Following are some comments on the last 10 years of global non-warming.
Roger Pielke Jr comments:
“For a while now I’ve been asking climate scientists to tell me what could be observed in the real world that would be inconsistent with forecasts (predictions, projections, etc.) of climate models, such as those that are used by the IPCC. I’ve long suspected that the answer is “nothing” and the public silence from those in the outspoken climate science community would seem to back this up. Now a paper in Nature today (PDF) suggests that cooling in the world’s oceans could, according to Richard Woods who comments on the paper in the same issue, “temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”, and this would not be inconsistent with predictions of longer-term global warming.
“I am sure that this is an excellent paper by world class scientists. But when I look at the broader significance of the paper what I see is that there is in fact nothing that can be observed in the climate system that would be inconsistent with climate model predictions. If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under the sun.
“This means that from a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global climate policy. I am sure that some model somewhere has foretold how the next 20 years will evolve (and please ask me in 20 years which one!). And if none get it right, it won’t mean that any were actually wrong. If there is no future over the next few decades that models rule out, then anything is possible. And of course, no one needed a model to know that.
“Don’t get me wrong, models are great tools for probing our understanding and exploring various assumptions about how nature works. But scientists think they know with certainty that carbon dioxide leads to bad outcomes for the planet, so future modeling will only refine that fact. I am focused on the predictive value of the models, which appears to be nil. So models have plenty of scientific value left in them, but tools to use in planning or policy? Forget about it.
Those who might object to my assertion that models are of no practical use beyond political promotion, can start by returning to my original question: What can be observed in the climate over the next few decade that would be inconsistent with climate model projections? If you have no answer for this question then I’ll stick with my views.”
According to Richard A. Kerr in Science 2 May 2008:
“So if you’re a climate- change activist pointing to year after year of mounting climate crises, you might want to rethink your approach.”
Roger Pielke Sr has commented at his blog on a New York Times article entitled, Decade Break In Global Warming:
According to the Nature.com blog website The New York Times wraps up a piece by Andrew Revkin entitled‘In a New Climate Model, Short-Term Cooling in a Warmer World’ with a useful quote from Kevin Trenberth, of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research:
“Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year. It does not happen that way.’”
This is wrong. Global warming theory does require a more-or-less monotonic increase in warming (in the absence of a major volcanic eruption) according to all multi-decadal global model runs (e.g. see the Figure in this post on Climate Science ; and see Figure 1 in Barnett et al, 2001). This essentially monotonic report is even emphasized in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers (see Figure SPM.4)! Climate Science published a proposed test of the multi-decadal global model predictions (see A Litmus Test For Global Warming – A Much Overdue Requirement).
Clearly, the models are failing to predict the rate, and even the sign for the most recent years,of global warming.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The only thing increasing CO2 levels do is raise taxes.
This essentially monotonic report is even emphasized in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers (see Figure SPM.4)!
Figure SPM.4 doesn t show any projections beyond 2000.
if you indeed look at the picture, you see that true temperature trend might sometimes lower beyond the “error range” of the model projections (australia 1950)
Look you people are much too hung up on facts, that’s just anal. Get over it, Global Warming is true and we’re all going to die of heat exhaustion and thirst.
Now give me your wallet or I’ll have you audited.
There’s a difference between an “error” and a lie.
Perhaps Pielke sr meant figure SPM5?
What rabidity and total lack of scepticism. Look at the confirmation biases go !
(1) where does the word monotonic appear in the IPCC reports ?
(2) what’s this 20 year story come from ? 20?
(3) happy with the model hindcast evaluation – is it enough?
(4) who’s actually read the paper – where’s the usual modelling scepticism – it’s early work
(5) and what are these wiggles in 10.5 of http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf – wow could this be a lack of monotonicity already in the models? OMIGOD !
Pielke is just doing his usual know it all stuff. He’s the one that can’t be proved wrong on anything. Hey I knew that all along ….
Looking at Fig 10.5 SPM AR4 we see a monotonic rise for all emissions scenarios (A2, A1B, B1) apart from the one where emissions are held constant with levels at 2000.
Lets look at the ‘wiggles’ in Fig 10.5 Chp 10 AR4. Does anyone see a single wiggle that has no warming and lasts for a DECADE(or even for this decade)? No. Does a single model reflect obs. temps. this decade? No. And what does the temps. trend of the ensemble avg. look like for each of the emissions scenarios(A2, A1B, B1) over this century? A monotonic rise.
Well, well. But lets keep waving our hands about anyway.
Actually you guys are hand waving – This is fascinating.
The existing models do not have, or well represent seasonal or decadal variability.
Even without these features the temperature evolution is not completely linear.
The scenarios are not forecasts in really anything but a long term trajectory (upwards!) given certain levels of CO2 production.
The fact that uncritically you guys have uncritically accepted this model (which typically would be OMIGOD it’s a model – must be crap etc) that now invalidates another model is fascinating.
What’s your view of this model’s hindcast ability?
Did the IPCC ever say that the rise must be monotonic?
Nevertheless if we indulge the researchers and that’s what reality turns out to be – the AGW message is impossible to sell. Who would buy it. Sceptics would have a field day. So here’s another mdecadal prediction based on the latest decadal prediction: “Contrarians win. Massive funding drains away from AGW research. At some point the cycles reverse and warming returns with a vengeance – everyone says – “how could this happen”?”
Meanwhile back in the real world – we have some serious multi-decadal thingys of our own to ponder.
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/seaci/Final_report_for_Project_1.1.2.pdf
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/02/2233524.htm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23637432-11949,00.html
“There’s a difference between an “error” and a lie.”
I used to think so Eyrie then came Iraq complete with BDS and Howard Haters and I discovered there wasn’t!
So I’m afraid ” we listened to the experts ” is no longer a defence – if one believes it to be true ( or REALLY REALLY want it to be true as so many AGWers seem to ) , if it turns out to be wrong that’s lying.
“if it turns out to be wrong that’s lying”
With perhaps one small qualification, perhaps.
If it turns out to be wrong, and the defence is that “I was a complete moron and I was just going along with all the other morons because I feel the need to be part of something”, then that is probably excusable – to a degree – providing the morons recant.
If it turns out to be wrong, and the defence is that “I was using the best science available at the time”, then that is definitely lying, and anyone using that excuse is accountable.
I am really annoyed with Luke. After all his posts, he finally convinced me the world was warming.
I planted a heap of hibiscus in the garden, & subtropical legume for the horses.
So, what do I get. Just a frost on April 30Th, thats what. We have not had a frost before July in memory, & in many years we had none.
Do I have a case against him?
“This is an amazing error. Global warming does require a more-or-less monotonic increase in warming (”
No, completely wrong. The models do not include the natural variations, and will be “wrong” to that extent. All they are saying is that ‘natural cycles aside’ this is what will happen. As 1998 clearly demonstrated, just as there will be dips, the jumps up will be massive on the rebound. As it is, it’s not cooling, if you take the previous four decades as a guide, it’s just reached a stable ‘chaotic’ state till it gets kicked up to the next one.
Unfortunately, no.
Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have a case, but according to our legal system, people who offer public commentary do not owe any legal duty to be either correct or truthful (and God knows, he has well and truly exceeded any expectations on those criteria).
You would need to be careful in mounting a case based on this, as you would clearly leave yourself open to having your own sanity questioned, and who knows what rathole that would wind up going down.
Put yourself in the picture – you are in the witness box and have just been asked this quetion by his lawyer: “The man is clearly and obviously a raving demented fruitcake, as is evidenced by his many months of hysterical rantings, grandstanding, and personally abusive comments, and yet observing all this, you followed his advice of your own free will?”
What would your answer be?
You possibly do Hasbeen. My recollection of Torts Law is that someone can be liable if they hold themselves out to be an expert, irrespective of whether they are an expert or not. On that basis Luke is potentially liable, although it might be a mitigating factor that he posts anonymously, and if he really knew what he was talking about why would he do that?
But you shouldn’t rely on my advice. Afterall, I did Torts twice, so what would I know, which is a sufficient enough disclaimer, I think, to get me off the hook if my advice is wrong.
On a serious note, I think that there are some prospects of getting the debate onto a rational basis via the courts. The Englishman who got An Inconvenient Truth adjudged propaganda did us all a huge favour.
ROTFL. Ah yes the olde right wing fascist legal threat technique.
Hasbeen if you have lost Hisbiscus in Logan environs you’d have to be hopeless. aka a Hasbeen. And given you are Hasbeen perhaps your memory on cold events isn’t that “hot”. Do you normally plant summer plants in autumn ?
Nice try at a diversion dudes.
There is a confusion of semantic levels here.
In a model presented for other scientists, it is valid to show monotonic increases, where all experts will know that there may be superposed wiggles and whatnots. They can judge the model by their level of expertise.
At the political level, where the models are being used as a battering ram to a desired political outcome, it is the monotonicity that is used to frighten the hoi polloi into a stampede, and certainly into herd behavior.
Thus, politically the IPCC report for policy makers has monotonicity as its main point. And this is what counts.
For those who think they understand what this means apparently the actual Nature paper is here http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/keenlyside_nature_may_2008.pdf
Lets look at the ‘wiggles’ in Fig 10.5 Chp 10 AR4. Does anyone see a single wiggle that has no warming and lasts for a DECADE(or even for this decade)? No. Does a single model reflect obs. temps. this decade? No. And what does the temps. trend of the ensemble avg. look like for each of the emissions scenarios(A2, A1B, B1) over this century? A monotonic rise.
the “wiggles2 are in the RANGE around the lines.
if you include any decade long wiggle in the temperature projection line, it has a completely different meaning!
it would be a PROJECTION of a cool/hot phase that cannot be projected (like el Nino or volcano events)
that you can t read the graphs sort of ruins your analysis…
If scientists could crack a few winners
And find out what’s happening and why,
They may not have to shout, “hey, you sinners
Repent now, destruction is nigh!
But now that the cooling has started,
They have pleaded and shouted and moaned,
“The end of the world’s not departed,
You idiots! It’s only postponed”!
from Marc Morano with thanks:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=a17defa8-802a-23ad-4912-8ab7138a7c3f&Issue_id=#update
Sampling of Scientists Commenting on ‘global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate’ study published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature on May 1:
1) Dr. Roger A. Pielke, Jr. Professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado reacted to this study in the journal Nature by declaring: “Climate models are of no practical use.” Pielke, who is not a climate skeptic, said on April 30, “There is in fact nothing that can be observed in the climate system that would be inconsistent with climate model predictions. If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under the sun. This means that from a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global climate policy.”
2) Former Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, a string theorist who is currently a professor at Charles University in the Czech Republic said on May 1: “Wow. So the refutation of a prediction of a dangerous warming by the world’s top 2,500 scientists 😉 “does not come as a surprise”. Note that with no global warming since 1998, the paper predicts 20 years of no warming. Recall that Al Gore has predicted global destruction in less than 8 years from now. […] The whole validation of all existing climate models is (or should be) mostly based on the data from the previous decades or centuries. If an effect that is argued to be as strong as the greenhouse effect has been neglected while it has the power to change 60-70 years of the temperature dynamics, it implies the existence of a critical flaw in the whole picture.”
3) UK Astronomer Dr. David Whitehouse, who authored the 2004 book The Sun: A Biography, said on May 1, 2008: “Isn’t it curious that over the next decade man-made global warming will be cancelled out by natural cycles. It’s nice that Mother Nature (not the journal) is helping us this way but it does beg the question as to whether the man-made effect was all that significant if it can be nullified this way.”
4) Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, founder of the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action, said on April 30: “It is noteworthy that this ‘prediction’ in the journal Nature coincides pretty well with various solar-based predictions including the solar-magnetic based prediction we issued from WeatherAction in Jan this year – i.e. cooling till 2013 at least. It seems like the ‘Anything But the Sun’ faction of UN IPCC works by copying what has already been predicted by a number of solar-based forecasting techniques and then attributing the cause to something earth-based. That way they hope to save the lie that man’s irrelevant earth-based efforts could cause climate change. Of course the long term cooling change expected in sea temperatures referred to in this paper in Nature as ’cause’ is nothing of the sort it is a consequence of the changes in sun-earth magnetic and particle links. The Nature article is in effect saying that ‘Climate Change causes climate change’. Give us a break! Why is there a 22 year cycle in the solar magnetic links and also the same cycle in world temperatures? The reason is that the earth-sun magnetic links drive world temperatures (and this understanding enables successful long-range weather forecasts to be made). The pillars of pseudo-science writing in nature believe their ‘sea cycle’ is the driver of what happens so they will have to tell us that that the sun’s magnetic field is driven by the Earth’s oceans. Does anyone buy this? Application of the scientific method to science would be a good idea!”
5) Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton wrote on his Numbers Watch website on May 1: “As we were saying only last month, the motto du jour is get your rationalization in first. The latest wheeze among the doomsayers is that hell fire is being postponed. Of course, it would have been more impressive if it had been published before the recent decade of measurements showing no warming at all. As it stands, it is nothing more than a testament to the infinite tunability of computer models. The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date.”
6) Environmental Economist and global warming co-author Dennis Avery’s 2006 book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, wrote on May 1: “How many years of declining world temperature would it take now-in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998-to break up Al Gore’s “climate change consensus”? […] All of this defies the “consensus” that human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained. The earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary” 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration-and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.”
7) Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, wrote on May 2: “Several teams made climate models and all those models predicted global warming with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. None – not one – of those models predicted that global warming would peak in 1998 then stop for the following decade despite atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increasing by ~5%. But that is what has happened. Now, one team has amended their model so it shows the cessation of global warming in 1998. Their amended model predicts that global warming will re-start in 2015. Does anybody other than a fool believe them?”
Media Reaction:
Scripps News: Globe may be cooling on Global Warming – May 1, 2008 – By Deroy Murdock
Excerpt: In a December 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority-staff report, some 400 scientists — from such respected institutions as Princeton, the National Academy of Sciences, the University of London, and Paris’ Pasteur Institute — declared their independence from the pro-warming “conventional wisdom.” “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas,” asserted climatologist Luc Debontridder of Belgium’s Royal Meteorological Institute. “It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore’s movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.” AccuWeather’s Expert Senior Forecaster Joe Bastardi has stated: “People are concerned that 50 years from now, it will be warm beyond a point of no return. My concern is almost opposite, that it’s cold and getting colder.” And on Wednesday, the respected journal, Nature, indicated that Earth’s climactic cycles have stopped global warming through 2015. If nothing else, all this obliterates the rampant lie that “the scientific debate on global warming is over.”
Junk Science: The Great Global Warming Race – May 1, 2008 – By Steven Milloy
Excerpt: A new study indicates alarmist concern and a need to explain away the lack of actual global warming. Researchers belonging to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported in Nature (May 1) that after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, “global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations … temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.” You got that? IPCC researchers project no global warming over the next decade because of Mother Nature. Although the result seems stunning in that it came from IPCC scientists who have always been in the tank for manmade global warming, it’s not really surprising since the notion of manmade climate change has never lived up to its billing. […] Just this week, Al Gore drummed up $683 million for an investment fund that aims to profit from government-subsidized global warming-related technologies. A few weeks ago, Gore launched a $300 million global warming ad campaign. Do you think he’s at all interested in returning that money to investors and contributors? Or that he and the IPCC are interested in returning their Nobel Peace Prizes? (LINK)
Australian John Ray, Ph.D., who publishes the website Greenie Watch said on May 2: “Their entire global warming scare was based on around two decades of warming in the late 20th century so if that is followed by 20 years of stasis and cooling, which one of those two episodes represents the trend? How can we be sure that there is ANY trend? If natural fluctuations can cause an episode of cooling, how can we know that natural fluctuations did not cause the episode of warming? We cannot know that. The prophecies of doom are just irresponsible and very damaging speculation.”
Melanie Phillips writes in the UK Spectator in an article titled “Can someone pause Al Gore for the next decade?” on May 1: “With a precision of prediction which would have caused medieval sorcerers to strike crystal balls off their wedding present lists, these scientists can foretell precisely when these ‘natural climate variations’ will subside – even though at the very same time Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre confides: ‘…climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain…’ Always uncertain, eh? But isn’t the prediction that the planet is about to fry so certain that, as the Royal Society so memorably told us, the argument is over? Truly, a most flexible theory indeed.”
Reporter Charles Clover of the UK Daily Telegraph wrote on May 1: “The political task of negotiating a meaningful new climate treaty in Copenhagen next year now looks more difficult because it will not take place against a backdrop of droughts and soaring temperatures of the kind that got climate concern under way in 1988.”
Steven Goddard wrote in the UK Register on May 2: “How can scientists who report measurements of the earth’s temperature within one one-hundredth of a degree be unable to concur if the temperature is going up or down over a ten year period? Something appears to be inconsistent with the NASA data – but what is it? [… ] Both of the satellite data sources, as well as Had-Crut, show worldwide temperatures falling below the IPCC estimates. Satellite data shows temperatures near or below the 30 year average – but NASA data has somehow managed to stay on track towards climate Armageddon. You can draw your own conclusions, but I see a pattern that is troublesome. In science, as with any other endeavor, it is always a good idea to have some separation between the people generating the data and the people interpreting it.”
Geoffrey Styles wrote in Energy Outlook on May 1: “Those who approach climate change with a quasi-religious fervor are likely to become apoplectic at any suggestion that a few cooler months or years might derail the growing policy momentum to institute the means of dramatically reducing emissions.
Full Text of today’s UK Telegraph Article Below:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
sod: “the wiggles are in the RANGE around the lines.”
Where, in Fig 10.5 Chpt 10, AR4, p. 763, is the range for each of the models used in each graph? There is none.
“if you include any decade long wiggle in the temperature projection line, it has a completely different meaning!
it would be a PROJECTION of a cool/hot phase that cannot be projected (like el Nino or volcano events)”
Which is simply an admission that current GCMs are unable to simulate natural variability. BTW, no one expects a GCM to be able to predict volcanic events, but we do hope future GCMs are able to simulate ENSO, AMO, PDO, etc.
“that you can’t read the graphs sort of ruins your analysis…”
Now, if your criticism assumed I was referring to Fig 10.5 SPM AR4, may be your incapacity to read English with any care “sort of ruins your ‘analysis’…”
Amazing stuff – a Morano list of denialists in support of an “unproven” climate model (must be wrong) – hilarious. And denialists all with different ideas as denialists like to have.
This model isn’t even globally applicable so what’s the ruckus all about? Does anyone bother to read the actual paper.
“…Where, in Fig 10.5 Chpt 10, AR4, p. 763, is the range for each of the models used in each graph? There is none….”
wghy would you not look at the figure out of the summary for policy makers that is cited in the ORIGINAL post?
you basically can see nothing but basic agrrement among those spagetti graphs!
that is why they are represented as an average line with an “error range” in the summary.
anyway, a decade long drop can be spotted pretty easily in the upper most temperature graph. (A2)
the second highest temperature graph (blue-greenish) has a drop over a decade between 2020 and 2030, before it gets up to where it was before 2020.
“…Which is simply an admission that current GCMs are unable to simulate natural variability. BTW, no one expects a GCM to be able to predict volcanic events, but we do hope future GCMs are able to simulate ENSO, AMO, PDO, etc….”
who claimed that they can simultae ENSO?
you do notice, that people are still not sure whether this PDO did already start and when it did.
for the long term trend those phaenomenons are simply unimportant!
“…Now, if your criticism assumed I was referring to Fig 10.5 SPM AR4, may be your incapacity to read English with any care “sort of ruins your ‘analysis’…”
sorry, that i assumed you were discussing the GRAPH PRESENTED IN THIS TOPIC!
sorry again, that i was able to show that your analysis is still WRONG.
The surprising point about the Telegraph article linked by Jennifer is the overwhelming preponderance of sceptical comments, interspersed with suggestions that one person[s] were doing all the postings. Presumably the Telegraph checks a few email addresses to ensure this does not happen.
One real tragedy is what certain Professors of Earth Sciences must have been teaching their students over the past decade. Pity any student who asks an inconvenient question[s].
“wghy would you not look at the figure out of the summary for policy makers that is cited in the ORIGINAL post?”
Do you mean to say that when showing that pretty much all the GCMs presented within the IPCC AR4 show a more or less monotonic rise I am only allowed to specify a single fig.(Fig 10.5 SPM AR4) in that report? What a ridiculous restriction. It lovely though that you get in a tizz about me referring to another figure which further supports the point being made.
“you basically can see nothing but basic agrrement among those spagetti graphs!
that is why they are represented as an average line with an “error range” in the summary.”
And you presume to instruct me. Yes, we have different GCMs, with different parameterisations, incl. different CS, that are all in “basic agreement” that we should expect to see more or less a monotonic rise.
“anyway, a decade long drop can be spotted pretty easily in the upper most temperature graph. (A2)
the second highest temperature graph [line] (blue-greenish) has a drop over a decade between 2020 and 2030, before it gets up to where it was before 2020.”
Yes, find one model that behaves in a certain manner and by some miracle you redeem them all. That trick is old hat. But, anyway, if you think that model simulation is accurate, what does it project for this decade? At least 0.3-0.4 degrees C for this decade (not going to happen) and 3 degrees C for the century (very unlikey).
“for the long term trend those phaenomenons (AMO, PDO, ENSO) are simply unimportant!”
Lets see. ENSO, PDO, AMO, are currently masking AGW to such an extent that we’re supposed to see the stasis in global temps. continue until at least 2015, so they certainly are relevant in the short to medium term. But by some miracle they are irrelevant in the long term since the masking and the accentuations will, it is assumed, cancel each other out. A breathtaking presumption. Only time will tell.
“sorry, that i assumed you were discussing the GRAPH PRESENTED IN THIS TOPIC!”
Why assume? I explicitly stated in the comment you first responded to that:
“Lets look at the ‘wiggles’ in Fig 10.5 Chp 10 AR4.”
Bugger me. Well, not only are you a fool but you are a dissembling fool at that. If you cannot even admit to having made an inadvertent mistake in your rush to judgement, which I would have accepted, why should I continue a conversation with some I now know is not participating in good faith.
Sod, your immaturity becomes you.
So the IPCC presents a climate history which was a lie.
NASA GISS presents a version of current events, also a lie.
Climate modelers admit their skill when describing clouds, which are the basic building block of all weather, is nill.
Models describe PDO? Not at all.
Models account for AMO, ENSO. Not in the slightest.
Models incorporate solar effects? Nope.
What the hell have these climate sci guys been measuring for the last 30 years?
Anything???
Sorry which definitive body of work says cooling till 2015. Is this some sort of denialist urban myth that’s getting a wiggle on based on the willing misinterpretation of one paper on some very new science.
We already know ENSO can have a dramatic effect on any one year’s temperatures. No surprise. Decadal effects are not accounted for – but have these effects historically been only one way?
The wiggles comment is simply that even without these influences the temperature evolution in the various models moves around, as does the precipitation in 10.5 which is probably more important.
But really it’s all probably not worth discussing is it. All we’re doing is feeding our confirmation biases on either side. One big warm blast and all the rats will run up the other end of the ship for a while.
What is worth revisiting is the notion of adaptation and letting the science on climate and new forms of energy production play out. It’s worth reading this article to the end.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/weekinreview/23revkin.html?ex=1303444800&en=a9aa22cef0624748&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Just seems that an anthropic mindset cannot think outside the “box” where for many people, our brains seem to treat beliefs we consider to be true, almost exactly the same as facts. However the anthropic mindset is weak and unimaginative on just about every level. It seems that systems people only know closed systems which is not surprising really but if the universe is an infinite ENVIRONMENT then it is not a system however one wants to look at it.
This then draws attention to anthropocentric issues…… i.e. our human built in bias and mode of conceptualisation where it is simply symptomatic of rote learning in wrong order or in other words this reverse notion of mind or intelligence first.
The anthropocentric mindset seeks a finite created universe where we get fashionable teddies (gods) of all types, creators of all sorts and the big bang religion which talks about a nonsense expanding universe akin to that old flat Earth theory. We also get nonsense like multiple universes, parallel universes, collapsing universes, designed universes, etc. but of course all with a ME in the centre.
To help these infected people overcome their obvious anthropocentric mindset and much rote learning, perhaps we may like to consider this perspective ……….
If from the formation of our solar system to the present represents a walk of one mile (1.6 Kilometres), then 0.001 of an inch (.0254 millimeters) or half the thickness of a medium human hair = human lifetime.
AGW is a furphy that deserves to be sequestrated and if we are concerned about climate then let’s understand the bigger picture of solar/cosmic climate modulation. Of course solar climate may be a challenge for many but I must confess that there is reasonable evidence that global warming is anthropogenic because we can only really find it in the human mind where it is usually created from incorrect finite assumptions, careless data acquisition and dodgy data processing. AGW is but a mind virus.
“Lets see. ENSO, PDO, AMO, are currently masking AGW to such an extent that we’re SUPPOSED [emphasis mine] to see the stasis in global temps. continue until at least 2015, so they certainly are relevant in the short to medium term.”
Supposed, you know, assumed, imagined, and its kin. I didn’t refer to or assume a ‘definitive body of work’ for the claim of stasis (not cooling) until 2015. Can you or Sod even read a sentence without misrepresenting or mischaracterising it. This is what happens when adolescents (figuratively, just in case you’re both also literalists) rely on cribs and only ever ‘have the gist’.
“But really it’s all probably not worth discussing is it. All we’re doing is feeding our confirmation biases on either side.”
Anyone that has read Chpt 10 and the SPM would have noticed that the uncertainities are underestimated. This has been conceded by some who are more or less sympathetic to the report. So, essentially, the IPCC reports reflect the confirmation biases of the climate science community. What a scandal.
“…Yes, find one model that behaves in a certain manner and by some miracle you redeem them all. That trick is old hat….”
funny. you asked
“…Lets look at the ‘wiggles’ in Fig 10.5 Chp 10 AR4. Does anyone see a single wiggle that has no warming and lasts for a DECADE…”
i provided that “single wiggle”.
now you prefer a model that
“…Do you mean to say that when showing that pretty much all the GCMs presented within the IPCC AR4 show a more or less monotonic rise I am only allowed to specify a single fig.(Fig 10.5 SPM AR4) in that report? What a ridiculous restriction. It lovely though that you get in a tizz about me referring to another figure which further supports the point being made….”
semantics aside (i thought you were using an obscure reference to the GRAPH WE WERE DISCUSSING)
the simple problem is, that your graph does NOT support the point being made.
“…And you presume to instruct me. Yes, we have different GCMs, with different parameterisations, incl. different CS, that are all in “basic agreement” that we should expect to see more or less a monotonic rise….”
the only problem with this claim again is, that the models (as shown above are NOT monotonic.
somehow i doubt that you undersand the meaning of the term.
the monotonic temperature development was broken last night, when temperature suddenly DROPPED!
it will break again this winter, when some of us expect another DROP in temperature.
oh, and it dropped after the 1998 el nino year, imagine!
“semantics aside (i thought you were using an obscure reference to the GRAPH WE WERE DISCUSSING)”
We have the measure of the man. He cannot even admit to being in error. How is fully referencing a fig in Chpt 10 AR4 ‘obscure’? Or do you mean ‘making’ rather than ‘using’? Who knows? Who any longer cares?
“the only problem with this claim again is, that the models (as shown above are NOT monotonic.”
What part of “more or less monotonic rise” do you not understand? Do I have to add at multi-decadal timescales? Do you think anything is added to your argument by dissembling?
“somehow i doubt that you undersand the meaning of the term.”
Somehow I doubt you have a sensible argument any longer, if you ever had one.