JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The IPCC was not right. Frame & Stone ignore main IPCC predictions

Professor David Frame and Dr Daithi Stone have produced a paper claiming the IPCC predictions in 1990 were successful and seem accurate.

Those who read the actual FAR report and check the predictions against the data know that this is not so.

  1. They ignore the main IPCC predictions (the prominent ones, with graphs, in the Summary for Policymakers)
  2. They don’t measure the IPCC success against an IPCC graph or within IPCC defined “uncertainties”.
  3. They measure success against  a “zero trend” — something they defined as any rise at all beyond what they say are the limits of natural variability (which they got from the very models that aren’t working too well). Circular reasoning anyone?
  4. Frame and Stone themselves say the IPCC models didn’t include important forcings, and may have been “right” by accident.

Why did Nature publish this strawman letter? It’s an award-winning effort in selective focus, logical fallacies, and circular reasoning to be sure, but does it advance our understanding of the natural world? Not so.

Frame and Stone have produced a Letter to Nature saying that 3 is a lot like 6 (they are both larger than zero). If you ignore the Summary for Policymakers, pick a line from page 177 and add caveats and conditions that nobody mentioned in 1990, then redefine success by using modern unverified models, it’s possible to pretend to verify the unverifiable and slap an A+ on a failed paper.

Careful, scrutinizing scientists like Matthew England, Stephen Sherwood and Penny Whetton, tossed their scrutinizing in the sea, and leaped to hail the paper. Perhaps they have read the Frame and Stone paper, but it doesn’t appear that they’ve read the IPCC First Assessment Report. To know this paper had flaws, all they had to do was read the IPCC predictions and check them against the temperature records. It’s so easy, even unpaid bloggers can do it.

Ignoring the IPCC’s main predictions

It’s telling that Frame and Stone don’t use IPCC graphs, and they don’t quote the Summary for Policy Makers. That’s where the IPCC made brave, clear, defined predictions and got them wrong. That summary was the reason Policy Makers decided to spend billions of dollars to reduce emissions.

The IPCC said the world would warm by 0.3C per decade, and the warming trend would be at least 0.2 C/decade and 0.5C/decade at most. They also said (with graphs) that it would be a mostly linear trend (especially from 2000 on), and with text they said even if we kept our emissions at 1990 levels we’d still get 0.2C/decade for the next few decades (see page xxii). Make no mistake, a policy maker reading that would be left under the impression the IPCC predicted the world to be about 0.6C warmer by 2010 unless we cut our emissions drastically.

What we got was between 0.14 – 0.18 C/decade — about half the rate of the best estimate and below the lower bound estimate as well.

It’s a fail.

What prediction do Frame and Stone check?

Frame and Stone don’t mention the predictions in the Summary, but they found this one, somewhere…

[The FAR] “included an estimate of climate change as a predicted rise from 1990 (to 2030) of 0.7 – 1.5 C with a best estimate of 1.1 C (refs 1,2).”

Ref 1 is the whole FAR report — Frame and Stone don’t list the page numbers. Ref 2, is Bretherton et al in…  the whole FAR report. Again, no page numbers. Thanks to the power of a global internet with advanced keyword searches, I’ve discovered that Frame and Stone could have said “FAR Chapter 6 “. I guess they weren’t anxious to help people find the quote. (It’s page 177.) That’s over four decades, so that would be 0.175 – 0.375 C/decade. Not that they mentioned that in the Summary. (There, they said 0.2C minimum.)

The strawman graph the IPCC didn’t use

The only graph in Frame and Stone is this one below, and it’s nothing like any in the IPCC report. (Was there any hint from the IPCC that temperatures could be lower in 2010?) So Frame and Stone set up a strawman prediction. One the IPCC never really made.

The cheap trick in this graph is to visually make the difference between the “prediction” and “observation” lines look as small as possible. (What’s 0.2 degrees between friends?) Those black vertical “unforced variability” lines, say “look at me”, “look at me”. But they don’t say “this is rigorous science”. The world has been warming for 300 years, and if the IPCC had ruled a line through the last 140 years it would have run smack through the middle of the observations. Instead it took millions of dollars, hundreds of man-hours and the largest computers in the world to make a prediction of a new higher trend that didn’t happen.

This graph in Frame and Stone is not like any graph in the IPCC FAR report.

The term “zero trend” is mentioned at least 5 times in the Frame and Stone paper (though I have not yet found it in the 1990 report). Under this analysis whether or not the IPCC was successful in 1990 depends on the assumptions about this “zero trend”.

This was the IPCC graph

Our emissions were higher than the ones used to generate this “simulation”.

This was reality measured against those IPCC trends

Frame and Stone suggest that Mt Pinatubo was one of those unforseeable events, so let’s start the trend-count from 1995 instead. But that only makes the result worse (see the graph here). The UAH trend was 0.12C per decade, and the HadCrut trend was 0.1C/decade.

[With the 1995 - 2012 graph, notice that the trend line for HadCRUT4 doesn't run through the zero change level in Jan 1995. This is because, as it happens, the HadCRUT4 temperature for Jan 1995 was about 0.1C above the trend line -- it's just noise around the trend. The other three trend lines on the data in the two graphs above happen to go very close to the zero-change level at the starting point, but it's only by chance. It's the trends that are relevant, because the IPCC predictions were of trends.]

Frame and Stone and natural variability?

Frame and Stone say that the 1990 prediction didn’t include natural variability, and debate how “the noise” should be included. But in the Summary for PolicyMakers, the IPCC certainly gave the impression (eg page xiii)  they were very aware of natural variability and were trying to estimate how human activities would contribute. They hinted that there might be surprises once or twice, but they didn’t draw a future prediction graph that suggested temperatures could fall below 1990 levels by 2010 (as Frame and Stone imply) if natural forces overwhelmed the effect of CO2.

If a model is accidentally right, is it still a success?

Frame and Stone admit the models could be accidentally right, but if they ignore all the credible alternatives they can’t think of, like the solar magnetic theory, then really, it looks like it more evidence that CO2 caused the warming. Hello argument from ignorance. The IPCC depends upon that fallacy, and so do Frame and Stone.

“As is always the case in science, we cannot know for certain that the 1990 prediction was accurate for the right reasons but, given the apparent absence of any credible alternative theories and the robustness of the prediction, this evaluation strongly supports the contention that the climate is responding to enhanced levels of GHGs in accordance with historical expectations.”

Is there anything more mindless than admitting a complex model doesn’t have all the forcings, yet under statistical duress, it *might* have accidentally got the right outcome? Why would anyone bother publishing a paper on this? Why are governments still throwing billions down the toilet because of this theory? Seriously, what is the point? Reader Max in an email says: To argue that something is right for the wrong reasons is like accepting that 64/16 = 4 because if you cross out the 6′s you get 4/1 = 4 which just happens to be the right answer!

The point of the paper is not about science, it’s about politics and PR.

What do we learn about the climate by taking old unverified models predictions out of context, with caveats that were never made at the time, and analyzing them with new unverified models? We learn that obedient journalists will help unskeptical scientists promote old failed predictions as a surprising “success”.

England and others got media interviews and some people will try to kill discussion about the IPCC accuracy by referring to this paper. It’s argument by authority, and journalists who are supposed to be investigating the “news”probably won’t check the predictions against the data themselves, nor do they seem to ask any hard questions, they just take someone’s else’s word. (What ‘s the motto of the Royal Society again?)

Instead of this study being used to stop critics of the IPCC, it should be used to ask why Nature’s standards have fallen so far, why specialist climate scientists aren’t familiar with the actual IPCC predictions, and why a real scientist shouldn’t be much more skeptical of a paper that ignores the main predictions of the report it’s supposed to assess, and didn’t use the original graphs or uncertainty margins.

When the publishers and professors have to answer questions they can’t answer, they will think twice about pushing and promoting “politically correct” science. But it takes more than one unfunded blogger to do this. That’s why it’s so important that thousands of readers will read this, many will link to it in other sites, and on news stories, and hundreds will learn the short sharp answer so that Frame and Stone becomes a point that helps skeptics, hurts the unskeptical scientists, and most probably won’t be mentioned too often.

I would still expect an honest scientist to apologize for calling skeptics liars for stating the bleeding obvious.

 REFERENCES

Frame D.J., Stone, D.A. (2012) Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change, Letter, Nature Climate Change doi:10.1038/nclimate1763 [Abstract]
IPCC Publications  |  IPCC FAR    |  IPCC FAR Summary for Policy Makers  |  IPCC Chapter 6
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.6/10 (45 votes cast)
The IPCC was not right. Frame & Stone ignore main IPCC predictions , 8.6 out of 10 based on 45 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ay9sgk9

75 comments to The IPCC was not right. Frame & Stone ignore main IPCC predictions

  • #
    2dogs

    It comes down to this: either the warming trend is linear, or it is not.

    If it is linear, than AGW is certainly is not bad as the IPCC has and is predicting projecting.

    If it is not linear, where are the turning points, and what is the physics behind them?


    Report this

    171

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      As far as anybody can tell the warming rate has been 0.6 ℃ per century for the last 3 centuries. Akasofu and also Muller (BEST report). The latter relies on ‘adjusted’ temperatures so the warming looks like a hockey stick, but the total rise over 260 years is still 0.6 per century.

      The turning point from the Little Ice Age was between 1685 (Mt. Blanc glacier stopped expanding) to 1710 (last very cold winter). Interrupted by the Dalton minimum and volcanic eruptions (1783-1830).

      Warming cycles 1720-45 (7 out of 10 hottest summer central England occurred in the 1730′s), 1770-1783, 184? – 1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1995.
      Cooling 1750 -1770, 1783 – ~1835, 1880-1910, 194? – 1975.

      Not so much as linear as an oscillation around a rising base.


      Report this

      191

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Brilliant stuff Jo….
    The Australian MSM will be all over this one.. :)
    Sigh..what happened to the journalists..did they all get suddenly “busy”..for about the last 10 years…


    Report this

    200

    • #
      cohenite

      I concur; some of her best work.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … what happened to the journalists …

      They stopped being journalists, and moved across into “Media Management”, where they write press releases at the behest of their “Clients”. In doing so, they got rid of all that pesky need for truth, and facts, and consistency. It is therefore an easier job, with more regular hours, and the pay is better.

      As the old line goes … “What is the difference between a PR wonk, a News Reader, and a Journalist?” Answer: “One can write, one can read, and the third one is there to ask them what is going on”.


      Report this

      120

  • #
    AndyG55

    It is obvious from the desperation that the AGW bletheren KNOW that their religion is about to be crushed, and their funding may quite easily disappear.

    The only thing that can save them is a sharp rise in temperature rise in the next couple of years, but they KNOW its going to go the other way, and they will not be able to PRETEND, even to themselves, any more.


    Report this

    171

  • #
    Popeye

    I often despair about what is happening in our country and in the world today!

    How can it be that a miniscule, harmless, life essential trace gas can be construed as the culprit threatening the world’s end?

    The ONLY explanation is MONEY & POWER.

    The Communists/Socialists (and here insert the IPCC/UN/Socialist governments world wide) have seen an opportunity and grasped it with both hands.

    I see organisations such as Greenpeace/WWF/Universities world wide scrambling to grab the money and wreak their control over the masses (us).

    It is extremely disheartening to think of what good this money could be put to in areas such as medical research, advancing food production in poorer countries or even space exploration if it wasn’t being flushed down the toilet in such wasteful fashion.

    What is really heartening though is the groundswell of sites dedicated to REAL science (Jo Nova included) which are exploding over the internet. These sites are helping to expose the lies and deceit and eventually will EXPLODE the MYTH.

    THE TRUTH WILL ALWAYS OUT – Thank you Jo (and all the others, including the bloggers) – one day sooner or later (hopefully in my/our lifetime) there will be a CLEANSING and the all protagonists will be exposed for what they are – CHEATS!!

    Cheers,


    Report this

    283

  • #
    Skiphil

    BREAKING:

    Full SOD of IPCC’s AR5 has been leaked!!

    http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/

    (h/t WUWT)


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Neville

    Alex Rawls does us all a favour and leaks the draft AR5 report. He gives his reasons and I think he should be congratulated.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/#more-75705

    Could it be more of the good OL SUN


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Neville

    Just thought I’d link again to Prof. John Christy’s graph showing Hansen’s 1988 predictions A,B,C but now compared to real satellite measurements from UAH and RSS.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Fig2.2-summer-fixed.gif

    The predictions are a joke and even the prediction of heavy co2 reductions is well above the satellite line.
    Of course co2 emissions and levels are much higher now than 1988 mainly due to China, India and the non OECD.


    Report this

    121

  • #
  • #
    sillyfilly

    So let us look at the facts:

    The Facts(courtesy Jo):

    The IPCC used the word “prediction” in 1990 and predicted a best estimate of 0.3°C with a range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C per decade
    Even with the most generous overestimate of current trends, the 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.

    From FAR summary:

    Based on current model results, we predict:
    • under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 1°C before the end of the next century The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors
    • under the other IPCC emission scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0 1 °C per decade
    (Scenario D)

    The expected values of CO2 emissions from WG111:

    2030 High Emissions (Scenario A: BAU(business as usual))
    2025: 437ppm
    2075: 679ppm

    We can allow you to stretch the point but don’t make the confirmation bias so obvious!


    Report this

    418

    • #
      Bite Back

      The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors

      So we have the inevitable fudge factors and they’re unkonwn it seems.

      You really should admit that you don’t know what’s going on. What other factors? The excuses are endless and the match with reality is missing.


      Report this

      140

      • #
        sillyfilly

        No, just the natural non-anthropogenic impacts: ENSO, solar, volcanos etc etc. Mind you much has changed since these original estimates in the late 80′s.


        Report this

        514

        • #
          Winston

          Silly,
          Either CO2 is the dominant driver of climate or it isn’t, in which latter case we don’t have to transform our entire civilisation on the off chance that a theoretical negative effect might one day occur. You can’t suggest, for example, that solar “forcing” changes have a miniscule or insignificant relative effect on the one hand, then use that excuse as mitigation of your predictive failures on the other. To use Chinese aerosols also as a mitigating factor, when you don’t even know the sign of their effects on temperature, is also at the very least disingenuous.

          Unfortunately the credibility of Science has been tainted by people such as yourself making predictions of catastrophe that will inevitably fail to materialise. It cannot end well, and I fear for the repercussions across a number of fields of scientific endeavour that have foolishly allied themselves to alarmist faith.

          That you and your fellow advocates have aligned yourselves with parasitic investment banks like GS, HSBC and Deutsche bank in propogating a carbon based multi-trillion dollar fleecing of the honest taxpayer, and also siding with rapacious multinationals like GE, BP and Shell only hints at your naivety or duplicity. While they may get away with it through a compliant media, who do you think will carry the can of blame when the climate heads south?


          Report this

          202

          • #
            sillyfilly

            Domination does not and never has inferred that there are no other factors that can and do influence climate. You might want to have a look at this, at least to enhance your understanding.

            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-5.html

            Cheers!


            Report this

            215

          • #
            Winston

            One day, Silly, future civilisations will look upon that particular figure and marvel that any reputable scientists actually were that deluded believing such fantasy that solar influences were so minute. No doubt their collective response wiould be- “What were they smoking?”.

            As noted at WUWT and Alex Rawls via Neville at comment #6- It would seem that breaking news above about AR5 shows that time is fast approaching, with solar influences acknowledged to be grossly underestimated. So, who is needing to enhance their understanding?


            Report this

            80

        • #
          Crakar24

          From a casual observer pov you are sounding more and more desperate Silly Filly.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Bite Back

          No, just the natural non-anthropogenic impacts: ENSO, solar, volcanos etc etc. Mind you much has changed since these original estimates in the late 80′s.

          Yep! It’s all the factors that are larger than CO2 by a long way. See what I mean?


          Report this

          40

    • #
      cohenite

      So Silly; was England wrong because the IPCC in 1990 didn’t make the predictions, or is he wrong because the IPCC did make the predictions but they were wrong?


      Report this

      131

      • #
        sillyfilly

        England was not wrong, the IPCC’s predictions were reliable given the initial scenarios and that’s been clearly demonstrated in each of the scientific assessments that Jo has highlighted over the last few days.

        But if you reassess those models in light of the subsequent research and evidence they have got better and better. We are in the 21st century in case you forgot!


        Report this

        117

        • #
          cohenite

          silly is a politician; silly says:

          England was not wrong, the IPCC’s predictions were reliable

          They were reliable in that they predicted a temperature increase; they got the amount of the increase wrong; they predicted an increase of between:

          0.4 – 1C

          What we have got is an increase of either 0.28C [HadCrut 4] or 0.34C [UAH].

          So, that’s predicted 0.4-1C compared with reality of 0.28-0.34C

          That’s wrong.

          You can dress it up with all the fudge figures and statements that you quoted all you like but they got it wrong.

          A couple of things; this puts paid to the science is settled BS, which was another lie.

          As for the models getting better; no, they just getting more expensive and outrageous like predicting increases of 6C or more. What better models were you thinking of; the models predicting a THS or RH?


          Report this

          191

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            Oh Cohenite. You are making a mistake of being adamant and absolute. Because the IPCC published a prediction with a range, the result could be within that range or outside of that range. They were saying a 95% probability it was within the range predicted, but 100% probability that it would be either within the range published or outside the range. So you see in this world where there are no absolutes, they got it right.


            Report this

            60

    • #
      AndyG55

      “2075: 679ppm’

      Oh how I wish I could be around for this soooo much more bountiful world ! :-)

      Nature florishing and prolific. Plentiful food for all.


      Report this

      92

    • #
      AndyG55

      The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors
      totally swamps the influence of even a large rise in CO2, because this rise is basically ZERO.

      The influence of the very sleepy Sun will now be a gradual (hopefully no rapid) DECREASE in temperatures that even Hansen et al cannot adjust away.


      Report this

      82

      • #
        sillyfilly

        You may want to take that up with the following scientist:
        Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
        The University of Chicago
        Department of the Geophysical Sciences

        who stated:

        “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”


        Report this

        216

        • #
          Crakar24

          So cohenite in 8.2.1.1 produces data to claim the models/IPCC got it wrong and you respond with an analogy about nails and coffins.

          As i said you are getting more and more desperate……notice how none of your acolytes are rushing to your defence?


          Report this

          111

        • #
          JFC

          Ha! yes what a great quote.


          Report this

          07

          • #
            Crakar24

            I stand corrected………….an acolyte has appeared.

            Here is an even better one

            “As is always the case in science, we cannot know for certain that the 1990 prediction was accurate for the right reasons but, given the apparent absence of any credible alternative theories and the robustness of the prediction, this evaluation strongly supports the contention that the climate is responding to enhanced levels of GHGs in accordance with historical expectations.”


            Report this

            80

        • #
          AndyG55

          The coffin of CAGW should have been long buried, instead of being allowed to putrify.


          Report this

          91

        • #
          angry

          To “silly filly” I see you are STILL attempting to scare everybody with this global warming FRAUD.

          How are you CHILDREN feeling?

          God help them!

          Your unfounded FEARS are going to make your children SUICIDAL & MANIC DEPRESSIVE.
          That will be on your conscience.
          [snip]

          It won’t be too long before we read about your family in the newspaper, just like this one…..

          Baby shot over global warming fears:-

          http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,26793969-952,00.html?from=public_rss

          shame shame shame !!!

          [that's a bit alarmist. Tone it down a little. mod oggi]


          Report this

          02

    • #

      Mrs Silly, That’s the best you can do? The IPCC wrote a 25 page summary full of graphs of ominous rising lines, and estimates to a tenth of a degree, and you found a one line caveat? I covered it: “They hinted that there might be surprises once or twice…” You’ve found a hint. Everything else in their summary made it utterly clear, the world needed to cut emissions of CO2 drastically just to slow the rise.

      The only thing that report got right was the level of CO2 in 2010 at about 390ppm, and they got it right by accident. They assumed we’d put out a bit more CO2, but that it would cause global levels to rise a lot. Instead we pumped out buckets more and the world absorbed a lot of it but we ended up at about the same CO2 level as they estimated. It’s called “luck” — it isn’t science.

      Thanks once again for your endorsement. :-)


      Report this

      202

      • #
        AndyG55

        “and the world absorbed a lot of it ”

        And the world’s PLANT LIFE absorded lots of it, because PLANTS LUV CO2 !!! :-)

        Why are people who follow the green agenda, SOOOOOO much against plant life.. It is ILLOGICAL and STUPID !!!


        Report this

        92

      • #
        sillyfilly

        We know the world is warming. We know the cause is anthropogenic. And we can measure that warming from the instrumental and satellite records.

        Are you implying that a twenty year old model getting it slightly wrong changes those facts?

        One does wonder what philosophical viewpoint you profess in order to disregard the reality of the science! And that is no endorsement!


        Report this

        216

        • #
          Crakar24

          SF,

          I think i understand your problem.

          You are claiming that a 22 year old model got it only slightly wrong therefore it is basically correct therefore nothing has changed.

          I think your problem is that you lack a basic understanding of what this means, have another look at the graph above (3rd graph) we have a prediction of 5, 3, 2C rise in temps by 2100 however the rise *could* be as low as 1.4c which is not much different from what we have seen over the past 300 odd years ie natural variation.

          The fact that the model got it almost right means that the model got it wrong the question is why did the model get it wrong? What has changed in the world of computer programming that now gives us confidence that the models used today have got it right? Have they accounted for the lack of temp rise? If so what where the factors that they forgot/left out/did not think of?

          The 1990 model is basically a If CO2 goes up increase the temp and not much more we know this because thats what the IPCC has told us. All other factors play minor roles. Unfortunately for the IPCC CO2 went up as much as they thought albeit not they way they predicted however the temps did not follow.

          If you wish o be taken seriously here SF you need to step out of your comfort zone, go out on a limb and state why the model got it wrong. List reasons why it got it wrong and list all the design changes implemented into the model since 1990 (the things that give you confidence in the latest predictions).


          Report this

          100

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          NO, we do not KNOW that the cause is anthropogenic. You are ASSUMING that it is.

          Equally you are ASSUMING that the global warming which has been has been happening for (roughly) 300 years will continue. Since your Dogma requires you to believe that the CO2 level was constant up to 1850, you cannot explain these cool periods, nor the Medieval warm period, nor the warming for 150 years. 7 out of 10 of the warmest summers in England in the last 300 years happened in the 1730′s.

          5 times in the last thousand years there have been periods when the isotope records show the sun was quiet and the temperatures lower. For the last 2 periods we have some thermometer records which confirm this. Currently the sun is quite quiet, so the probability is that we face 30 years of cooling. Or will you deny that the sun can influence the climate?

          You will now babble about how the IPCC report didn’t rule out other influences, yet they only allowed them to have a minor effect while exaggerating the effect of CO2, at least until the draft of the next report. The start of a retreat to rival Napoleon’s?

          I personally doubt your ability to read a graph, let alone construct one. Prove me wrong by showing the plot of CO2 concentration (X axis) v the earth’s temperature (Y axis). You may use the satellite temperature figures or any of the “adjusted” temperature scales.


          Report this

          70

        • #
          cohenite

          silly is just pining for her deceased theory, AGW, wot is deceased just like other dud ideas.


          Report this

          70

        • #
          Bob Malloy

          We know the world is warming. We know the cause is anthropogenic.

          My observation over many decades is how little we know, leading to mans ever increasing need to learn.

          When we profess to definitively know everything about “any” subject we have only thing to look forward to, falling on our face, enjoy the trip.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Mark D.

          We know the world is warming. We know the cause is anthropogenic.

          Maybe to the first part, Laughably NO to the second part!

          Pasture or glue factory for you…..


          Report this

          10

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        Joanne

        Have you considered inviting one of the regular AGW believers to provide a guest contribution? Since they have all the peer reviewed evidence by all the esteemed and learned climate scientists they can surely put together a block buster that will convince everyone of their position. I am certain that none of the other blogs concerning AGW would consider giving someone from the opposite opinion of the blog owner a similar opportunity. We have been asking for the evidence and maybe the reason they have been holding back is that they want the headlines?


        Report this

        10

    • #
      rukidding

      Wow it is going to rise 1c in 13 years and another 1c in the remaining 75 years.What is going to happen after 2025 to slow the increase so much.And that is only 2c by the end of the century are you sure thats right silly.

      47 ppm for the next 13 years when the current rise at Mauna Loa is about 1.5ppm/Yr ,a total of about 20ppm, and then in the next 50 years it is going to rise 200ppm about 4ppm/Yr.Boy we really are going to have to get going with our emissions.


      Report this

      60

  • #

    How far do they have to stretch this rubber band before it snaps? Surely by NOW politicians can see the writing on the wall. It’s political suicide to keep following anything Green and anything Alarmist. When are they going to snap out of it? They’ve been hypnotized. Oh bugger! THAT’S what the windmills are about – stare at them long enough when the wind is blowing and they go round and round and round and…


    Report this

    111

  • #
    Bite Back

    If a model is accidentally right, is it still a success?

    This looks so obvious I thought at first maybe it was a trick question. But it’s not.

    The model is not a success. Bottom line — it’s not successful because you’re fooling yourself about its usefulness. This is like throwing darts and accidentally hitting the bull’s-eye — you haven’t demonstrated any skill with darts. We don’t even need to examine any other point, science, logic or anything.

    Who in his/her/its right mind would declare that something is right even if it’s only right by accident? I won’t say what I’m thinking.

    The truth here is summed up nicely by

    The point of the paper is not about science, it’s about politics and PR.

    It might even just be about the fact that the authors don’t have a useful job so they have to fill up time with the cause du jour.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    MaxL

    I’ve sometimes wondered what it would be like to be a student of someone like Professor England.

    I can imagine that given a month to complete an assignment, carefully accumulating and interpreting a score (or more) of references from books, articles and papers from the most eminent scientists on the subject. Carefully triple checking spelling, punctuation and grammar, laying out the essay in the required format. Noting that the references are properly cited and listed. Ensuring that the conclusions follow from the evidence supplied. Re-reading the assignment dozens of times to ensure that the quoted sources are accurate, ensuring you have not plagiarized any concept. Rewriting paragraphs to remain within the word count limit.

    Finally, nervously you submit your work, just before the due date.
    Of course you hope for a Distinction, or at least a Credit and you merely dream of a High Distinction.

    You get your paper back, quickly open to the grade awarded and what do you see?

    Not D for distinction or C for credit or P for pass or even F for fail, but because your analysis disagrees with what Professor told you to think, all you see is:
    — LIAR!!
    Whilst the education system concentrates on telling students what to think rather than how to think, all we will produce is compliant drones. Like ants or bees, achieving nothing individually but existing solely to support the hierarchy. Whilst Professor England continues to lecture, that’s all he will produce because that’s all he understands. He gets told what to think from the IPCC and then he tells us what to think.
    In my opinion Professor Stokes is another candidate that deserves our attention, but — “No, You’re not entitled to your opinion”.


    Report this

    113

  • #
    handjive

    Hilarious!
    NPR and psychologist rely on a withdrawn paper to prove that climate skeptics are bad eggs!
    .

    It appears some one has had a close encounter of the 3rd kind with loony Lew.

    It’s a conspiracy I tells ya! Big tobacco. Big oil. They’re all in on it. I got proof! I got a failed paper!
    .

    What Do Aliens, Climate Change And Princess Di Have In Common?

    (via greeniewatch – scroll down to wednesday 12.12.12 entry)


    Report this

    50

  • #

    When a scientific journal with the standing of Nature publishes something as blatantly and deliberately misleading as the paper by Frame & Stone the complete corruption of scientific integrity in climate studies has become irrefutable.


    Report this

    130

  • #

    According to the leaked first draft of the UNIPCC AR5 SPM, Trenberth’s missing heat has been found. Despite sparse sampling, turns out it is in the Southern Oceans.

    It is very likely that the Southern Ocean has warmed throughout the full ocean depth since the 1990s, at a rate of about 0.03°C per decade.

    So the big story next year will be that the climatologist’s knew all along that surface temperature did not rise in line with predictions projections. The step change in Southern Ocean warming accounted for it.

    This shows two possible things.
    1. The “scientists” were right all along, despite being wrong.
    2. The climatologists follow a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Every conceivable, contradictory phenomena can be accounted for, and nothing can contradict their core beliefs.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    pat

    jo, maybe u should start a thread on the leaked ipcc report. game over, it would seem. i don’t profess to understand it all, but am sure u will. best wishes for all yours and david’s good work.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    pat

    as usual with CAGW fraud, the MSM is not reporting this, so i will just post it here for the record:

    Brazil takes legal action against forest carbon deal in the Amazon
    SAO PAULO, Dec 13 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Brazil’s Attorney General Office has taken legal action against a deal signed between an Irish company and an Amazon indigenous group for the sale of carbon credits from avoided deforestation…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2102297

    background:

    28 March: Brazil: Munduruku chief clarifies REDD contract with Celestial Green Ventures, calls it a ‘tale’

    What happened next is the tragic reality of so many REDD contracts that have been signed by indigenous individuals who are not recognized leaders of the people they claim to represent. Chief Osmarino explained that after the REDD meeting, twelve individuals; Munduruku that were not chiefs nor in any other representational position, non-indigenous advisors, councilors of the municipality and representatives of the cooperation, continued a closed, secretly held meeting in a hotel, where the contract was signed.
    “The chiefs were against the company’s carbon credit sales contract proposal, but some indigenous and others, such as councilors of the municipality, signed the contract” explained chief Osmarino. “We did not know it, we learned that the contract was signed through the internet” he added…
    http://www.forestcarbonasia.org/in-the-media/brazil-munduruku-chief-clarifies-redd-contract-with-celestial-green-ventures-calls-it-a-tale/


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Doug Cotton

    Now that the leaked IPCC Draft Report for 2013 indicates something of a backdown, you may be interested in my climate analysis and projections as in Appendix 1 of my paper published March 2012. You will need to open it to see the graphics and supporting links, but the text reads …

    Q.1 How do you explain the fact that the Earth has been warming?

    Technically the Earth is currently in an interglacial period and the last few glacial periods have occurred at roughly 100,000 year intervals. This indicates the possibility of there being natural cycles, short and long, which appear to be related to astronomical orbital events. For example, the planet Jupiter has an effect on the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit in such a way that the difference in the distances between the Sun and the Earth at the aphelion and perihelion can vary (over many thousands of years) from just over 0% when its orbit is nearly a true circle, up to about 5% when it is elliptical. Such variations affect the mean distance and that will then affect the mean radiative flux over the course of a year.

    Many scientists also believe there is clear evidence of a 60-year cycle which may be related to the alignment of the planets Jupiter and Saturn every 59.6 years. This cycle appears to have been the main cause of the observed temperature increases which raised alarm in the 30 years or so leading up to the maximum in 1998. However, there is also a longer cycle which appears to be very approximately 1,000 years. The underlying trend in the rate of ncrease can be detected when a trend line is added to the plot below (from this site) which shows 30 year trend gradients.

    It appears that the mean rate of increase per decade has decreased from about 0.06oC early in the 20th century to about 0.05oC per decade in recent times, as you can see from the green trend line. Perhaps the 1,000 year trend will reach a maximum in the next 100 to 200 years and be 0.5 to 1.0oC warmer than at present. So natural trends can and do explain the historic climate record, right up to the current slight decline which is probably due to the 60 year cycle declining, but being mostly countered by the underlying upward trend of the 1,000 year cycle.

    You will find an explanation in my new paper linked here.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    john robertson

    No its impossible, the IPCC can never be wrong.
    CO2 from round eyed persons causes planet to warm.
    CO2 from asian persons causes planet to cool.
    CAGW science can not be wrong, as it consists of nought but hand waving and fog.
    Claims of science were a diversionary ploy to distract and disable thinking people.
    Now as the collapse of this scam accelerates, let me propose a little bit of retribution.
    North Korea is the place best resembling the utopia of these haters of modern living, lets cut a deal with Dear Leader.
    Our Greenies and their enablers can go to North Korea, the western world will accept all N Koreans who want out .
    We give Dear Leader praise and more shiny weapons, as long as he gives the greens the lifestyle they have been slavering to impose on the rest of us.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Hmm, I like your thinking John.

      But I am not sure about the West accepting all North Koreans who want out. The Dear Leader has only recently acquired them, and will not give them up lightly.

      Also, you need to look at the wider picture. Europe is in the state it is today precisely because, when The Wall came down, all the Communists escaped. Would you wish the same thing on South Korea, and progressively the rest of Asia?

      No, it would be much better to have the North Koreans assimilate the Greenies. Perhaps they could find employment tilling the fields in the style of 15th century Europe?


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      We give Dear Leader praise and more shiny weapons,

      It sounds good to me except for the shiny weapons part. Let him make his own. We need to keep ours.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    janama

    I followed up on David Frame and Daithi Stone to see what their motive may have been. In the publication they claim no financial interest in their publication.

    Dr David Frame is Director and Professor of Climate Change, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University, Wellington N.Z. His degrees are in Physics and he’s a computer modeller.

    Daithi Stone is a Canadian currently working at Berkeley Laboratory Computing Sciences where his work is described as “examining whether certain aspects of climate are changing, identifying the ultimate causes of such changes and determining the relative importance of those causes. Stone is particularly interested in determining whether the likelihood of extreme weather events has been altered by past greenhouse gas emissions. ”

    He is also a computer modeller.

    It appears their livelihood is dependent on the continued belief in dangerous Climate Change.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      MaxL

      Good work janama,
      That explains why they would play computer games with their 2012 model computer to simulate a 1990 computer model rather than make two graphs – draw some lines representing the 1990 predicted temperature rises, and overlay this with a graph of the actual measured temperatures since 1990.

      Oh wait, that’s what Foster and Rahmstorf did last year, and that made the 1990 IPCC forecasts look stupid.

      Yeah, better to make up some computer images and invent things like “zero trend” then it seems as though this is all new data.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    That’s why it’s so important that thousands of readers will read this, many will link to it in other sites, and on news stories, and hundreds will learn the short sharp answer so that Frame and Stone becomes a point that helps skeptics, hurts the unskeptical scientists, and most probably won’t be mentioned too often.

    Too right.

    BTW, communications with Dave Frame are open here:-

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/stuff-and-nonsense-ministerial-condescension-and-media-fossil-fools/#comment-35946

    Dave Frame December 15, 2012 at 12:09 am

    I think climate change is a very serious problem, and I think the biophysical impacts we would experience at (say) 4C would clearly be very disruptive to many societies. And I believe climate policy is necessary to make sure warming doesn’t get that high


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Bernard

    What is the value for 0.0 in this graph?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Con Michael

    I have a question for any AGW alarmist.What would prove you wrong?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Add Frame and Stone to the List of Papers Validating IPCC Warming Projections (Skeptical Science) The IPCC was not right. Frame & Stone ignore main IPCC predictions (JoNova) Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment [...]


    Report this

    00