JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Scientists invent time-travelling models that “might have worked”

You won’t believe…

Research shows surprise global warming ‘hiatus’ could have been forecast

[The Guardian]  Australian and US climate experts say with new ocean-based modelling tools, the early 2000s warming slowdown was foreseeable.
Australian and US researchers have shown that the slowdown in the rate of global warming in the early 2000s, known as a so-called “global warming hiatus”, could have been predicted if today’s tools for decade-by-decade climate forecasting had been available in the 1990s.

And I’ve got a model that would have predicted the 1987 stock market crash, the GFC, and the winner of the Melbourne Cup. What I would not have predicted is that lame excuses this transparent, would be made by people calling themselves scientists, Gerald Meehl, and repeated by people calling themselves journalists. (That’s you, Melissa Davey). Though I’m not surprised that research this weak had to be published by Nature. (Where else?)

Although global temperatures remain close to record highs, they have shown little warming trend over the past 15 years, a slowdown that earlier climate models had been largely unable to predict.

This has been used by climate change sceptics as evidence that climate change prediction models are flawed.

Imagine that, the stupid skeptics think that “climate change prediction models” ought to be able to predict climate change.

But climate scientistsTM are working with different and special models. These ones are able to travel back through time to make their “predictions” from after the event.

Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in the US, along with the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research in Melbourne, decided to challenge the assumption that no climate model could have foreseen the hiatus.

Did you see the strawman? How many skeptics assumed that no model could have foreseen the hiatus? How about none, because skeptics aren’ t concerned about assumed results from theoretical models that didn’t exist. We just like to point out that no real model did predict the pause, and this study doesn’t change that.

Besides, at least one skeptic model does hindcast the hiatus.

Meehl says: “We wanted to know: if we could be transported back to the 1990s with new decadal prediction capability, a set of current models and a modern-day supercomputer, could we simulate the hiatus?”

After denying that there was a pause for years, then being dragged to admit it, climate scientists have sorted through 29 different excuses for the Pause, and found one that they can model post hoc.

 Studies have shown global warming had not stalled but was occurring in the deeper layers of the world’s oceans instead of the surface, he said, which were absorbing the heat and obscuring levels of warming. In other words the “pause” was actually a slight slowing of the rate of increase in surface temperatures, with 93% of the extra heat trapped in the oceans.

They could call it a “prediction” — if we ignore the time-travelling required. And they could call it a “success” if we pretend they can measure the vast deep global oceans to one hundredth of a degree.  Since there’s one ARGO buoy for every 200,000 cubic kilometers of ocean, the illusion of accuracy is no more of a stretch than the idea that a prediction can be made from the future.

While Meehl said all the factors that might be driving the hiatus were still being studied, his research, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, suggested natural decade-to-decade climate variability was largely responsible.

So once again, Climate ScientistsTM discover the natural variability that the skeptics were telling them about for years.  Shame they have not yet discovered humility, honesty or reason. Then they might have acknowledged that all the models they used to predict disaster (which they were 95% sure of) were wrong. They might be able to say that all the headlines they generated, and the fear and the money were based on models that didn’t work at the time.

They might also have admitted that if natural forces cause cooling, they could also have caused the warming. It’s just another day of fantasy on the road to global failure. End days.

PS: The Galileo Movement have taken Kevin and Griss’s suggestion and added TM to the “Climate Change” in the T-shirts. Still time to order one!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (132 votes cast)
Scientists invent time-travelling models that "might have worked", 9.3 out of 10 based on 132 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/onrg457

224 comments to Scientists invent time-travelling models that “might have worked”

  • #
    john robertson

    I coulda been right, if I was not wrong.

    430

  • #

    The “29 excuses for the hiatus” post at the HOCKEY SCHTICK blog has now been updated to 52 excuses.
    Maybe this will be number 53.
    Any predictions for the century? I don’t think the consensus team will be all out before they achieve this score, as the game they play is certainly not cricket.

    301

  • #
    richsrd

    uh- huh, perhaps they can now predict for how long this Hiatus will last.

    261

    • #
      lemiere jacques

      yes they can even of course predictions could be wrong BUT the ability of models to predict the climate is still not a matter of doubt or debate.

      MODELS CAN PREDICT .

      53

      • #
        richsrd

        and how long have they predicted the Hiatus to last.

        101

      • #
        Owen Morgan

        “…the ability of models to predict the climate is still not a matter of doubt or debate.”

        Well, it is, actually. If you’re saying that anything that emerges from the computer model is a “prediction”, regardless of whether the prediction turns out to be accurate, that’s a rather elastic use of the word “prediction”. The fact is that the models have not accurately predicted anything – and that has nothing to do with the software, or the size of the supercomputer, or the length of time spent crunching the numbers. The modellers have a drastic shortfall in the information that would be required as input for any model genuinely to predict anything. If variables are missing, or are supplied from guesswork, or from the latest tosh published in “Nature (pretty much the same thing), it stands to reason that the output from the models has been, is and always will be perfectly useless.

        But they get to play with their Cray computers and we taxpayers get to pay for them. This latest “research” is clearly from Lewis Carroll’s stopped-clock theory of telling the time.

        501

        • #
          Allen Ford

          “…the ability of models to predict the climate is still not a matter of doubt or debate.”

          But haven’t they been telling us for yonks that they don’t make predictions but projections?

          Why the sudden change in semantics?

          71

      • #
        The Backslider

        the ability of models to predict the climate is still not a matter of doubt or debate.

        Perhaps not, but the problem is that the predictions are invariably wrong.

        201

      • #
        Annie

        I’m assuming here that you intended to add a sarc tag?

        10

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Correct lemiere jacques

        Here’s the thing about models.

        They do not leap fully formed from the mind of any scientist.

        They are a work in progress.

        Take Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the universe.

        The Copernican revolution was Thomas Kuhn’s prime example of what he termed a “paradigm shift” in scientific thinking.

        Yet it has been modified and refined over the centuries.

        In Copernicus original model, the stars were in a sphere about the sun at the centre of the universe.

        It is now recognized that the sun is just one star among billions of billions.

        Copernicus original model said that the stars orbited in circles about the sun.

        Kepler refined the model so that the planets orbit in ellipses with the sun at one focus.

        It was later recognized that in fact the sun and planets revolve about their common centre of gravity.

        Newton’s universal law of gravitation could not account for the orbit of mercury.

        Einstein modified Copernicus’ model to account for the orbit of mercury, demonstrating that “gravity” is not a force but a consequence of the bending of space-time.

        There is no reason to assume that further modifications will not be made in the future.

        Yet in spite of all these modifications, nobody terms Copernicus’ model a failure, because it was essentially correct.

        Similarly Hansen’s original 1981 model used only three forcings, CO2 solar and volcanic, yet it correctly predicted:

        That the anthropogenic signal should emerge from the noise by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 80’s

        A larger sensitivity at high latitudes

        The erosion of the west Antarctic ice sheet

        The opening of the northwest passage in the arctic.

        As more data and knowledge accumulates about the complex climate system, the models are refined and modified.

        The best that “skeptics” can do apparently is nitpick about details, ignoring the big picture, and complain when improvements to the models remove their objections.

        439

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Sorry, that should have been Copernicus’ original model had the planets orbitting in circles about the sun.

          115

        • #
          observa

          Nitpick? It’s like this Philip. The null hypothesis down the ages is the climate is always changing when along came a bunch of trumped up, self-appointed climatologists feeding treemometers and coremometers into their whizz bang computer programs that noone was allowed to delve into properly, declaring we’re all gunna fry. Hasn’t happened so the null hypothesis still stands boyoh, unless you want to allow these junk undergrads to turn science into tea-leave reading, seances and tarot card predicting.

          221

        • #

          Philip Shehan – Nitpicking advances our knowledge, advances science. No honest scientist should be afraid of someone nitpicking. That’s exactly what’s needed to point to minor inconsistencies that could uncover serious flaws. Science isn’t done by hiding errors under the carpet or hoping that no one will say anything adverse or raise questions.

          Also, we weren’t told that the computer models were fallible or that what came out of them was work in progress. No, we were told (repeatedly)that the science was settled. We were told we were all going to die unless we hand over vast sums of money to shut down the engines of our healthy societies. We were told to panic. We were told to shut up.

          Now we’re told we’re nitpicking for spotting the obvious flaws and for being right. Try again.

          241

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Observa and AD Everard,

            I entirely agree that it is often small anomalies in theories that advance our knowledge. That was the point of my relating how the anomolies in the Copernican model advanced knowledge and science.

            By “nitpicking” I meant the claim of “skeptics” that if the model is not perfect in every detail, no matter how much else it explains, the model has failed.

            Furthermore, any further work aimed at resolving the anomolies and advancing the science and theories is to be mocked and characterised as unscientific and entirely illegitimate.

            That is utter bilge which would have seen Copernicus theory declared a failure centuries ago if the nitpickers had their way.

            When you write “Now we’re told we’re nitpicking for spotting the obvious flaws and for being right” you are nitpicking when you magnify the flaws as catastrophic and irretrievable and ignore how much the models get right.

            “Also, we weren’t told that the computer models were fallible or that what came out of them was work in progress.”

            Of course you were “told” computer models were fallible. It is implied in the nature of computer runs giving an ensemble of different results.

            If you were not told that explicitly it was because it would have been considered in the realm of the bleeding obvious to anyone who understands how science works work. Similarly that models are a work in progress would be obvious to anyone who knew of how models had developed over the years.

            I do not approve of “the science is settled” line, but what it is meant to convey is that the it is no longer seriously doubted by scientists that raising the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 40% since the industrial revolution has warmed the atmosphere.

            This caricature has nothing to do with the mainstream scientific position: “We were told we were all going to die unless we hand over vast sums of money to shut down the engines of our healthy societies. We were told to panic. We were told to shut up.”

            Observa, disregarding buzzwords like “null hypothesis” it is certainly true that the first principle of climate science is that climate changes.

            What climatologists understand is that since the beginning of the industrial revolution, an increase of 40% in atmospheric CO2 has caused a warming of the atmosphere (it’s basic physics) which has resulted in a new and significant of contribution to climate change – man made, or ANTHROPGENIC climate change.

            And contrary to your assertion, the rise in temperature has happened. Again your characterisation that unless we are “frying” now the theory is bust is a ludicrous caricature. The results of this are being measured. Of 29,000 measurements, biological and geological marker studies, 90% indicate that warming of approximately 0.9 C has already occurred.

            320

            • #
              Olaf Koenders

              Of course warming has occurred:

              After the Dalton Minimum
              After the Little Ice Age (Maunder Minimum)
              After the Roman Warm Period
              After the Younger Dryas
              After the last Ice Age
              Since the Earth was formed

              Which one are you worried about Phil? There’s no evidence that CO2 was the cause of that 0.9C warming since 1850. If you had hard evidence, you would be the first and only one on the planet. So why don’t you share? Still only speculation and paid shillage?

              What’s your evidence on the cause of the Little Ice Age? If you know what caused that, you’d know what brought it to an end. It’s the same thing that brought the Roman Warm Period and Mediaeval Warm Period to an end.

              181

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                olaf.

                “There’s no evidence that CO2 was the cause of that 0.9C warming since 1850.”

                A truly ridiculous statement.

                I direct you to the entire body of scientific literature on AGW. The most recent IPCC report will do for an overview.

                “What’s your evidence on the cause of the Little Ice Age? If you know what caused that, you’d know what brought it to an end.”

                This was discussed a few sessions ago. Briefly, the Maunder minimum, magnified in the North Atlantic by wind and ocean currents.

                012

            • #
              the Griss

              Ah, I see you have finally given up any pretence of scientific knowledge or integrity…

              …. and are now relying purely on argument from authority.

              Once, maybe, you were a scientist.

              But not any more. !

              You are now just a propaganda monkey.

              152

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                “the Griss”

                Other than to ask where the argument from authority is, I refer you to my earlier comment:

                “Actually Heywood, I would prefer it if “the Griss” had the courage and integrity to append his real name to his endless idiotic and irrelevant personal attacks.

                But there is absolutely no hope of that.”

                http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/bom-homogenisation-in-deniliquin-creates-discontinuities-and-changes-trends/#comment-1559889

                110

              • #
                the Griss

                roflmao..

                WHY do you need my real name! Are you on a vendetta or something.

                That would be right down the line of the irksome and slimy nature of the brain-washed alarmista apostle.

                We’ve seen it happen to esteemed professors (Salby, Carter, respected climate journal editors, read the climategate emails).

                The alarmist side is truly filled with despicable, vindictive, hateful low-lifes.

                And I strongly suspect you would be one of them.

                71

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                the Gutless,

                You have got to be kidding.

                Among your other delusions you put yourself in the company of Salby Carter etc. How about Hansen, Mann, Karoly etc etc etc who you abuse with the regularity of a chiming clock.

                I have dealt with some real SOB’s in real life disputes on matters of importance and principle at great personal cost. (Corrupt conduct in a university department) that have lead to me being threatened with knee capping one dark and stormy night and falsely charged with criminal offences. Represented myself in court and won. I am rather good at presenting arguments based on fact. You would not last 3 milliseconds in the witness box.)

                I would not waste my time on a supercilious cyber coward like yourself.

                “The alarmist side is truly filled with despicable, vindictive, hateful low-lifes.”

                Are you so lacking in self awareness that you can write that and not recognise that is precisely the kind of comment you are making and that regularly earns you the snip here? (Pardon me mods but before you get the scissors out he has this coming. He needs to be told.)

                I don’t need to “suspect” that is the kind of individual you are, you have once again proven it in this post.

                You are the most hate spewing individual I have come across on any blog anywhere. And that is a high bar to clear.

                Even skeptics on this blog recognise your particular style for what it is and have said as much in comments to me.

                I put my real name up and deal with your garbage.

                You do not have that courage and integrity.

                yaaghfw

                18

              • #
                the Griss

                All you are to me a meaningless name.. A nobody.

                I don’t CARE what your name is or who you think you once were. :-) .

                Yet you waste so much time here for NO PURPOSE.

                You have NOTHING to offer, except a monkey outfit.

                And you don’t even realise it because you are so full of yourself.

                Talk about lack of self-awareness, you personify it.

                52

              • #
                the Griss

                “You are the most hate spewing individual I have come across on any blog anywhere.”

                Trying looking in the mirror someday……. If you can stand it. :-)

                41

              • #
                the Griss

                It is your inner hatred and bitterness that drives you onto skeptic blogs.

                It is your life.

                It is who you are.

                Think about that, and do something about it, for your own sake, if not for ours.

                51

              • #
                the Griss

                And you take that slimy under-handed hatred with you where-ever you go.

                …because it is permanently with you.

                It is pity you cannot see that about yourself.

                Maybe its not too late for you to change. !

                First step.. step back from your propganda slop postings.

                41

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                In my defence mods, please note that I usually ignore Griss’s interminable content free diatribes. Like the ones that appear a few comment below.

                Among the usual vituperative ad homs in his original comment was the claim that I was the arguing from authority. This is a claim that is regularly made against me without basis and I wanted clarification in this instance.

                Typically, there is no reply to this request.

                I promise not to make a habit of the above post, but like I said, he had it coming. He needs to be told.

                15

              • #
                the Griss

                Second step is to find something worthwhile to do with your life..

                …. instead of wasting your time inhabiting places in an attempt to spread your under-handed propganda and despite.

                41

              • #
                the Griss

                “he had it coming”

                What, another meaningless rant.

                roflmao ! :-) :-)

                51

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Really G, there is no need to prove my point any further with your interminable spewing forth of bile and hatred.

                15

              • #
                the Griss

                It takes someone with a particularly twisted and bitter personality to do what you do.

                Your continued trolling of sites with your propaganda pap.

                51

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                “It is your inner hatred and bitterness that drives you onto skeptic blogs.”

                Yes, my posts just overflow with that kind of thing, especially in comparison to your perpetually sunny missives, just slopping over with the milk of human kindness.

                Actually G, I was drawn to blogs discussing science because, as a scientist, I believe it important that in a society based on science and technology, where not one parliamentarian in a hundred amongst all the lawyers, ex staffers and union hacks has any backgroung in science, it is important that science be be discussed and understood by the public at large.

                The problem is that on skeptic blogs, so much of the comments are, well, like yours.

                But I post in the belief that there are some genuine people, including GENUINE skeptics who are interested in thinking about all sides of problems rather than having their prejudices confirmed and venting their own inner demons by spewing bile on those they have identified as ideological enemies.

                Clearly I regard it important to hear all sides of the argument, which also what drives me to skeptic blogs in spite of the dross from people such as yourself that one has to wage through to engage in serious discussion with a few intelligent reasonable people.

                05

            • #
              Olaf Koenders

              And in between these larger natural cycles Phil, what caused the Dust Bowl of the 1930′s? What caused the very same “scientists” you’re swooning over to blather about a coming ice age in the 1970′s? What caused the last 18 year warming hiatus despite CO2 continuing to rise?

              How do you explain deep oceans gobbling up heat without it being noticed first on the surface by dozens of satellites?

              You’re in a tough spot. I expect you to predict the end of your religion within the next decade.

              172

            • #
              Tim

              Sophistry.

              The climate has changed, true, but in what way has it changed that makes this recent period any different from other periods when the change was wholly natural?

              It’s not “physics”, it’s “we don’t know what else it is, so it must be manmade CO2.”

              If it was just phyiscs, we wouldn’t need the Hockey Stick, we wouldn’t need all these adjustments and homogenisations, we wouldn’t need the statistical analysis that “proves” it’s 99% certain its manamade.

              As for the rest, if you haven’t noticed all the taxes being foirced on us with threats of dire consequences, then you are eithr lying or blind.

              70

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                No Tim it’s physics. A trivial lab experiment can demonstrate the infra red radiation absorbing properties of CO2. I have run infra red spectra of compounds containing the C=O double bond myself.

                And the effect of CO2 on temperature is not just what is left over when other forcings have been calculated. The effects of CO2 are also calculated and added to the calculations of the other forcings to give the total effect on temperature.

                http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html

                The “hockey stick” was not a theoretical explanation of temperature trends, it was the result of using proxy data to measure temperatures in the pre- instrumental era.

                And what I am talking about here is the science of climate change. I am not interested here in proposed responses to what the science tells us is happening and will continue to happen. That is a matter of politics, economics and risk assessment.

                010

              • #
                the Griss

                The “hockey stick” is the result of mis-using proxy data to measure fabricate temperatures in the pre-instrumental era.

                30

            • #
              observa

              “The results of this are being measured. Of 29,000 measurements, biological and geological marker studies, 90% indicate that warming of approximately 0.9 C has already occurred.”

              What results mr hubris from the moi generation? Have you got the results of a uniformly gridded Stevenson Screen rollout, or satellite results across the globe for 150 years let alone 15000 years?

              What was this all about johnny come lately-
              http://www.sa.gsa.org.au/Brochures/HallettCoveBrochure.pdf
              Aboriginal cooking fires and bush burnoffs to flush out game for the 40,000 odd years they were around?

              50

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                observa, thankfully, the “hubris” of humans attempting to understand the natural world is not confined to the current generation.

                One of the spin offs of that hubris is you siting comfortably at home putting out your opinions on 21st century technology.

                07

              • #
                the Griss

                Gees, PS, there you go with the under-handed sliming yet again.

                You really are a rude piece of work !

                30

            • #
              observa

              In particular just so you understand what a null hypothesis is-

              “During the Recent ice age about 20 000 years ago,
              sea level was about 130 metres lower than today
              and South Australia’s coastline was about 150
              kilometres south of where Victor Harbor now is.
              The ice cap started to melt about 15 000 years ago.
              Sea level began to rise and reached its present level about 6000–7000 years ago.”

              50

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Observa, the hubris of scientists has led to an understanding of what caused the ice ages to come and go. Large scale changes in orbital parameters and solar output for instance.

                The hubris of the current generation is examining how for the first time in the history of the earth, humans have increased the concentration of CO2, a greenhouse gas by 40% over a couple of centuries, and the effect that this particular mechanism is having on climate.

                Actually, I avoid the jargon of “null hypothesis” because many people do not understand it and use the term incorrectly.

                The null hypothesis assumes that any kind of difference or significance you see in a set of data is due to chance.

                http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/null_hypothesis.asp

                Your claim it is that climate varies. The null hypothesis is that this variation is due to chance.

                Hubristic scientists find this explanation for the variable climate record unsatisfying. They use science to explain why the observations differ from the null hypothesis, by considering the effects of climate forcings, natural and anthropogenic.

                06

              • #
                the Griss

                “I avoid the jargon of “null hypothesis” because many people do not understand it ”

                Mirror, mirror, on the wall !!!

                30

              • #
                the Griss

                “The null hypothesis is that this variation is due to chance.”

                And then you totally prove your continued ignorance !!!

                You are mentally sliding backwards at a rapid rate.

                Your monkeys need to let you out of your basement more often, Mr Once-Was.

                40

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                >”Actually, I avoid the jargon of “null hypothesis” because many people do not understand it and use the term incorrectly.”

                But a null hypothesis can, and has been, proposed for CO2 (unlike the absence of a formal hypothesis for which a null is impossible).

                These guys avoided the null proposal like the plague:

                Environmental Protection Agency
                40 CFR Chapter I
                Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under
                Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final
                Rule

                http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Federal_Register-EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-Dec.15-09.pdf

                Submitted, among about 11,000 others, was this paper:

                R. Clark Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 6/17/09
                A Null Hypothesis For CO2

                http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/9p72043270187318/

                http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf

                Abstract
                Energy transfer at the Earth’s surface is examined from first principles. The effects on surface temperature of small changes in the solar constant caused by the sunspot cycle and small increases in downward long wave infrared (LWIR) flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The surface temperature changes produced by an increase in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.

                # # #

                Cited by only 6 (you wont find it in IPCC reports), but yet to be proved wrong in the literature.

                00

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                Null Hypothesis

                The null hypothesis, H0, is an essential part of any research design, and is always tested, even indirectly.

                The simplistic definition of the null is as the opposite of the alternative hypothesis, H1, although the principle is a little more complex than that.

                The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.

                The ‘null’ often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon.

                An experiment conclusion always refers to the null, rejecting or accepting H0 rather than H1.

                Despite this, many researchers neglect the null hypothesis when testing hypotheses, which is poor practice and can have adverse effects.

                https://explorable.com/null-hypothesis

                # # #

                Climate science not only neglected the null hypothesis (Dr Clark did that for them), they neglected the alternative hypothesis in the first place (let alone testing).

                Gerlich and Tueschner ran into that problem:

                ‘Falsification Of The Greenhouse Effect Within The Frame of Physics’

                http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf

                See 1.2 The greenhouse effect hypothesis, page 10 pdf.

                00

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Richard,

                I have thus far only glanced at the paper you cite, but at this point, I reiterate the point that generally, I do not like the term “proof” in empirical science. More specifically, the statement that a paper is “yet to be proved wrong in the literature” is not very meaningful.

                The question is whether the conclusions in the paper are the best explanation for the phenomenon being discussed. All I will say at this point is that the fact that this particular viewpoint has gained so little traction among climate scientists indicates that considering all the available evidence they do not think it is the best explanation for climate change over the last century.

                00

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Richard, on the null hypothesis, I have stated previously that I do not find this particular phrase useful. There will be varying opinions about what the null hypothesis is.

                Scientists do not really concern themselves with the concept when undertaking research.

                They do experiments and make observations and subject the results to statistical analysis where appropriate, and draw conclusions about what the results of the observations say.

                If for instance a period of warming is statistically significant, that is enough, without trying to figure out what the “null hypothesis” is.

                Is it that temperatures do not rise, or is it that temperatures continue to rise as they have for a given past period?

                I submit that what is important is whether the data shows that statistically significant warming is occuring.

                00

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                >”All I will say at this point is that the fact that this particular viewpoint has gained so little traction among climate scientists indicates that considering all the available evidence they do not think it is the best explanation for climate change over the last century.”

                Little traction because the last thing they want to do is address it (far too hard to disprove, reject, or nullify).

                The case for the null (Dr Clark’s) is evidence too Philip but it hasn’t been addressed (certainly not by the IPCC). And it’s not a case for “the best explanation for climate change over the last century” either (i.e. it’s not an alternative hypothesis similar to AGW). You obviously don’t understand the null hypothesis even after the description I provided (#3.1.3.3.5 above), viz:

                “The ‘null’ often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon.”

                And,

                “The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.”

                Climate science has not done this for Dr Clark’s null hypothesis, probably because to do so will have to upturn several physics principles, spectroscopic papers, conventions etc. A non-trivial task.

                To date Philip (AR5), after 25 years of reports the IPCC still does not have a documented mechanism for anthropogenic ocean heating. All they state is supposition – “air-sea fluxes” – whatever that means radiatively or in terms of sensible heat i.e. they DO NOT HAVE an alternative hypothesis to the null, no empirical studies (evidence), nothing.

                10

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                Should be “(#3.1.[5].3.5 above)”

                >”on the null hypothesis, I have stated previously that I do not find this particular phrase useful. There will be varying opinions about what the null hypothesis is.”

                Rubbish. A null hypothesis is certainly not an “opinion”. Read the description of what the null hypothesis is at #3.1.5.3.5 above.

                >”Scientists do not really concern themselves with the concept when undertaking research.”

                Rubbish again. From the description:

                “The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.”

                >”They do experiments and make observations and subject the results to statistical analysis where appropriate, and draw conclusions about what the results of the observations say.”

                And what are the conclusions subject to? From the description again:

                “An experiment conclusion always refers to the null, rejecting or accepting H0 rather than H1.”

                >”If for instance a period of warming is statistically significant, that is enough, without trying to figure out what the “null hypothesis” is.

                That is enough? Enough for what? AGW? Get real Philip. The null hypothesis is a pre-requisite, not something that has to be figured out as some peripheral exercise. The null (H0) has to be disproved, rejected, or nullified first before moving to the alternative (H1) as to whether it becomes theory. And to become theory H1 has to defeat competing alternative hypotheses. One of these developing rapidly is that MDV + solar change explains temperature variation over a much longer time frame than CO2.

                And a period of statistically significant warming doesn’t disprove the null for CO2 anyway.

                >”Is it that temperatures do not rise, or is it that temperatures continue to rise as they have for a given past period?”

                Neither. We’re talking causation hypotheses and null hypotheses. If observations follow expectations of the hypothesis then there’s a strong case for the hypothesis being valid. But the hypothesis must be falsifiable, there’s no falsifiable AGW hypothesis to address.

                Given observations have not followed the AGW hypothesis as embodied in the CO2-forced GCM’s then that particular hypothesis is invalid. The null was never addressed as it should have been.

                Adding “excuses” post hoc e.g. Meehl et al and MDV that sceptics were pointing to as being neglected, doesn’t make the hypothesis valid either. That’s just making it up as you go along by pulling in new alternative hypotheses to prop up the original.

                >”I submit that what is important is whether the data shows that statistically significant warming is occuring.”

                Not even close. What is important is physical causation, alternative hypotheses of that, and observations conforming to one of the alternatives. But the IPCC only has a mandate to pursue the AGW hypothesis (as vague as it is), they have NEVER developed alternatives, they are not mandated to do so. They do not have a specific solar chapter for example (but the NIPCC does).

                MDV and solar change (all of it, including accumulation, UV, magnetic, etc) was left OUT of AGW. Now that observations are not conforming with AGW they want to add them IN to prop up the AGW hypothesis. That’s bogus Philip, it is certainly not the scientific method.

                00

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                >”To date Philip (AR5), after 25 years of reports the IPCC still does not have a documented mechanism for anthropogenic ocean heating.”

                From ‘Null Hypothesis’ above:

                “The ‘null’ often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon.”

                Climate science, and thefore the IPCC, does not have an alternative hypothesis (except speculation) for ocean heating by anthropogenic means.

                But in ‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2′, which is essentially “the common view of something” as above, Dr Clark states (page 5):

                “The solar heating of the ocean may be simulated using a simple Beer’s law model as illustrated
                in Figure 2.[page 6] This was used to determine ocean solar heating and cooling as a function of depth over a 1 year period at 30° latitude with the solar constant set to 1365 W.m-2. The model depth resolution was 1 m and the time step was 0.5 hours. The calculated results are shown in Figure 3 [page 7]. They are consistent with Argo Float data such as the examples shown in Figure 1. The model was then extended to simulate changes in the solar constant due to the sunspot cycle from 1650 to 2000 using a scale factor of 1 W.m-2 per 100 change in the annual sunspot index.11 The calculated change in ocean temperatures at 90 m depth is shown in Figure 4 [page 7]. There is a distinct decrease to the end of the Maunder Minimum followed by an overall increase of almost 0.5 C from 1750 to 2000. This simple model clearly demonstrates that small changes in the solar
                constant influence ocean temperatures and cause climate change.”

                Climate science (and therefore the IPCC) cannot demonstrate same with CO2. Given planetary energy flow is predominantly sun => ocean(+land) => atmosphere(+space), and the greater part of the planet’s accumulated energy is stored in the ocean (about 90%) not the atmosphere, an AGW hypothesis without an ocean heating mechanism is a non-starter.

                And the null case for CO2 in respect to ocean heating remains valid.

                00

            • #
              James Murphy

              OK Philip Shehan, but can you actually cite a reference which provides evidence that the 0.9 degree warming is caused primarily, (if not singlehandedly, as some of the more fanatical and scientifically illiterate proponents claim) by the change in CO2 concentration, and, while you’re at it, a reference or 2 which explains how much of that 0.9 degrees is within the realms of natural variability, and how much can be attributed to human activity.

              Thanks, I’m sure it should be very easy for you…

              40

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                James, I have been through this so many times and so have so many others that I decline to go detailed reference hunting.

                I will just say one thing, I do not claim that the rise in temperature since the industrial revolution can be definitively assigned entirely to anthropogenic forcings.

                Again I refer you to the recent IPCC report for details.

                06

        • #
          Leonard Lane

          Well let’s see. First of all gravity is an acceleration.

          00

        • #
          Bob Cormack

          Philip Shehan
          September 10, 2014 at 10:58 am


          Take Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the universe.

          The Copernican revolution was Thomas Kuhn’s prime example of what he termed a “paradigm shift” in scientific thinking.

          Yet it has been modified and refined over the centuries.

          In Copernicus original model, the stars were in a sphere about the sun at the centre of the universe.

          It is now recognized that the sun is just one star among billions of billions.

          Copernicus original model said that the stars orbited in circles about the sun.

          Kepler refined the model so that the planets orbit in ellipses with the sun at one focus.

          The goal of Copernicus’ model was to predict the apparent (as seen from Earth) motion of the planets (it had nothing new to say about the stars). It did this very well, and is still fairly accurate today — accurate enough that the differences can’t be easily determined without optical instruments not available to Copernicus.

          Copernicus’ description of planetary orbits as circles containing epicircles (littler circles) which also contained epicircles, etc., etc. can be easily seen today as a Fourier-like series approximation to ellipses. By using enough terms in the series (e.g., enough epicircles) you can get any degree of accuracy desired. This still works today as a fairly good predictor of the visual positions of the planets for quite a ways into the future (100s of years for the major planets).

          There are no climate models that even approach the accuracy of Copernican astronomy. (Perhaps if Copernicus had Mars moving in the exact opposite direction as observed, there might be a comparison.)

          Similarly Hansen’s original 1981 model used only three forcings, CO2 solar and volcanic, yet it correctly predicted:

          That the anthropogenic signal should emerge from the noise by the end of the century,

          That’s about the time that warming stopped — are you trying to say that the “anthropogenic signal” is zero (no effect)? It’s not clear how this helps your case.

          and there is a high probability of warming in the 80’s

          It also predicted that the warming would continue, even accelerate, through today — obviously falsified. If I predict a tossed coin will always land heads, I am not proven correct by the expedient of ignoring all incidences of tails.

          The opening of the northwest passage in the arctic.

          That’s an easy one — the Northwest Passage has been periodically opening up for over a century. (Perhaps for over a millennium, if records from Imperial China are considered.) Predicting that a tossed coin will sometimes land heads is a sure thing (but not what most people would consider a prediction).

          As more data and knowledge accumulates about the complex climate system, the models are refined and modified.

          As Jo’s post shows, they only get better at “predicting” (postdicting) the past. That IS an improvement, but I would be more impressed if any model could postdict the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Holocene Optimum, or maybe even the Ice Age cycle. None even comes close. The current state of model “prediction” is about like “predicting” a sine wave by drawing a straight tangent line to the current value.

          The best that “skeptics” can do apparently is nitpick about details, ignoring the big picture, and complain when improvements to the models remove their objections.

          The “big picture” is that no climate models have shown any predictive skill distinguishable from chance. Using them to inform future policy is as ‘rational’ as simply rolling dice. No improvements have changed this basic fact.

          161

          • #
            the Griss

            ” “big picture” is that no climate models have shown any predictive skill distinguishable from chance”

            No Bob, climate model predictive skill is considerably WORSE than pure chance.

            92

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Bob. The epicycles were necessary because Copernicus thought that the orbits were circles. Kepler removed the need for epicycles by introducing ellipses.

            It is true that it had nothing new to say about the stars. Like the Ptolemeic system, it had them in a sphere around the centre of the universe. But it is still a flaw in the original model.

            Actually the choice between an earth centred and sun centred solar system, or universe for that matter, is merely a matter of choice of frame of reference. They can be made mathematically equivalent.

            However, a sun centred description is much simpler mathematically, and more closely reflects the reality of what we understand about the way that masses warp spacetime. That is what I meant when I said that the planets do not orbit the sun and the sun does not orbit the planets. To a first order they orbit around their common “centre of gravity”. Then you have to add into account the gravitational effect (warping of spacetime) of every other mass in the universe.

            “There are no climate models that even approach the accuracy of Copernican astronomy.”

            Absolutely correct. Because the motion of objects in the universe is governed almost entirely by a single simple mechanism, relativity, or in the old parlance, gravitation, and as I noted it has taken centuries of refinement to get to where we are today.

            Climate is a vastly complicated system, and the project of identifying and quantifying of all the factors governing it is only a few decades old.

            Never the less, It has been remarkably successful in explaining much of the observations, and as i said Even Hansen’s simple early, three parameter model was highly successful.

            Your attempts to dismiss his successful predictions are weak. A lucky guess that temperatures would rise in the 80’s, plus a lucky guess that the anthropogenic signal would be distinguishable by the end of the century, plus a lucky guess that greater warming would occur in the arctic, plus a lucky guess that the loss of arctic ice cover would be so much greater than in the previous centurey that the north west passage would open regularly (which the alarmists in the United States navy are planning for).

            In probability you have to multiply the probabilities of these hits by Hansen being a coincidence. That will leave you with a very small probability.

            To say that these prescient predictions are indistuinguishable from rolling dice is utter nonsense.

            And yes at the risk of repeating myself, there are improvements to be made in the detail, which is what this section is about.

            It is not in fact a matter of time travel. What the research says is that earlier models have not sufficiently understood and taken into account factors like the Pacicific Decadal Oscillation. This is now being remedied.

            On previous occasions I have answered sketics who have been drawing attention to the PDO – “What about the PDO then? Eh? Eh? What about the PDO?”, Cop that you warmist alarmists climatologists” in precisely these terms.

            Greater understanding of factors like the PDO and others will continue to improve the explanatory and predictive powers of climate models beyond Hansen’s early but successful 1981 three parameter treatment.

            That, people, as I stated at the beginning with reference to Copernicus, is how science works.

            16

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              I should modify my earlier comment – “the motion of objects in the universe is governed almost entirely by a single simple mechanism, relativity, or in the old parlance, gravitation.”

              I am neglecting fundamental additions to the picture of the universe at the cutting edge of cosmology and astrophysics, the existence and effect of dark matter and dark energy.

              Yet another example of how models are works in progress, refined and modified with additional knowledge and understanding.

              02

      • #
        Ceetee

        They predict what you want them to predict. Nudge nudge, wink, wink.

        61

    • #

      Given time, the end of hiatus will be predicted by expert scientists with 100% accuracy. I believe this will be achieved within five years of the end of the hiatus. However, if there is a warming blip of a couple of years, there will some false predictions.

      381

    • #

      Future Boy will use his flux capacitor to bring back a model showing precisely when the so-called hiatus will end, and it will be especially accurate because, as Doc told us, they abolished the weather bureau in the future.

      50

      • #
        Bob Cormack

        No no, I’m sure that the end of the hiatus will be predicted within 5 years after the end of the hiatus. I will even guarantee this.

        71

        • #
          the Griss

          Do you really think it will be that soon afterwards that they even admit to the cooling trend that will follow the plateau ?

          I would estimate at least 10 years of consistent cooling before they even acknowledged that cooling is actually occurring.

          62

    • #
      ghl

      “While Meehl said all the factors that might be driving the hiatus were still being studied, his research, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, suggested natural decade-to-decade climate variability was largely responsible.”
      Does this mean that their models are now good for natural variability?

      “uh- huh, perhaps they can now predict for how long this Hiatus will last.”
      Good point Richsrd.

      61

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      richsrd

      In the next three or four years. 5 min 20 seconds in here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aUysvVcebo

      112

      • #
        Bob Cormack

        Philip Shehan
        September 10, 2014 at 11:04 am

        (On predicting when the hiatus will end)

        In the next three or four years. 5 min 20 seconds in here:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aUysvVcebo

        Well good for Meehl for actually sticking his neck out and making a prediction of when warming will resume (with some nervous laughter). We’ll see in 3 or 4 years what happens. Perhaps models will finally start generating some predictive skill. (However, Meehl’s claim of “predictive” skill for postdicting events that have already occurred either indicates deception or lack of understanding about what constitutes prediction.)

        Also, his claim that data initialized model runs are a “new thing” is completely bogus — I have direct and indirect knowledge of people at NCAR doing these kinds of runs for as long as NCAR has existed. One of the first serious modelers, Ed Lorenz, was doing this in the 1960s and as a result developed chaos theory. A chaotic system is extremely sensitive to initial conditions and as a result even a perfect model of it cannot be initialized accurately enough to predict beyond a fairly rigid time horizon. For the weather, this is about 7 days. From his talk, Meehl appears to suspect that, for climate models, the horizon is about 10 years, although that seems pretty optimistic given the many factors (“natural variation”) that Meehl admits are not covered by the models.

        When Meehl describes how sensitive climate models are to initial conditions, he is describing chaotic systems. Since weather is apparently chaotic (one piece of evidence is the inability to predict it beyond a very short time horizon), and climate is, essentially, sequential weather it is not a surprising hypothesis that climate, also, is chaotic.

        If what Meehl is hinting is correct, then the task of predicting future climate is hopeless beyond some short time horizon. There is only one way to prove that such a system can be predicted, and that is by demonstration. I applaud Meehl for actually making a definite prediction (hiatus will end in 3 – 4 years), while many of his colleagues are taking cover behind calling model runs “projections”.

        Even the career climate scientists seem to be backing away from the totally unsupported claim that we can predict future climate (much less control it by fiddling with a trace gas). Hopefully, they are brushing up their resumes and figuring out what actual productive jobs they might be qualified for.

        91

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Bob.

          Again I point to the successful predictions of Hansen’s 1981 model based on only three parameters.

          Matching the models with past data (hindcasting) is part of the process of developing models that can predict future events. If the models cannot describe the past, they are unlikely to be successful in describing the future.

          You wrote:

          “Since weather is apparently chaotic (one piece of evidence is the inability to predict it beyond a very short time horizon), and climate is, essentially, sequential weather it is not a surprising hypothesis that climate, also, is chaotic.”

          Weather is indeed very chaotic, but it is not true that climate is sequential weather. Climate is better described as an average of the weather, which tends to iron out the short term chaos of day to day atmospheric conditions.

          Climate deals with large scale forcings over longer time scales which means that projections can be made years and decades into the future, and that hindcasting using models incorporating such forcings while ignoring day to day chaos provides a very good representation of the past. Eg:

          http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html

          Again I note that skeptics often point to significance of that “trace gas” (totalling 3.2 trillion tonnes) on terrestrial biology, but then claim that this amount is self evidently too small to have an effect on atmospheric physics.

          Here is one starting point for the calculation of the warming of the atmosphere with CO2 concentration:

          http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/log1-co2.jpg

          “From his talk, Meehl appears to suspect that, for climate models, the horizon is about 10 years, although that seems pretty optimistic given the many factors (“natural variation”) that Meehl admits are not covered by the models.”

          Meehl is not saying that the horizon for prediction is 10 years, but that a better understanding and inclusion of previously neglected factors that operate on decadal time scales such as PDO will improve the accuracy of the models.

          I have no objection whatsoever to the last part of your sentence on the many factors involved.

          It is essentially a repetition of what I have stated, that there is still work to be done on how the many factors, “natural” and anthropogenic operate and the magnitude of their effects.

          That is why models are a work in progress, the success of Hansen’s 1981 predictions notwithstanding.

          04

          • #
            Bob Cormack

            Philip Shehan
            September 11, 2014 at 4:05 pm · Reply
            Bob.

            Again I point to the successful predictions of Hansen’s 1981 model based on only three parameters.

            Interesting that you tout Hansen’s 1981 predictions. (Note, however, that only the temperature predictions were resonably accurate — other predictions of his model didn’t fare so well.)

            7 years later, Hansen updated his predictions, which have performed much worse all around.
            You would think that steady improvements you claim are being made to the models would have resulted in better, not worse accuracy.

            To anyone who has been following this science political scam, however, it’s not surprising that the main change in the models has been to make them more alarmist. Since the climate has gone its own way and ignored the models, the main task of the alarmists is now to convince us that there really, really is global warming climate change disruption, despite the fact that there are no actual physical data to support it. (Who you ‘gonna believe — them or your lying eyes?)

            The entire ‘climate crisis’ is a predicted crisis. Since the models have shown no predictive skill (at least the ones which predict a crisis, anyway), there is no reason to adopt expensive and dangerous public policy ‘solutions’.

            20

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Congratulations on posting a greenman video that is actually directly relevant to Jo’s topic.
        But I’ll quote from the parts of your nominated video that you don’t want people to focus on:

        [0:27] “People have this impression that global warming is this relentless march upward in global temperature year by year and it doesn’t work that way.”

        Yes. Those people are the people who believed the IPCC as recently as 2007. Then in 2013 the hiatus was becoming so obvious they felt compelled to hide the fact the observations were below the lowest of the projection ranges by actually lying about what range the models predicted between the second and final drafts.

        [2:23] “But of course the models are multiple simulations from multiple models, and when you average them all together you are by definition averaging out any internally generated variability, and that’s by design. What you want to do is to see the model’s reaction to these external forcing factors, like increasing greenhouse gases.”

        Well that is certainly news to the IPCC as that is not the reason the IPCC gave for multi-model ensembles. In 2007 they said: “It continues to be the case that multi-model ensemble simulations generally provide more robust information than runs of any single model.”
        So there you have it, when the multi-model simulations predicted an unrelenting upwards climb in temperature, that’s “robust information”. So you can predict the hiatus only with a method that is…ermm… not nearly as robust?? This becomes important in the next paragraph.

        [3:44] “You take a full climate model with atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice. You initialize the whole climate model with observations of, say, this year, then you run the whole climate model forward for, say, ten years to see if you can track the time evolution of regional statistics of climate as a function of time. So that’s quite a bit different… kinda… conceptually from what we’ve done before. [...] It’s kindof a new methodology.

        You can see here he pauses, his brow furrows, and he inserts a weasel word just before this bold revelation because he’s uncomfortable stretching the truth to make excuses. (Scientists aren’t as good lying face-to-face as politicians.) No it’s not a conceptually different methodology. Does anyone actually believe that the FAR or AR4 model runs which began in 1850 initialised the world average ocean temperature to 0°C, land temperature 0°C, cloud cover 0%, and sea ice 0km^2 ? Of course not. The “traditional” model runs were also initialised with observational data, or at least what little data is available from that time.

        Climate models defined by differential equations can only be solved by integrating over time starting with some initial constant of integration which is typically the real quantity value at time zero. Indeed just from the definition of a computer the simulations must have had an initial state, regardless of what state is picked. To say that traditional models were “uninitialised”[5:13] and that initialising a model with observational data is “conceptually new” is all total rubbish.

        So that logically leaves only two obvious explanations for why these “conceptually new” model runs can succeed in predicting the hiatus:
        • The initial state was more observationally constrained due to denser grids of observational data available for 1995 that were not available for 1850.
        • The model was run forwards for only 10 years after the observational initialisation instead of 100 or 250, so there was less time for errors to accumulate.

        Throw in Meehl’s rather revealing off-handed comment that the models [4:13] “generate their own kinda climates” and it sounds like the hiatus hindcast is more due to the short time span of the projection, not the amount of observations used in initialisation or the model’s “skill”.

        [5:54] “So for example the current hiatus period that we’re in now, we had a real big El Nino event from `97 to `98. We had a real big two-year La Nina event from [98] all the way to 2000, and it’s like we never really came out of that. The big mid 70s shift, which was an accelerated warming period, started with an El Nino event in 1976, and that seemed to flip the system into another state.”

        Okay so ENSO events can affect longer term fluctuations. That sounded a lot like El Nino triggered a hiatus in warming and… El Nino triggered accelerated warming. Whatever happens blame it on El Nino?? What a load of nonsense.

        The 1970s to 1990s warming was triggered by a natural flip of the system into another state? Okay.
        But when the earth warmed over a century, that’s not the result of the system being naturally flipped into another state? They know this how exactly?
        Since they have treated the Sun as being basically constant output and have not modelled the Sun’s internal states, yet we know varying strengths of solar cycles have had an effect on Earth’s climate, surely the “system state” should include the Sun?

        It seems a bit too co-incidental that the average sunspot count [click Raw data] from 1850 to 2014 is 56 and the 10-year centred moving average of sunspot count for a decade centred on 2000 is only 64, which is not much higher. Did the new model runs hindcast the hiatus because the sun controls the climate and the falsely assumed constant solar input got lucky for a start date of 1995 ?

        One truism emerges unscathed from this comedy of errors: Research is what you do when you don’t know what you’re doing.

        121

        • #
          ianl8888

          I agree with your comments on “initilisation”

          The number of backflips on this issue (as I’ve previously noted, Judith Curry ran several long threads on it) exceeds even the number of reasons for truncating post-1960 data from Briffa’s curves in the infamous hockey stick efforts

          We are now seeing “decadal trends” being pushed as the new gold standard – ie. 2 decades of hiatus is now insignificant (only a few decades), we need at least 5 for any weight to be given to it. That this period is twice as long as the previous (scary) warming is irrelevant

          I’m tired of the continual rotation of goalposts … 0.8C in 150 years, of which half is now attributed to natural variation, just isn’t scary

          52

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            ianl888

            “0.8C in 150 years, of which half is now attributed to natural variation,”

            No. The IPCC states that more than half of warming is anthropogenic.

            13

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Andrew,

          With regard to the “relentless march upward in global temperature year by year”, Meehl is referring to the simple fact that temperatures are a consequence of anthropogenic and natural factors, and that in some years the natural factors will reinforce anthropogenic warming and in others act against it.

          Again Hansen’s 1981 model attests to this fact (Fig 5)here:

          http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

          With regard to the IPCC sttement on multiple model runs, there is no contradiction between Meehl’s statement

          “But of course the models are multiple simulations from multiple models, and when you average them all together you are by definition averaging out any internally generated variability, and that’s by design.”

          and that of the IPCC:

          “It continues to be the case that multi-model ensemble simulations generally provide more robust information than runs of any single model.”

          Both mean that the uncertainty in a single model run is reduced by doing many runs.

          This is entirely usual with scientific measurements that involve some uncertainty. you do many runs and take the average. The result is more “robust” than a single measurement.

          Again the point about ENSO events is that they are a natural forcing involved in climate. El nino is a warming contribution, la nina is a cooling contribution.

          It is not true that models treat the sun as having constant output:

          http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html

          I have absolutely no problem with the idea that sunspots may be a marker of natural climate forcings.

          At the risk of repeating myself, temperatures are a consequence of anthropogenic and natural factors, and that in some years the natural factors will reinforce anthropogenic warming and in others act against it.

          14

          • #
            the Griss

            ““It continues to be the case that multi-model ensemble simulations generally provide more robust information than runs of any single model.””

            Could easily mean that they all give approximately the same wrong answer.

            It does not mean they have any relationship to reality.

            “This is entirely usual with scientific measurements that involve some uncertainty. you do many runs and take the average. The result is more “robust” than a single measurement.”

            Does NOT mean that the answer is correct, if your instrument is busted.. ie the models.

            Your foolishness is seeming too imply that “robust” means “accurate”, … well .. enough said.

            41

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Griss, as you have actually made sensible remarks without abuse (I will let the “foolishness” remark slide. That is almost praise by your standards) I will answer this one.

              This will shock you but I essentially agree with much of what you say, but you slightly miss the point.

              Yes, there is no guarantee that multiple models or experimental runs when collecting data will ensure accuracy in the result.

              In the case of actual data collection, systematic errors such as calibration errors will not be reduced by multiple experiments as all the errors will be in the same direction by the same amount and averaging won’t remove that.

              Similarly, in the case of climate models, multiple runs with the same sensitivity factor that is too high or too low will not reduce inaccuracy from that source.

              But not all errors and uncertainties are systematic. There are also random errors that tend to cancel out when an average of many runs or measurements are taken.

              Again this does not guarantee accuracy,as there is always a probability of the true value being toward the edges of the error margins, but makes accuracy more likely from a statistical point of view by reducing the error margins.

              That is what is meant by “robust”, statistically (more) reliable. You are correct that it is not the same as “accurate”.

              Try posting in this manner more often.

              12

              • #
                the Griss

                “I will let the “foolishness” remark slide.”

                I don’t give a tinker’s curse if your let the remark slide or not.. roflmao .!!

                You truly do make some VERY FOOLISH remarks.. don’t you ! :-)

                It doesn’t shock me when you agree with me.. it shows you might be actually learning something.. so yes, maybe somewhat surprising.

                I know exactly what is meant by “robust” in modelling parlance.

                ———-

                “but makes accuracy more likely from a statistical point of view “

                NOT if the model is basically incorrect in the first place.

                It just means that the model keep giving the wrong answer but within a given range.

                And with the spread from the models, anyone who thinks that, as a group, they are anywhere near “robust”, is a clueless idiot.

                11

          • #
            the Griss

            And if anyone is silly enough to think the climate models are in any way “robust”

            Just remember that they give a spread wide enough to march a battalion through.

            That is NOT robust !!

            51

          • #
            the Griss

            And even with that massive spread, they STILL can’t hit the target !!..

            Quite bizarre really !!

            51

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Both mean that the uncertainty in a single model run is reduced by doing many runs.

            Whoosh, that’s the sound of the point going over your head. I didn’t claim anything to the contrary.
            The IPCC argued multi-model averaging is supposed to be more robust, but it wasn’t accurate to the real decadal trend. The credibility of Meehl’s whole argument relies on a single model run generating a projection that is both accurate to history and robust (not just a chance result), but according to AR4 it can’t be both.

            Let’s say Meehl is right… then AR4 was wrong, the “settled science” was wrong, all advice for policymakers based on it is in jeopardy.
            Let’s say AR4 was right… then Meehl is wrong about how much importance can be given to that projection. Or… Meehl is using a model better than anything used in AR5 because it predicted a hiatus accurately. In the latter case, what possible reason was there for not using that model in AR5? Are reliable projections not acceptable when they don’t conform to the nonstop-warming scare campaign?
            But no, he can’t use that excuse because he’s saying this could have been predicted from the same models they had in the mid 90s. Meehl’s answer amounts to IPCC distortions about the original model predictions, or climate science incompetence in simulation, or both.

            It is not true that models treat the sun as having constant output:
            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html

            Good thing I actually said “basically constant output”, not your misquote.
            When I follow your link and trace the source of that diagram it comes from this paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL038932/pdf
            In the original figure the solar component is NOT described as “solar cycle”, it’s described as “solar irradiance”! The fact the sunspot cycle has far more variance between solar cycles than the irradiance just supports my point; they treat the sun as “basically constant output” and don’t model the sunspot-related solar-magnetic effects which have greater variance in them. Thanks, Philip!

            30

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Pardon me Andrew but I think your objections to my post constitute “nitpcking” at best and are just plain wrong in many instances.

              Yes I wrote

              “Both mean that the uncertainty in a single model run is reduced by doing many runs.”

              To which you reply:

              “I didn’t claim anything to the contrary.”

              To which I now reply,

              I did not say you did.

              My point was that there is no contradiction or even a substantial difference between Meehl’s statement at 2.23 and the comment by the IPCC, as you imply when you claim that “Well that is certainly news to the IPCC as that is not the reason the IPCC gave for multi-model ensembles.

              ‘It continues to be the case that multi-model ensemble simulations generally provide more robust information than runs of any single model.’”

              As I wrote I do not approve of terms like “settled science”, but to the extent that this is meant to convey the basis of AGW, that anthropogenic release of CO2 is having a significant effect on climate is established to a very high degree of probability, I agree.

              I also accept and understand, as every climatologist does, which is why they continue their research, that details of where when and how much the effects of forcings alter the climate involve varying levels of uncertainty. That is why the models are as I say, a work in progress. Incorporating the new understanding into the models will increase their accuracy.

              I do not accept at all your statement that

              “The credibility of Meehl’s whole argument relies on a single model run generating a projection that is both accurate to history and robust (not just a chance result), but according to AR4 it can’t be both.”

              or that the AR4 report says that they cannot be both. They most certainly can, depending on what degree of error you will accept as “accurate”. Models are always approximations to the real world.

              See my comments to Griss about the difference and relationship of “robust” and “accurate”.

              “In the latter case, what possible reason was there for not using that model (Meehl’s) in AR5?”

              The reason is that AR% is essentially a review based on the literature up to the time the report was being prepared.

              Meehl’s model (which is apparently still in its infancy and may or may not be correct) is to recent to make the cut.

              You wrote:

              “Since they have treated the Sun as being basically constant output and have not modelled the Sun’s internal states, yet we know varying strengths of solar cycles have had an effect on Earth’s climate, surely the “system state” should include the Sun?”

              Then:

              “Good thing I actually said “basically constant output”, not your misquote.”

              Well pardon me for failing to focus the highly indeterminate qualifier ‘basically’ and if I think that the well defined and quantified 11 year solar cycle which is used in models and clearly affects the results is large enough to contradict the term ‘basically’ and that this shows that your statement that “we know varying strengths of solar cycles have had an effect on Earth’s climate, surely the “system state” should include the Sun?” is indeed acknowledged and followed by the model makers.

              “In the original figure the solar component is NOT described as “solar cycle”, it’s described as “solar irradiance”!”

              This is extreme nitpicking. It may be labelled “solar irradience, but since what is graphed is commonly known as the 11 year solar cycle, because, it is (to use your rhetorical device) er, uhm, cyclical, I believe my usage, which you yourself used in your statement, is entirely accurate.

              Nor did I state that this cycle was the only mechanism in the variable solar radiance.

              It’s just that this one well defined contribution and its use in models was sufficient to refute your claim that climatologists had ignored solar variation in their models.

              Nor is the role of “sunspots” which are a marker not cause of variable solar radiation ignored. They are simply at this point less well understood and quantified than the 11 year cycle.

              Again, as with all the various mechanisms affecting climate, as they become better understood, they will be more confidently included in the models which will make them more robust and accurate.

              None of which reduces the degree of understanding of how anthropogenically generated greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere.

              01

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                >”None of which reduces the degree of understanding of how anthropogenically generated greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere.”

                Which for going on two decades now appears to be an exhausted effect.

                But what warms the greenhouse gasses Philip?

                10

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                >”…surely the “system state” should include the Sun?” is indeed acknowledged and followed by the model makers.”

                Not for CMIP5/AR5 it wasn’t. Solar levels were held constant by the model makers from early 2000s levels because that’s what the CMIP5 specification required.

                The onset of the solar recession was known around the time of AR4, 7 years later it still wasn’t a required parameterization specification for AR5.

                But then, the IPCC couldn’t allow a solar intrusion to their CO2 party could they?

                Now of course we see from Reporting Climate Science:

                ‘Spectral Analysis Says Natural Variations Cause Pause’

                http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/spectral-analysis-says-natural-variations-cause-pause.html

                Meehl et al have (belatedly) discovered MDV (green line) but it’s the Secular trend (red line) that is taking over now. Now what might that Secular trend be caused by? It’s obviously not CO2 but it does look a lot like peak solar activity lagged by planetary thermal inertia.

                We’ll probably have to what a while for Meehl et al to “discover” that though.

                10

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                Should be “We’ll probably have to [wait] a while…”

                00

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Richard,

                No the effect of greenhouse gases is not exhausted. But for the nth time, GHGs are not the only mechanism affecting temperature. “Natural” and other anthropogenic effects will at times reinforce and at other times act against greenhouse warming.

                That is why I wrote hat increasing understanding of the contributions of these other mechanisms to climate does not negate the understanding of the warming contribution of GHGs.

                GHGs absorb infrared radiation. For CO2 the C=O double bond absorbs at those frequencies. This is basic physics and is easily demonstrated in laboratory experiments. The absorbed infrared radiation increases the kinetic energy of the molecule in the form of vibration of the bonds. The kinetic energy of molecules and atoms in solid crystals is what we term heat.

                I have already provided links to models, going back to Hansen’s in 1981 which included solar variation.

                Please supply a reference to this statement:

                “Not for CMIP5/AR5 it wasn’t. Solar levels were held constant by the model makers from early 2000s levels because that’s what the CMIP5 specification required.”

                Your link on the role on the role of “natural” forcings on atmospheric temperature is exactly the point I made at the top of this comment and is complementary to Meehl’s work which is the subject of this section on the better understanding of these mechanisms and improvements in the model results when they are included.

                Again this increasing understanding of these mechanisms in no way negates what is understood about the effect of GHGs.

                Take another look at the graph. What do you think is going to happen to the temperature when the green line goes into an increasing phase,reinforcing the GHG effect?

                00

              • #
                The Backslider

                Philip why do you bother with models which work on the presumption that increased CO2 results in increased water vapor “forcing”, crucial to the AGW/CO2 “warming” theory, when the NOAA clearly shows us that water vapor has in fact declined? (accompanied by much hand wringing regarding the “pause” or “hiatus”)

                Have you not ever looked at graphs showing model predictions as opposed to reality?

                10

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                Philip #3.5.2.2.4

                >”No the effect of greenhouse gases is not exhausted.”

                It is if there’s been no warming commensurate with CO2 forcing for 1 – 2 decades Philip. No warming, no enhanced greenhouse effect. Period.

                By warming I mean we should be seeing around 0.33 C/decade over a period when about 30% of the entire anthropogenic emissions have been released since the industrial revolution began irrespective of natural variation which was NEVER predicted to overwhelm GHG forcing. If that level of CO2 forcing doesn’t produce the posited warming effect (and it hasn’t) then the hypothesis is wrong.

                >”Natural” and other anthropogenic effects will at times reinforce and at other times act against greenhouse warming.”

                Will it? This is new. You’re saying GHGs are not the primary climate driver and at times completely ineffectual and undetectable among the noise of natural variation? Where was this in AR5? This is a big climbdown from the notion promoted by the IPCC that CO2 forcing is the primary climate driver. But isn’t it just a case of oceanic oscillations overlaid on a secular trend with minimal or no effect from GHGs (see below)?

                >”GHGs absorb infrared radiation”

                Well yes. Water vapour is by far the major absorber in this respect. But as I asked: what warms the GHGs? This is, what energy? Fact is, it is solar energy. Except solar energy arrives in a far higher energetic state (SW – higher frequency, higher energy-per-photon along the EM spectrum). The LW energy that GHGs absorb is less intense and less energetic than solar SW. Simple evidence of that is ocean penetration: SW penetrates many metres, and therefore heats; LW penetrates about 10 microns, therefore has negligible heating effect.

                The energy flow through the planetary climate system is sun => ocean(+land) => atmosphere. The energy is progressively degraded along the direction of flow. No-one harnesses DLR (except to create a fridge with a solar cooker), they harness SW solar. If solar input increases as it did over the last 400 years, the oceanic heat sink accumulates energy and slowly releases (modulates) it to the atmosphere and space. This is the secular trend (see below). When solar levels peak and recede as they have done from about 2005, oceanic heat accumulation starts to unwind and after some time lag (say 1 to 2 decades) less energy is released to the atmosphere and the atmospheric temperatures drop.

                That is sound thermodynamics, you cannot get more heat out of a system at lower energy input levels than at the previous higher energy input levels. The IPCC, via papers they cite like Jones, Lockwood, and Stott (2012), say you can.

                We’ve seen the effect of oceanic oscillation (MDV) so far this century but we’ve yet to see the effect of the solar recession and the turn-down in the secular trend (see below).

                Continues next comment.

                10

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                Philip, continued from #3.5.2.2.6

                >Please supply a reference to this statement: “Not for CMIP5/AR5 it wasn’t. Solar levels were held constant by the model makers from early 2000s levels because that’s what the CMIP5 specification required.”

                Sure.

                From CMIP5 forcing page here:

                http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/forcing.html#solar_forcing

                Follow the solar link to:

                ‘Recommendations for CMIP5 solar forcing data’

                What to prescribe in the future?

                “Repeat the last cycle (cycle 23), with values from 1996 to 2008 inclusive mapping to 2009-2021, 2022-2034 etc”

                http://sparcsolaris.geomar.de/solarisheppa/cmip5

                Incredible solar ignorance.

                >”Your link on the role on the role of “natural” forcings on atmospheric temperature is exactly the point I made at the top of this comment and is complementary to Meehl’s work”

                Exactly? I don’t think so. Meehl et al have only just introduced MDV, as sceptics have been saying they should for years – and Kosaka & Xie were the first to do so anyway, not Meehl et al:

                ‘Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling’

                http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

                Alan Cheetham. a sceptic, had this web page up before either of those groups papares:

                ‘The Sixty-Year Climate Cycle’ [original document: 2010/02/21]

                http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm

                But MDV is only the oceanic oscillation component, they (Meehl et al and other groups) now have to contend with the secular trend (see below).

                >”Again this increasing understanding of these mechanisms in no way negates what is understood about the effect of GHGs.”

                Rubbish. The secular trend looms large (see below). That shatters “what is understood” (also see below).

                >”Take another look at the graph. What do you think is going to happen to the temperature when the green line goes into an increasing phase,reinforcing the GHG effect?”

                Take another look yourself Philip:

                http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/uploads/pics/EC_jrc-graph-global-temperature-anomalies-640.jpg

                The green line (MDV) wont reach bottom until around 2032, the “increasing phase” will therefore be 2032 – 2062. That’s a long way off Philip.

                But this is the minor oscillation. It’s the secular trend (red line) you should be looking at and it’s turning down away from CO2 rise. As the accompanying article states:

                “However, they found that the current hiatus period is, for the first time, particularly strongly influenced by changes in the secular trend, which shows a strong acceleration from 1992-2001 and a deceleration from 2002 to 2013. Such rapid and strong fluctuations in the secular warming rate are unprecedented.”

                “Unprecedented”. Did you get that Philip? Actually it’s not because of the short timeframe and if you look at temperature-solar over the last 1000 years or so, it has precedent and is entirely expected (or should be).

                The article goes on with “what is understood” shattered i.e. scrabbling for answers:

                “This unique fluctuation in the recent secular warming rate could have several causes, such as recent changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean, the accelerated melting of Arctic ice, changes in the deep ocean heat storage or the increasing content of aerosols in the stratosphere. The authors recommend further scientific investigation of the causes and consequences of this change, in order to address whether the global climate sensitivity has recently changed. Such research is crucial to understanding current climate conditions and creating plausible scenarios of future climate evolution.”

                [Stage whisper] – “Pssst, DON’T MENTION BICENTENNIAL SOLAR CHANGE.

                10

            • #
              Richard C (NZ)

              Andrew #3.5.2.2.4

              I note the Science diagram Philip links to truncates the Lean & Rind (2009) Figure 1 that you link to, dropping off the predictions.

              http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL038932/pdf

              The prediction model (Figure 1) is already rubbish in 2014. Lean & Rind:

              “…global surface temperature is projected to increase 0.15 ± 0.03 C in the five years from 2009 to 2014, with global annual temperatures 0.7 C above the base period by 2014.”

              Didn’t happen. HADCRUT4 global temperature anomaly:
              2009.5 0.534
              2014.5 0.549

              Worse, Lean & Rind are (supposedly) solar specialists who should have known their solar irradiance (green) was very doubtful given the observed SC23 drop after 2005 and other predictions of an impending recession.

              And so the slow motion CO2-forced solar-blind train wreck continues.

              10

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Again Richard, you are missing the point.

                The model in the link includes I provided includes only the 11 year solar cycle and three other parameters. It is a very simple model, using only one extra parameter (ENSO) than Hansen’s 1981 model.

                If the authors of the link you put up are correct and the multidecadal variation needs to be taken into account, indicating a cooling contribution from the early 2000s, would not the “failure” of the four parameter model be substantially removed?

                http://tinyurl.com/l2994xd

                Again, models are a work in progress improving as further research deepens understanding and allows inclusion of more factors.

                00

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                Philip #3.5.2.2.1

                >”Again Richard, you are missing the point.”

                No I’m not, Lean & Rind are missing the point – MDV + solar change gazumps GHG forcing.

                >”It is a very simple model, using only one extra parameter (ENSO) than Hansen’s 1981 model.”

                “[M]ost recently available characterizations” according to the authors (2009):

                2. Analysis
                [6] Using the most recently available characterizations
                of ENSO, E, volcanic aerosols, V, solar irradiance, S, and anthropogenic influences, A, we perform multiple linear regression analyses to decompose monthly mean surface temperature anomalies since 1980 into four components.

                ENSO but not MDV but why not MDV? Was that not a “most recently available characterization” in 2009? It certainly wasn’t unknown.

                >”If the authors of the link you put up are correct and the multidecadal variation needs to be taken into account, indicating a cooling contribution from the early 2000s, would not the “failure” of the four parameter model be substantially removed?
                http://tinyurl.com/l2994xd

                No because their prediction simply follows “anthropogenic influence” at a substantial rise, see Figure 1:

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL038932/pdf

                What you are suggesting means their “anthropogenic influence” has no “substantial” influence.

                And don’t forget, it’s not just MDV (green line) that needs to be taken into account. The driver of the secular trend (red line – turning down, obviously not CO2) now has to be taken into account too. That’s bicentennial solar change lagged for planetary thermal inertia but they don’t know it yet.

                >”Again, models are a work in progress improving as further research deepens understanding and allows inclusion of more factors.”

                Rubbish. The (unimproved) models are the accepted prognostication for the disaster about to befall us if the global economic order is not changed forever at enormous expense. Tom Harris and Bob Carter have this article in the New York Post:

                ‘Leo vs. science: vanishing evidence for climate change’

                http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/

                In it they state:

                The costs of feeding the climate-change “monster” are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change, plus $176 billion for breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives.

                Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013.

                Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, calculates that the European Union’s goal of a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, currently the most severe target in the world, will cost almost $100 billion a year by 2020, or more than $7 trillion over the course of this century.

                Lomborg, a supporter of the UN’s climate science, notes that this would buy imperceptible improvement: “After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.”

                End quote.

                All that expense rides on the models as they are, which don’t include any “improvement” i.e. don’t actually mimic current climate.

                When the models are eventually “improved”, the climate-change “monster” wont be scary and expensive anymore. It will turn out to be simply the imaginary model-made bogey it always has been, to be consigned to mythology where it belongs. But the billions spent on it can’t be so easily forgotten.

                10

  • #
    lemiere jacques

    no no no it is not a matter of faith, it is science…
    Skeptics are wrong to think the models are not able to predict the climate even the models cannot actually predict the climate…

    81

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    I suppose they will soon claim that they are 97% correct in hindsight.

    Will make a change from them being 97% WRONG in what they claim will happen.

    171

  • #
    Rud Istvan

    Woulda, coulda, shoulda translates as didn’t.

    Adding natural variability now means it should also have been subtracted then. Matt Ridley said it a bit more sophisticatedly in the WSJ a couple of days ago.

    Fun to watch warmunists come completely unglued. Self destructing their own 95% confident AR5 ‘settled science’. Good show, Meehl.

    351

  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    It all makes you want to spit.

    71

  • #
    Mike Smith

    Okay, so we’ve only just started learning how to hindcast. But 97% of experts are 95% confident in our forecasts.

    What a farce!

    201

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    This is the Climate equivalent of Tachyons.

    Shall we call them Climatons?

    Or shall we call them another Fine Mess from Climate Alchemy?

    141

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    Okay, models redone, close to perfect now. Let’s see some predictions. What will ocean and global temps be in 2 years?

    Let’s get some hard numbers down, get people to put their necks on the line, get them to say what would be a falsifiable observation.

    As if.

    141

  • #
    NielsZoo

    Isn’t a model that predicts the past called an Almanac?

    It amazes me that the Climateers are thrilled about building a model that predicts a past outcome when they used all the past data and outcomes to build the model. They’ve just reverse engineered the trends and called it a model. More like an expensive, taxpayer funded Transmorgrifier. Kind of a corollary to changing the temperature data to make your current models correct. Do they have any clue or understanding of cause and effect?

    191

    • #
      ColA

      Do you think they will be brave enough to publish their equations??

      I bet if you dig deep enough into their equations you will find a BoM “homogenising” sub-function – now that will make it totally obvious why they are able to predict the correct result for the past 10 years!!

      21

  • #
    mwhite

    I wonder what odds I can get on England beating Switzerland 2 – 0 last night???

    130

    • #

      Very good odds indeed. Problem is that the bookies will take your $10 at 10-1, then charge a $1000 administration fee prior to paying out. Such high quality retro-predictions require a great deal of funding. Similar to the costs of saving future generations from climate change.

      70

  • #
    Mikky

    AGW relies on water vapour feedback (and a number of highly dubious assumptions, e.g. about clouds) to turn a very modest upper atmospheric warming due to CO2 into “The Great Climate Change Bonanza”.

    The metaphorical stake through the heart of AGW, to stop it drinking our taxpayers blood, may lie in sea surface temperatures, which I believe have hardly changed in 30 years in the most important place – the tropics. Yes, “global” sea surface temperatures have risen, but that is largely due to the magic of statistics, in which equal weight is given to everywhere via the use of temperature anomalies (the subtraction of the average of each separate place prior to averaging).

    The very hot and humid tropics are not changing at all, but this gets diluted by the fact that some cold and dry places have been warming. A more appropriate global average temperature, with weighting according to the local rate of water evaporation, may help to put AGW back in its box, prior to return to the manufacturer for major repairs.

    211

    • #
      Cookster

      Plus if the Poles are warming faster than the tropics, the potential for catastrophic storms will be lessened due to shallower atmospheric temperature and pressure gradients. This is consistent with the trend of global storm severity and frequency. There goes another pillar of the scare campaign.

      151

    • #
      Peter Carabot

      Another lot of “scientist” has been working on a similar model, they name it after a Greek God: “homo-geneisation” , we must all admit that
      Warmist are con-sistant, same Model different application.

      41

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I don’t believe that even major repairs will help. But of course, by all means reurn the thing to the manufacturer. Hopefully that will get rid of it.

      By way of metaphor, their ship sank a long time ago, the lifeboats are lost and leaking, they long ago tossed their life jackets overboard trying to lighten the boats and now they should be allowed to finally sink.

      81

  • #
    Jaymez

    All of these excuses came after the UN IPCC and just about every science academy and government around the world accepted that the ‘science was settled’ in that most of the global warming since 1950 was caused by humans, and that global average temperatures would continue to rise at an increasing rate. In the IPCC reports the confidence was stated as ‘Highly Likely’ and in the last UN IPCC report confidence levels were increased from 90% to 95% without adding any empirical evidence to support that.

    It should also be noted that virtually all of these excuses actually support the claims made consistently by so-called climate skeptics or climate deniers:

    1. We didn’t understand the climate sufficiently to express that the science was settled.
    2. There are a number of variable factors which we cannot measure which have a significant impact on global average temperatures and these are not accounted for in the IPCC climate models.
    3. It was stupid for the UN IPCC to take the theoretical warming from increased CO2 at a theoretical level (all things being equal), then assume that warming effect will be tripled due to theorised and unfounded positive feedback mechanisms. Clearly there are negative feedback mechanisms happening quite naturally which defeats this simplistic view.

    251

  • #
    diogenese2

    If we are in the game of alternative histories consider our present state HAD these models been available in the 1990.
    IPCC’s first assessment report said “we are sure that CO2 is warming the globe but need 10 more years of warming to be certain”. These models would have told them that they would not get 10 more years. How would that have affected the “climate sensitivity”?
    The suspicion is – not at all, after all, if you can “hide the decline” in the past, you can certainly do so in the future.
    I also note that these models can only make DECADAL forecasts meaning the latest “excuse” for the pause does not refine or improve the old models – it actually refutes them!
    Be patient – they will get there in the end.

    91

  • #
    tom0mason

    Funny that my music player, set to radom play, chose Death and Transfiguration (Tod und Verklärung) by Richard Strauss, as I started reading this.
    It’s a long tone poem about how in death one looks back to see the truths in one’s life, until finally after a long struggle, tranfiguration to union with the devine is sought.

    How apt.
    :)

    80

    • #
      tom0mason

      My player appears to be on so sort of mystical quest as the next tune is
      In a Broken Dream by Python Lee Jackson.

      I think I’ll interrogate it about lottery numbers; 5-4-3-2-1 and the 1812?

      40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Good taste in music, even if the climate science along with it leaves something to be desired.

      41

      • #
        tom0mason

        Roy
        Thanks but as many will attest I have no taste in music, I just like many, many different things.
        As for ‘climate science©’ there’s one born every day, and fools that will believe it.
        The oceans ate my heat and I have a hypothesis to prove it, well kinda, sorta, maybe… As Kevin Marshall says above ” …52 excuses. Maybe this will be number 53.”

        51

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Good taste is where you find it. Even if you also like rap I’ll call it good taste if you like Richard Strauss.

          I like a cross section of things musical too, from from ’50s pop to bluegrass and honky tonk to Beethoven and Mozart.

          The only rule is to enjoy what you enjoy.

          10

      • #
        Annie

        The Dies Irae from Verdi’s Requiem comes to mind…doomed we are, ha ha.

        Bang thump, bang thump, bang thump on the drums and lots of cascading voices!

        40

  • #
    the Griss

    Hey, the new series of Dr Who has just started. !

    And they have changed the lead character yet again. :-)

    Sorry, its a temporal thing. ;-)

    50

  • #
    Bruce

    It is astonishing to discover how far Climate Science has been corrupted.

    71

  • #
    the Griss

    ps.. and it was Kevin who mentioned the “TM” thing first, I just didn’t see his post. :-)

    51

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    So the ocean ate my heat — one more time.

    As much as I have disliked this InternetSpeak: ROFLMAO! :-)

    Nothing else will suffice.

    101

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      By far the best laugh yet.

      Climate science is absolutely a pile of crap amazing. :-)

      81

    • #

      Roy,

      You would be amazed at how much heat the oceans are gobbling up. If the figures are right, it is four Hiroshima bombs of energy every second – enough to heat the oceans by one Celsius in just 570 years!
      Makes you realize just how large are the oceans actually are, and how crucial calibration of both instruments modelling of sparse measurements are to the calculation.

      81

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        That does sound really scary! Perhaps I should repent for the end is near.

        41

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Kevin,

        I should have asked this at first. With what instrument can one measure 1/570 degree C (0.00175… degree) difference over one year or even 10 times that over 10 years reliably enough to make the kind of claims they make?

        I know imaginary numbers (not that well but I know them). But I don’t quite know what to call this.

        If you can enlighten me please do.

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          The measurement error is larger than the measurement. :-(

          10

        • #

          Roy,

          You measure it in the same way we measured in High School physics experiments. That is, measured something very inaccurately. Then we would use a calculator to work out the results, noting down the result displayed to 5 or 10 digits. Or at least that was the first time we did an experiment. After a long lecture on significant figures, and a threat to be downgraded, we took into account degree of accuracy of our instruments.
          The Argo floats that have been in use since 2004 mostly measure the top 1000 metres of ocean, though dip down to 2000 metres occasionally. There is only one float on average for an area the size of Pennsylvania or Bulgaria, following a ten day cycle. Below 2000 metres, the measurements are much sparser. The rest is derived from computer modelling. Despite parts of the oceans having seasonal temperature variations of ten degrees or more, the scientists produce average temperature trends of 0.0018 degrees per year. I think my physics teacher would have said that the measured warming trend was 0.0 degrees per year.

          20

          • #
            the Griss

            “I think my physics teacher would have said that the measured warming trend was 0.0 degrees per year”

            Sorry Kevin, no decimal point or first decimal place required, just 0

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Kevin,

            You pulled my leg a bit and I pulled right back. Sounds like a fair deal all the way around. ;-)

            Griss,

            0.0 is OK, indicating that you’re sure it’s zero with a precision of at least one decimal place.

            10

            • #
              the Griss

              Sorry, I disagree.

              Writing 0.0 gives an “implied accuracy” of 1 decimal place. It implies that you think the first decimal is a 0, not a 1.

              This is a way overstated estimate of the accuracy of such a measurement.

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Is 0.0018 not accurate to 1 decimal place expressed as 0.0?

                I think the context counts.

                10

              • #
                the Griss

                Yes, but do you really think you can justify stating it to 1 decimal place accuracy?

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Griss,

                When the number is 0.0018 achieved by simple arithmetic from the numbers given to me, then yes.

                As I said the context counts.

                If the 0.0018 degrees had been measured there wouldn’t be the 18 in there at all. I would discard anything beyond the first decimal place and then I would agree with you.

                By the way, with good instruments it is possible to measure temperature to 1 decimal place with sufficient accuracy to include one decimal digit in the recorded measurement as you know (I’m sure you do).

                In any case, this whole argument about climate change hangs on temperature differences in the fractional degrees C. So what will you say about what the other side of the fence is putting out?

                :-)

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Kevin wisely stayed out of this debate but I’m a perennial glutton for punishment.

                You have a great day!

                10

    • #
      Annie

      I’m not keen on most internet speak Roy but I reckon you are fully justified in using it on this occasion!

      41

    • #
      Mark D.

      Roy, what they need to explain is: If the ocean has been hiding heat (and they believe they can prove it empirically with very scanty modern ocean temperature data) how can they be sure that the oceans were not storing cold for the time preceding the Industrial Age, preceding thermometers and a time with zero ocean temperature data?

      In other words; natural variation that we are only recently able to sense.

      51

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Was the ocean also hiding all these climate crazies just waiting for an opportunity to pop up to the surface and start hounding mankind? I wonder. ;-)

        00

  • #
    David S

    Whilst in this instance they have purported in hindsight to have predicted the pause usually they don’t bother to try to make their predictions consistent with historical facts. Usually they try to make the historical facts fit their predictions like getting rid of the medieval warm period and the Australian BOM homogenising data.
    Whatever methodology is used it sounds equally stupid to any normal intelligent human being. Unfortunately many media reporters are not normal or intelligent and their readers are too trusting to not believe them.

    141

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    The bartender says “sorry we don’t serve time travellers here mate”

    A time traveller walks into a bar.

    220

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo,

    This doesn’t seem O/T here!


    Eugene WR Gallun

    September 9, 2014 at 9:15 am

    Since when did this idea that “missing heat” is disappearing into the deep oceans become accepted as gospel?

    All this talk is based on the premise that “heat is missing”.

    Climate models predict higher temperatures than the data shows are occurring. Isn’t it far more likely that the climate models are wrong — AND THAT THERE IS NO HEAT TO GO MISSING?

    We know the climate model are falsified — so why are you even discussing this crazy idea that “missing heat” is hiding in the deep ocean waiting to resurface and destroy the world?

    TRENBERTH LOSES HIS STRAWBERRIES
    (see the courtroom scene from The Caine Mutiny)

    As greenhouse gases still accrete
    This captain of the climate wars
    Is searching for the missing heat
    That he believes the ocean stores

    He’ll prove to all humanity
    That danger in the deep resides
    The Kraken that he knows to be
    That Davy Jones’s Locker hides

    The soul’s more heavy than we think
    A truth that everyone one must face
    And to what depths a soul may sink!
    Oh! To what dark and dismal place

    Does Captain Trenberth understand
    That data offers no appeal?
    He tumbles in his restless hand
    Three clacking balls of stainless steel

    MY GEOMETRIC LOGIC PROVES
    HEAT TELEPORTS FROM PLACE TO PLACE
    FROM SKIES INTO THE DEPTHS IT MOVES
    AND IN BETWEEN IT LEAVES NO TRACE!

    When silent faces stare at you
    It’s always best to shut your jaw
    But Trenberth is without a clue
    As he believes they stare in awe”

    From comments at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/09/wsj-matt-ridley-replies-to-jeff-sachs-and-bob-ward-cleans-up-their-intellectual-mess/

    161

  • #
    Debbie

    There must be a psychological name for this type of behaviour?
    The only word I can think of at the moment is ‘ childish’.
    These people are behaving like spoilt children.
    They SERIOUSLY need to grow up and learn to accept some responsibility!
    If you’re wrong. . .then you’re wrong.
    We would all love to swap hindsight for foresight . . .but it’s incredibly immature to pretend you can and that people will believe you.
    These people are behaving like my teenage boys who sometimes believe their own lies when they’ve been caught doing something really STUPID and then try to reinvent the events that led up to them being caught.
    And of course it was NEVER their fault!

    171

  • #

    [...] an anomaly? There are at possibly 52 explanations of this hiatus, with more coming along all the time. However, given that they allow for natural factors and/or undermine the case for climate models [...]

    00

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    Does this mean that all the climate change we have been hearing about isn’t caused by CO2 or global warming?

    81

    • #
      el gordo

      Sadly no, indications are that we are heading for global cooling, but i strongly advise everyone not discuss these outlandish thoughts with strangers, friends, lovers or casual associations. Unless you enjoy being ridiculed.

      71

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Yeah you got that right.

        Funny how if your one of the “faithful” you can claim certainty with a straight face, but if your in any doubt, your basically “not well of mind” and should seek counselling. Fascinating isn’t it?

        101

  • #
  • #
    TdeF

    The science was ‘in’. It was unquestionable. 97% of scientists who believed in global warming believed in global warming. Anyone who doubted this absolute truth was a denier, a villain, a dangerous individual who did not believe the BOM, NASA, the IPCC and so many more absolute sources who were absolutely certain the models were correct. So the world has spent trillions on solving an immediate and urgent problem which was not an urgent problem at all and everyone is paying double and triple for their electricity to subsidize crazy and failed schemes to replace coal.

    Now the Guardian admits the prediction of rapid global warming was wrong because the models were wrong. There is no global warming in lock step with CO2 concentration, so close that they were synonymous.

    However the computer models have been changed to fit the history and these infallible models once again predict doom and the unquestionable science is ‘in’ again? In what?

    61

  • #
    handjive

    Does anyone remember 97% consensus settled climate scientists saying this during ’76-’98 warming:

    “oceans control the planet’s temperature”?

    Aug 27, 2014
    The surface air temperature is projected to rise under all scenarios examined by the IPCC.

    The study is the most important document produced by the UN about global warming, summarizing hundreds of papers.
    It’s designed to present the best scientific and economic analysis to government leaders and policymakers worldwide.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-26/irreversible-damage-seen-from-climate-change-in-un-leak.html

    The IPCC said 111 out of 114 climate models predicted a greater warming trend than was observed from 1998 to 2012.
    And for the period from 1984 to 1998, most models showed less warming than was finally recorded, they said.

    51

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Actually I think the paper by Meehl et al is very encouraging. What they are saying is if you include the IPO (or PDO is another name for the same cycle) then you can model the hiatus.

    As Jo says, its what we have been saying all along. Of course the implication of this is that the ~60 year cycle was responsible for about 0.28 C of 0.4 C temperature rise from 1970. Seventy percent! Which means CO2 can be only a third as powerful a greenhouse gas in the real world data.

    I suspect this “finding” alone kills the CAGW scam totally dead. (I quote “finding” as we have known this all along, and my own model of the CET has been working extremely well in the 4 years since I built it in 2010 – with the ~60 year cycle included).

    Of course they have not yet included the full solar forcing. When they do ECS will be seen to be well below 1 C/doubling.

    I’ve said before and I’ll say again now, when the IPCC ensemble modellers include the ~60 year cycle and the Sun properly in their models it will be all over for the climateers. Meehl has included the former. That is a good start.

    131

  • #
    TdeF

    The Australian, this morning. It continues.

    The head of the World Meteorological Society Michel Jarraud released a report yesterday that we were running out of time. All his statements incidate that time has indeed stood still for Mr Jarraud, using arguments from the 1990s. However there is one persistent and obvious lie. “since more CO2 in the water led to increased acidity” and “current ocean acidification levels unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years” and “global warming and ocean acidifiction” and finally “the laws of physics are non-negotiable”.

    Great Mr. Jarraud. Now name one ocean which is actually acidic.

    141

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    It’s ok to alter records of the past because climate change scientists discovered that time causes a shrinkage in temperatures. The new discovery in this announcement is the absolute predictability of the future. “Immutability changes everything” has replaced “the future ain’t what it used to be”.

    51

  • #
    TdeF

    Just to show how terrible the problem is, Mr Jarraud also says the oceans absorb 4kg of CO2 every day for every person on the planet! This should worry us, frighten us into doing something about this terrible scourge.

    However the oceans contain 97% of the world’s water and with an average depth of 3.4km, there are 1.3billion cubic km of water. Even with 7 billion people, that is 0.2 cubic km of water per person. A cubic metre of water weighs one tonne and so a cubic km weighs one million tonnes or one billion kg. So this terrifying 4kg is dissolved in 200 million kg of ocean water per person. Is Mr Jarraud just trying to scare us with his amazing physics? Why does the head of the World Meterological Society try to frighten people? I’ll bet he has a nice beach house like Tim Flannery.

    151

    • #
      Yonniestone

      The absorption rate is irrelevant, we’re talking about CO2 the true ‘God Particle’ that transcends all known physics from life to consensus science climate models……/sarc off.

      61

    • #
      TdeF

      Another way to explain the vast amount of water there is per person. Consider an Olympic swimming pool as long as the width of the United States or Australia. Now add Mr Jarraud’s 4kg of dry ice and leap backwards in horror.

      30

  • #
    handjive

    “Why does the head of the World Meterological Society try to frighten people?”

    That’s because he didn’t get the memo:

    RTCC: Communicating climate change – without the scary monsters
    Last updated on 19 August 2014, 8:29 am
    “The climate disaster narrative hasn’t worked.”

    Another who failed to receive the memo was the Drymonema dalmatinum, one of the rarest jellyfish to occur in the Mediterranean and had not been documented in the Adriatic since 1945.

    Nor the giant cuttlefish, who’s return has baffled scientists, reports the ABC.

    51

    • #
      handjive

      One more who didn’t get the memo:

      A snail once thought to have been among the first species to go extinct because of climate change has reappeared in the wild.

      The Aldabra banded snail, declared extinct seven years ago, was rediscovered on Aug. 23 in the Indian Ocean island nation of Seychelles.

      The mollusk, which is endemic to the Aldabra coral atoll – a UNESCO World Heritage Site – had not been seen on the islands since 1997, said the Seychelles Islands Foundation.

      The snail’s apparent demise was linked to declining rainfall on Aldabra, and was widely considered to be among the first species whose extinction could be directly tied to global warming, said biologist Justin Gerlach, a scientific coordinator for the Nature Protection Trust of Seychelles.

      http://phys.org/news/2014-09-seychelles-snail-thought-extinct-alive.html

      31

      • #
        Allen Ford

        The snail’s [claimed] demise was linked to declining rainfall on Aldabra, and was widely considered to be among the first species whose extinction could be directly tied to global warming

        What climatic phenomenon has been invoked for the miraculous resurrection of said mollusc?

        10

  • #
    Keith L

    This is what ‘post-normal science’ is all about. You make predictions after the event.

    51

  • #
    pat

    on topic, it’s just more proof of the CAGW scammers insanity.

    meanwhile, O/T two important pieces, which everyone should note and can act on, if you wish. phone your Super Fund Managers and inform them you want your profits maximised and you do not want them responding to these CAGW-activist tactics. let others know, so they can do likewise. similarly, warn family, friends & acquaintances about the carbon tax refund scam that is ongoing:

    10 Sept: Canberra Times Money Section: John Collett: Carbon data will help drive better fund choices
    PHOTO CAPTION: Transparency needed: Super fund investment in fossil fuels is a bone of contention for some fund members.
    Some fund members will have views about whether they want their superannuation savings invested in companies they believe are doing the wrong thing.
    Superannuation funds have a duty to maximise the returns of their members. However, fund members who disagree with how their funds are invest are free to switch to another fund, but they can only make that decision if they know how their funds are invested.
    A website launched last week will be welcomed by those fund members who want to know how their fund is investing. The website is at superswitch.org.au and it shows the fossil fuel exposure of 35 of the bigger superannuation funds.
    Activists groups Market Forces, which is affiliated with Friends of the Earth Australia, and 350.org, are behind the site…
    The website names the funds with the three-highest exposures to fossil fuels as OnePath’s Sustainable Investment option with an exposure of at least 22 per cent.
    It is ‘‘at least’’ because only 69 per cent of the investments are disclosed. AMP Capital Sustainable Share option (offered through industry fund CareSuper) has an exposure of at least 16 per cent on a portfolio disclosure of 59 per cent.
    Local Government Super, across all of its investment options, has an exposure of at least 13 per cent to fossil fuels on a portfolio disclosure of 79 per cent. It also has fossil-free exposure of at least 46 per cent, which is high. Local Government Super also has a Sustainable Australian Shares option that discloses 100 per cent of its investments and only has exposure to fossil fuels of 6 per cent…
    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/money/super-and-funds/carbon-data-will-help-drive-better-fund-choices-20140904-10c8in.html

    10 Sept: SBS: Mati Safi: ACCC warns of ‘carbon tax refund’ scam
    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is warning of scammers looking to exploit the repeal of the carbon tax for money making schemes.
    The ACCC says it’s received reports of people impersonating government officials or representatives of energy providers informing consumers they’re entitled to a substantial refund as a result of the change in legislation.
    Deputy chair Delia Rickard told Mati Safi it’s a well organised effort…
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/09/09/accc-warns-carbon-tax-refund-scam

    01

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    It reminds one of the clairvoyant with Alzheimers who, after an event had happened, forgot to write down her predictions saying it would.
    (I have forgotten the original version, which was clear and funny. It is poor taste to joke about serious illness, so the story is more about wordsmithing. I tried to find it again on a memory loss web site with a 16 digit password.)

    30

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Forgetting a joke about a clairvoyant with Alzheimer’s is funny but the memory loss website and password is hilarious, good one Geoff. :)

      10

  • #
    pat

    meanwhile, the MSM has saturation coverage of the WMO pre-climate summit propaganda, with hundreds of exaggerated, scary headlines, and only one so far that calls it for what it is, the conservative/libertarian “Daily Caller”:

    9 Sept: Daily Caller: Tom Harris/Tim Ball: UN Climate Propaganda At Full Throttle In Advance Of New York Climate Summit
    Working with television weather presenters and national broadcasters from around the world, the WMO is releasing 14 imaginary future weather reports this month designed to influence the UN’s Climate Summit 2014 to be held in New York City on September 23…
    But neither the WMO films nor Jarraud’s statement make any sense. They are based on the findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an agency that has been wrong on every single forecast they have ever made. So like most of the climate debate, the WMO initiative is not science. It is propaganda designed to push political leaders into committing their countries to a binding greenhouse gas reduction treaty at next year’s Climate Change Conference in Paris…
    The lack of a global warming/extreme weather connection is one of the few areas of agreement between the IPCC and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)…
    The San Francisco-based Climate Policy Initiative has demonstrated that worldwide spending on climate finance now totals almost $1 billion per day. Tragically, only 6 percent of this goes to helping people adapt to real climate change today, however caused. The rest is wasted trying to control what might happen in the distant future.
    Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, thanked the television weather presenters “for volunteering their time and their skill to communicate to millions of people the reality we are all facing by 2050 if climate change is left unaddressed. I am sure their films will inspire everyone of the absolute necessity of a meaningful, universal new agreement in Paris in 2015.”…
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/09/un-climate-propaganda-at-full-throttle-in-advance-of-new-york-climate-summit/
    (Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. Dr Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.)

    btw BBC is pushing the WMO stuff constantly, with no reference to the pause/hiatus, which Matt McGrath did include in his report online yesterday, saying “However, global average temperatures have not risen in concert with the sustained growth in CO2, leading to many voices claiming that global warming has paused”. (see BBC link in Jo’s “Democracy hurting our climate response” thread.

    anyone wanting to counter those who bring up the WMO report as further evidence of CAGW would do well to provide them with links to the Daily Caller article and to BBC’s McGrath piece, highlighting the quote about the pause.

    31

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    a slowdown that earlier climate models had been largely unable to predict

    …climate models were completely unable to predict.

    Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in the US

    Not just a scientist, he’s a special one.

    Meehl says: “We wanted to know: if we could be transported back to the 1990s with new decadal prediction capability, a set of current models and a modern-day supercomputer, could we simulate the hiatus?”

    Upon a second reading of this, it’s even more bizarre.
    He’s actually saying; Given today’s technology and model, could we run the model (in 1990) and get the same answer as we do today.
    But note that he’s not using a forecasting model; he’s simply saying “could we have simulated it”, in 1990.

    41

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Well, Greg, at least they now admit there has been a hiatus. That’s progress of a sort — sideways instead of forward to be sure. But they’ve made a very significant concession in my view. Now we can ask oh so politely, if your original theory that temperature would rise continually with rising CO2 was wrong, what’s wrong with your adjusted theory?

      Nice position to be in.

      00

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Moving goal posts is all I see Roy.

        Every time we state the obvious, they move the goal posts; Heat in the atmosphere, heat in the ocean, energy budget, heat transfer into the oceans, melting stuff here and there, rising oceans and counting tree rings.

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Greg,

          Have I mentioned my theory? All that missing heat isn’t hiding on Earth at all. It’s behind the moon where no one can see it, that’s all. It’s a giant conspiracy which of course, supports Lewandowsky and his “research”. The only trouble I’m still having before I publish it is, who exactly are the conspirators?

          00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Well, that makes as much sense as what we’re being told by the “experts”.

            00

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              If Heinlein was still alive, I’m sure he could write a great story around it.

              And if L. Ron Hubbard was still alive, I’m sure he could create a religion based on it.

              20

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                And if L. Ron Hubbard was still alive, I’m sure he could create a religion based on it.

                It wouldn’t be any more outlandish than Scientology or many others.

                Heinlein would make something at least interesting to read. I do miss him. Of all the Sci Fi authors I’ve ever read, I miss him the most.

                00

  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    Another Ian

    You — you thought my poetry good enough to carry it to this site?
    My poet’s cup has always been bitter — but you have added sweetness to it.
    I lack words. Thank you for this vindication.

    Eugene WR Gallun

    50

  • #
    thingadonta

    “suggested natural decade-to-decade climate variability was largely responsible”

    Give them another few years to figure out that “natural decade to decade variability” can produce warming in the 20th century as well.

    31

  • #
    the Griss

    Post-fact prediction is oh so easy :-)

    If they had been able to simulate the “plateau” back in 1990……

    There would have been no need for all the data adjustment they are being caught out doing.

    There would have been no need for the massive waste of money on the renewable energy scams.

    But they didn’t, and it really is a farce for them to come out now and say.. “IF…..” !!!

    They were so darn certain that temperatures were going to keep climbing, and THEY WERE WRONG !!!

    What makes them think they are right now. !!

    32

  • #
    the Griss

    “Although global temperatures remain close to record highs”

    What utter rubbish !!!

    We are only just above the minimum temps of the LIA, and well below those of the MWP, RWP and the rest of the Holocene. !

    32

  • #
    pat

    you have to laugh!

    10 Sept: Guardian: Living our values – Sustainability reporting
    Managing our environmental responsibilities: our carbon footprint
    In this article, you can read about our carbon footprint emissions in our digital, print and business areas
    Read about our resource footprint…
    http://www.theguardian.com/sustainability/sustainability-report-2014-footprint-carbon

    20

    • #
      Angry

      “the Guardian” that rag !
      Nothing but a communist publication and an absolute joke !
      Not even good for toilet paper !!

      00

  • #
    RogueElement451

    I am in the process of considering thinking about making a remake of Back to the Future .
    Tentative new titles are a work in process but straight off the bat “Forward to the Modular past”
    A brief synopsis with a proposed cast list is as follows:-

    High schooler Marty McFly (The Griss) doesn’t have the most pleasant of lives. Browbeaten by his principal at school(Kevin Trenberth), Marty must also endure the acrimonious relationship between his nerdy father (Anthony Watts) and his lovely mother (Jo Nova !), who in turn suffer the bullying of middle-aged jerk Biff (Mr Mann), Marty’s dad’s supervisor. The one balm in Marty’s life is his friendship with eccentric scientist Doc (Christopher Monkton), who at present is working on a time machine. Accidentally zapped back into the 1950s, Marty inadvertently interferes with the budding romance of his now-teenaged parents. Our hero must now reunite his parents-to-be, lest he cease to exist in the 1980s. It won’t be easy, especially with the loutish Biff, now also a teenager, complicating matters. Beyond its dazzling special effects, the best element of Forward to the modular past is the performance of The Griss, who finds himself in the quagmire of surviving the white-bread 1950s with a hip 1980s mindset(insert chuckle). Future ass backwards cemented the box-office bankability of both The Griss and the film’s director, Mark Morano, It is certainly supposed that there will be a number of follow up movies ,including one which incorporates Dorothy (Judith Curry) and Mad,bad , Su as the wicked witch ,where McFly takes the Delorean where no man has gone before,,,Oz and back to the tornado!
    This must be good cos i,m laughing a I write it! Note to self ,easily amused.

    50

  • #
    lemiere jacques

    shameless.

    10

  • #
    hunter

    The tell that this paper is just more excuse making is that they the modern new improved tools do not give the authors the confidence to predict when the pause will end.

    20

  • #
    hunter

    >sorry<.
    Let's try that again:
    The tell that this paper is just more excuse making is that the modern new improved tools give the great hind sight, but do not give the authors the confidence to predict when the pause will end. This is such a classic example of a failed prophetic system and it seems to totally go over the heads of the scientists falling for it.

    10

  • #

    Right what is the next lie.

    What are they going to say when the pause turns into an actual temperature global decline which is coming before this decade ends.

    I will post my thouhgts in the next post.

    00

  • #

    SOLAR CLIMATE MECHANISMS AND CLIMATE PREDICTION

    MECHANISM ONE

    One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:

    A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic, releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.

    This perhaps can be one of the contributing solar/climate connection factors which brought about previous abrupt N.H. cool downs during the past.

    This makes much sense to me.

    NAO= NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION
    NADW= NORTH ATLANTIC DEEP WATER

    To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm). The shorter the wavelength, the MUCH greater the reduction.

    UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters from the sun extending down to 50-100 meters in depth, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures.

    This ties into what was said in the above in that if ocean waters in high latitudes such as the Nordic Sea, were to be subject to cooling the result would be much more sea ice which could impede the strength of the thermohaline circulation promoting substantial N.H. cooling.

    Adding to this theory is fairly strong evidence that a decrease in UV light will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation (which should cause more clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H.), due to changes in ozone distribution in a vertical/horizontal sense which would cause the temperature contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere and lower latitude areas of the stratosphere to lesson, during prolonged solar minimum periods. Ultra Violet light being likely the most significant solar factor affecting ozone concentrations ,although not the only solar factor.

    This could then set up a more -NAO, (high pressure over Greenland) which would promote a more Northerly flow of air over the Nordic Sea, bringing the sea ice there further South.

    MECHANISM TWO

    A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.

    Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.

    MECHANISM THREE

    MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter (highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.

    In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.

    MECHANISM FOUR

    High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.

    One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.

    Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.

    These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward.

    THE CRITERIA

    Solar Flux avg. sub 90

    Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

    AP index avg. sub 5.0

    Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

    Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more

    EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

    IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

    The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..

    IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.

    The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.

    NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.

    NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:

    A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.

    B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.

    C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.

    20

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Salvatore Del Prete #50

      Re MECHANISM ONE.

      I stumbled on a University of Cambridge document that “synthesizes” AR5:

      ‘CLIMATE CHANGE: ACTION, TRENDS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BUSINESS’
      The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group 1

      http://www.europeanclimate.org/documents/IPCCWebGuide.pdf

      Curiously, on page 6 there is this definition of climate change (my emphasis):

      CLIMATE CHANGE

      Natural and human factors drive climate change by altering the Earth’s energy budget. At present there is a net uptake of the Sun’s energy by the Earth system; that is, more energy is entering the Earth system than is being lost back to space. The outcome is an increase in heat energy stored by the Earth. This imbalance is driving the rise in global temperature. AR5 concludes that over 90% of the excess heat is stored in the ocean.”

      There’s no attribution for this statement so I assume it is by the University of Cambridge authors rather than the IPCC.

      Here’s the thing. Drop the two words “and human” and the remaining definition is one which I’m sure any solar-centric critic of the MMCC hypothesis would agree with. I certainly do.

      10

  • #
    cleanwater2

    The hiatus was predicted 5 or more years ago plus the prediction of the next Mini-ice age.
    As every “model of future warming” is based on the Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect where is the proof the the GHGE exists?
    Space and Science Research Center
    4700 Millenia Blvd. Ste. 175
    Orlando, FL 32839
    Tel: 407-835-3635   Fax: 407-210-3901
    http://www.spaceandscience.net
    PRESS RELEASE
    SSRC 2-2009
    Monday, March 2, 2009
    11:00 PM
     President Obama’s Climate Change Provisions in Economic Stimulus Plan Create Serious New Risks to People and Struggling Economy.  
    A letter has been sent to President Obama today, in a last attempt by the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) and its parent company Verity Management Services, Inc., to get the administration of President Obama to reverse its climate change course away from the past of global warming to prepare the country for the new cold climate era that has started. It also details the substantial risk that Verity believes exists in the carbon permits and other cap and trade legislation spelled out in the 2010 budget and economic stimulus plan released on February 26, 2009.
     
    In essence, the letter summarizes main points from previous letters to President Obama and his cabinet and adds what Verity considers a new situation that has developed as a result of what it calls the possibility of trading in carbon permits, etc. being classified as “dealing in worthless securities.” This latter issue carries the possibility of real financial risks and legal penalties to participants in cap and trade programs.
     
    According to John Casey, President of Verity and Director of the Space and Science Research Center, “Now that global warming has ended, the attempt to legislate and then impose cap and trade schemes on the American tax payer and their businesses can only be described as highly speculative and may well end up in violation of state and federal laws that govern securities and similar financial platforms. It is sheer folly to force an unnecessary and gigantic tax or fee structure on something that does not exist, especially in the present difficult financial times when the taxpayers and businesses are struggling to stay in their homes or keep their doors open.”
     
    He added, “Here we are rapidly moving into the worst cold climate era our planet has seen in over 200 years without the first dollar being spent to get our nation ready. And yet the Obama administration is blindly ‘rushing off a cliff’ planning to tax our people over $500 billion with carbon dioxide control programs over the next ten years to combat a climate that simply does not exist and one erroneously based on a common gas that many scientists have shown has little harmful effect on the climate. The overall situation has just been made much worse and now has the potential of increasing the suffering in our nation as we go into a deepening recession and have to deal with the rapidly approaching and likely dangerous cold period, completely unprepared.”
     
    On a related note Casey said, “The campaign promise of President Obama to bring “integrity” back into the scientific community has now been dashed on the rocks. Without an independent objective review of the causes of climate change, his cabinet has quickly crafted an economic stimulus plan that Wall Street has shown no confidence in, the funding of which is heavily dependent upon a massive climate change revenue stream that will probably be viewed by many in the financial community, now that global warming has ended, as too risky and possibly in violation of a variety of laws and regulations. Even if implemented, with the advent of the growing cold climate, the world community will soon see this gimmick ‘has no clothes,’ and will be forced to discard it in the next few years leaving the economic stimulus plan in even greater jeopardy.
     
    “I am still amazed and deeply disappointed that the un-going changes in our Sun that are among the most significant occurrences in the history of modern science, are still intentionally hidden from the people by the Obama administration and unreported by the media. This story alone without the background of what this means to climate change, should be front page coverage and the main story on the evening TV news on every channel. We should be teaching all about this remarkable transformation of our Sun, what I have termed a ‘solar hibernation,’ in every classroom in the country. These are sad times indeed, for truth in the scientific community and honesty in the White House.”
     
    Casey concluded his remarks by a separate announcement addressing the gravity of the legal questions surrounding both the economic stimulus plan and the coming cold climate.
     
    “As a result of the damage to the economy and our people that this portion of the 2010 budget plan will create,” he continued, “I have no choice but to forward copies of this final letter to President Obama to key business leaders, as well as the attorneys general of each of the fifty states, and the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder. I will request they immediately halt all cap and trade schemes until they can be re-evaluated as to potential violations of state and federal laws especially regarding disclosure of risks associated with them in light of the end of global warming and the start of the next cold climate era.”
    Letter to President Obama
    Press Release SSRC 1-2009
    Press Release SSRC 1-2008
    Press Release SSRC 2-2008
    Press Release SSRC 3-2008
    Press Release SSRC 4-2008
    Press Release SSRC 5-2008

    10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Surely no one believes Obama cares.

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        In a little over 2 hours Obama will address the nation and outline his strategy for dealing with Russia and the middle east. He’s doing it only because he’s been shamed into it by so much very public pressure from high profile members of the House, the Senate and state governors. I’ll give you good odds that it will be too little and too late and frankly some of it won’t even happen.

        There’s no such pressure on him about climate change mitigation. After all, the media reported on Ukraine and ISIS very noticeably but they say little about climate change, neither do most politicians and when they do they swallow the fraud whole without benefit of salt, butter, mustard or anything else to make the pill go down easier.

        So Obama is a lost cause.

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          If you watched the speech I’m sure you ended up with bad taste in your mouth. This man dodges every issue as if it was a bullet aimed at him. And this one really is. ISIS, if given the chance, will go directly for the president. They won’t be distracted by the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.

          We are going to dodge and dodge and dodge until we’re either attacked again or Obama is out of office.

          [Lets stay on topic people. - Mod]

          10

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      cleanwater2 #51

      >[Casey] – “This story alone without the background of what this means to climate change, should be front page coverage and the main story on the evening TV news on every channel. We should be teaching all about this remarkable transformation of our Sun, what I have termed a ‘solar hibernation,’ in every classroom in the country”

      Agreed, and in every other country too.

      A curiosity. See #50.1 above for a University of Cambridge definition of climate change in a document that purports to “synthesize” AR5 but the definition is not one of the UN FCCC/IPCC definitions that I’m aware of.

      It is remarkably solar-centric, thermodynamicaly sound, and only IPCC-like by the addition of two words “and human”.

      00

  • #
    Nostradumbass

    I could have predicted all the top stock picks of the past 20 years, but I didn’t. I demand a Nobel Prize. Gimme!

    40

  • #
    the Griss

    And of course, If they had “predicted” the plateau…..,

    …..they would have been hounded out and been treated like ignorant coal-backed heathens by the alarmista glitterati.

    60

  • #
    Adrian O

    THE BEST THEORY FOR THE MEASUREMENTS OF ITS TIME

    Philip Shehan “The best that “skeptics” can do apparently is nitpick about details, ignoring the big picture”

    You are extremely confused about the history of science.

    The aim of a scientific theory is to explain the observations AT THE TIME when it is made. Not the ones of the future.

    Star parallax could not be measured in Copernicus’ time, only 200 years later. So he had no data to see that stars were at a finite distance.

    His model was perfect for the observations of his time.

    Newton’s model for gravity and planet movement worked with the observations of his time and for two centuries after him, which is remarkable.

    Einstein’s model still works with very refined measurements now, 100 years later.

    ******

    The climatologists’ models were bad FROM THE MOMENT WHEN THEY WERE MADE.

    And they are still not corrected – an abomination.

    They could have looked at the multidecadal periodicity and at the Greenland ice record, which showed that 0.8C /century is the most common variation around in the last 10000 years.

    At first they were simply incompetent, for ignoring the climate history.
    Later it became clear to everyone, themselves included, that their models were wrong.

    QUOTE
    [2007] Wils:
 What if climate change appears to be 
just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?
 They’ll kill us probably


    Instead of correcting them they chose to make an enormous fuss. And generally behave like thugs.

    60

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Adrian #54 re Climategate:

      >”QUOTE [2007] Wils:
 What if climate change appears to be 
just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?
 They’ll kill us probably
”

      See #58 below, Macias, Stips, and Garcia-Gorriz (2014):

      “A hiatus in global warming ongoing since 2001 is due to a combination of a natural cooling phase, known as multidecadal variability (MDV) and a downturn of the secular warming trend.”

      00

  • #
    Adrian O

    Since the climatologists claim that the heat goes in hiding into deep oceans,

    Shouldn’t they organize a climate DIVE in search of it,
    instead of a climate MARCH?

    40

  • #
    winrob

    Mark Twain said, “Prediction is very difficult, especially when it’s about the future.”

    00

  • #
    Sam Pyeatte

    Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. Niels Bohr

    00

  • #

    [...] back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] ["pause" due to natural variability]52)  ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented [...]

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    ‘Last decade’s slow-down in global warming enhanced by an unusual climate anomaly’

    Science Codex, September 11, 2014

    A hiatus in global warming ongoing since 2001 is due to a combination of a natural cooling phase, known as multidecadal variability (MDV) and a downturn of the secular warming trend. The exact causes of the latter, unique in the entire observational record going back to 1850, are still to be identified, according to an article by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC).>>>>>>

    http://www.sciencecodex.com/last_decades_slowdown_in_global_warming_enhanced_by_an_unusual_climate_anomaly-141430

    ‘New excuse for ‘pause’ #52: ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of secular warming trend’

    The Hockey Schtick, September 11, 2014

    [Quotes Science Codex as above]

    Paper:

    Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record by Diego Macias, Adolf Stips, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz published in Plos One. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107222

    [Link to paper]>>>>>>

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/new-excuse-for-pause-52-unusual-climate.html

    Reporting Climate Science (also quoted at THS link above) has the headline:

    ‘Spectral Analysis says Natural Variations Cause Pause’

    # # #

    Well this is progress. They could have read this page at Alan Cheetham’s Global Warming Science of course (original document: 2010/02/21):

    ‘The Sixty-Year Climate Cycle’

    http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm

    Macias, Stips, and Garcia-Gorriz are calling for further research so I suppose it is just a matter of time now before the penny drops that the “unprecedented deceleration of secular warming trend”, for which they have no clue yet, is the lagged effect of peak solar levels.

    20

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Forgot to address the above comment to this excerpt from Jo’s post:

      >”So once again, Climate ScientistsTM discover the natural variability that the skeptics were telling them about for years.”

      Make that – “twice again”.

      10

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Synopsis (mine) of Meehl, Teng, and Arblaster (2014) inferred from Reporting Climate Science article:

    ‘Climate Models Simulate Global Warming Pause’

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/climate-models-simulate-global-warming-pause.html

    The multi-century scale CMIP5/AR5 modeling rationale is rubbish (“no short-term predictive value in these simulations” – Meehl).

    Decadal scale modeling continually updated with current conditions is the way to go:

    “If we don’t incorporate current conditions, the models can’t tell us how natural variability will evolve over the next few years. However, when we do take into account the observed state of the ocean and atmosphere at the start of a model run, we can get a better idea of what to expect. This is why the new decadal climate predictions show promise,” said Meehl.

    “For example, the UK Met Office now issues a global forecast at the start of each year that extends out for a decade.”

    That way, the decade prediction is only wrong for a year and is immediately rectified the next year with actual data.

    In effect – yearly projections of current data by supercomputer that can be achieved on a PC with Excel.

    20

  • #
    Renato Alessio

    So, if by going back in time, using today’s tools those scientists could have predicted the current pause – well, it should now be a cinch to predict the end of the current pause, should it not?

    Or do they have to wait another decade or two, before they can go back in time with newer tools to work out the end of the pause?
    Regards.

    10