly difficult to hide behind their scares and they don’t like it one bit.
Msm is trying to adapt but are being left behind by quality blogs.
“We” used to be “stupid” or that’s the way I veiwed some of the rubbish msm tryed to “sell” to me that so many others brought.
Global warming being one example that I wasn’t buying from day one.
Don’t think for one instance that mainstream have just “stumbled” onto the fact that the planets not going to burn to cinder yesterday.
Like the global warmists and alarmists,these barstards have known for years but did nothing to correct their complicity in the fraud.
70
Interesting panel… with those 3 on board the only possible majority will be if the other 3 agree with Curry. That’s hardly science.
015
Neither is consensus, but you seem to support that old chestnut.
80
consensus is actually the only form of agreement possible between humans on any scientific position. COnsensus is not science, but then what else is?
05
“, but then what else is”
REALITY !
And it gunna come back to bite the AGW cult like crazy !!!
40
Hey! Reality, man. What a concept? Wow!
20
Mattb,
From the Concise Oxford dictionary: consen’sus, n. Agreement (of opinion, testimony, etc.)
So your statement: “consensus is actually the only form of agreement possible between humans on any scientific position” merely says, agreement is actually the only form of agreement possible …
Do you always talk and argue in circles?
30
lol pathetically useless post mate
02
“useless”?
Oh, I beg to differ Mattb.
It shows that you are willing to string a few words together to form a sentence that has absolutely no meaning. Furthermore, you then seem to think that it is somehow profound.
20
Then don’t post it.
00
Why are you polluting my screen? Could you read about Francis Bacon’s ‘idols’.
Here is a brief summation of Idols of the cave that you should avoid.
They arise, that is to say, not from nature but from culture and thus reflect the peculiar distortions, prejudices, and beliefs that we are all subject to owing to our different family backgrounds, childhood experiences, education, training, gender, religion, social class, etc. Examples include:
Special allegiance to a particular discipline or theory.
High esteem for a few select authorities.
A “cookie-cutter” mentality – that is, a tendency to reduce or confine phenomena within the terms of our own narrow training or discipline.
10
You should try to keep up.
These 6 are the not on the board, they are “expert” advisors.
Maybe you will figure it out in a week or so.
40
committee/board/pedant
03
also note my post was made PRIOR to David Haegen’s post #30 so “keep up” is not appropriate criticism. Note Jo’s article has not updated this either.
03
I agree with you on both thoughts – the hopeful, and the skeptical. But my hopeful is not as good as yours. While I applaud Lindzen, Curry and Christie, the force that caused the original malfeasance has not gone away nor will it soon. It never was a scientific statement (just as the AAAS is not a scientific statement). It was always a Political one, and the politics have not changed.
50
If tha APS decides to withdraw its support for AGW, AGW is for all practical purposes finito. No longer will Obama etc be able to support it the EPO will fall away to quite rapidly. The court cases against EPA, Mann etc will probably be helped along we hope….
30
Obama supports whatever he thinks is polically expedient. The reality of the statement is irrelevent.
40
Fortunately more and more people are finding reality to be relevant. So maybe there’s a ray of hope. I don’t want to get my hopes up too high but… …maybe.
30
Times, like opinions, change.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/say-hello-wave-goodbye/
Pointman
20
Can you hear it in the air
Its the sound of angry men
Its the sound of people saying
We will not be slaves again.
Loving this moment, just a start but it feels
Like a turning tide.
Thank you all independent thinkers and damn
Those sanctimonious sheep.
40
Much like government, especially representative forms of government where every opinion wants its chance to be heard. Painfully slow.
I saw it in operation last night where we learned that the county board of supervisors has decided to kick the can on down the road until fall about an issue of considerable financial impact to county residents while they study the thing some more.
Sometimes I’d like to knock some heads together. Gently of course, just enough to get some honest attention.
————————-
Yonni,
Thanks for you moral suport. And that’s all that happened at the meeting — nothing. The turnout was disappointing too. Thankfully, at least our representative on the board is on our side. But that’s only one voice.
20
Thanks for the article.
However, please correct from Members to Experts in”There are six members of the new committee,”
They are EXPERTS, NOT MEMBERS.
The original error was by Tony Thomas in his Quadrant article sub header:
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/
See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/20/that-noise-you-can-hear-in-the-distance-is-the-sound-of-john-cooks-dana-nuccitellis-and-joe-romms-heads-exploding/#comment-1594935
Distinguish committee MEMBERS vs EXPERTS
The APS Climate Change Statement Review states:
Distinguish Members from the Experts that presented evidence to the committee:
APS Climate Change Statement Workshop Expert Bios, listing
John R. Christy, William Collins, Judith Curry, Isaac Held, and Richard Lindsen
See also: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/20/that-noise-you-can-hear-in-the-distance-is-the-sound-of-john-cooks-dana-nuccitellis-and-joe-romms-heads-exploding/#comment-1594960
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/20/that-noise-you-can-hear-in-the-distance-is-the-sound-of-john-cooks-dana-nuccitellis-and-joe-romms-heads-exploding/#comment-1594963
30
Clarification: There are six science experts distinct from committee members. The distinctions and corrections on members vs experts refer to:
“
They’ve appointedThey invited as experts Richard Lindzen, John Christie, and Judith Curry, all either longstanding skeptics or sympathetic to skeptical arguments. That’s three of six. (Though I stress that I will remain skeptical until the new statement comes out. One othermemberexpert, Ben Santer, has a record of rewriting conclusions of much larger committees, and other shenanigans*.)”These are Experts to the committee, NOT Members.
“There are six members of the new committee, and six science expertsand it is indeed the most broad spectrum and balanced climate science committee and science expertsI’ve seen. The other three
membersexperts are Ben Santer, William Collins, and Isaac Held (all essentially climate modelers).”These are three “Experts” not “Members”
00
The APS will continue to tow the line, the leadership is overwhelmingly left-wing and tied to government funding one way or another like most academia related fields.
They’re not going to add to the humiliation of Obama on the topic with anything while in office. When the Senate is lost they will start walking it back to ambiguity but at best climate politics will always be in moth balls and never rejected by the Greenshirt party and the toady APS. Next to the Federal Reserve system I can’t think of a more crony political exploitation system than AGW and climate fear politics.
The Soviet system of academia is now the norm.
40
Feel like burning all the books do you, cwon14? Banning all meetings of one or more people?
The modern world is moving to make this so much easier. Now all you have to do is unplug the cloud, and all of that nasty climate and science information will vanish into thin cool air.
06
Has he infringed on your Intellectual Property, BilB?
10
The comment “…While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98,”
needs clarifying. The Elnino interupted the normal cycles at the beginning of 1997. and caused a STEP up of about 0.3C
The rise between 1979 and the start of the ElNio event was actually quite SLOW
Since the Elnino settled at the beginning of 2001, the cooling has been at pretty much the same rate as the warming was before the ElNino
21
This is complete garbage. What “cooling”? What is this “STEP”? Does El Nino generate heat that wasn’t previously there? How?
What kind of alternative reality are you pulling these tidbits from?
Have you been reading Roy Spencer’s fiction again?
210
Since you are obviously so well versed in climate science, I would have thought you would have understood El Nino and how it affects climate. Actually, it is described as “a band of anomalously warm ocean water temperatures” so there is that nasty “anomalous” feature. I’m sure the heat was somewhere.
Didn’t realize Roy had a fiction page. Must have missed that one.
50
“I’m sure the heat was somewhere. ‘
And where did that heat come from..
Perhaps one should look at the Sun’s activity over the latter half of the 20th century.
Perhaps one should examine the changes in UV intensity and frequency during high solar activity, (the highest solar activity in something like 1000-1400 years).
Perhaps one should then examine the changes in sea water penetration of changes in UV frequency.
Perhaps one should also look at how changes in UV intensity and frequency also affect ozone and cloud structures
Then one should look at the approximately periodic changes in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian ocean oscillations and how they transfer energy around the planet.
Then perhaps you should go back and look at the kinetic gas laws and how they need to be modified to account for the effects of gravity.
Then you will maybe, just maybe start to understand things.
Come back when you have done this…. in say 10-15 years.
I assume you have spent years doing this.
Right, JenJ ??????
31
But Griss, the Sun hasn’t become more active, so why would you think the Sun is relevant to the increased heat on this planet?
This question is even more puzzling when you consider it is a very widely-known fact that the Earth’s radiative balance has changed as a result of CH4, CO2, and other greenhouse gases that have been added to the atmosphere recently in very large quantities.
We know it’s heating, and we know what’s causing it. Why would you be off looking at the Sun for an answer when the Sun shows no sign of having an answer the answer is already known?
You then go on to suggest that the current warming trend might be a result of redistribution of energy around the planet.
Again, this belief of yours is puzzling, when we know the extra heat that has accumulated has been caused by the Earth’s radiative imbalance.
Why would you be proposing an unknown cycle when the known cause is staring you in the face?
I wonder if there’s a word that describes somebody who ignores a plain truth that’s right in front of them?
12
The word would be “scientist”. You know, the guys who are constantly questioning their theories and looking for better explanations. As opposed to the religions, which declare things are “known” definitively and never question their leaders.
Why did we ever think that ulcers were caused by bacteria instead of over-production of stomach acid that EVERYONE knew was the cause? Why did anyone question the Piltdown Man? EVERY archeologist KNEW the Piltdown man was real. For that matter, why did anyone question the fact that the earth was the center of the universe. Everyone KNEW it was. Why did someone question whether dinosaurs could be related to birds, rather than the cold-blooded reptiles everyone KNEW they were?
Science–where things are not settled. Religion, where they are. See the difference?
00
making up stuff is not science by any stretch of the definition. – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/13/paper-demonstrates-solar-activity-was-at-a-grand-maxima-in-the-late-20th-century/
Please, you are embarrassing yourself – if that is possible.
10
Interesting – you link to a blog run by a non-scientist instead of linking to primary materials.
Does this mean you get your understanding of science through the filter of a non-scientist blogger?
Have you even read the paper you are referencing? Does it exist? Is it sound? Does it say what the cranks have told you it says? Did you realise its conclusions include the following:
“”…during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.””
You need to be more sceptical of believing random crap on the internet.
I prefer to read respectable sites that publish respectable science, eg,
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
“Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. ”
—-
REPLY: Jen — we will get bored if you just keep arguing from authority. Seriously. Bloggers can be wrong, but you need to explain why, or you are just spouting fallacies. – Jo
22
Jenj: A meteorologist is not a scientist? Good, I can now ignore all statements from anyone with that worthless degree, right? Also, since this is a science site, independent thought is encouraged and probably even assumed. The link to WUWT contains a link to the full PDF. So you didn’t even read the article before jumping in and complaining? The article is published under “creative commons” which means these scientists share their findings with everyone. Now, if you actually went to the paper and then typed the author’s name into a search engine, you would easily have found how many papers he has had published via a link on his pages, what his degree is in, etc. There are around 10 papers per year listed as published by this author. That’s what scientists do–they check things out. What they don’t do is link to their “preferred” sites in a mindless fashion while dismissing all other sources.
What else is interesting is the abstract referenced as the source on NASA says “While it does not provide findings, recommendations, or consensus on the current state of the science, The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate: A Workshop Report briefly introduces the primary topics discussed by presenters at the event.” Does not sound very definitive to me, meaning the paper from WUWT should definitely be considered. NASA is not indicating consensus, so far as I can see here.
00
The problem, Sheri, is that *some* bloggers provide an extremely biased sample of the available facts and opinions by the relevant scientists, and only lead you to certain literature that they think suits their purpose. They do this because they are not trying to share knowledge, but propagate opinions.
In this case, we had a different issue: a link was made to a paper, but the commentary (relying on the target audience being too lazy and/or ignorant to check anything for themselves) actually gave a false impression of the conclusions of the paper in question, which are that the current warming has nothing to do with the Sun.
22
Yes, JenJ, “some” bloggers do provide extremely biased samples, on BOTH sides, whcih is why we want people to read and learn beyond that site. Both sides are guilty of twisting evidence to suit their story–the warmists simply BAN dissent, which means if skeptics behaved the same way, you wouldn’t be writing here. So the warmists would seem most guilty of bias. Instead of being angry at the post from WUWT, how about being glad you’re allowed to post a dissenting article. SkS would not be so kind.
10
I’m not sure what you mean by “sides”, Sheri. [Logical fallacy redacted -Fly].
The greenhouse effect is a measured fact.
Humans have raised CO2 in the atmosphere to 400ppm.
A few “sceptics” have tried to prove sensitivity is low: Idso’s paper attempting to prove low sensitivity has already been proven wrong by observation, and Lindzen’s effort was (in Lindzen’s own words) “embarrassing”.
So the only argument as abouyt sensitivity and low sensitivity seems completely untenable.
22
But the actual atmospheric mechanism is still unclear, and far from settled science.
Ockham’s razor – to claim that Humans have raised the temperature, you will first have to demonstrate that temperature has never before been at that level, and that variation cannot be caused by any other factors.
Natural variation, caused by solar activity, and changes in background cosmic radiation, can not be ruled out.
10
Rereke, *you* might find CO2’s absorption spectrum to be something “unclear”, but there is nothing unclear about it in science.
Your subsequent sentence is supremely illogical. You are saying that if the temperature has ever been the same, then it can’t be human activity causing it. That’s just plain wrong, obviously. If lung cancer has ever been caused by something other than smoking, that in no way guarantees that klung cabncer cannot be caused by smoking. Do you really need this explained?
11
I just *did* explain why your blogger is wrong, Jo. He told a story to his readers about a science paper that has made them believe that paper says something other than what it really does.
The paper that PhilJourdain decided was going to “embarrass” me in relation to the Sun, actually says,
““”…during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”””
By relying on a blog instead of reading the actual paper, Phil is simulating knowledge of pruimary sources he does not have. I blame the blogger.
[Your response would carry more weight, if you gave the entire quoted passage and not just the last part of the sentence -Fly]
12
JenJ
Well, as a scientist, I never assume that everything is totally known. If I did, what would be the point of being a scientist?
But, if “there is nothing unclear about the CO2 absorption spectrum”, then you should be able to explain it to me in words I can understand, for I am clearly missing something that is obvious. I will look forward to that.
The rest of my statement is not illogical, (saying “supremely” is redundant). You make the definitive statement that, “Humans have raised CO2 in the atmosphere to 400ppm”.
From what number of parts per million, did human intervention start? Has all of the increase from that point been entirely because of human activity? Was there no other contributing factors? And if there were, what proportion was caused by each contributing factor?
We know from the geological records that the level of atmospheric CO2 has been higher than 400ppm in the past. Was that all due to human intervention? Or were there other influencing causes for that level of atmospheric CO2 to be evident? Can all of those causes be absolutely eliminated in considering factors present today? Is the observed and measured outgassing of CO2 from the oceans a mistake? Is there no connection between solar activity and the Oceans that cover the largest portion of the Earth’s surface? Does the sun have no effect whatsoever on the earth’s atmosphere?
You can see why I am confused! So many questions, and so few answers. I hope you can help me in understanding what is really going on.
10
JenJ, you complain about a link to a blog site but it has the link to the paper they summarised.. You then link to a NASA news story rather than a peer-reviewed paper, and they are bloody horrible.
Above your quote “Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years.” there is a graph that justifies Griss’s comment. It was the highest ever measured in between 1950-90.
Stopping misrepresenting even the biased reports. You are either incredibly stupid, Jen, or a habitual liar.
10
“Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years”
YES. After a series of the strongest solar peaks in something like 1000 years, since the MWP
And that is exactly why the slight warming during the latter part of the 1900’s has CEASED and its starting to cool.
Glad you are finally starting to understand. 🙂
10
I’m so confused today. Did I miss something?
00
JenJ: CO2 absorption spectrum is not “unclear”. It is also a stand alone variable the way you are using it. There are dozens of factors in climate and CO2 is one. Even the climate scientists add natural factors and tend to blame them when their predictions fail. So stand-alone CO2 is not realistic. And models not being able to predict without CO2–they can’t’ predict with it and it is entirely possible the models are incorrectly calibrated on some factors or are missing factors. Models were designed with CO2 being the culprit and work accordingly. It would be really poor modeling if it didn’t reach the conclusion it was designed to reach.
Vic: No, I think you may have absorbed too much and are suffering overexposure at this point. AGW discussions often cause confusion, dizziness and a profound urge to pretend you aren’t part of the human race!
00
Jenj – So what part of the PAPER do you disagree with? I could have linked directly to the paper, but you could not read it. paywall.
So instead you attempt, impotently, to denigrate a gracious blogger who merely read the paper and then presented it for a larger audience to be educated from. Apparently it did not work in your case. But what has one to expect from a closed mind? Certainly not knowledge.
Your pathetic appeal to authority reminds me of “because I told you so”. yes, you do sound like a child whining because you do not like what one parent told you, so you run to the other because they may grant your indulgence.
Ignorance is not an asset. Try gathering assets instead of debts.
10
@JenJ – One more thing. I understand your ignorance prevents you from learning, but I would draw your attention to the fact that THIS century is the 21st. It is NOT the end of LAST Century when warming stopped.
Your link is a non sequitur.
20
Jo, she does not supply it because it does not exist! here is a link to the original document: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf
Her colorful imagination is sometimes called a lie.
20
JenJ is absolutely right.
JenJ says, “This is complete garbage”, and then asks five questions that are, indeed, complete garbage.
70
Poor little JenJ..
You really haven’t done much research into any of this, have you, dear! 🙂
41
It is hard to do research when you are a ‘bot that lacks a positronic brain (With a hat tip to Issac Asimov)
30
The little I *have* done seems to exceed all of PhilJourdan’s efforts at least.
How about *you* start to demonstrate some evidence of having troubled to inform yourself?
13
Gee! I guess I live in your head rent free. Guess you are contemptuous of those who would expose your ignorance.
I will try to live louder in your head. I love the smell of burning heads in the morning.
20
It wasn’t that hard to see a pattern, although some still haven’t.
http://toryaardvark.com/2014/02/06/the-climate-scientist-who-got-it-right-in-2000/#more-24207
20
The Elnino interupted the normal cycles at the beginning of 1997. and caused a STEP up of about 0.3C
The rise between 1979 and the start of the ElNio event was actually quite SLOW
Yes. Slower than the alleged hiatus since. But again neither trend is statistically significant. Unlike the whole trend since 1979. Trend: 0.14 ±0.07 °C/decade (2σ)
http://tinyurl.com/mvklzwc
03
There has not been a trend since 1979.
There has been 3 distinct periods: “not much”, a step, then “not much”
It is a pity your climate understanding as so lacking that you cannot grasp this simple concept.
20
Well Griss, all I can say is that to my eyes, the trend line and the temperature data from 1979 seem to match pretty well.
Not to mention the entirely objective error margins calculated mathematically for the trend lines which show statistically significant warming for the period from 1979 but statistically inconclusive trends as far as warming/cooling/haiatus goes for the two shorter periods.
I guess it is up to other readers to eyeball the graph for themselves as far as the subjective appearance goes.
02
the institution of engineers Australia climate policy needs changing also http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/Representation/Policy_Statements/policy_statement_-climate_change_and_energy_feb_2008.pdf
10
I am a member of IEAust and I don’t recall any consultation about the production of this political statement.
Am I safe to assume that none of these societies conducted any sort of consultation process before making any official statements regharding AGW?
40
If you are a member of
” IEAust and trading as Engineers Australia, is a professional body and not-for-profit organisation dedicated to being the national forum for the advancement of the engineering field within Australia.”
…Heywood, then you know what they are there to do. Wikipaedia does.
So if you don’t agree with it quit, and start your own professional organisation.
How are those temperature studies going? Not working out? A bit of a pain are they?
08
Why? Because I disagree with one statement out of many. My point was that the executive decided the position the organisation has on AGW without consultation with the membership IMHO for political reasons. I guess this would be the same with all professional organisations. I don’t agree with it, but it doesn’t mean I should quit.
Perhaps you should quit commenting on this blog because you don’t agree with the position of Jo?
Temperature studies? What the f%^k are you on about DilD-o?
40
What do you mean by “f%^k”, Heywood? Is that some sort of code?
03
Yes it is, [snip. no need for that. mod oggi]
10
Apologies mod oggi. I bet you snipped it with a grin though. 🙂
20
Also,
I may not agree with Jo right now, but I am expecting to see her views align with the general body of scientific opinion as the reality of Global Warming and Climate Change become unavoidably explicit.
———————
My views are aligned with observations. Yours are aligned with the fashionable consensus. “Congrats” – Jo
05
I’m pleased that you make the comment about OBSERVATION , Jo.
I’ve just observed David Evans video and have observed major discrepancies between his underpinning information and the publish data from all of the same sources that he quotes.
[BilB – this is a pretty good opener. Like advertising, you make a strong definitive statement in the opening. Can you live up to a big statement like this? – Jo]
For starters David highlights all of the surface temperature problems that the Berkeley BEST program (Judith Curry is connected to this research) and the most advanced graph is here
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/annual-comparison-small.png
but David prefers the satellite data to which should be free of the issues from surface measurement, and that is here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2014_v5.png
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
and here
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
and here
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
These all show significant temperature increase of around 0.4 degrees C over 20 years and a vastly different picture to David’s “subsequent reality”. I fact if the currently published graphs were applied to David’s Hansen prediction graph from what I can see there would be a near match.
[Hey Bill, David actually bothered to graph the satellites against Hansen. BilB says that there is a “near match” visible in his mind. So? – Jo]
Here is the NOAA ocean heat content information
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Again vastly different to David’s claim.
[Again, since David used NOAA data, as up to date as he could and created a graph, your mere assertion that “it’s vastly different” is equivalent to another advert for a magical-wrinkle-remover. Is that the best you can do? – Jo]
Clouds and albedo were interesting. The Earths cloud cover albedo is fairly constant at 0.3 . This means 70% absorption against 30% reflectivity.
[And this is relevant to our discussion how? PS: That’s not Earths Cloud Cover albedo — it’s Earths entire albedo – and most of the absorption is in the oceans, not the clouds. One is dark, the other white. Notice? – Jo]
In general, the absorbed solar radiation exceeds the outgoing longwave radiation in the tropical and subtropical regions, resulting in a net radiative heating of the planet, while in the middle to polar latitudes there is a net cooling. This equator-to-pole difference, or gradient, in radiative heating is the primary mechanism that drives the atmospheric and oceanic circulations. On an annual and long-term basis in which no energy storage and no change in the global mean temperature occurs, this radiative imbalance between the tropics and polar regions must be balanced by meridional heat transport by the atmosphere and oceans.
[Yet Meridonal transport appears to be stronger when solar activity is low (as per Moffa-sanchez last week) -Jo]
The major albedo variable is polar ice solar reflection, particularly the Arctic. There are other local Albedo variables.
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/homerbe.html
Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.
This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.
[Nice distraction. But this doesn’t change my point one iota, sea level has decelerated in the last ten years. So you have nothing. – Jo]
This contrasts with David’s sea level rise figure of .33 mm rise per year, a factor difference of 10.
[Which video? What quote? – Jo]
I think that David needs to review his video as it seems to me his credibility is on the slide.
It is all in the observations.
[Exactly my point. Perhaps you’ll find one – an observation – Jo]
02
“sea level has decelerated in the last ten years”
I just spluttered on my coffee. Where do you get this from?
Are you *seriously* comparing a very short-term trend in sea level rise during an El Nino phase with sea level rise during a subsequent La Nina phase?
Seriously!?
You do understand that the variability introduced by the El Nino cycle can be subtracted to provide the unerlying trend?
You do realise that confusing the trend with the noise is…um…not very clever?
——–
REPLY: Sea levels decelerating since 2004. Chen 2013. Cut the bluster ok? – Jo.
13
Spluttering your coffee out of ignorance. JenJ shows why she needs diapers.
20
Bluster?
I’m sceptical of Chen coming to conclusions based on such short time periods. Aren’t you?
[As usual, I explained the strengths and weaknesses in the Chen post linked. Your response shows you didn’t even follow the link, and yet again, have no actual argument. You appear to be simply here to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Not for an honest conversation. – Jo ]
13
Hey Heywood. Im a member also. I don’t remember any consultation on this with the membership. It may have slipped under the radar. I assume you aren’t a fan of the regular column by Terence Jeyaretnam?
20
Hi Gees., I assume that Terence Jeyaretnam writes columns in the monthly EA mag. I have to admit, with an element of guilt, that the magazine rarely leaves the plastic it arrives in more recently. 😉 I usually just give it quick peruse for subjects that catch my eye but don’t recall anything by the gentleman you mention.
00
Sorry. Mis-spelt ‘Gbees’. No offence intended. 🙂
00
he has a regular sustainability column. here’s his bio http://www.netbalance.com.au/about/our-team/terence
10
In case anyone does not know this, koonin was a large part of the effort
that debunked cold fusion.
10
Update!
On March 17, Germany’s Helmholtz Association held a podium discussion in Berlin.
The title: “What can we believe? The climate debate and its impacts”.
What’s a bit special about this podium discussion is that one skeptic, Dr. Peter Heller of Science Skeptical, was allowed to take part on the panel of 5 experts.
Werner Krauss at Klimazwiebel also reports on the podium discussion, and writes that the 2°C target of was rejected unanimously by the panelists (4 of 5 of whom were warmists) and that “a Herr Schellnhuber was sorely missed and thoroughly dissed – everyone agreed on the rejection of the scientifically dubious limits such as the 2°C target or measures that are not democratically legitimized.”
(via notrickszone)
20
And just for the record, here is a comment on consesus…
http://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/theres-consensus-and-then-theres-consensus-climate-sceptics-just-dont-get-it/
….not that I expect Novarians to actually read the material. I am pleased, though, that this thread has caused me to follow up on much of Jo’s material. What a hotch potch of bogus “research” stitched together to create the impression of serious study. Far from it. For instance her recently posted graph showing CO2 levels against geological time and glacial events. The one vital element missing was that the sun is steadily getting hotter as it burns up its fuel and expands. At the beginning of the graph the sun was 4% cooler than it is today hence a much CO2 level was producing a much lower heating effect. It is the details that matter.
Full explanation here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-past-climate-change.html
Jo constantly professes to have the”real” information, I think that she doth protest too much.
[Poor BilB, Squatting on the shoulders of midgets. Write out one hundred times, “Correlation does not prove causation, and Grocott on Sks never discusses the mechanism of causation”. -Fly]
03
Ahh, Bill, showing your true religious zeal “following the consensus”. Bravo. Argument from authority is the mark of the faithful non-scientist.
Had you seen my inline reply to your point-by-point effort to respond to “The Evidence”? Were any of your points left standing?
Poor you, your ambitious task is so difficult. Mine so much easier. You need to respond logically and show why the 95% certainty in man-made climate change is reasonable, yet you have virtually nothing in the tool kit. Skeptics on the other hand have study after study, each one poking a hole independently and you struggle to even knock one down.
Here you are saying it was unreasonable for me to even discuss the Scotese and Berner paleoclimate graph (where I made the utterly unremarkable claims that life on Earth evolved when CO2 levels were a lot higher, somehow coral reefs survived without a carbon tax).
Have I got this right, apparently I was missing a vital element — despite there being no evidence that my inference from the graph was wrong in any way, I ought not have used it because there was a paper published once suggesting that if the assumptions of flawed climate models are right and the assumptions of the faint sun hypothesis are correct, then the sun was 4% cooler, producing a lower heating effect, and the correlation of CO2 and temperature is better than that graph implies?
Let’s do look at Royer 2006:
Forgive me for repeating the same thing for the 30th time, but we KNOW that when temperature rises so does CO2, thanks to Henry’s Law and the ocean. Is the correlation that Royer finds merely the utterly predictable correlation that warmer oceans outgas CO2? Could be entirely and solely that. It also could be possible that the CO2 rise has preceded the temperature sometime in the last 500 million years, but think about the time scales. The greenhouse effect works at the speed of light. This graph’s best resolution is in the million year timescale.
At the absolute best, by using data with a resolution that is utterly incapable of testing the theory, and with exactly the right assumptions and models (and ignoring the evidence which shows they are wrong), what Royer published was yet another piece of tangential weak and speculative support for the notion that the man-made global warming theory is Not Wrong Yet.
Your bluster and bluff is a credit to your faith, but not alas to your ability to make a logical point.
30
Funny the New Anthropocene did not mention that the warmists invoked “consensus” when their science started to fail testing. Guess they missed that part of the lecture, huh? Couldn’t stand on the evidence, so invoke numbers and hope sheep follow the leaders without question. Too bad that’s not how science works. That’s how religion works. Of course, with a politician leading the charge, that probably was not unexpected.
00
If consensus meant anything, you would be a slobbering idiot on the street corner begging for a brain. That is the consensus of the posters here.
10
The outcome will be the same as it always was. After all we have two groups of individuals on a committee both of which support the hypothesis of global warming albeit to differing degrees. I note the very questions posed subsume the very essence of AGW into their being. The paradigm is fixed. Physics is to be excluded.
The outcome will be that “AGW is real, but not quite so bad as half the panel first thought is was and perhaps slightly worse than half the panel thought it was”. As quantification we will be treated to some suitably wide error bars centred around a warming figure lower than the IPCCs but with a significant overlap to their ranges.
We will end up with the belief system of climate science re-inforced and a gravy train still on the rails but running towards a sub-tropical destination on the fuel of increased funding justified by the new sceptic/warmist climate consensus.
The AGW scam will be re-invigorated.
20