UPDATED: Lovejoy has responded (in PDF and in comments. See below.)
I could tell from the headline below this was going to be a candidate for the Top-Ten most vacuous papers. It lived up to expectations, and then some.
“Odds that global warming is due to natural factors: Slim to none”
Is there anyone with the lights on at McGill University or “Climate Dynamics“? Surely ScienceDaily ought to have laughed at the press release and sent it back?
Seriously, people wield the magic wand of “statistical significance” without realizing that a/it isn’t magic, and b/ tiny p values can still mean nothing. (Depends on the hypothesis and assumptions underneath, hmm?). LoveJoy looked at 4500 years of a very squiggly line (the last 5% of this graph) and pronounced his magic tool could tell whether the last wiggle was …. ahem, unnatural. If that looks like tea-leaf reading to you, join the club.
Modern climate science can predict virtually none of the spikes and wiggles on this graph. Note the graph doesn’t include the last 100 years which adds about 1C to the rise.
Don’t look now, but it’s another Nail In the Deniers Coffin.
Odds that global warming is due to natural factors: Slim to none
Date: April 11, 2014Source: McGill UniversitySummary: An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth’s climate, according to a new study.An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth’s climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.
Judge the calibre of the man by his, er… name-calling:
“This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” Lovejoy says. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”
And we all know that he conducted his research totally impartially, and if the results had suggested anything else, he’d tell the world “climate-change deniers” were right. Sure.
The actual abstract takes the farce to high art:
Although current global warming may have a large anthropogenic component, its quantification relies primarily on complex General Circulation Models (GCM’s) assumptions and codes; it is desirable to complement this with empirically based methodologies
The one useful thing about this paper is that it admits that GCMs are all the alarmists have and that their case boils down to “assumptions”. But the idea that LoveJoy did anything empirical is boggling.
By using CO2 radiative forcings as a linear surrogate for all anthropogenic effects we estimate the total anthropogenic warming and (effective) climate sensitivity finding: ΔT anth = 0.87 ± 0.11 K, λ2xCO2,eff=3.08±0.58K .
So I went straight to the Great William Briggs who has indeed, already shed tears over this paper:
Lovejoy Update
To show you how low climatological discourse has sunk, in the new paper in Climate Dynamics Shaun Lovejoy (a name which we are now entitled to doubt) wrote out a trivially simple model of global temperature change and after which inserted the parenthetical words “skeptics may be assured that this hypothesis will be tested and indeed quantified in the following analysis”. In published comments he also fixated on the word “deniers.” If there is anybody left who says climate science is no different than politics, raise his hand. Anybody? Anybody?
His model, which is frankly absurd, is to say the change in global temperatures is a straight linear combination of the change in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature plus the change in “natural variability” of temperature plus the change in “measurement error” of temperature. (Hilariously, he claims measurement error is of the order +/- 0.03 degrees Celsius; yes, three-hundredths of a degree: I despair, I despair.)
His conclusion is to “reject”, at the gosh-oh-gee level of 99.9%, that the change of “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature is 0.
Can you see it? The gross error, I mean. His model assumes the changes in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature and then he had to supply those changes via the data he used (fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change; I weep, I weep). Was there thus any chance of rejecting the data he added as “non-significant”?
Is there any proof that his model is a useful representation of the actual atmosphere? None at all. But, hey, I may be wrong. I therefore challenge Lovejoy to use his model to predict future temperatures. If it’s any good, it will be able to skillfully do so. I’m willing to bet good money it can’t.
William Briggs writes a lot more on the theme that statistical significance is highly overrated.
Statistical “significance” works by tossing some data at your model and hoping that, via one of a multitude of mathematical incantations, one of these many parameters turns out to be associated with a wee p-value (defined as less than the magic number; only adepts know this figure, so if you don’t already have it, I cannot tell you).
If you don’t get a wee p-value the first time, you keep the model but change the incantation. There are several, which practically guarantees you’ll find joy. Statisticians call this process “hypothesis testing.” But you can think of it as providing “proof” that your hypothesis is true.
He also explains how “chance” and “random variation” are not actual forces (marvel that this even needs to be said). There’s a bit of a problem with something known as cause and effect. Our expressions of ignorance are getting mistaken for forcings:
The global temperature (as measured operationally) has certainly changed since the 1800s. Something, or some things, caused it to change. It is impossible—as in impossible—that the cause was “natural random variation”, “chance” or anything like that. Chance and randomness are not causes; they are not real, not physical entities, and therefore cannot be causes.
They are instead measures of our ignorance. All physical and probability models (or their combinations) are encapsulations of our knowledge; they quantify the certainty and uncertainty that temperature takes the values it does. Models are uncertainty engines.
The only evidence weaker than hypothesis tests are raw assertions and fallacies of appeal to authority.
Yes, the climate debate is down to the dregs. Things are so utterly preposterous we recognize these papers are a form of satire. We just wonder when the authors will get the joke?
This is the point, ladies and gentlemen. The sensible folk are all gone from global warming now.
Abstract
Although current global warming may have a large anthropogenic component, its quantification relies primarily on complex General Circulation Models (GCM’s) assumptions and codes; it is desirable to complement this with empirically based methodologies. Previous attempts to use the recent climate record have concentrated on “fingerprinting” or otherwise comparing the record with GCM outputs. By using CO2 radiative forcings as a linear surrogate for all anthropogenic effects we estimate the total anthropogenic warming and (effective) climate sensitivity finding: ΔT anth = 0.87 ± 0.11 K, λ2xCO2,eff=3.08±0.58K . These are close the IPPC AR5 values ΔT anth = 0.85 ± 0.20 K andλ2xCO2=1.5−4.5K (equilibrium) climate sensitivity and are independent of GCM models, radiative transfer calculations and emission histories. We statistically formulate the hypothesis of warming through natural variability by using centennial scale probabilities of natural fluctuations estimated using scaling, fluctuation analysis on multiproxy data. We take into account two nonclassical statistical features—long range statistical dependencies and “fat tailed” probability distributions (both of which greatly amplify the probability of extremes). Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels >99 %.
REFERENCE
Lovejoy, S. (2014) Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming, Climate Dynamics. DOI 10.1007/s00382-014-2128-2
Any data, if tortured enough, will tell you exactly what you want to hear …
280
The Forcing argument used by the Climate Alchemists is unscientific because it adds natural energy inputs, such as thermalised solar SW, to the atmospheric Thermal Radiation Field, a potential energy term.
Atmospheric and Earth’s surface TRFs add as vectors at each wavelength, giving near zero energy transfer at The Surface in the self-absorbed GHG wavelengths.
So, this authors paper is complete and utter junk, as is all the temperature predictions of the IPCC GCMs.
Climate Alchemy research needs shutting down because the researchers are taught non-standard physics. To restart it, physicists and engineers should be brought in to teach the best researchers standard physics so we can break free of Hansenkoism.
220
Oh gawd! Fiona Stanley is on the bandwagon now: https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/22668720/stanley-in-climate-change-plea/
90
Anne,
This does not make sense first statement
Yes ok so far so good except she is incorrect when she says people criticise the imprecise nature of the science, what people actually criticise is the abuse by some of that imprecise nature of science eg No Arctic ice by 20XX.
Then she launches into a sermon about how bad climate change is going to be and even compares it to child abuse (we know its happening even though we cant prove it.
In summary she acknowledges the science supporting AGW is weak at best however she has faith that AGW is gunna gitcha if we dont act now and faith after all is all you need. Its like Jo said
Thanks for the link.
301
Her position is common amongst her ilk – intentions matter more than results.
I am sure the modellers gave it a really good go with genuine sincerity etc…. but the fact is they still failed…
We are mean spirited to point out the failure because they tried real hard, honestly!!
171
I wonder if she read her own words – she said the science is inherently flaky, but we shoudl believe it.
Did she just ahve a vague moment, or something?
She must be a warmist – every warmist will rally to “the cause” by appeal to authority if cornered by logic.
40
Hmm, Fiona Stanley has obviously self-elected to the ranks of the vapourous, hand-wringers.
One wonders how the children will cope, as modern civilisation collapses under the weight of draconian taxation designed to save the planet and protect the godwit population.
271
Those who create such an appalling mess will likely suffer the same fate as Nicolae Ceaușescu…history tells us that is how it will likley go.
20
Yeah and some enthusiastic bystanders joined in with the official firing squad.
00
She has drunk so very deeply from that green koolaid … sad really. There is a very real danger that people who are smart/effective etc in one field think their faculties extend to the judgement of other fields with which they are completely unfamiliar. Here’s hoping Fiona Stanley will stick to health issues in the future.
111
Not if the Koolaid was Jonestown surplus.
41
And Fiona Stanley is a board member of the ABC. She was appointed by the Gillard Government on 30 June 2011.
Her tenure runs until – 29 June 2016.
Perfect explanation of why the ABC broadcasts climate change the way it does…..dont expect any change while she is on the board.
181
Understatement from UWA: Uncertainty about sea levels to last 10 more years
Uncertainty persists as long as one remains sceptical.
Certainty is one way of detecting that one has been fooled (even by oneself).
201
“analysed data from 10 long-term sea level monitoring stations located around the world”
My cherry-picker alarm wen off right there. Other studies have analyzed hundreds of tide guage records plus the satellite altimetry. Let me pick any ten tide guages to suit me, and I bet I could prove we’re already all drowned.
So I am bemused that they ended up asserting nothing about any change in rate of sea level rise — beyond saying that it’ll take years longer to be sure, which just amounts to the “more research is needed” line that’s obligatory in science articles.
Then they mention prior research on the topic, acknowledging (a pleasant surprise) that prior conclusions are all over the map. If I were a researcher I’d be too embarassed to publish a paper looking at only ten guages, once I’d seen how high the “data inclusion” bar has been set by previous researchers.
350
It’s easier to fool the people than prove they have been fooled?
90
P. Gosselin, of the NoTricksZone blog has an a post by Ed Caryl headlined as
University of Colorado Sea Level Rise Adjustment Appears To Be Unreasonable, Not Justifiable
Rebound and Sea level
There is some pretty interesting information in this post on the Isostatic rebound of the earth’s crust from the melting of the great ice sheets of the last ice age and the uneveness of this rebound ie rising land masses which run up to 2mm / year in some localities which is damn fast for a major geological process.
Isostatic rebound is still ongoing in many continental areas and the consequent very uneven measured sea level rises and falls around the shores of all the global land masses
. There is a link to a PMSL Permanent Service for Mean Sea Levels Click through DATA if you want to have a look at some local sea level gauge data along with the relevant graphs ]] table of sea levels which include the changes in sea levels at some dozens of localities since 250 years ago and a prediction on where those sea levels in those same dozens of coastal localities will be in another 250 years
This interesting table can be found here and puts a very large spike into all the usual totally stupid, over the top alarmist hoo ha over sea levels rises which as can be seen in the table and in Ed Caryl’s post are highly variable right around the planet
111
The only problem, the Perth floodplain is sinking due to groundwater harvesting on a huge scale.
60
Yep there they go again – if they keep shifting the goal posts they will eventually find the edge of the continental shelf.
30
Well, hey, let’s forget about all the climate changes in the geological past caused by non-anthropogenic, i.e. natural, factors, the world has entered a new period of its history where only humanity has now an influence on climate. Professor Lovejoy has pronounced on this and that will be good enough for the evening TV news bulletin. Lysenkoism has morphed and is alive and well.
240
He’s a professor?! Mr Lovejoy is the name of the script in Get Shorty which is only a distraction to the real script. I guess we could say the same here.
The dispute about how much AGW and Natural Variation [NV] contribute to temperature really started in earnest with the response to the McLean de Freitas Carter paper.
Right now Lovejoy is swimming against the tide in AGW with most AGW commentators accepting that NV is causing the temperature pause [sic]; see AR5;
And:
And surely AR5 is not suggesting only AGW works over the long term?
See also Nature :
NV is also the explanation if the World doesn’t warm from greenhouse gases.
101
What is strange is how the academics flock to this schlock and and drink it up.
130
Yes indeed !
They should stop drinking so much coolaid !!
41
The real stuff was called Flavor Aid.
30
The bottle label was sodium cyanide AR 500 grams Merck.
The labels are immaterial.
Re Professor Stanley, an eminent scientist, it would be more valuable to ask her to expand on her choice of forward approaches to climate change. There is little value in imagining her motivation. She is an achiever and should be respected as such.
It might be fruitful for Jo to invite an article from her. Do try not to spoil the possibility.
Geoff.
10
Their continued tenures and pay-packets depend on it.
60
As long as the present system of funding science continues and persists we are going to be stuck with this scientific “schlock”, as Hunter so politely describes it, in science of every type.
The current outpouring of scientific schlock is an image destroying characteristic of present day science which will ultimately lead to reducing of the respect for anything that is remotely connected to science of every type.
Science today is unique in the manner in which they are paid / funded compared to every other trade, commerce or pursuit.
In our capitalistic society you nearly always get paid AFTER you have produced the product be it intellectual or hard goods.
Science is in fact highly socialistic in the way it is financed with scientists and their support organisations ie; universities being paid BEFORE as per science funding, they have produced anything at all.
Nor are the scientists held to account financially if what they do actually produce as so called science is pure unmitigated garbage as we are seeing from Jo’s headline post.
[ Darned if I know why but I always think of the old Polish joke from when the Poles were under communism when science funding comes up’
“We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us” ]
So lets try a bit of alternative thinking on funding science, thinking which I think would draw howls of near terminal outrage from science and scientists if it was ever implemented.
The idea and concept is applicable to a wide range of science and scientists but not necessarily to the very large projects like astronomy, nuclear research such as CERN and other massive infrastructure requiring research projects but will still be most applicable to the likes of climate science.
And I certainly don’t expect that the idea below will be taken up unless science and the public’s discord with the direction much of science is taking today reaches a breaking point and the system of public trust in science just breaks completely down .
Then and only then will the real radical changes come about in science and it’s funding methods
So here are my ideas on the directions that the funding of science should take and the quite beneficial outcomes for science and for the public purse and public respect for science that would result if this funding strategy was to be implemented
_________________________________
1 / There is a known large in size, pool of research funding available which at present is distributed willy nilly to any scientist who can convince the funding bodies he / she needs funding to carry out some research project.
Such funding needs to convince the Funders that the funded scientist will come up with the [ pre-ordained ? ] results they claim to be researching.
And thats the big opening for corruption, intended or inadvertent under pressure, in today’s science.
2 / So instead of distributing this large pool of funds to individuals or co-operating groups of scientists, pay those scientists a very good stipend [ the use of the word “stipend” is deliberate as it allows complete freedom of action compared to a “wage” which is reward for doing a specific task ] and keep the bulk of that pool of science funding together.
3 / Scientists or groupings of scientists would then be in a situation just like the rest of the citizens in that if they want to progress in science with research or a research project they would have to approach banks and start up financiers for loans ; ie; they would have to back their intellect and scientific acumen to get financial backing for their research / project.
In short the imposition of a capitalistic financial frame work on the science industry just like any other industry in our capitalism based society.
4 / On completion of the project or even if it is very promising and needs further funding, the papers or interim papers on the science research / project would be written up and together with ALL the supporting data and could be presented for public review [ note the public review ] for some weeks minimum time following the presentation of the papers and supporting data.
5 / The structure of the way a paper would be publicly reviewed would be quite critical and I haven’t got that one figured out as to the suggested structure of the very wide collective of reviewers both public and scientific as yet.
The internet science denizens, both lay persons and scientists in their own rights are now doing most of that public reviewing of science papers already and they are pretty hard on anything that is not kosher in the reviewed science papers as we are all very aware of.
So there are precedents being set already on the manner in which science papers will be reviewed into the future.
6 / Subject to and following a positive public reviewing of the papers and data the research project participating scientists would receive their full funding and could repay the loans and perhaps make quite a nice tidy sum on the side as a reward for their efforts.
7 / Due to the undoubted failure of many sub standard research projects to get a positive review at the completion of their research [ see Jo’s headline post ] and therefore little or no post research funding from the pool, the allocation of funds out of the pool to the successful research projects would be considerably higher than at present with it’s shot gun approach to funding science research.
8 / Good research as in the real commercial world, would be generously rewarded.
In fact all researchers would have a very high inducement and incentive to present top quality research findings that would be positively reviewed in the public review process and therefore would be well rewarded both financially , reputationly and status enhancing.
9 / Scammers and poor performers, status hunters and the seriously bad scientists would be eliminated by the public reviewing of their science and the consequent lack of post research funding following negative reviews.
10 / The failure to publicly archive ALL supporting data would be severely penalised by the failure to pass public review and therefore that research would NOT be funded out of the pool leaving the researchers involved to find ways of repaying their personal funders.
11 / Research that adds significantly to our intellectual knowledge base would be rewarded and funded post review if it gets a good positive public review.
The post research funding under this suggested system would not penalise in any way those research projects that only produce intellectual knowledge as long as the public review process produced a positive finding for the submitted research and data.
_________________________________
And thats my thinking for the moment for what it is worth on the reforming and funding of all of science.
31
As a corollary to your comment about Polish scientists, there was another joke doing the rounds, “Why to the KGB go around in threes? One can read, another can write, and the third one is there to keep an eye on the intellectuals”.
I like what you propose, since it is payment for quality. Another metric, that might be useful in that regard, is payment based on the number of unique times a paper is cited, by any other researcher, in support of their findings (i.e. not a criticism).
10
Thannk you ROM,
Whether your cure or another, some dramatic action is pressing in need.
A kkey to me is a pair of related concets , ‘accountability’ and ‘delivering the goods’.
While not wanting to restrict complete intellectual freedom to do fundamental thinking, more aplied projects that receive funding for a given purpose should demonstrate that the purpose was achieved before it gets signed off. If the researcher did a poor job of work, should not a refund be in order?
10
Thanks Geoff
I guess what I am trying to do is to be a bit radical and bring some alternative thinking into the equation by trying to crack open the fixation in science and amongst the public that how science is currently funded is the best and only way that science can be funded.
The manner in which science, particularly and specifically climate science, the output and lack of accountability of which is beyond disgraceful, is a direct consequence of the way it is funded with little or no accountability at all for the quality of the intellectual material that is produced and the dodging of any proof for their claims through the complete refusal to provide back up data by many but far from all climate [ warming ] scientists.
[ Steve McIntyre [ Climate Audit ] has a whole lot of examples he has analysed over the last few years of deliberate data obfuscation and blatant refusals to archive any data by CAGW advocating scientists. ]
But still all that money from the pockets of those ordinary people in the street continues to flow to the rip offs in climate science.
.
And that needs to change and soon so as to bring an opening up and an increased level of public scrutiny and public accountability, as you say, to science, a scrutinizing and an accountability that no doubt would be done and is already being done as we are witnessing and participating in via the internet by an increasingly sophisticated and science orientated and even science trained sections of the public.
Probably Mao Zedong had the best quote for that although his methods were beyond brutal and beyond the pale.
To paraphrase Mao as I can’t find the original quote;
“Every now and then you need a good revolution to break up the old order and to bring change”.
And as we are discussing science specifically but applicable everywhere for all those who think that they are the best there is;
You cannot propel yourself forward by patting yourself on the back.
00
CO2 causes the rate of warming to drop.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/could-co2-have-lowered-the-rate-of-natural-warming/
130
Bruce: This will be the argument for CO2 abatement once the warmists figure out the planet isn’t actually warming and might be entering a cooling phase. At that point they will convert to coolism and become coolists.
81
Indur Goklany nailed this silly nonsense 4 years ago in a WUWT post. Here are the Phil Jones warming periods since 1860 and the trends. All are within an unmeasurable 0.01c or one hundredth of 1c. IOW they are the same, so where is the co2 impact? We’re told the impact from co2 is found after 1950, so why are the trends the same before 1950?
Here is the post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
161
Video!
Mrs. Lovejoy: “Won’t somebody please think of the children?”
61
Those people gave coolaid to the children first…
30
Certainty = 100 – Assumed Temperature Change
So I actually get a certainty of
100 – 0.03
Which equals 99.97 certainty (units hard to determine)
Can I have my grant money now?
90
Keith
I don’t think so.
You should know by now it takes more than 4 lines of text to get a ‘climate change’ grant.
The minimum figure is 6, with an advisory of 8 and a maximum of 10, or in exceptional circumstances 12.
Surely you realise by now these grant funds are only given after very careful consideration that the proposed subjects are worthy of investigation and/or more research, plus have passed the most important consideration of all of having their final results pre-approved by the Climate Establishment.
80
“Chance and randomness are not causes; they are not real, not physical entities, and therefore cannot be causes”
Taking strawman arguments to new levels (as he appears to be inferring that “deniers” are somehow claiming this?). Following his hilarious anti-logic: variations (like in the graph above) prior to the rise of human CO2 emissions must have been caused by “chance and randomness”, since humans weren’t making any significant contributions.
Climate Dynamics has sunk below tabloid in publishing such trash.
340
You have hit the nail on the head Dave, we will always get junk science no matter what the topic or the current fashionable cause the question is how can the junk science get passed peer review and then be published?
130
A bit of a tip that may be interesting
Seriously weird
Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty
“Significance
Very little is known about the biological foundations of immoral behavior. We report here the results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment showing that the hormone oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty. Compared with participants receiving placebo, participants receiving oxytocin lied more to benefit their groups, did so quicker, and did so without expectation of reciprocal dishonesty from their group members. A control setting ruled out that oxytocin drives self-serving dishonesty. These findings support the functional approach to morality and reveal the underlying biological circuitries associated with group-serving dishonesty. ”
It reminds me of an article from a while back
“Reporter: In the paper you also discuss the pharmacological enhancement of empathy and altruism, because empathy and altruism tend to be highly correlated with positive attitudes toward the environment. To me this one seems like it might be the most troubling. Isn’t it more problematic to do biological tinkering to produce a belief, rather than simply engineering humans so that they are better equipped to implement their beliefs?
Liao: Yes. It’s certainly ethically problematic to insert beliefs into people, and so we want to be clear that’s not something we’re proposing. What we have in mind has more to do with weakness of will. For example, I might know that I ought to send a check to Oxfam, but because of a weakness of will I might never write that check. But if we increase my empathetic capacities with drugs, then maybe I might overcome my weakness of will and write that check. ”
how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change
Its all getting a bit spooky
>
>
100
Interesting, CAGW could be moving towards a “Boys from Brazil” scenario, after reading some of the recent warmist rants anything’s possible.
70
All this time, I’ve been thinking that AGW hysteria could be explained by the long-term effects of mutagenic compounds in WWI poison gas, or some fungicidal/insecticidal chemical recently sprayed on ivy-covered academic walls.
This new possibility puts the insanity in a completely new light, and explains the spittle-spewing rants, the abandonment of logical thinking, the name-calling, the lock-step mentality, the violent images used to threaten skeptics. Warmists have all been poisoned.
Oddly, this is a hopeful hypothesis. It’s a much happier notion, that academics have not merely succumbed to outrageous greed, grant lust, or some self-perpetuating leftist meme, but are full of some toxic substance that, once removed from their diet, will be expelled in their urine, restoring them in time to sanity.
70
Or a rampant yeast infection – the whole lot smells fishy.
40
I’ll raise you a bit of spooky. Try this website: http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/
If the intent is to increase empathy and altruism, you need to strike at a point where individual’s will and ability for independent thought has not been fully established (ex: children). Further, to assist in achieving the desired state over time, nothing would beat driving these ideas home over and over for at least a decade (ex: school). There! Now you don’t have to engineer or drug the humans, you’ve done it psychologically and to a sufficient percentage of people to start getting some interesting results.
60
The greatest heresy for alarmists is the existence of natural climate cycles. So the Climate Establishment enforces the rule that they either do not exist or are irrelevant. Enforcement of this rule is down to the Climate Inquisition. Lovejoy is just another card carrying member of this organisation, which has dedicated itself to trying to stamp out the heresy.
The fact that natural climate cycles are self-evident, as demonstrated by the chart above and the geological record, is irrelevant to the Climate Establishment. The current ‘pause’ is just part of one of these cycles, so huge efforts are made by the Climate Establishment to demonstrate it either does not exist or is irrelevant. We are now in the satellite era, which is a curse to climate statistics’ gatekeepers, as the present era’s temperature figures cannot so easily be tortured/manipulated/homogenised, as has been demonstrably done with earlier figures, particularly those of GISS.
Does anyone honestly think there would have been a ‘pause’ without the satellites acting as policemen?
Would Lovejoy like to publicly debate his ‘findings’ with a leading sceptic? Not a chance, as alarmists have repeatedly demonstrated they really do not like having their ‘science’ sliced and diced in public.
Most sceptics accept CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and may be responsible for a part of the modest global temperature rise since 1950 (there was no way it was responsible for the two similar warming periods in the previous century), but that the climate’s sensitivity to changes in it is grossly overstated in ‘official’ models and projections. Many sceptics, like me, also believe the benefits from rising CO2 levels far outweigh any potential negatives.
As a scientist, all I can say to Lovejoy is that if you really believe things are that simple, then I have bridge to sell you.
250
“Does anyone honestly think there would have been a ‘pause’ without the satellites acting as policemen?”
No. If it hadn’t been for satellites they would have kept lying and lying and lying.
When caught out by the satellites what did they try and do? Cool the past to make temperature trends look steeper. Even the BoM was involved in this. They claim and equal number of warming and cooling adjustments to the historical data, but when you check, almost all the cooling adjustments were to pre 1950s temperatures.
Satellites have had an impact, but I would maintain that the Internet has been the most significant force in stopping this vile assault on science, reason, freedom and democracy.
One of the joys of the Internet is that it is keeping a permanent publicly accessible record of all who push this propaganda and vilified sceptics to silence them. Every UN kleptocrat, every socialist politician and every “progressive” journalist has managed to befoul themselves with the putrescent stain of global warming advocacy. What was supposed to be their ultimate “gotcha” moment against free-market democracy has instead blown up in their faces. All the worlds most useless people are now on the role of shame forever. Now Lovejoy is one more idiot on the list.
311
Konrad – I like it – “the putrescent stain of global warming advocacy” – wonderful!
110
Relax everybody. Its just EW and his automated paper-generator.
We’re on to you.
90
Such manipulations have been the standard since the start of CO2 mediated CAGW started. e.g.
In a paper submitted to the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski states, (reference 1) and (reference 2).
References –
1. 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods By Ermst-Georg Beck, Energy & Environment, Volume 18 No. 2 2007, Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd.
2. “Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski March 19, 2004.
Follow the links here for the references and more –
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=200
101
Links.
These relevant links are via a commentator @WUWT (Wayne Delbeke, April 15, 2014 at 6:57 pm):
WD-“At least some people are not totally focused on CO2 as “the” cause of climate change.”
This Pulsing Earth
John Nelson is a designer, well known for tracing complex weather patterns or cultural information on maps, so considering what he usually does, this was easy. NASA’s Visible Earth team publishes pictures of our planet every month of the year, so John thought, why not stitch them together, and see what the seasons look like from outer space?
So he stitched, and then looked.
These images are gripping.
What they show are the comings and goings of ice and snow.
It’s mostly a white pulse, more white, then less, then more again.
Our era — and you can see it on John’s map — is a beautiful in between, in a Goldilocks way, “not too hot, not too cold, just right.”
Every year when the Earth turns, snow in high places creeps down into our valleys covering us with white, and then, a few months later, it tiptoes back up again, giving us seasons of green and seasons of frost.
Pulsating planet: Superhot rocks make the Earth roll
The river valleys are in the North Sea, north of Scotland, beneath a kilometre of water and a further 2 kilometres of sediment.
The sea floor here has been slowly sinking ever since it formed. Yet 55 million years ago, something very strange happened.
In a geological blink of an eye the sea floor was thrust upwards nearly a kilometre, until it was high and dry above the waves.
It remained above the sea for about a million years, long enough for rainwater to carve deep valleys.
Then it sank down again. It all happened astonishingly fast.
The big question is why.
That idea that hot blobs exist in the mantle, the region between Earth’s crust and its core, is not new.
It has long been known that some parts of the Earth’s mantle are hotter than others.
. . .
80
A more sensible comment.
They have a period of about 50 years in the 19th century where the temperature rise is 0.1°C/decade according to the ice core data. This is about 10 times bigger than the most generous estimate for the last ten years (linear regression of satellite data plus 2SD) but they are 99% sure that it wasn’t natural? There is a 250 year period that shows a natural climb of 1.4°C/decade when 1% of the current population burnt no fossil fuels.
70
Jo,
I knew this paper wouldn’t last but I can’t wait to get your take on the “Moths are thriving so there must be some hidden force protecting them from global warming” paper
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/15/climate-craziness-of-the-week-oh-noes-moths-affected-by-hidden-factors-of-climate-change/
90
Moths like the mice are pan-dimensional beings sent here to monitor humans and the mice. They report back to the legendary planet of Magrathea personally every 10-15 minutes depending on the weather on earth. That is why people think there are so many of them.
91
Very close Tom but it’s not Magrathea that they’re reporting back to; that planet ceased to exist 4.5 Billion years ago.
It’s the moth-er ship that receives their missives.
Have a mice day.
(I’ll get my coat:)
90
For that one Roy al I can muster is; Duh!
80
15 April: Bloomberg: Tino Andressen: Coal Returns to German Utilities Replacing Lost Nuclear
The story of German power giant RWE AG exemplifies the crisis facing the nation’s utility industry — and those of many countries across Europe — as nuclear power plants get shuttered in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, renewables steal away revenue, and consumers and companies complain about rising power costs that are three times higher than in the U.S.
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision in 2011 to shutter all 17 of Germany’s nuclear power stations by 2022 struck a blow to RWE’s profit stream, particularly for a company that has almost no presence in renewables…
The Essen-based company, founded in 1898 to produce power for Germany’s industrial heartland, has had no choice except to ramp up production from its profitable coal-fired plants, most of which burn lignite…
The result: RWE now generates 52 percent of its power in Germany from lignite, up from 45 percent in 2011. And RWE isn’t alone. Utilities all over Germany have ramped up coal use as the nation has watched the mix of coal-generated electricity rise to 45 percent last year, the highest level since 2007…
RWE’s plight frames a larger story of how coal — thought to be doomed as the continent attempts a shift toward a fossil-fuel free future — is rising in Germany and across Europe as countries seek to re-balance their green ambitions with economic reality…
Annett Urbaczka, an RWE spokeswoman, said the turn to lignite had been forced on the company because it’s the only fuel that can compete given the preference awarded to renewables under Germany’s market rules.
Many are convinced that there are too many forces pushing against coal for its comeback to last. Europe can’t afford to keep coal-fired plants going and meet stringent targets to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.
Germany’s environment minister has proposed reducing the number of carbon emission permits in Europe to increase the cost of burning coal. Last month, the government in RWE’s home state of North Rhine-Westphalia moved to limit digging at a lignite mine owned by the company…
“RWE can’t rely on conditions for lignite not to deteriorate politically,” Michael Vassiliadis, president of IG BCE, a union that represents thousands of RWE workers, said in an interview. “Almost all activities come with political risks attached.” …
The company is pressing ahead with plans to build a 1,100-megawatt plant at Niederaussem, near Germany’s border with Belgium. Planned to start operation in 2018, if it gets the final go-ahead it will cost cash-strapped RWE 1.5 billion euros ($2.1 billion) to build.
It’s not a strategy that convinces RWE’s work force, which has shrunk by 30,000 since 1998, said Hans Peter Lafos, a trade union representative and RWE supervisory board member. He blames both management and politician’s for the company’s predicament.
“The staff’s hope that anything turns around for the better has gone,” he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-14/coal-rises-vampire-like-as-german-utilities-seek-survival.html
U.N. carbon prices to remain at record lows until 2020 -Point Carbon
LONDON, April 15 (Reuters) – United Nations-backed carbon prices are likely to remain below their generation cost until the end of the decade as supply of the credits has already outstripped demand, analysts at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon said…
https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4861370?&ref=searchlist
40
as much as i support coal, my heart goes out to the families & friends of these two miners:
15 April: SBS: NSW mine workers named as recovery operation continues
The pair were two of eight miners working 500 metres below the surface at the Austar Coal Mine in Paxton, about 10km south of Cessnock, when a wall collapsed at about 9.15pm on Tuesday.
Police have named the two men as 35-year-old Philip Grant of Metford and 49-year-old Jamie Mitchell of Aberdare.
A delicate recovery operation is set to begin later on Wednesday to bring out the bodies of two coal miners killed in an underground mine collapse…
The other miners tried to save their workmates before having to leave the mine because of safety fears…
Supt Dell said safety issues and the difficult location of the accident meant it was going to be challenging to retrieve the bodies.
He said it could take a number of days…
All mining production has been stopped at the site…
NSW Resources Minister Anthony Roberts said lessons had to be learnt from the accident…
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/04/15/nsw-mine-workers-named-recovery-operation-continues
50
Hmm, using a similar statistical analysis I’d like to know the likelihood of CO2 being the overwhelming climate forcing factor while rising from 365 ppm to 395 ppm yet having absolutely no effect on the global temperature.
80
Also, Kevin Trenbrerth reckons that the IPCC position of overwhelming human influence on the global temperature should be the null hypothesis.
50
manalive,
You’re right of course. But…
The “fact” that the Earth is getting warmer and warmer is accepted dogma with these people. It ceased to be a theory (hypothesis if you prefer) years ago and is now a fact by definition. So what null hypothesis is even possible anymore? “Facts” are impervious to argument and debate. If you’re standing in the sunshine, no argument anyone can make will convince you that it’s nighttime. And that’s pretty close to the magnitude of the problem as far as I can see.
You and I may be convinced they’re wrong but there’s no convincing them of that. Never mind that the real null hypothesis is that the Earth is not warming because of CO2.
This kind of intellectual dishonesty, once most often found in politics, is now firmly embedded in science as well.
70
The Conversation finds the perfect man to downplay & rationalise the IPCC’s fracking/nuclear endorsements; a mere 8 bother to comment:
15 April: The Conversation: IPCC changes its tune on gas as way to mitigate climate change
by DONG Energy Professor of Renewable Energy at Durham University.
(FROM PROFILE) Janusz has been a consultant to the UK government, International Energy Agency, European Commission, Scottish Government, ***Elexon, Polish Power Grid Company, Scottish Power and Enron…
Disclosure: Janusz Bialek receives funding from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Durham University provides funding as a Founding Partner of The Conversation.
The perceived depletion of fossil fuels globally was one of the additional reasons for the IPCC previously advocating a switch away from fossil fuels. But the shale gas revolution in the US and the growth of unconventional hydrocarbons has shown that oil and gas reservoirs are far from extinct. Indeed, the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook report for 2011 spoke of the “Golden Age of Gas”.
An abundance of cheap gas not only puts severe competitive pressure on renewables and nuclear, it also offers a short-term bridge to a low carbon future, as producing electricity from gas gives of about half the CO2 emissions of coal. As coal is still a dominant fuel source in many countries in the world – notably in China and India – switching to gas would reduce their CO2 emissions considerably and at much lower costs than switching to renewables, as it did in USA…
This is a welcome departure from a principled but very expensive and therefore unrealistic position of dismissing gas to a more realistic one of accepting it as a cheaper “lesser evil”…
What about nuclear?
Nuclear was previously seen as an important low-carbon technology…
The latest report therefore recommends that nuclear power can make an “increasing contribution to low-carbon energy supply”, though this is not without its ill-effects on the environment. It also goes to show why there is more emphasis on gas as a short-term bridge in the latest report…
http://theconversation.com/ipcc-changes-its-tune-on-gas-as-way-to-mitigate-climate-change-25635
***ELEXON administers the wholesale electricity balancing and settlement arrangements for Great Britain. This affects all of Great Britain’s electricity users, some 28 million customers, and the energy companies that generate and supply the electricity.
20
Sigh… somewhere on the internet must be an explanation for the science of ‘CO2 forcing‘. Anybody know of a link? All my studies find that CO2 in the atmosphere is a cooling agent.
Exactly what does this equation mean with relation to the science of electromagnetic radiation?
“”anthropogenic warming and (effective) climate sensitivity finding: ΔT anth = 0.87 ± 0.11 K, λ2xCO2,eff=3.08±0.58K .””
And why ‘effective’? Is the author stating this is guesswork?
70
Yep! “Effective” , The cop out if he gets too much flak for the statement.
“Effective” climate sensitivity as in pure guess as climate sensitivity is still not known within about 2 or 3 C with observational evidence now suggesting that it is around 1.3C per doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 levels.
The last decade has seen a consistent downward trend in climate sensitivity estimates even down to 0.9C claims in a couple of cases based on observational evidence such as can be ascertained from the data.
Theory has it that if climate sensitivity is below about 1.1C then it gets lost and can no longer be measured due to the natural noise of the climate temperature variations.
Over 25 years of major climate research, close on a trillion dollars of the tax payer’s hard earned spent on climate related research and climate mitigation, hundreds of climate modellers, hundreds of millions of lines of code, tens of millions of internet posts, thousands of science papers and they still DONT KNOW the most important figure, that of an accurate climate sensitivity number, a climate sensitivity degree number that is so basic that it underliese every single claim of a dangerously warming planet and will prove or disprove the whole [ fraudulent ? ] CAGW meme
The IPCC has gone all coy about climate sensitivity in it’s latest AR5 but still shambles and stumbles around the figures of about 2 or 3 C without being at all decided / decisive on the number unlike past lIPCC climate sensitivity numbers where they were most definite nd confident they had the climate sensitivity number down pat and only had to tweak a bit of data to prove they knew their science
And it all turned out to be unprovable despite a lot of “tweaking” of the numbers and therefore wrong and / or incorrect and the IPCC has had to eat crow this time around in the AR5.
And that is being be very generous to the IPCC.
70
Has anyone ever assembled a rigorous uncertainty budget of the global temperature figures quoted so widely in all these papers?
I used to run a UKAS-accredited temperature calibration laboratory. Using extremely delicate platinum resistance thermometers in very well-stirred baths, with sophisticated resistance measuring bridges with regular calibration checks, all done in a temperature-controlled room, we could claim 0.005K measurement uncertainty. Based on the same principles, for practical temperature measurement “in the field” using more robust instruments we could claim 0.1K. The way global temperatures are quoted: to two, and sometimes even three, decimal places, never ceases to amaze me. And a tiny change, which must be well within the measurement uncertainty, is taken to be significant!
But of course many people do not appreciate the concept of uncertainty and if one number is bigger than another one, politically, if not scientifically, it works. And in this debate the politics is all.
190
Willam Briggs says;
Since the variations in the so called Global Temperature are larger than the estimated increase, how can we be sure that anything has changed at a Global Level. The measure of our ignorance is greater than the supposed change since 1880.
60
How stupid are the Greens?
Caught forever on the internet are some of the most ignorant comments ever uttered.
Australians for Coal campaign fires up protesters instead of supporters
Scott Ludlam ✔ @SenatorLudlam
i am bored with the coastlines being where they are and wish there was more violent weather and thats why i’m supporting #australiansforcoal
DavidW2035 @DavidW2035
Because I hate breathing fresh air, eating food and drinking clean water I’m with #australiansforcoal
. . .
Now to mock the hypocritical, ignorant green idiots caught in that web.
learnelectricity
Presently 89 per cent of Australia’s electricity is generated from burning fossil fuels, 74 per cent from coal and 15 per cent from natural gas.
Renewable energy is used to generate 11 per cent of electricity.
Of those renewable energy sources hydropower is the biggest contributor contributing around 6 per cent of total electricity.
The remaining 5 per cent comes from a mix of sources including wind, bioenergy and rooftop solar.
50
He uses the same distorted and selective proxy data on the hockeystick to first show that there is little variation in the past due to natural causes, meaning that any current variation must be AGW.
It’s the hockeystick thing all over again, if you use the wrong input data to start with, you get the wrong result. The hockeystick was designed to show little variation in temperature in the past due to natural causes, so you get little variation in natural causes when you use it analyse recent years, its proving the assumption.
60
It’s Obvious.
When you look at the graph above it is obvious that the uptick in temperature is due to industrialization of our society;
just like all the other, and often more substantial, upticks that can be seen over the last 10,000 years.
Obviously many past civilisations have flourished and then disappeared in a haze of CO2 and it seems that we are headed in the same direction as the other fourteen or so:
UNLESS WE ACT NOW AND STOP BURNING THAT DEVILISHLY DANGEROUS FOSSIL FUEL.
KK
🙂
110
Hear, hear.
Or is it, Here, here? I can never remember. Do you suppose my computer model may be malfunctioning, Keith? 😉
60
Hi Roy,
Funny I have been thinking about that for a while now.
Life’s not that simple.
There are other possibilities of course.
Hear here ?
KK 🙂
My own interp is “here”, as in ” I am standing here and I agree”? but who knows.
30
KK,
Perhaps since comments on this blog are all written it really should be, “See See.” What do you think?
10
Originally it was “hear,hear” as in let everyone hear what is being said.
But I think it was Bill Cosby who changed it to here, here
http://youtu.be/7bgIlHUOojs
10
It should be spelt “Hear Hear”.
It comes from the British Parliament, which is actually a very noisy place, with several side conversations going on, even when somebody is making a speech, as part of a debate. When somebody, who was listening to the speech, wanted others to listen, because they felt a good point was being made, they would shout that phrase out to attract the attention of others. It is one of the few interjections allowed, under Parliamentary rules, along with the word, “Shame”, when the speaker is pointing out something that the Government has not done well.
Now, I am sure that I haven’t explained that well enough, so we will now hear from the Parliamentary proceedings pedants …
20
Thanks RW
That has been something that has genuinely caught my attention over the last few months and now a good explanation.
No doubt Roy, when he wakes up in California in few hours time and maybe sees this, will also be pleased that this is now resolved.
KK
🙂
10
People wake up, in California? Wow! What a concept? When I worked there, people came out of whatever made them unconscious.
10
Rereke,
A good many still do come out of whatever made them unconscious the evening before. But some of us are more sober. As evidence of that, I was surprised a couple of days ago to see Dear Governor Jerry Brown expressing doubt about legalizing marijuana in California. So even Governor Moonbeam sometimes wakes up. I hope it’s enough to stop the legalization movement. But I doubt it will do more than slow it down a little.
20
I shall endeavor to get it right the next time.
00
Unfortunately you are also a minority. And hence why you have the government you do.
10
Phil,
I don’t mind your sticking the knife in. But did you have to twist it too? 😉
20
Sorry Roy. Half my family lives there as well (Imperial Valley). I have to scream sometimes to keep my sanity.
00
Phil,
I fully understand the need to scream sometimes. Just don’t twist the knife. 🙂
10
I thought the saying originated from Shakespeare…”Friends, Romans, countrymen and all that.
Hear, hear=listen, listen.
10
No Scaper
It’s “lend me your EARS”
KK
🙂
00
Yeah, I know the rest. Been a hard week and my typing (middle) finger is injured.
10
Then you should be more careful where you stick it, in future.
10
Picture a tunnel wound half way to the wrist commencing at the webbing between the fingers.
We are all the same under the skin.
OUCH!
00
So what do you have in that bag, KK?
KK: A bag of ears.
20
I’ve really had an earful of this .
Or as some of RWs cockneys would say:
ear ear.
KK
11
From what I’ve seen of the British Parliament on our CSPAN network, noisy is an understatement. It looks plain old disorderly. Or is it plane old… Well, never mind. It’s too early in the morning again. 😉
About all I can say is to each his own. We don’t do any better here, just differently.
10
for the record –
no mention of IPCC report and/or the nuclear/fracking endorsements on last nite’s 7.30 report or lateline. maybe tonite?
no article on the report or the endorsements from Peter Hannam at Fairfax, no criticism of the endorsements at Fairfax in general.
still no articles from any CAGW NGO criticising the above endorsements.
what a farce. how can the public be informed?
40
Which is presumably how the IPCC managed to claim increased confidence of AGW when the world had not actually warmed significantly (or even cooled) since the previous report.
Thus they could say they were “increasingly confident”, about a much smaller likely effect. They just forgot to mention the second half of the last sentence, that’s all. I’m sure they’ll apologise later.
30
I was reading this paper over at Phys.Org
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-warming-hypothesis-percent.html
Very impressive to have a certainty of 99.9% what worries me with those stats is that it is either 100% or nothing.
Something is either right 100% or its not.We are not discussing ethics, nor philosophy it is supposed to be science.
Apart from that the phyorg (cyborg?) site is the usual running dog claptrap of Trotskyite tree huggers. Some nice pics in the Science section but mostly slanted news where one would expect that if a frog took a dump in the Amazon it was the result of CAGW.
40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw
sorry if you have all seen this before but it is an eye opener on certainty.
Dr Pierre-marie Robitaille
Way over my head ,but illuminating=pun.
40
“Odds that global warming is due to natural factors: Slim to none”
Could be right as Roy Spencer hypothesises:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/do-aliens-cause-global-warming-the-data-say-yes/#comments
50
Llew,
That’s the best I’ve read recently. Thanks for putting it up.
I’ve never met Dr. Spencer and probably never will. But I just learned that he has a fantastic sense of humor.
Good on ya, Roy Spencer!
I had never seen this Mark Twain quote until now,
But I’ve noticed the same thing — broad sweeping conclusions from data sometimes devoid of any real substance (like model output).
30
Mark Twain was not fooled easily!
I can scarce believe that no one has mentioned;
Also attributed to Twain
30
– Mark Twain: Pudd’nhead Wilson’s Calendar
00
Since the RSS satellite over the 21st century shows statistically significant LT cooling over time: P-value 4.2% independent of carbon (sic), does that mean we have to accept global cooling as fact? Does this remove the remaining deniers of science?
60
His data does not support his conclusion, unless he first manipulates the data. In order to derive that degree of certainty, he has to have accuracy to a hundredth of a degree for time prior to 1880 (one point does not a trend make, and his claim is since 1880).
Again, where are the competent scientists who are supposed to review this stuff BEFORE it gets published? Cold Fusion strikes again.
60
Phil, you have it right but your perspective is somewhat wrong. This has no doubt been peer reviewed but the “science” is political science and the specialty is propaganda.
You need perspective correcting glasses my friend.
50
No, just a slap in the face. Thanks for that. I agree. It is Polisci, not science. Polisci is an oxymoron. There is no science in politics. But lots of propaganda.
10
For a minute there I thought you were implying that Cold Fusion was going on in their heads and disrupting everything. Then I thought, “Hey, maybe those heads are a plausible energy source. “Finally, a useful purpose for all these climate scientists and their entourage,” was racing all through my mind… …and then I woke up. It was all a dream.
40
Your dream is better than their reality.
00
Phil,
If that’s the case I need a way to get back to the precise state where I had the dream. Any suggestions? 😉
00
Drink a nice hot mug of milk before bed time. 😉
(Well, that is what my mama told me!)
00
Hot eggnog with a shot of Southern Comfort. My mama didn’t tell me that one but it sure goes down easy. It’s a wonderful addition to the evening, sitting there with your sweetheart by your side, a little romantic music playing… …I better quit while I’m ahead.
Unfortunately I have Southern Comfort taste and a beer bank account. Don’t know exactly what to do about that. 🙁
00
@Roy – Moonshine! 😉
10
these graphs need to be printed again and again.
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/953/155/original.jpg
30
Lovejoy must have made in his test two standard assumptions, that the null hypothesis is true, and the data is a random sample. We may also conclude that the probability is less than one percent that his data were randomly obtained. This conclusion is usually forgotten but is in this case a plausible candidate as the data were selected from the present era about we became totally obsessed.
50
Why does the scale “years before present” start at 95?
That aside, the green trend line shows a disturbing trend towards an ice age scenario.
30
As the temperature record has been “adjusted” upwards with historical data adjusted downwards – the chances this adjustment was due to “natural factors” is slim to none.
Therefore I have to reluctantly agree with Shaun Lovejoy.
50
So Fading Fool , I would suggest in 6 months time , you will be transparent fool and in a year or two invisible fool ,at least I can hope.
30
Why do we have to continue to listen to these buffoons? If global temperatures were steadily increasing as CO2 increased then there might be a case to answer – but it’s not. After ten years of following this BS I’ve had enough of reading and listening to these politically, ideologically, materially motivated so called scientists espousing their ridiculous justifications for an unproven, unsubstantiated theory. With all due respect to Joanne, Anthony etc, the battle is over, your fantastic websites should no longer be needed.
It’s time for these “climate scientists” to go back to being boring old university research scientists and lecturers, the media should no longer chase them, their funding should be relative to their scientific contribution and they should get back to teaching budding young scientists which is what I assume they originally set out to do.
As Monty Python put it:
” ‘E’s not pinin’! ‘E’s passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! ‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies! ‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig! ‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!”
60
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/apr/16/first-dog-greg-hunt
I think the above is directed at Australians because I do not know the references.
Since I am banned ,for the second time, I cannot respond , but its nice to see with Easter coming up that the religionists are having a great time in their covered wagons with nary a redskin to poke fun at them.
50
As a former boss once said to me, “Figures lie and liars figure.” Numbers are either a blessing or a curse, depending on how credible the people behind the numbers are.
Our job is to try to tell the difference. It’s a test, folks. Really, it’s just a test. Your score will be announced shortly. So in the meantime, Jo, don’t despair. You’re doing fine.
If this had been reality you would have heard an announcement telling you what to do. But since it wasn’t reality we’re all free to imagine these [your preferred description goes here] doing [let your imagination fill in the rest here]. 😉
50
PS:
I was never a statistics heavyweight. But it doesn’t take all that much to realize that even supposing the premise is correct and the probability of natural variation is as low as they say, a lucky hit on natural variation is entirely possible.
All that is just a (too) verbose way to say, don’t trust statistics unless reality backs them up.
50
I realized someone might notice this so I need to add, that for anyone to take any of this so-called science seriously would require spending a lot of your intellectual capital to buy into the global warming idea in the first place.
The real issue is that the probability of that happening is virtually zero. If you can’t find anything to convince you that warming is happening then natural variation is the default position and the burden of proof falls on the models and the modelers as it always has.
40
A good re-statement of the scientific base point.
KK
10
Roy are you suggesting one must go insane to understand inanity 😉
Thinking of being in a certain “state of mind” I came across a documentary on past Governor of California Pat Brown and what your thoughts are on his political life, he seemed like a man that actually did something and not just talk about doing something.
00
No. But I sometimes think it would help.
I suspect the real problem is that sanity and insanity have to be judged by the behavior of the majority of humans. And what is there to tell us that the majority is sane? Where is the dividing line? We may all be nuts and not know it. 😉
Pat Brown’s term in office was a long time ago, I was a young man at the time and not particularly moved to follow politics. But the answer to your question is that he did a much better job than his son without a doubt.
00
Looks to me there have been many far more rapid and much larger rises in temperature in the past. So, what’s the problem? Besides, the valid comment has been made many times before it would be beneficial for the world’s average temperature to rise a little. Imagine if the so called AGW weren’t true (and by and large it’s not). Temperatures today would be much lower if it were true, which would be catastrophic for some of us. Possibly many more millions of people would be dying due to lack of food supplies. I think it’s time we push the agenda that we need to raise the world’s temperature a little for the benefit of mankind. Imagine the screams for the AGW alarmists. I’d say stuff them – we have true science to support our side.
20
Woops! I meant to say “…if the so called AGW were true….”
10
“Things are so utterly preposterous we recognize these papers are a form of satire. We just wonder when the authors will get the joke?”
Unfortunately, it’s not just the authors. The satire is accomplished through the tacit support of the scientific establishment and its liaisons to the public, Science, Nature, and government agencies like CSIRO, who provide a self serving stamp of authority.
The charade will end when the wider public sees the light.
Keep up the good work.
20
Models need to be able to predict the past before they can be certain about the future.
We have reasonably good data for the last 2,000 years, enough to talk of the Roman warming, Medieval warming, Maunder minimum and more. We have well known events like Krakatoa and Vesuvius and Mt.St. Helens many more along with atom bomb blasts and other events which should leave a trace in the record. So before anyone starts talking about certainty in their modelling, why not ask them to accurately explain the immediate past first with the wisdom of hindsight, especially the effect of big events like Krakatoa which affected the weather world wide for two years. Mann pretty much used a straight line for his hockey stick handle derived from his one tree.
The point is that if we cannot explain the immediate past with no fossil fuel CO2, how can we be so certain that we understand the future with such certainty? I do not care which washing machine model is used for the circulation of air and water, or radiation model or earth effects model or assumptions in general. At the very least, explain the Suess effect, where the total C14 in the atmosphere was only diluted 2% up to 1950 when fossil fuels have no C14? That alone tells you man made CO2 vanishes immediately, but perhaps that is just too simple and obvious?
20
Sure the only concern, the only proposition is that fossil fuel CO2 is warming the planet?
All this modeling is interesting and pointless if this is not true. This can follow if the increase in CO2 is not due to fossil fuels, the planet is not warming now or the increased CO2 does not cause warming anyway or all three.
So how certain is anyone that the extra 50% of CO2 is from fossil fuel? I have read nothing which proves this apart from the declaration that it is ‘obvious’ or the IPCC said so. So aggressive defences of unlikely and complex models of the whole planet make no sense if the basic proposal that fossil fuel CO2 is a problem is not itself true.
20
.
Jo!
I know youre a busy lady and its hard to get your attention, but I think you will find this short article interesting.
http://theconversation.com/from-conspiracy-theories-to-climate-denial-a-cognitive-psychologist-explains-25731
It starts off talking about why people believe in conspiracy theories, but in no time its all turned towards climate change and us loony conspiracy theory climate change deniers.
10
Lovejoy’s equation (5) has exactly one explanatory variable,
a time series of the log of the ratio of atmospheric CO2 at time t to atmospheric CO2 of pre-industrial times. That’s it. He wants to prove that global temperature is a function of CO2 only so that’s the only variable he puts in the equation.
The dependent variable is global temperature. His figure 3a says it all. The vertical distance between the mean global temperature and the predicted global temperature is the estimated error. The estimated errors from an ordinary least squares regression have a mean of zero, by construction. Since Lovejoy interprets the residuals as estimates of natural variability, he is implicitly forcing natural variability to have a mean of zero. Why? Also note from figure 3a that there are long runs of errors with the same sign. While that may be true for natural variability, in a regression it is evidence of an incorrect model. Also note the apparent heteroskedasticity of the errors — larger variance at the low end of the concentration ratio than at the high end.
Ordinary Least Squares produces unbiased and consistent estimates only if certain conditions are met. One of them is
the requirement that the error term is “iid”: independent and identically distributed. Again this a condition that Lovejoy is trying to force on natural variability. Why?
His statistical model is so obviously flawed that his claims regarding probabilities should not be taken seriously.
60
ABC’s 7.30 report/lateline/lateline business still not reporting IPCC’s nuclear/fracking endorsements, but has air-time for this:
17 April: ABC Breakfast: Health impacts of climate change being politically ignored: Stanley
Professor Fiona Stanley is one of Australia’s most respected paediatricians and public health experts.
She’s now retired, become a grandmother and this week launched a withering attack on climate science denial…
(CO-BENEFITS)But the medical profession had also failed to sell the ‘health co-benefits’ of individual and community action on climate change.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/former-australian-of-the-year-attacks-climate-sceptics/5396302
Hickman makes no mention of nuclear/fracking endorsements:
14 April: Guardian: Leo Hickman: IPCC report: the scientists have done their bit, now it is up to us
The world must seize this remaining opportunity and act upon the timely roadmap that climate scientists have provided for us
(CO-BENEFITS)What the IPCC admitted it could not include in its economic assessments were all those co-benefits that are delivered by switching to clean energy systems…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/apr/14/ipcc-report-scientists-world-seize-opportunity-roadmap
video in the comments claims solar is the “least intermittent” energy!
16 April: Grist: John Upton: No, the IPCC climate report doesn’t call for a fracking boom
These interpretations of the report are exaggerated, lack context, and are just plain wrong…
(CO-BENEFITS)The energy chapter highlights “co-benefits” from the use of renewable energy…
http://grist.org/news/no-the-ipcc-climate-report-doesnt-call-for-a-fracking-boom/
no-one mentions nuclear, except one of only two who comment on the article; only the Guardian writer mentions fracking:
15 April: Guardian: Laura Paddison: Climate change report: reactions to the final instalment of the IPCC analysis
The final UN report on climate change was released today. We round up some of the reactions from business to academia
Here are the key points from the report…
Fracking could be an important intermediary measure as the energy mix moves to become cleaner, but only if coal is abandoned…
The World Resources Institute’s Kelly Levin and C Forbes Tompkins:
(CO-BENEFITS)Furthermore, the report finds that there are significant “co-benefits” of reducing emissions
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/2014/apr/14/climate-change-report-reactions-to-the-final-instalment-of-the-ipcc-analysis
00
19 April: The Economist: Another week, another report
Options for limiting climate change are narrowing
THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a gathering of scientists who advise governments, describes itself as “policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral”. Its latest report, the third in six months, ignores that fine distinction. Pressure from governments forced it to strip out of its deliberations a table showing the link between greenhouse gases and national income, presumably because this made clear that middle-income countries such as China are the biggest contributors to new emissions. It also got rid of references to historical contributions, which show that rich countries bear a disproportionate responsibility. That seems more like policy-based evidence than evidence-based policy and bodes ill for talks on a new climate-change treaty, planned to take place in Paris next year…
The IPCC still thinks it might be possible to hit the emissions target by tripling, to 80%, the share of low-carbon energy sources, such as solar, wind and nuclear power, used in electricity generation. It reckons this would require investment in such energy to go up by $147 billion a year until 2030 (and for investment in conventional carbon-producing power generation to be cut by $30 billion a year). In total, the panel says, the world could keep carbon concentrations to the requisite level by actions that would reduce annual economic growth by a mere 0.06 percentage points in 2100.
These numbers look preposterous. Germany and Spain have gone further than most in using public subsidies to boost the share of renewable energy (though to nothing like 80%) and their bills have been enormous: 0.6% of GDP a year in Germany and 0.8% in Spain…
Moreover, the assumptions used to calculate long-term costs in the models are, as Robert Pindyck of the National Bureau of Economic Research, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, put it, “completely made up”. In such circumstances, estimates of the costs and benefits of climate change in 2100 are next to useless. Of the IPCC’s three recent reports, the first two (on the natural science and on adapting to global warming) were valuable. This one isn’t.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600967-options-limiting-climate-change-are-narrowing-another-week-another-report
00
16 April: Scientific American: Nuclear Power Also Needed to Combat Climate Change
The rise of renewables helps, but in order to eliminate fossil-fuel pollution nuclear power is also required, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
By Nathanael Massey and ClimateWire
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-also-needed-to-combat-climate-change/
16 April: The Progressive: Harvey Wasserman: UN Panel: Renewables, Not Nukes, Can Solve Climate Crisis
(Harvey Wasserman edits http://www.nukefree.org and wrote SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth.)
The oil companies and atomic reactor backers have dismissed the ability of renewables to provide humankind’s energy needs.
But the IPCC confirms that green technologies, including efficiency and conservation, can in fact handle the job—at a manageable price…
Some climate scientists have recently advocated atomic energy as a solution to global warming. But their most prominent spokesman, Dr. James Hansen, also expresses serious doubts about the current generation of reactors, including Fukushima, which he calls “that old technology.”
Instead Hansen advocates a new generation of reactors.
But the designs are untested, with implementation schedules stretching out for decades. Financing is a major obstacle as is waste disposal and widespread public opposition, now certain to escalate with the IPCC’s confirmation that renewables can provide the power so much cheaper and faster.
With its 15-year deadline for massive carbon reductions the IPCC has effectively timed out any chance a new generation of reactors could help.,,
http://progressive.org/content/un-panel-renewables-not-nukes-can-solve-climate-crisis
00
14 April: ClimateNewsNetwork: Alex Kirby: IPCC tries a gamble with shale gas
If you support fracking, you should be pleased with the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). It’s given the green light to the use of shale gas as a short-term way to slow climate change…
On shale gas, obtained by the controversial fracking process, Ottmar Edenhofer – co-chair of the working group that produced the report – said it was quite clear that the fuel “can be very consistent with low carbon development and decarbonisation”…
Some critics will conclude that the IPCC’s search for a bridging strategy to move us rapidly to a world of clean energy has scored an own goal by failing to rule out a fuel which entails a large and avoidable increase in greenhouse emissions. The cost of the infrastructure needed to exploit shale gas on a large scale may also work to prolong its use…
http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2014/04/ipcc-tries-a-gamble-with-shale-gas/
00
16 April: Reason: John Stossel (Fox News): Earth Daze: Overcoming Environmental Hysteria
Environmentalism is now more religion than science
http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/16/earth-daze-and-environmental-hysteria?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FArticles+(Reason+Online+-+All+Articles+(except+Hit+%26+Run+blog
00
16 April: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: Psychology: A Risk Analyst Explains Why Climate Change Risk Misperception Doesn’t Necessarily Matter
David Ropeik, the risk communication consultant and author of “How Risky is it, Really? Why Our Fears Don’t Always Match the Facts,” had some concerns about the way I characterized our “inconvenient minds” in my TEDx talk in Portland, Ore., over the weekend.
He’s right, of course. The 19-minute presentation on how, with sustained work, we’re a perfect fit for a complicated, consequential century was necessarily oversimplified. Here’s his “Your Dot” piece filling in many blanks, and noting that no one should presume better climate change communication is the path to action on global warming…
DAVID ROPEIK: But this brings me to the second and more profound issue. Most climate change communication, like Showtime’s Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science’s What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale’s Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMETHING!
***But I’m just not sure how much public concern matters. I don’t know how much we need to care how much people care. Bear in mind this heresy comes from someone who has worked directly on climate change communication in many ways, and will continue to. (I recently had the opportunity to help write the FAQs of IPCC Working Group 2, presenting their findings in language non-scientists can comprehend…
We’d have to feel we were at war — bullets-flying, bombs-dropping, buildings-burning and body-bags real, live, NOW “I am in Danger” war — before public concern about climate change would grow strong enough to drive those sorts of actions. The psychology of risk perception warns against the naive hope that we can ever achieve that level of concern with effective communication, but even if it is possible, we are just not going to get there in time, a point made dramatically by the latest IPCC Working Group 3 report. They recommend to policy makers that time is very short before we lock the system into a future likely to produce much more disastrous damage.
***Those policy makers, our leaders, are going to have to act, even without a huge public mandate. On Monday, Robert Stavins, director of Harvard’s Environmental Economics Program and a co-author of the IPCC WG 3 report, said this on the OnPoint radio program:
“This bottom up demand which normally we always want to have and rely on in a representative democracy, is in my view unlikely to work in the case of climate change policy as it has for other environmental problems…. It’s going to take enlightened leadership, leaders that take the lead.”
And they are. The Obama Administration has put a price on carbon by regulating emissions from power plants. Germany’s Energewiende program is trying, not without problems, to convert Europe’s biggest economy to renewable energy. China and India are pouring billions into nuclear energy. Nations and U.S. states and communities are creating feed-in tariffs and incentives to encourage production of renewable energy. (Ergo the soalr panels I just put on my roof!)…
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/a-risk-analyst-explains-why-climate-change-risk-misperception-doesnt-necessarily-matter/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
00
unattributed:
16 April: New Scientist: We can’t be too fussy when it comes to green energy
ATOMKRAFT? Nein danke! Germans have long taken a dim view of nuclear power. In 2011, they finally renounced nuclear altogether, preferring to build up other low-carbon power sources.
So how is the plan working out? Germany is certainly greener than many industrialised nations. But in order to keep the lights on, it is burning huge amounts of lignite, a filthy fossil fuel (see “German energy crisis points towards climate solution”)…
That might not itself foil Germany’s green ambitions, if it transitions to, say, biofuel, and if plans were in hand to sequester future carbon emissions. But, strikingly, German public opinion is close to rejecting sequestration before it can even get started: a senior environment official told New Scientist that burying carbon there is about as popular as burying nuclear waste.
So Germany is not quite a role model for the changes called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, including more action on sequestration (see “Go big on clean energy and capture carbon, says IPCC”). But it does embody the challenges. Any change in power generation will upset someone; in the UK, nuclear is tolerated but wind farms raise ire. Each country will find its own way, but none can afford to be fussy. Say “no, thanks” to all of the unappealing options, and you may end up forced to say yes to the unacceptable ones…
This article appeared in print under the headline “It’s not easy being green”.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229651.300-we-cant-be-too-fussy-when-it-comes-to-green-energy.html
00
Dr Roy Spencer agrees with him that the warming wasn’t caused by natural variability – it was aliens!
“The correlation between UFO reports and ocean temperature is over 0.95, clearly better than the correlation between that boring old carbon dioxide and ocean warming:”
See the graph of UFO sightings vs ocean heat content since 1979 here.
“In fact, note the tendency for CO2 to follow ocean temperature , suggesting a weak tendency for warming ocean water to outgas CO2 (or reduce the uptake of atmospheric CO2). In other words, warming causes a CO2 increase, versus the common view that CO2 causes warming. In contrast, the peak correlation between UFO reports and ocean temperature is at zero time lag. UFOs visit, the ocean warms.”
Spencer even offers a detailed hypothesis to fit the strong correlation. You can read the full post here.
As he says, “In fact, the relationship is so strong, if this was an epidemiological study it would be time to regulate UFOs.”
We need to let Lewandowsky know about this new development!
30
That is an uncanny correlation.
They are obviously hiding in the oceans and emitting a lot of heat there.
KK
20
If you to actually understand what you’re ridiculing rather than just personal abuse, take a look at the Questions and Answers here:
http://bit.ly/1i2lqlr
Many of your misconceptions are dealt with in detail here. There are many more that I’ll deal with in a future update. Thanks for the misunderstandings!
06
Thanks Shaun, I appreciate you dropping in. I saw the pingback on Briggs site and read it all yesterday. I surprised that somehow long natural cycles don’t count. How could we know whether cycles longer than 125 years were not responsible for the late 20th Century warming? You claim to disprove natural warming, but only have 500 years of data in a noisy noisy series that was both warmer and cooler in the past, and not one modern GCM understand what drives the large climate cycles?
I note you still think the Hockey Stick is reasonable, instead of being one of the worst examples of modern science. Perhaps you are unaware of how many of the “reconstructions” of the hockey stick rely on the same inappropriate proxies, sigma-6 outliers, and cherrypicked components – like Yamal, Bristlecones, Tjilander. I note you said: “one of the three (Huang) used boreholes (it needed no paleo calibrations).” No paleo calibration? We can only guess how fast heat waves sink into the crust by calibrating those curves with other proxies. The only message we get from boreholes is that there have been large global swings in temperature and at the moment, no one can explain what drives them.
But I’m keen to see more, happy to link to your replies in the post. Call me unconvinced though. The logical error that underlies the statistics remains.
60
Well done Shaun,
The enclosed graph confirms one of he basic tenets of physics: Namely that liquids can hold less dissolved gas as they get hotter.
I notice on your graph that as the worlds temperature increased from 1850 onwards, the amount of CO2 being expressed from the oceans increased.
Is this Boyle’s Law? ; it’s been so long since I did basic physics.
ps. And no I’m not really taken in by imaginary fairytale concepts such as “forcings”; for Gods sake, what is a forcing when it’s at home?
We have just come through the most STABLE TEN THOUSAND YEARS of the Earth’s history.
The disturbance you graph from 1850 to 2004 is 1.5% of that period and 0.15% 0f a normal thaw – freeze cycle of 100,000 years.
I hope you are not an example of recent graduates from Australian Universities or we are in big trouble.
Your work is flawed and you need to talk to a professional about it.
Good Luck.
KK 🙂
30
How do I explain this to my friendly warmist?
“Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.”
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm)
When I particularly agree that:
“The exclusive, or lone, or only, or single, solitary, sole way to check whether any model is good is if it can skillfully predict new data, where “new” means as yet unknown to the model in any way—as in in any way. The reason skeptics exist is because no know model has been able to do this with temperatures past a couple of months ahead.”
(http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8061)
00
Some more answers, the Q. is from your comments.
Q. I note you still think the Hockey Stick is reasonable, instead of being one of the worst examples of modern science. Perhaps you are unaware of how many of the “reconstructions” of the hockey stick rely on the same inappropriate proxies, sigma-6 outliers, and cherrypicked components – like Yamal, Bristlecones, Tjilander.
A. As I pointed out in the Q+A, the multiproxies are very accurate over time lags up to 100- 200 years, where they disagree with each other is at the longer time scales. Incidentally, this is also true of the tree ring data you cite – it’s the lower frequencies that are a bit weak, but again, this is irrelevant here!
Q. I note you said: “one of the three (Huang) used boreholes (it needed no paleo calibrations).” No paleo calibration? We can only guess how fast heat waves sink into the crust by calibrating those curves with other proxies. The only message we get from boreholes is that there have been large global swings in temperature and at the moment, no one can explain what drives them.
A. Actually it doesn’t need paleo calibration. It uses the laws of physics to invert the borehole temperature profile using thermal diffusion constants that are measure in the borehole. It is indeed an independent method.
Q. But I’m keen to see more, happy to link to your replies in the post. Call me unconvinced though. The logical error that underlies the statistics remains.
A. The error in in your understanding, not the method.
________________________________________
05
You have very conveniently avoided answering Jo’s most important question, i.e. how can you claim to disprove natural warming, but only have 500 years of data in a noisy series that was both warmer and cooler in the past?
30
Shaun,
Thanks again for returning to answer questions.
1. I see you have not replied to my point about the importance of longer cycles.
2. On HockeySticks –“the multiproxies are very accurate over time lags up to 100- 200 years”. I ask “accurate” in what factor? If they are not accurate in time, and we are trying to correlate climate forcings at particular times, how can you get 99% certainty? My point remains, we don’t know what caused the warming for the MWP or the cooling for the LIA. The modern warming started around 1700, long before CO2. We don’t know why.
3. Boreholes — I was not aware there was a law of physics that declared exactly how fast heat transferred down through rocks, mud and whatnot. Even Huang et al has adjusted the rates of heat diffusion and contradicted himself three times in three papers (see my post). Boreholes give us global curves but the heat travelling down through the rock does not come with labels telling us what decade it originated in. Without calibration with surface proxies we can only estimate how fast those heat waves travel.
4. If there is an error in my understanding I’m keen to learn. Do tell.
Are you aware that most of the warming predicted in IPCC models does not come from radiative physics? You may be dismayed to learn that only one third of the projected warming uses Stephan Boltzman, the rest is entirely created from assumptions about positive feedback from water vapor and clouds for which there is no empirical evidence. If feedbacks are negative instead of positive (as the empirical evidence suggests), the final effect of extra CO2 is likely much smaller than you assume (around 1/6th of IPCC projections). Your paper appears entirely circular in reasoning.
80
The answer to that question is the entire subject of the second part of my paper, too bad you didn’t get that far. You can take also a look at the Q+A or at the simplified version here:
http://www.livescience.com/44950-global-warming-natural-fluctuation.html
Come back to me when you’ve digested this.
05
My apologies Shaun, for not have noted the relevance of Jo’s comment above.
I had a friend a long time ago who went to McGill for some post graduate work.
Shaun I see you are a Professor of Physics.
There has been significant discussion on this blog about people stepping outside of their areas of expertise and getting caught up; Ref the Ms Stanley thread.
No doubt you are a great Physicist and your “main work” seems very interesting, but, the influence of eco nutters like Mr Suzuki can be very strong and seem almost real.
The basic history of our planet in terms of orbital mechanics should be something you are very familiar with?
It is very hard to escape doing some orbital mechanics in physics, and if you go and reacquaint yourself with it and how it meshes with the geological history you may find that we are currently in the coldest phase of the Earth’s very long history.
Try as it might any CO2 we create won’t change that.
Not only that, but it is going to get colder some time not too far off into that future.
The very clearly defined 100,000 year cycles are not going to go away simply because the IPCCCC or the Algorythm stands up with arm outstretched and cries Halt.
King Canute tried that.
Shaun, this is an engineering problem with a mix of very simple factors, and timescales, all of which are well known but which have been mischievously given incorrect weightings as to effect.
As to minor fluctuations like the past 200 years it is so insignificant in the process as to be an embarrassment that anyone should use it to push CO2 based Global Warming as a process let alone the puny human component of CO2.
As far as CO2 variations are concerned, the oceans did it: they hold 98% of the total CO2 here on Planet Earth.
The David Suzukis of this world have a lot to answer for.
KK 🙂
70
shaun- I’m sorry but I just deleted my arguments against what you wrote in your links because your arguments belong in a bovine digestive tract. That was truly horrendous rubbish.
Vic, it is always better if you explain. – Jo
71
Vic.
Totally envious that you could put it so well in so few words.
Inspiring!
KK
51
Hi Jo
When I first started reading Shaun’s comments and replies I saw that they were very similar to a lot of the material seen on the SkS site and that they hid behind “links” to more dubious comment, the usual Skeptical Science pseudo science.
Given attempts to draw Shaun out into a sensible scientific discussion, and his failure to respond, and the quality of material presented, it seems very likely that the person posing as Shaun is an imposter.
Sometimes the best comment is a little brief and a little pungent.
Vic’s comment was very much on the mark.
KK 🙂
31
If he ever asks for valid criticism, ask him to not justify using data up until 2004 but to amend his paper first. Even with 5 year smoothing, there should be data until 2011.
20
Hi Vic,
My whole thrust on this thing is that there is no way of creating a model of Earth’s temperature which uses CO2 as its main variable.
CO2 is the least relevant variable involved in the whole business and yet it is not the one that is discarded while every relevant variable is confined to what we call in modeling, “The Black Box”.
Crazy.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/prof-fiona-stanley-jumps-on-climate-pulpit-says-skeptics-abuse-children/#comment-1430607
As a physicist this person is a worry, as a person talking about modeling or the interpretation of complex interacting physical and chemical systems (the atmosphere- biosphere) he is totally out of his depth.
It is an appalling situation that the public has to sit by while science is conducted by people saying basically “I’m a professor, shut up and trust me”.
KK
51
Not in this case, Jo. It was a cynical exercise to hide poor science in verbosity and mathematical diarrhea.
Bell curve? This was written for social scientists. Why would nonrandom natural events behave like purely random events? Even if something like solar output varied randomly, the cooling rate of the Earth is dependent on the temperature to the power of 4, and a millennium long oscillation will not show up as random variation around a mean. Surely addressing this was more important than advertising his ability to do more complex analysis of a Bell curve?
Surely the plot of temperature anomaly to forcing would be a better fit at low values, or not change, if natural factors could not account for the recent warming. Data up till 2014 rather than 2004 would show this (I had data til 2004 in this plot which shows at best a +0.3°C due to human activity, that was because I smoothed the rate data with a moving 20 year average).
I learnt science in a very dodgy field where I learnt more of what you shouldn’t do to be a good scientist than what you should do. This why I’m so bitter and this guy irritates me so much.
50
Yep
00
Guys, I’m certain Shaun was authentic, and I’m glad he visited, I would hope he’d stay longer. But baseless insults here are not likely to encourage that (yes, I realize he’s been aggressive and dismissive about skeptics, but we can do better right?).
I did not find his arguments at all convincing, but would vastly prefer a friendly exchange than an exchange of insults. It’s extremely rare of believers to even try to defend their arguments, and I’ll always encourage them to do so here. I suspect he is very new to this debate (naive) and has had almost no interaction at all with skeptics before.
Obviously I would not let someone comment under a real persons name if I had reason to believe they were not legit.
—–
KK “Brief and pungent” is good for trolls, but not for genuine commenters.
50
Like I mentioned in my first comment, I tried to just put forward a rational rebuttal of his claims. The comment from him
and the very hard work to understand the point that he was trying to make, only to discover that it was rubbish, just got to me.
50
Professor Lovejoy, I was hoping you could put it into a few clear and concise sentences for us plebs.
I didn’t get as far as the second part of your paper because I’m not going to pay good money to wade through what I fear will be statistical sludge.
Your self-congratulatory op-ed in LiveScience has declared two ‘key points’.
1. First, my study uses CO2 as a surrogate for all human effects. …….if you double the economy, you double the emissions — and, therefore, you double the effects.
The deception and gross error of logic in the circularity of your model is breath-taking, as explained by William C. Briggs (see the last section of the post). But still you persist.
2. The key, second part of my study uses data from the year 1500 to estimate the probability that this temperature change is due to natural causes.
Despite some rambling about bell curves, non-linear geophysics, and dissembling about medieval warming, your reason for excluding natural causes is difficult to discern.
Well, I’ve digested’ it, but like Jo, call me unconvinced.
50
The comments at WUWT sum up the deceit and corruption of science in this paper better than I can. This one is particularly incisive.
70
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/abusing-statistics-in-the-name-of-global-warming/#more-34904 […]
00