According to Roger Pielke Sr, the answer is YES. He concludes: Thus the value of global warming of the last 4 years fails to agree with the IPCC projections (the values are not even close!). The agrument that this is too short of a time is spurious unless the modellers can account for where else in their model results the missing Joules went.
Moreover, this is not too short of a time period to compare with the models. Heat, unlike temperature at a single level as used to construct a global average surface temperature trend, is a variable in physics that can be assessed at any time period (i.e. a snapshot) to diagnose the climate system heat content. Temperature not only has a time lag, but a single level represents an insignificant amount of mass within the climate system.
The answer to the question on this weblog “Can the IPCC model projections of global warming be evaluated from just several years of observed data” is YES. The conclusion for the past four years is that the model projections are not skillful on this time period.
Roger Pielke Sr’s Climate Science Weblog: Can The IPCC Model Projections Of Global Warming Be Evaluated From Just Several Years Of Data?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The IPCC doesn’t create the models, it just uses the results of the best ones available. To date, these have not been able to model the year to year variations of cyclical influences such as El Nino. Pielke already knows that.
As climate is defined, sensu-strictu, as weather over a 30 year period, then variations in climate metrics should be based on a 30 year bench mark.
Given we are dealing with a 30 year averaging period, the last year anyone could comment on about the weather would be 2007-15 or 1992.
If one wants to talk about the weather, then the last 4 years are pertinent.
I suppose it depends on where one arbitrarily assumes the point of a 30 year aggregation is positioned:
1. At the median of the time series, or
2. At the end of the time series, or
3. At the start of the time series.
Tree lovers of course focus on trees while forest lovers, forests, and I suspect I could be guilty of using a misplaced metaphor.
SJT – Pielke Sr says: In the Litmus Test, I proposed the values listed below as the amount of global warming that must be achieved so as to NOT reject the IPCC claim of continuing global warming (1 * 10**22 Joules corresponds to 0.61 Watts per meter squared). This value is below the IPCC 2007 estimate of global average radiative forcing of 1.72 Watts per meter squared (see Figure SPM.2 in the IPCC SPM).
The Litmus Test
2003 8*10**22 Joules
2004 9*10**22 Joules
2005 10*10**22 Joules
2006 11*10**22 Joules
2007 12*10**22 Joules
2008 13*10**22 Joules
2009 14*10**22 Joules
2010 15*10**22 Joules`
2011 16*10**22 Joules
2012 17*10**22 Joules
These values can be compared with the best estimate of the annual average upper 700m ocean heat content change averaged over the last 4 years (which is when the data is most robust) based on the analysis of Willis et al (2008; see) [and thanks to Josh Willis for providing this follow on analysis]. He estimates the global average warming rate for this time period, based on the upper ocean data, as -0.076 Watts per meter squared with one standard error as +/- 0.214 Watts per meter squared. This yields a best estimate of heat change of -0.48 * 10 ** 22 Joules over the last 4 years. The most positive value (using one standard deviation) is 0.88 * 10 ** 22 Joules.
Below 700m, the heat could be accumulating, however, its pathway to reach the deeper ocean without being sampled higher up is unclear. Moreover, this heat would not be readily available to the rest of the climate system. In any case, it is hard to see how any heat change in the deeper ocean over a 4 year time period could result in large increases in the warming rate estimated in the last paragraph (ocean heat content change is an effective metric to diagnose the global average radiative imbalance as reported by Hansen et al, 2005).
This is slightly off topic, but if we are dealing with oceanic thermal states, then how are these liquids being sampled?
This is a crucial issue because sampling an ocean, which is a 3-D object, is no different to sampling a mineral ore-body.
There are, of course, differences of scale and other factors, but the principles remain the same – sample support.
In geoscience sample support means explicitly collecting samples of equal volume of the material of study. Allied to this is the idea of sample volume variance, (See Koch and Link, 1972) and its relevance to sampling protocols.
It is quite possible that the whole edifice of AGW might collapse from its specious foundations.
An additional problem is the changes in the thermal state of the lithosphere under the oceans.
Pielke et others don’t include these factors.
Quite, no one has measuerements of these areas of the earth’s crust.
( ?) measurements !
Louis is sensu-strictu proper latin? Gotta reference?
Anyway the 30 years period is only a WMO definition for the contemporary period. Why are you so hung up on it. I can see you’ve run off thinking it’s some sort of moving average again…. sigh …
The 4 years bit is simply whether it’s a statistically valid period of time to know anything.
AC,
so your cascade of non sequiturs are relavent here?
Creep, it us culled a cliamate sutistic.
AC re. the 30 years period,
I’m interested, what does it mean?
If you define climate as weather over a 30 year period, or any length of time for that matter, OK, but then “Which” 30 years are we talking about?
If one can’t define any specific ‘from-to’ time, then what use is it!?
If you don’t define a time, then in the end, you have to wind up with a moving average, otherwise we can prove anything we want, all we have to do is, to pick a suitable time period?
30 years is deemed long enough to get some sort of reasonable mean estimate I suppose. If you changed the period every year you would have to recompute all previous anomaly graphs and confusion would be rife. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 1961-1990. But there is no real magic here – merely a standard of convenience. Base periods are really about anomaly calculations. Something to compare against. And GISS uses a different base period to CRU so comparisons between time series are not strictly accurate for this reason.
Louis,
The specious lithospherical T sampling rate well beneath surfacto oceanus is do to a false interpretation of the plasmocosmic importance of rectal thermo measuring devices. If GISS, HADCRU, et al would simple drop their code drawers and allow for a transparent homeopathic inspection, the long term T record could be set straight up your bum for 30 years plus. This is the accepted definition of climate today. Moreover, this would make short term projections redundantly less satisfying, thus ultimately unnecessary. Sensu Strictus, as the Caesars once never said.
As Pielke Sr says: “The agrument that this is too short of a time is spurious unless the modellers can account for where else in their model results the missing Joules went.”
“As Pielke Sr says: “The agrument that this is too short of a time is spurious unless the modellers can account for where else in their model results the missing Joules went.””
Why? The Joules are just as much another part of what is happening as the surface temperature. The earth is a large and complex system, subject to chaotic behaviour. All he is doing is spitting the dummy. The modelling of the temperature to date has been remarkably accurate, given the complexity of the task that has been taken on. Nothing will be explained perfectly, but that’s always been the case with science.
As Pielke Sr has pointed out many times, near surface temperature is a poor metric compared to ocean heat content. Where has temperature modelling been shown to be remarkably accurate?
SJT and others,
The JOULES ARE the surface temperature, and the water temps, and the melted ice…
If the joules are here in the system, as required by AGW theory,
1) where are they
2) how did they get there
3) what is keeping them from influencing current air and water temperature
4) why have we never measured them
ARGO has measured the oceans with reasonable accuracy to 2000 meters. The retained JOULES aren’t there. Satellites tell us the retained joules aren’t in the atmosphere. Geophysicists tell us the retained joules aren’t in the crust.
Pielke Sr. is perfectly correct. Unless you can find the energy, there is no AGW. In fact, without the retained energy the warming we experienced in the past is not primarily CO2 or GG based.
The theory says that the GG’s and/or the oceans and/or ??? RETAIN, or increase the delay of loss, of extra energy over Weather cycles, events, and time WITHIN the earth’s system. This extra energy IS the GG warming. Again, oceans do not show the RETAINED energy down to 2000 meters and the atmosphere shows no RETAINED energy.
WHERE IS IT??? Without it THERE IS NO GG WARMING!!!
As a side note, this is why it is so important to have a reasonable MEASURE of the oceans and the atmosphere (and why GISS, with its huge holes in coverage, is such a poor measure.) As mentioned, the weather system is somewhat chaotic and energy clumps in odd and unpredictable areas. Before Argo and Satellite we had no idea what the state of energy was in the system.
If the JOULES are there, and our measurements and the models do not show them, our measurements and the models are so flawed as to be USELESS for the task of representing our climate!!!!!
Mother Nature back in the driver seat now?
Game set match.
HANG ON James – thinking cap back on.
There’s a whole bunch of issues here that don’t add up.
“OK – WHERE IS IT??? Without it THERE IS NO GG WARMING!!!” shouts KuhnKat – how about putting some context around this ….
(1) so Argo are saying “there is no current warming”
(2) How do you reconcile that Topex and Jason saying 3.4 mm yr sea level rise
(3) Clear biosphere signs (the recent Nature biology paper) that global biology has experienced warming and responded
(4) AT least we know from the high quality Australian surface record data that at least for our continent puts a late 20th century warming as unequivocal
(5) And observed warming signal had penetrated the world’s oceans over 40 years as documented by Barnett et al http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5732/284
So are the data saying we’ve had a massive warming in all ocean basins over 40 years , that has had no observable solar driver and it’s recently stopped !!! Someone pulled the handbrake.
Pretty interesting ….
And I’m not disagreeing with Argo – simply saying if it’s so – it’s amazing.
Why?
What could you trot out as an alternative non-GG warming explanation hitherto the present few years
– the sun – but please explain !
– oceanic PDO type influence – but how and doesn’t explain all oceans to me
– clouds & whatever you’d like as a driver – do I hear cosmic rays
OR is CO2 warming still the right explanation but something else is ALSO happening now. Which might bring you back to clouds – but do we have any evidence?
Pielke is clever too. I almost missed it – his last para “The conclusion for the past four years is that the model projections are not skillful on this time period.” Clever words – you’re never going to catch him in the open !
If 30 years is the standard then it is not the past 4 years in which there is no consistency between the models and reality. It is the 16 years since the Pinatubo eruption in 1992.
The question, “where did the joules go?” has been thoroughly explained in the few years post 1992 but the remaining years are unaccounted for.
This makes the statement, “there is no correlation between the models and reality”, entirely correct. The correlation is only present in the early 46% of the 30 year period.
And that tipping from minority of data to majority of data is the only “tipping point” worth considering.
So I decided to see if the 10 year flat temperature trend could really be attributed to the fact that there was an El Nino at the beginning and a La Nina at the end by looking at all of the ENSO activity across the entire period. It looks as though ENSO has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we have 10 years of no temperature rise.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/05/ten-year-hadcrut3-enso-effects.html
Which returns us once again to the question, “Where is that missing .2C” that the warmers think we should be getting every decade if there is no natural climate effect to mask it.
AC are sure you want to talk about sea level? The discussion might remove what little credibility the MMGW movement has left.
Like for instance you say 3.4 mm sea-rise a yr. Not according to this picture from the latest Topex data http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/science/jason1-quick-look/ . I see a big swatch of the worlds oceans registering as negative -100 mm , the majority of the rest registering zero, and a dappling hugging up to the coast of Indonesia, the Philipines, and New England that measure positive.
At first I googled around looking for homes built right at sea level – Venice Italy style – just to see what little if any damage 3.4 mm could do.
Then it dawned on me.
Nobody builds their house at sea level because thats a stupid thing to do.
For the sake of argument, 3.4 mm rise means squat.
We have 180 mm sea rise in New York city today. No mass exodus to dry land, no bucket brigades bail out rapidly flooding streets, not even a greasy cynical AP story trying to drum up an illusion of impending doom.
Which points out an overlooked fact. Lomborg likes to talk about adaptation in a future tense – but it’s just to humor the climate change morons. The reality is people already adapted long before climate change became a government institution.
Here’s what happens when you don’t take the latest TOPEX data into consideration before constructing the beach house.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1116/1217207203_8e7bffb147.jpg?v=0
Pielke Jr has set some homework:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001440homework_assignment.html
Mr Alarmist,
For the non-scientist of ANY discipline viewing this, can we ask for comment on one step at a time for the benfit of the old, slow and non-credentialed ?
Mr Pielke on his site says:
“the best estimate of the annual average upper 700m ocean heat content change averaged over the last 4 years (which is when the data is most robust) based on the analysis of Willis et al”
Your opinion on this comoment is what please ?
Thank you.
James – you’re a bit of a drongo aren’t you.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg – oh look a distribution of points. mmmmm
It’s called a long term trend James. You know “trend”. James I wonder if El Nino and La Nina affect sea level too. Off you toddle now and find out. There you go. Off quietly now. Don’t disturb the others.
Kevin – I’m accepting the statement on face value as correct for continuing a discussion. Not arguing about it. Hence my comments of this morning.
No need to be formal here Kevin. AC, Creep or Creepy is fine.
“OR is CO2 warming still the right explanation but something else is ALSO happening now. Which might bring you back to clouds – but do we have any evidence?” Alarmist Creep at May 23, 2008 08:47 AM
I have an interesting theory which may explain the current hiatus in Global Warming.
Human activity like land clearance and the generation of greenhouse gases has continued to soar over the past ten years, but the temperature has stubbornly refused to oblige.
The IPCC has proclaimed that solar irradiation is only a minor factor in radiative forcing, so it can’t be the sun.
There appears to be no evidence that the atmosphere has hand-passed to AGW job to the oceans or land.
How about this.
All the oil wells, mining, construction excavations in fact all penetrations that man ( and I say man advisedly ) has inflicted on our precious Earth over the past 100 years has caused an accelerated escape of heat from the Earth’s core resulting in the Global Warming, but now the heat radiating from below the surface has reached equilibrium with that received from the sun and unless all mining, oil extraction, in fact all penetration of any kind is ceased forthwith and all present penetrations filled in or plugged, we face catastrophic cooling resulting in a DEAD PLANET.
The Greens would love it.
Kevin,
creeps diversion is normal. but Pielke’s conclusion is interesting.
He states – “The best estimate”.
I am in the mining industry but when a chemist states ” our best estimate” that the Zinc content of orebody AYZ is 3%”, heads are up.
It’s engineering vs academic speculation. Creep’s post is from studied ignorance, yours not.
Kevin – Hissink is the resident eccentric geriatric geologist whose self admission is “someone sends me stuff and I throw random grenades into the blogosphere” So he needs no further introduction.
Chrisgo – I’d keep on that theory – sounds promising. BTW when will the temperature trend return to 1970s levels? Any predictions? Anyway ignore the IPCC – what’s your solar forcing measurements?
Sorry my error
“This blog is the kamikaze version of some more mundane climate sceptical views. I get fed some ideas to then throw them as intellectual hand grenades into the blogosphere.” from http://www.lhcrazyworld.blogspot.com/
“oh look a distribution of points. mmmmm”
First of all, 3.4mm per year will give us all about 13 inches in 100 years. Big deal!
But, it looks like that may be changing also. I plotted the last two years of the UC data and the trend was down to 1mm per year. Not much data, but it looks like it’s all starting to abandon the warmers.
Trends. 1870 Manhattan.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~marshallfamily/1870%20Map%20of%20Lower%20Manhattan.html
Manhattan fifty years later.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/manhattan_lower_1920.jpg
One hundred years later
http://newyorkcity2005.web.infoseek.co.jp/information/maps/lower-map.html
Steady 3.4 mm sea level rise seems to be making the city bigger. Go figure.
Would you prefer closer to home?
Sydney 1920
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/history/sydneystreets/Minding_the_Streets/Finding_Your_Way/sydney_1920.html
Ya, I can’t find a current map of Sydney with enough detail of the shoreline. The ones I found are sort of touristy and clunky. You know the place. Did the ocean swallow it up in the last ninety years?
James James James – all very interesting but irrelevant. You attacked a trend comment with a short term value. Be a man and admit it. You goofed totally. The implications of sea level rise are another matter. My reference to sea level was not about “doom” – just the inconsistency with no ocean warming over 4 years report. You’re off down another goat track. Does anyone want to discuss the original topic or just rant.
In any case yes the IPCC level projections are modest – I agree – but it’s not your beach house going under in a few years or even 30 years – it’s what happens to maximum envelopes of waters (Meows said the cat) under storm surge conditions at various tide levels in combination with sea level rise. This sort of effect could have doubled the impact in Burma for example. Sea level rise can compound with storm surge to dramatically affect areas swamped under coastal hurricanes/tropical cyclones. So think before you mock.
BTW Tilo your UC data source was? Any chance of a link. And a bit wishful with your trends I’d think.
Here is the tide data for Sydney (Fort Denison)
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/hobart-msl.htm#appendix and some others of interest.
Note zero change in long term mean since 1950 and the structural drop of approx 4cm in 1920 followed by structural jump in 1949 and essentially the same range of variation now as was present in 1915.
So where is the claimed 289mm rise (3.4 x 85 years)?
Remember fort Denison is a solid lump of rock with only historical rock building works of low mass and well away from large scale engineering works that could alter height wrt sea level.
“BTW Tilo your UC data source was?”
UC. Same site as yours.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php
Well that’s about as shonky as you can get. Multiply a contemporary GLOBAL number of 3.4mm by 85 years and then apply for a SPECIFIC location in the world. No discussion of variability factors. Caught with grubby fingers right in the till. And quoting Daly too – tsk tsk.
People who do real science have noted http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church.pdf
Ian Mott: “If 30 years is the standard then it is not the past 4 years in which there is no consistency between the models and reality. It is the 16 years since the Pinatubo eruption in 1992.”
What do you mean, Ian? What are the data that show that “models and reality” suddenly moved out of synch in 1992?
Creep
You seem not to understand John Maynard Keynes’ statement, paraphrasing him, ” when the facts change, so does my opinion”.
Your opinion never seems to change.
If one wants to opine about climate, then the data have to be expressed in terms of climate, statistics on a 30 year average.
Pointing out that a triannual temperature data shows climatic change is pure baloney.
This whole thing is politics, not science.
Peterd, take a look at the adjusted temp record after adding back the cooling effect from Mt Piantubo. (Courtesy of Mark).
http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/TempAdjust2.html?1199762345031
But for Pinatubo, the temp record would show a sharp rise to 1992 and a plateau ever since. And a 16 year plateau does not reconcile with the models that all post a steady incremental warming.
And Lord Creepo has the nerve to present Church & Hunters speculation as science? It uses one set of purely speculative global estimates as the source data for a local Australian set of purely speculative estimates.
This is the guy who wrote with extreme gravitas that the normal decadal variation in sea level observed in the latter 1990s was much greater than the long term trend. (Wake in fright) He was trying to imply that the spike in the unadjusted temp record up to 1998 was matched by a similar spike in sea level rise.
What he didn’t mention was that this was also the case with at least another seven earlier cyclical decadal rises which were all essentially off-set by a commensurate seasonal decline.
We note that he has made no such similar statements about the more recent data which is showing a decline that is substantially at variance with the long term trend. Funny that.
Onyabike, Creepo.
“Multiply a contemporary GLOBAL number of 3.4mm by 85 years and then apply for a SPECIFIC location in the world.” So do we have an apology for totally misleading the blog with a totally bogus calculation.
This is outrageous behaviour really. But what you expect from tricky dicky industry apologists. Which is why they wheel them out to try to demolish debates in obfuscation.
sums it up. Tsk tsk. Shonks vs scientists. Mottsa’s understanding of the science here = 0.0 – as usual another literature free, science free, cherry picked rant. I mean it’s utterly laughable.
Even more laughable is quoting Mark’s hand drawn Macpaint analysis as fact – do you really think anyone buys this stuff? Your peer reviewed source – well it’s not – but hey what was Nexus’s “Lesson 2” for denialists “Make shit up”. http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/lesson-2.html
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2007/ipcc2007_1850-2005.png
the trend according to the IPCC since eighteen something or other.
Bollocks, Lord Creepo. You may be able to hide behind local variations in the short term but over the longer term the sum of local variations must revert to the global trend. So it is entirely reasonable to compare a tidal data set going back to 1915 with the global mean projections of a model.
It is after all a single body of water, is it not?
And we note how Church et al are now taking their so-called research to even more synthetic levels. They no longer work with actual tidal means but, instead, focus on a range of modelled outcomes for storm surges etc for which there is much less data for cross checking.
This is the classic scumball technique of extrapolating from the extremes to scare the gullible.
Are you for real? Caught red-handed fiddling the numbers. Grubby mitts in the till. And he’s trying to weasel out of it. 3.4mm x 85 indeed !!!
Did you check their model validation. of course not. Why even ask.
Your response is more of the classic denialist bilge that is now immortalised on the wildlife thread.
Do you seriously expect us to believe that localised sea level variations that are anomalous to the global trend could continue, uncorrected, for more than a century?
And do you seriously expect readers to believe that the Brisbane, Hobart and Fremantle data is not also lacking in a 3.4mm annual trend?
In fact, the only places where this bull$hit trend might be apparent is in sinking coral atolls where this supposed sea level rise is a very useful excuse for claiming Baksheesh from gullible white fellas. Next you’ll be telling us that they are all “noble climate savages” who wouldn’t dream of “humbugging” a gullible white boofhead?
I knew you were a blatant warming propagandist but this is entirely new territory, even for you.
And now you would have readers believe that a 30 year wildlife survey that ended in a decadal sequence of La Ninas (a 1 in 100 year drought) has not been influenced by that drought? Not even a tiny bit? Not even the populations of fresh water species in what became dry inland river beds?
No rain = no fresh water = no fresh water fish. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
3.4 x 85 ! – weasel weasel squirm squirm. Caught in the open.
Ian Mott:”Peterd, take a look at the adjusted temp record after adding back the cooling effect from Mt Piantubo. (Courtesy of Mark).
http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/TempAdjust2.html?1199762345031
But for Pinatubo, the temp record would show a sharp rise to 1992 and a plateau ever since. And a 16 year plateau does not reconcile with the models that all post a steady incremental warming.”
“After adding back the cooling effect”??? What cooling effect? You mean the temporary (1-2 year) effect caused by the aerosols from the eruption, which dissipated in the aftermath of the eruption?
Surely your man Mark did not add in the temporary cooling as a permanent effect? Please, please tell me he did not.
The most forward thinking is that the extra joules have been transported to space via the mysterious mechanism of OLR.
=====================================
Is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp, Peterd? The temperature record is a sequence of temporary warming and cooling events. Mt Pinatubo was a random non-anthropogenic cooling event that is quantifiable and outside the scope of the AGW analytical framework.
And even you should be able to understand that it was an adjustment to four annual mean temperatures that tapered off in a manner consistent with the diffusion of the aerosols. It was clearly not incorporated as a permanent warming.
So in determining the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperature it is not just appropriate but necessary to adjust the temperature record to ensure that such random externalities do not obscure the true influence of GHGs on temperature.
So go back and look at the graph, and note how temperatures would have risen faster through the 1980s but then essentially plateaued ever since.
The models are unable to explain the extent of the rise during the 1980s which is much faster than the theoretical outcome. And they are even less able to explain the lack of global mean temperature rise over the 16 years since.
It should also be noted that none other than Creepo’s mate Church, of CSIRO, was fully aware of the cooling impact of Mt Pinatubo. In fact, some time ago he even had the gall to claim that it was Pinatubo that was masking the “real” rate of sea level rise. But that was back in the days when they were still projecting a trend line into the stratosphere from the supposed peak of 1998.
He seems a bit quiet on Pinatubo these days for some reason. Why do think that might be, Peterd?
“The models are unable to explain the extent of the rise during the 1980s ” – rot – yes they are.
The combination of solar, greenhouse and aerosol forcings did represent the trend. We’re now into Nexus6 lesson 2 for sceptics – “make shit up”
“He seems a bit quiet on Pinatubo these days for some reason. ” – why would he be mainlining on it – because you would like him to? What an irrelevance.
I’m afraid making hand drawn modifications to the global temperature trend isn’t well regarded as science.
Of course Creepo, anything inconvenient is irrelevant, isn’t it.
And do tell us how you managed to determine that the adjustments to the graph were hand drawn? What an amazingly amputated intellect you have. To you it doesn’t matter how accurate the calculations of temperature change were, if they were “hand drawn” on a graph the whole lot goes out the window.
So go ahead, boy wonder, you have been taking cheap shots at these adjustments for quite a while now so how about you tell us what the right adjustments should be? And why?
Well coz Mark said he made an adjustment with some personal Excel fiddling based on what volcanoes may have done from somewhere ! You’re not quoting a scientific paper doofus. It’s a pers comm. (which you guys love – you know “utter bulldust pers. comm. aka “make shit up” and then pretend it’s source. Pretend if you yell long enough, and quote it long enough, reality will congeal around it)
The right adjustments are to make no adjustments and put the forcing estimates (solar, greenhouse, aerosols) through a climate model which integrates all the various processes and see what happens. I’ve told you before.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png
And if you’re curious about apres 1998 – I agree the models have not tracked the real world obs well since 1998, I agree the Argo floats do not appear to seeing any warming in recent years. But whatever is happening the sceptics have less than any clue.
So you’ve had almost an open and shut case IMO tell 1998 and less so since then. Reasons – solar, clouds, PDO, cosmic rays, random walk, – lots of theories – no good explanations IMO. The temperature hasn’t descended back to 1970 levels either. Stasis is more the point.
And if Rudd tries to go on carbon taxes/trading – he’ll probably lose office. But none of this sideshow changes very important real issues with our climate -especially Australian rainfall. Issues which I thought a smart guy like you would have a lot more curiosity about. At least doing a “jeez is that right”.
You’re in such a hurry to drop kick everyone that appears ideologically sus, that you’re missing some diamonds you could pick up.
Ian Mott: “Is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp, Peterd? The temperature record is a sequence of temporary warming and cooling events. Mt Pinatubo was a random non-anthropogenic cooling event that is quantifiable and outside the scope of the AGW analytical framework.
And even you should be able to understand that it was an adjustment to four annual mean temperatures that tapered off in a manner consistent with the diffusion of the aerosols. It was clearly not incorporated as a permanent warming.”
I don’t see what you’re on about. When I look at the surface temperature record in, say, IPCC’s 4th AR (Ch. 3), I see a late 20th C. swing upwards punctuated by a few pauses, or slight turns down, such as one in the early to mid 90s which is, I assume, due to Pinatubo. What more needs to be made of this? Pinatubo provided a temporary halt to the upwards march of temp. So what? Are you sayng that [AGW] “theory” cannot predict the actual rise? I’m afraid I’d have to disagree. Alternatives such as solar irradiance variations just do not explain the change.
Instead of relying on this made-up stuff from the internet, why don’t you go off to a library and do some research with real papers in real, published journals. Then get back to me.
peterd – they’re trying to come up with a ruse method that temperature has not increased for 16 years or 25 years depending on your eruption and adjustment – i.e. what the temperature would have been without the volcano aerosols cooling things down. So you look up a paper which quotes a number of the cooling effect and add it on. If you squeeze really hard after a good snort of Byron Gold I’m sure you can actually come up with no warming for the last 100 years.
I seem to recall that Mark provided the reference to a peer reviewed paper from which the temperature adjustments were taken when he first posted the link to the graphs.
That paper provided the numbers, Mark merely provided the graph on a site that could be linked to. Kindly withdraw the statement that he made the numbers up, Creepo.
What a sleazy little side step, Peterd. The primary reference to global temperature change has always been the global mean temperature series. Mark did us all a service by taking a set of calculations that have not been challenged and placed them on a graph of that key series so those with an interest in better understanding the situation could see it.
And what did you do in response? You babbled on about a completely different series that has not been subject to similar adjustment and then proudly proclaimed that you could not see any evidence.
This might pass muster in the bimbopolitan millieu you frequent but it certainly doesn’t on this blog. Sans random aerosol externalities, and the global temperature series rose sharply to 1992 and has essentially plateaued ever since.
No way – it’s made up. It’s pers. comm. Unpublished opinion. The sort of stuff you guys love to think is real. Just keep saying it – the more you say it the more you’ll delude yourself it’s a real reference.
Bollocks Creepo. It is not OK to leave the adjustments out because the core purpose is to reconcile the GHG modelling with reality. It might be convenient for the climate mafiosi to just lump it all in the models and claim that the truth is in there somewhere. But here in the real world we actually want to know which bits are doing what. That is, after all, the essence of healthy scepticism. And try as you might, healthy scepticism is still a virtue, not a vice.
The industry apologist has another go – either put up a science case or desist. If you want to apologise for tomfoolery that’s OK. I’m afraid doctoring graphs might be your level of pseudoscience but it’s not real science. We’ll just add this to Amazon regrowth, PIG, whales as cows and species trends. Perhaps enough pseudo-rebuttals to start a trend of statistical significance in its own right.
The scientists don’t just “lump it all in the models” – come on you can do better than that as a comment. The temperature is the outcome of the global radiation balance interacting with the climate system – that’s what science works to solve. As yes indeed healthy scepticism is a virtue but not if it’s sophistry.
Another post of zero substance fropm Lord Creepo. Only a seriously deceptive propagandist would try on a claim that as it is all included in the models there is no need to consider the relevance of individual elements.
The relevance of volcanic aerosols in climate policy is that without them, temperature would have peaked in 1992 and plateaued ever since. You and your muddler mates are obviously reluctant to accept this fact and go to great lengths to obscure it in the assumed complexity of the models.
And you appear to have a brain that is capable of treating “data” and “science” as if they were mutually exclusive. But you then appear to take the view that only scientists can discuss issues of data integrity. But of course, given your form, you would, wouldn’t you?
What an unintelligible bit of rambling drivel. You’ve been told so dream on – it matters not.