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

We are 99.99999% sure that broken models produce stupid climate statistics

Amazing what they can discover with data from just the last 130 years. Hey but it must be right. It’s bootstrapped!

Finally, the study you’ve been waiting for. Now we can be absolutely certain — it’s practically proven beyond all doubt –  your SUV changes the climate.

We just need to assume the climate models understand the climate and that there are no longer natural cycles at work AND that there are no effects from the sun from the solar wind, solar magnetic fields, or spectral changes. Easy. (Don’t look at the evidencethe pause or all the model failures.)

The new headline:

99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study

It’s at The Conversation - -the government funded site where government funded scientists discuss their bestest ideas.

WARNING – Modern global temperatures (red) were homogenized with imaginary Vostok data for entertainment purposes only. See footnote*

Obviously being 95% certain is not enough. Desperate believers are upping the ante. I guess all those people who were not convinced by 95% certainty will now switch over, blown away by the last 4.999% certainty that was missing before. It’s the third decimal place that does it.

PS: There’s a vote going on at NineMSM. See the poll in the middle of the page Do you believe?

————————

*The graph contains satirical-risk. The blue line is Vostok. The red line is Vodka, “the globe” with polar-exaggeration. Don’t compare them under any circumstances.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (94 votes cast)
We are 99.99999% sure that broken models produce stupid climate statistics, 9.1 out of 10 based on 94 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/om79hde

140 comments to We are 99.99999% sure that broken models produce stupid climate statistics

  • #

    Jo, you’re being harsh – when they say the red line at the end was caused by humans, they’re speaking the literal truth. After all, much of the warming is Mann made… :-)

    562

    • #
      Another Ian

      Eric,

      True I guess, as humans drew it

      141

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      Mann – human?

      90

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I thought nothing in science was 99.999% true, except maybe stuff like the sun orbits the earth?

      They must be desperate…..

      Jennifer Morohnsay made an intersting observation – one that equates ( in my words, not hers ) to “until this current batch of “scientists” retire, the only way thinsg will truly change is by a fresh bunch of eyes coming through”. In many ways she equates science with legal and medical people in their conservatism and not wating to stray from “conventional”.

      Ergo, the more the younger scientists can be engaged and reaosned with, you remove the expect support of the existing ( wrong ) paradigm.

      30

  • #
    Heywood

    The 99.999% figure is quite ironic considering that some scientists are complaining that the climate change message is being corrupted by being too precise.

    “Scientists are doing the public a disservice in their attempts to communicate certainty in climate change science, often giving a “false sense of debate” by being overly precise, says broadcaster and physicist Professor Brian Cox.”

    Source..

    132

    • #
      shortie of greenbank

      They do seem to be saying they are more precise the more they are wrong.

      This leads me to something said on Judith Curry’s blog recently by one of the alarmist authors who said something that the 95% certainty is only wrong once the certainty is reduced below 5%. This seemed to indicate being 94% wrong is still 95%+ certain of the result. I was surprised that comment was allowed to slip through. Now they need to be 0.0001% or less correct to be proven wrong by that logic.

      20

      • #
        shortie of greenbank

        Shaun Lovejoy | September 1, 2014 at 6:04 pm |

        As I indicated in a comment below, the pause will have to last until 2019 or 2020 before it’s probability gets down to the 5% level which would be needed to reject the anthropogenic hypothesis at the 95% level.

        from http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/01/how-long-is-the-pause/#more-16779

        Did I interpret this wrong?

        Should not one aspect be enough to disprove 95% such as the failure or any of the previous models that predicted increasing global temperatures failed to predict a hiatus/pause/whatever that has already lasted greater than 10 years?

        31

    • #
      bobl

      No, they can be very correct.

      I can say with the utmost authority >99.9999% that humans contribute 3 degrees (+7/ -13 degrees) to the temperature. Or expressed a different way, that humans contribute between -10 and +10 degrees to the climate. See it’s easy to get confidence, see how the game is played? This was the IPCCs trick in AR5, they broadened the sensitivity range down to 1.5 degrees per doubling ( almost plausible) dropped the central estimate and then declared more confidence. Of course they’re still probably wrong because climate sensitivity is more like 0.5 deg per doubling CO2.

      21

  • #
    scaper...

    Boy, the warmists are getting desperate. I expect them to ramp it up for the climate change fiesta next year as it is their last throw of the dice.

    I wonder if the government is going to bother going to the talk fest? Nah, not really.

    152

    • #
      Heywood

      I’m curious to where they go from here… ‘Now we are 99.999999999999999999999999999999% sure’???

      I reckon they have jumped the shark with this figure.

      193

      • #

        I agree. More skeptics will be created by the preposterous certainty involved.
        Who seriously believes that the same team that get the pause, the snow, the floods and everything wrong could possibly “predict” the climate with anything remotely close to that kind of accuracy.

        If they dropped it to 70% and talked about “insurance” it would not be an automatic self-satire…

        353

        • #
          Ceetee

          Agree jo, why .99999 ?. Why not .99753?. We all here realise that these people aren’t talking to us, they’re talking to what they consider gullible idiots. .99 is straight out of marketing strategy. They have lowered their sights and don’t care a jot what people like us think. According to the precise calculations conducted in the many partitions of the grey matter in my head, they are 99.99999% wrong.

          110

        • #
          Olaf Koenders

          Agreed. It’s like saying “EXACTLY more and more people believe in climate change”. I think most will hit the “rubbish” button when they see it.

          50

        • #
          tony thomas

          Hi Jo, are you aware that Bryson Bates seems to be standing behind this new paper?
          Stephen Rasey September 4, 2014 at 7:31 am
          I went looking for the masthead, editor, or editorial board of the Journal. I could not find one that wasn’t behind a paywall.

          I did find the authors of Vol 1, No. 1, page 1-4, “What is climate risk management?” So I make the assumption that these two authors have something to do with the management of the journal.

          William R. Travis
          Department of Geography, University of Colorado, 260 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0260, USA
          Bryson Bates
          CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship, Private Bag No. 5, Wembley Western Australia 6913, Australia
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/03/laughable-new-paper-claims-99-999-certainty-global-warming-over-past-25-years-is-man-made/

          Do you ever sit next to Bryson on the tram (or whatever Perth uses, I wouldn’t know :) )

          30

      • #
        James Bradley

        Same certainty as a North Korean election.

        90

    • #
      sophocles

      Yes, they’re desperate: next year is the conference to assign global government to the UN … to battle this Climate Change … thingy. They have to have everyone all lined up to cheer it on. Saving the World, y’know.

      50

    • #
      bobl

      Scaper, I want the government to send me, Jo and Prof Carter as their reps.

      10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    So now on top of the percent sign being misunderstood and misused the whole meaning of numbers is turned on its head. :-(

    182

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    I read through the responses on the Conversation article.

    After about 50 responses, and not finding any that were critical of the article, I can only conclude that the critical ones get deleted.

    172

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Not deleted Greg, adjusted…. ;)

      261

      • #
        shortie of greenbank

        I think the more reasonable responses were the result of them employing the program that wrote rubbish papers that were published. They should struggle to get 50 responses from the handful that post there surely?

        10

  • #
    Bill Johnston

    I’ve got it.

    They are right; they just wrote it backwards.

    99999.99 is the standard missing number!

    Cheers,

    Bill

    82

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Or maybe upside down, is 999 the new 666?

      I can see a new Spinal Tap styled mockumentary about all this silliness, just use the original characters, bloody hilarious.

      101

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    They may as well have rounded it up. Or are they saying that they are THAT accurate?

    131

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The graph contains satirical-risk. The blue line is Vostok. The red line is Vodka, “the globe” with polar-exaggeration. Don’t compare them under any circumstances.

    Why not compare them? It’s bound to be no worse than the drivel from the climate change industry.

    151

  • #

    99.999%

    You have to laugh.

    They are now so absolutely, positively, certain that man’s emissions of CO2 are causing the World to inexorably heat up, with the impending total catastrophe rushing at us like an unstoppable speeding locomotive.

    Yep! Dead set certain they are.

    Have they done anything to actually stop these emissions of CO2?

    Well, no, really.

    In fact they’ve actually allowed them to increase all across the World.

    But hey, at least they’re certain now.

    If they’re so certain, why aren’t they doing something about, I mean, other than talking about how they know what the cause is.

    C’mon you lot. Be brave. Actually DO something.

    Tony.

    252

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And if they really are that certain, why not call it 100% and be done with it? In fact isn’t that what they started out saying? We’re certain and no debate is possible, etc., etc., etc., ad Goream.

      What a joke they are.

      151

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Why not roll out the old 110% certain? after all warmists have never cared about accuracy or reality, why start now?

        A case of closing the debate after the truth has bolted methinks.

        131

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        That was my point above, which was probably not well worded.

        That 0.001% isn’t an error margin.
        They are so accurate that they know that humans have caused 99.999% of the dmage, nature contributes that little 0.001%.

        52

    • #
      the Griss

      “If they’re so certain, why aren’t they doing something about”

      Must be because they KNOW that a small amount of warming and the small amount of extra atmospheric CO2 is 99.999% BENEFICIAL to the planet’s life.

      192

    • #
      • #

        Again, this is the current power generation in the UK. (0930, and updated every 5 minutes)

        I know I could go …. aha! Look. Wind is only supplying 0.81% of the UK demand, but look at the second row of graphs there, and the top graph for the most recent 24 hour graph of power generation. Nuclear power is the solid green colour, virtually a straight line across the page, as is coal fired power, (black line) again, almost a straight line with just the slightest of dips from Midnight to around 7AM, that period of lowest consumption. Gas fired is the red line, and because it can come on line fast, then it is used for the daily rise above that Base Load requirement.

        However, note that blue line, and that’s for Wind Power. See how it is just (literally) rolling along the bottom of the graph. Now while that daily graph is indicator enough of the inability of wind to supply, look then at the graph directly under that top one there, which shows generation over the most recent 7 days.

        Note how wind rolled down to the bottom on Sunday, and virtually just stayed there, now for 5 days.

        Total Nameplate for Wind in the UK is 12GW, so it’s current supply of 0.81GW means the Capacity Factor is 6.75%. So using an average of 2.5MW per tower, that means there are around 4800 towers, and at the moment, only 320 or so of them are actually turning.

        Now that’s what I call value for money, eh!!!!!

        Tony.

        180

    • #
      Tim

      “C’mon you lot. Be brave. Actually DO something.”

      I think they will. It’s probably called the ‘Mandatory’ solution.

      10

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yep, its utterly comical….I couldnt believe it….. 99.999%…you pay big money for that sort of certainty in IT…..

      Seriously desperate ++

      10

  • #
    thingadonta

    They are 99.999% sure that that is they want to believe.

    81

  • #
    Neville

    Brilliant column from Matt Ridley in the WSJ. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/wsj-whatever-happened-to-global-warming.html

    He lists all the BS about the forecast warming that didn’t occur and the extremist’s excuses still trying to cover their backsides.

    162

    • #
      Rick Bradford

      And he starts with a top paragraph:

      On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won’t attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?

      131

  • #
    The Backslider

    PS: There’s a vote going on at NineMSM. See the poll in the middle of the page – Do you believe?

    Well dang!

    If you look at the page linked to, don’t you just love how they have Photoshopped some flame at the top of the cooling towers which are belching STEAM.

    71

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Backslider, I think they’re aircraft warning lights on the towers, not photoshopped flames. But of course, they couldn’t pick anything else but towers chuffing steam.

      30

      • #
        The Backslider

        I think they’re aircraft warning lights on the towers

        I have never seen aircraft warning lights turned on during the day…..

        10

  • #
    sillyfilly

    999999999999% more certain than anything McKitrick recently offered! Reminds me of a movie line “you can’t handle the truth”. The science moves forward while the scientifically ignorant move backward.

    129

    • #

      Reminds me of a movie line “you can’t handle the truth”.

      Funny, eh! The guy who said that ended up being arrested.

      Nice analogy ….. if you wanted to shoot yourself in the foot!

      Tony.

      222

    • #
      sophocles

      you can amend that to “the scientifically and statistically ignorant move backwards”

      And:
      Backwards is a direction whereas backward is a state.

      101

      • #
        sillyfilly

        I concur that the state of most here stated is scientifically and statistically backward!
        Mea culpa for poor grammar.

        113

    • #
      Heywood

      So we should be expecting to see your rebuttal paper in the same journal as McKitrick’s soon then?

      Maybe you and Philip Shehan can co-author. You both have a lot to say about it.

      171

      • #
        the Griss

        They could get BA4 to help as well.. then get The WC to edit it.

        That would truly be a case of GIGO !!

        212

        • #
          sophocles

          And Mikey could do the statistics… using Mikey’s Modified Least Squares Method (Hockeysticks preferentially selected).

          50

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Doesn’t need rebuttal, it’s merely an academic exercise that says basically nothing new and takes you nowhere in the debate. Great statistics though.

        114

        • #
          the Griss

          Yes, munted mule, we know that you can’t rebut it.

          Your ignorance in statistics has been amply demonstrated many time.

          And we know you never say anything worthwhile to add to any debate.

          And how the heck would you know anything about academic exercise, something you have never done in your life. !

          102

        • #
          Heywood

          So you accept his conclusion that the hiatus in surface temperatures is now 19 years long?

          40

    • #
      the Griss

      “the scientifically ignorant move backward”

      Poor little mule… walking backwards as always.

      The carrot must be behind the donkey with all the other mule c**p you pass from your nether regions.

      Yet another scientifically empty post from the malignant mule.

      163

    • #
      Yonniestone

      ‘The science moves forward’…. moving forward, now where have I heard that before?…..

      111

    • #
      Streetcred

      Better start saving your shekels, Silly, the time is coming when you are going to be set free from the tax payers’ trough.

      112

      • #
        the Griss

        Here’s hoping.

        Mules and donkeys are not very useful creatures in current society.

        A curiosity, is about all.

        91

    • #

      silly, your team might be in a race to get to 100, but we’re aiming for the truth instead…

      191

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Sorry to disappoint you, but I will, as I always have, operate in my blogger isolation. Lovely conspiracy theory though. But from one of your fellow sceptics:

        Many sceptics apparently think that we have won the scientific argument, and that our next objective should be the dismantling of climate policies and climate research. But they are wrong. We have not won the scientific argument and we won’t, if we continue down the current path of suggesting that we can’t forecast weather or climate

        So we battle for the “truth”.

        114

        • #
          the Griss

          “Sorry to disappoint you,”

          Your posts are always a disappointment

          We await something rational and sensible.. but ,, nada, nothing, Zip !! :-(

          20

    • #
      Raven

      [...] 999999999999% more certain than anything McKitrick recently offered! Reminds me of a movie line “you can’t handle the truth”.

      Reminds me of the old Kaplop bird story actually . . . which goes like this.

      Legend has it that the Kaplop bird lived on the slopes of the Himalayas and as a result, developed one leg longer than the other. This was a unique and considerable advantage because it could outpace it’s natural predators in easy fashion.

      However . . . when pursued on the plain, it would run around in ever decreasing concentric circles until it finally disappeared up it’s own fundamental orifice with a loud Kaplop.

      Such is the fate of Climate Science™ I reckon. :-)

      60

  • #
    sophocles

    It’s definitely madness.

    It started with 95% certainty.

    Nature ignored it and did her thing.

    It went to “97% of all scientists …”

    Nature ignored them and continued to do her thing …

    Now it’s “99.999% positive …”

    Stating, predicting and holding the same position over and over again, with the expectation of a different outcome each time is madness.

    I can and do predict, with 100% certainty (there! Beat them to it!): Nature will continue to ignore them and will continue to do her thing.

    Ergo: they are mad.

    181

    • #
      ianl8888


      Stating, predicting and holding the same position over and over again, with the expectation of a different outcome each time is madness

      Reputedly Einstein’s definition of stupidity – repeating the same failed action and expecting a different result

      111

      • #
        sophocles

        I haven’t tried to source the quote. I suspect you are probably right. It’s still apropos as the mad are seldom recognised as being among the sharper knives in the drawer because of their affliction. The state is not conducive to brilliance except in some extremely narrow and mostly useless aspects.

        The Victorians had the right idea: put them on farms and they can look after the methane generators … aah, the cows and sheep, where they can’t harm others. I can just envisage WC in the milking shed … at the functional end of a heavily loaded and uncomfortable cow.

        20

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          Are you saying that mad scientists are just fictional characters for books and movie plots?
          Oh no, tell me you are joking.

          20

  • #
    Lord Jim

    99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study

    Don’t look at the evidence, the pause or all the model failures.

    Monty Python’s black knight springs to mind.

    81

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    From my mate AlecM: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11058901/Global-warming-impacts-severe-widespread-and-irreversible-UN-warns.html

    “No professional engineer or scientist taught standard physics accepts the absurd IR and Radiative physics used by IPCC modellers to justify ‘positive feedback’.

    The fact that the Royal Society claims Radiative Emittance (aka Exitance) such as that from the Earth’s surface to the Atmosphere and from the Atmosphere to the Earth’s surface are real energy flows is a major embarrassment because it is so easily disproved by experiment.

    In night vision equipment; the detector at the same temperature as the surroundings shows an image that shimmers, alternating light and dark at any position. What is really being detected is the thermal incoherence about zero mean flux, thus proving net energy flux is the vector sum of opposing emittances.

    ‘Back radiation’ does not exist except as an artificial construct from the measured temperature, a null point measurement. For organisations like the Royal Society not to know this basic physics is deeply embarrassing.”

    133

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      Do the physics properly and there is exactly zero warming of the terrestrial atmosphere from all well-mixed GHGs.

      It’s time this massive IPCC Science [SNIP "debacle"] was shut down.

      20

  • #
    George Applegate

    …less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions…

    So they claim to have proven an extremely vague proposition that was never disputed in the first place: that human green house gas emissions have some effect on global temperature.

    The news media will distort this into a 99.999% probability that global warming, climate change, extreme weather, and climate disruption are all happening and caused by man.

    And then there is propagation of error. If the probability is even 99% that the increases we’ve seen in CO2 are entirely man made (which they aren’t), then their claim can only be 98.999% at best. Etc. They must be using different

    rigorous statistical techniques

    61

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      But with all this “adjusting or homogenising” of temperatures it may well be that any temperature rise since 1940 is entirely due to those fiddles, so they may well be right.

      P.S. for the arithmetically challenged trolls 99.999% of zero is zero.

      40

      • #
        the Griss

        Steven Goddard has shown that in the US at least, the “adjustments” have an ALMOST PERFECT correlation with the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.

        R2 of 0.99 iirc.

        There is NO WAY that can happen by chance. !

        60

  • #
    pat

    what’s not in the MSM:

    5 Sept: Perisher extends the snow season after great snowfalls and wonderful snow conditions
    After being the first Australian ski resort to open for skiing and boarding in 2014 on June 7, Perisher, Australia’s favourite ski resort has announced that it will be extending its season until October 10, again providing the longest ski season in Australia!
    The 2014 snow season has seen some of the biggest snowfalls in decades with over two metres of snow falling in a two week period, setting up the season to be one of the best ever in terms of snow depth and consistency.
    With great snowfalls over the past three days and more snow expected into next week, spring conditions are as good as they have ever been with Perisher offering fantastic skiing and boarding across the four resort areas of Perisher Valley, Smiggin Holes, Guthega and Blue Cow. With up to 47 lifts operating including the NEW $4 million Freedom Quad Chairlift in Guthega there is terrain on offer for all ages and abilities.
    The official snow depth, as measured by Snowy Hydro on the 27 August, is 1.54 metres at Spencer’s Creek just outside of Perisher.
    “Thanks to the amazing snowfalls that we received during July, super cold nights enabling great snowmaking through August and now more fresh snow in the first few days of September Perisher is experiencing some of the best spring skiing and snowboarding conditions that we’ve seen for many years” said Peter Brulisauer, Perisher’s CEO today…
    http://www.perisher.com.au/tickets-passes/extended-season.html

    4 Sept: WUWT: Global Temperature Update – No global warming for 17 years 11 months
    … or 19 years, according to a key statistical paper.
    By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/04/global-temperature-update-no-global-warming-for-17-years-11-months/

    52

  • #
    pat

    btw, what is also hard to find in the MSM is news about solar panel roof fires. a friend just told me the fire brigade was called to his neighbours’ place last nite south of Brisbane because a fire had started in the wiring of the panels on their roof. my friend didn’t know any further details, but said the fire brigade told the neighbour there had been a few such fires.

    perhaps something similar here. note the DM had to get a tip-off to know about this:

    31 Aug: UK Daily Mail: Schools warned of solar panel fire risk: Fears over free green scheme after three mystery blazes
    •92 schools and 27 business have been told their equipment will need improvements before it is considered safe to use
    • Third roof blaze damaged two classrooms at Sutton Bonington Primary School in Nottinghamshire
    •British Gas stressed 160 other schools fitted with earlier versions of the panels are unaffected and household ones are safe
    British Gas has launched an investigation into solar panels at dozens of schools and businesses after a series of mystery fires…
    It comes after solar panel fires in three schools were confirmed by British Gas following a tip-off to The Mail on Sunday…
    More than 90 schools and 27 business fitted with the suspect equipment have been left without free solar energy since April. The news is likely to come as a blow to Energy Minister Greg Barker, who the same month unveiled plans to put solar panels on the roofs of 24,000 schools…
    British Gas has stressed that 160 other schools fitted with earlier versions of the panels are unaffected and that household ones are safe…
    Professor Stuart Irvine, director of Glyndwr University’s Centre for Solar Energy Research, said panel fires were unusual. He added: ‘The cause here may lie in wiring or junction boxes, where power is converted for the grid, rather than the panels themselves.
    ‘There’s an argument that the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) needs to look at this. We must make sure there’s adequate testing of components and sufficient protection for buyers.’ A spokesman for the DECC said: ‘As legal action is pending, it would not be appropriate to comment.’
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738673/Schools-warned-solar-panel-fire-risk-Free-green-scheme-halted-three-mystery-blazes.html

    61

  • #
    IC

    Hey so I’m going to wade in here and point out that you have made a pretty big mistake with this post. The weather cycles the earth goes through over hundreds of thousands of years are extremely well understood. They are called “Milankovitch cycles” and were discovered 100 years ago. They involve things like the eccentricity of the earths orbit and the earths rotational tilt.

    Actually if anything Milankovitch cycles show just how real science used to be done and how shoddy science has now become. With just a handful of free parameters you can understand hundreds of thousands of years of earths glaciation and warming, whereas now days it takes hundreds of free parameters to essentially fit a straight line (the last 100 years of warming).

    Anyway what we can’t understand is variability over shorter time frames, like the last 10,000 years since the interglacial period started. I’ve read a few papers where they try to use current climate models (or perhaps a better word would be curve fitting algorithms) to any time earlier than the last 100 years and the results are embarrassing. So your graphic could be improved by doing exactly the same thing but with the Vostok data from the last 10,000 years only instead of the last 400,000.

    21

    • #

      IC. I’m aware of Milankovitch.

      I did consider this graph:

      But since I couldn’t find records from Vostok for the last 100 years (though there are surface measurements from the last 50) I decided it would be hard to add a meaningful line to extend it to modern times given the scale. As it is I doubled the one degree of warming globally to be two degrees at Vostok, which probably overestimates what has happened. But I’d rather overestimate than underestimate.

      On the long term scale there are plenty of ups and downs that models could’ve, but can’t, explain.

      110

      • #
        IC

        I am thinking something like this:

        http://i60.tinypic.com/iyd4yh.jpg

        I got the GISP2 data for the last 10k years from here “ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt”. Then I got the Hadley CRUT air temperature data from here “http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly”, and attached it to the end of the GISP data (GISP2 ends in 1850 when the air temperature records start). I painted the surface air temperature data red. Zero is today’s temperature.

        The result is quite astounding actually. I was surprised at how small the temperature variation in the last 150 years is compared to the past 10,000 years.

        10

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      They are not “extremely well understood”. They don’t know why one cycle swaps to another. Only that they do.
      Why does a glacial period end?

      30

  • #
    scaper...

    I hear that the warmists brigade are saying that last winter was warm. Yeah, right!

    In Brisbane it has been as cold as chilly 1984. Has anyone out there in Australia had a warm winter?

    101

    • #
      Streetcred

      On my wife’s scale, it has been dooner and 2 blankets cold … that is way less than the 10C-14C that the Bom reports.

      62

    • #
      JPAK

      I cut hardwood for our slow combustion fire at Berambing, NSW. At 2400ft we often get frosts but this winter has been enduringly cool and I have had to go out collecting extra wood. The house is better insulated these days but this winter I’ve been wearing my down mountaineering jacket in the house.
      Maybe I’m just growing old and need to get along to Anecdotes Anonymous(i.e. The Applebar) where everyone is 99.9% shurtain about shomething by this time on Friday night.

      30

  • #
    john karajas

    I am 99.99999% (or is it 100%) certain that Tim Flannery predicted that the dams in Queensland would never overflow again, this being a couple of years before the Wivenhoe dam overflowed helping to create major flooding in Brisbane.

    I am also 99.9999% (or is 100%) certain that a boffin from the University of East Anglia opined in the early 2000′s that snow would become a thing of the past in England only to see Great Britain almost entirely covered in snow shortly after Koppenfloppen.

    I am 99.9999% (or is it 100%) certain that The Guardian ran an article in 2009 predicting that the Arctic would be ice free by 2014.

    Oh yes I am 99.99999% certain that there are a lot of publicly funded idiots making prognostications about the world’s climate. If these fools had to make it in the world of private enterprise they would starve (or else run HR departments).

    152

  • #
    TdeF

    Ignore the copywriters’headline. It is utterly misleading as it does not match the actual statement immediately following.

    “There is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, our new research shows.”

    The position has shifted remarkably!

    They are no longer saying extra CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels and this alone caused all of the temperature increases in the 1990s.

    In fact they are not even saying how big a part CO2 played. However someone has take a lot of time to suggest that it is most likely that CO2 played a part.
    Remarkably, how big a part is not even said. Perhaps almost nothing.

    Perhaps the dramatic attention seeking headline should be
    “99.999% certainty humans may have something to do with recent global warming “
    or
    “99.999% certainty no one can prove humans have nothing to do with global warming “

    91

    • #
      TdeF

      or even better

      “99.999% certainty humans may have almost nothing to do with recent global warming “

      91

      • #
        the Griss

        99.999% certainty that humans can do absolutely nothing about recent global warming or global cooling, whatever happens within the NATURAL climate cycles.

        62

        • #
          Ceetee

          Simples, if you don’t understand the past and can’t explain it, how can you have the bare faced cheek to preach about the future. It doesn’t matter that your name when printed looks a a kids train set chuffing left, if you can’t take everyone with you then you may as well have been shouting at the padded walls of a very small room.

          20

  • #

    Nice that they left themselves a tiny amount of wriggle room, you know, for when it all comes crashing down they can still say, “Well, we never said we were 100% certain.” Cretins, the lot of them.

    I voted ‘No’, btw, and currently more people have voted ‘Yes’ than ‘No’ to “Do you believe global warming is caused by man?” I’m sure that will be rectified. Has anyone informed WUWT of the poll? I can’t catch all their comments anymore and don’t want to repeat.

    41

  • #
    George Applegate

    And:

    We tested it to make sure it worked on the historical record…

    So they now have a climate model that predicts the recent 17 year pause? Now that would be news!

    81

  • #
    Peter Styles

    In 2008 David Jones head of climate analysis at the BOM said the extreme dry was permanent .Sydney Mourning Herald 8/1/2008. Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO confirmed that the drought would never end because of climate change caused by global warming .Age 30/8/2009.No need to be concerned by this latest prediction as it is not 100%like the previous warnings .

    71

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    American baseball hall of fame recipient and one of 3 coaches to lead and American League and a National League to World Series victory, Yogi Berra had a better quote than 99.999% certain.

    “Baseball is ninety percent mental and the other half is physical” Yogi Berra

    You see his probabilities went not just to 99.999%, but to 140% and he made a lot more sense and accomplished more in his life than 99.999% of the global warming leftists.
    I know this because his probabilities were much more certain than their 99.999%.

    Yogi we miss you and need you now.

    51

  • #
    thingadonta

    They can always upgrade next to that stupid motivational comment made by most football coaches. We need 110%!.

    Prediction: climate scientists will actually say this at some point, and get it passed by a journal.

    71

  • #
    Streetcred

    They should extend Queensland’s VLAD (Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment) laws to include ‘climate scientist’ ™ as well! It worked a treat on the bikie gangs, why not the BoM, CSIRO, and the rest of the teat suckers and dribblers.

    31

  • #
    pat

    i’m 99.99999% sure the CAGW scam is on its last legs:

    4 Sept: Scientific American: Reuters: Madeline Chambers: Is Germany’s Green Zeal Turning Brown?
    For all Angela Merkel’s headline-grabbing “green revolution”, Germany’s image as a world leader on environmental policies is in danger of falling under the shadow of the smoke stack and a cloud of exhaust fumes. Increasing dependence on brown coal has raised doubts about whether Berlin will hit its medium-term CO2 emission goals…
    Last year lignite was the single biggest source of German power, generating 25.8 percent, and it has risen every year since 2010.
    Greenpeace says no other country in the world extracts and converts as much brown coal into electricity as Germany.
    “Germany is making itself a laughing stock because it hasn’t set limits on brown coal,” said Greenpeace’s Karsten Smid, who wants the government to say when it will phase it out…
    According to an International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) report, Germany has seen the second-biggest increase in passenger car mass in the EU over the last decade after Sweden, and German drivers take to the wheel with 13.4 percent more power in their pedal than the average European.
    “Big cars are part of the national psyche. For that reason, politicians are reluctant to intervene strongly on more fuel-efficient vehicles,” said one industry expert, speaking on condition of anonymity.
    They are also reluctant to interfere with a sector that packs such an economic punch, employing 760,000 people and exporting more than 4 million vehicles a year – and donates hundreds of thousands of euros to the main political parties…
    Germany is also a laggard on electric cars and is widely expected to miss a target of selling 1 million by the end of the decade. Last year, electric cars accounted for about 0.2 percent of new car sales, compared with an EU average of 0.4 percent and 0.9 percent in the United States, says T&E…
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-germany-s-green-zeal-turning-brown/

    51

    • #
      the Griss

      “i’m 99.99999% sure the CAGW scam is on its last legs:”

      I’m 99.999999% sure that these guys have just painted a massive target on their assets !!

      And it desperately need a swift kick ! :-)

      gees, how many 9′s should we be using now? . I forgot !

      51

      • #
        the Griss

        “these guys have just painted a massive target on their assets !!”

        They will be a BUTT of many jokes, I’m 99.99836123% sure of that !!

        61

  • #
    pat

    Ban Ki-moon flies to Costa Rica for photo-op post bike ride!

    4 Sept: Reuters: U.N. chief tries to kick-start sagging enthusiasm for climate deal
    By Ben Garside and Valerie Volcovici

    PHOTO CAPTION: United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon removes his jacket after riding a bicycle to promote it as an environmentally-friendly form of transportation, in San Jose July 30, 2014. Ban is in Costa Rica on a five-day visit.

    The summit will feature “unprecedented” participation of ***non-government organizations and the private sector, Hart said…
    Jonathan Grant, a consultant at global advisory firm PwC, said based on the types of national contributions some countries are expected to make, the world is headed to a more damaging 3 degree temperature rise.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/04/us-un-climatechange-idUKKBN0GZ0BY20140904

    4 Sept: Discovery News: Paul Heltzel: China, India Take a Pass on UN Climate Summit
    Effectively putting the kibosh on a global agreement this year on climate change, the Chinese and Indian heads of state announced recently they won’t attend a Sept. 23 United Nations meeting on global warming…
    PHOTOS: US Cities Under 12 Feet of Sea-Level Rise
    PHOTOS: Global Warming Right Before Your Eyes
    India and China are pressing the United States, Japan and Europe to fund the $100 billion yearly fund proposed by the UN to assist poorer countries deal with the effects of climate change.
    Hat tip: Bloomberg News.
    http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/china-india-take-a-pass-on-un-climate-summit-140904.htm

    31

  • #
    pat

    ***that’s a no-brainer. european workers will take the jobs, thank you:

    4 Sept: Bloomberg: Thomas Biesheuvel: ****Europe Must Choose Jobs or Climate as Steel Towns Wither
    European Union leaders expect to reach a deal in October on climate and energy goals for 2030, and regulators are recommending a 40 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions…
    “I’m concerned this is heavy-boot regulation that will drive many steel mills to the wall,” said Swales, a Liberal Democrat whose party has called on EU governments to back the emission cuts. “I understand the green stance and broadly support it, but we need to inject a note of realism about the consequences.” …
    While emissions policies will raise the cost of steelmaking, environmental groups say they are needed to combat global warming and that Europe should take the lead in reducing industrial pollution.
    “We can’t dodge this bullet, we have to bite it,”Alastair Harper, head of politics at the U.K.’s Green Alliance, an environmental group, said in an interview…
    Tougher pollution limits will hit a steel industry already in retreat. Production fell to 165 million tons last year from 210 million tons in 2007 as sales shifted to cheaper regions, and plants across Europe have been shuttered. That’s a threat to steel towns that have depended on the industry, some for more than a century…
    ArcelorMittal (MT), the region’s biggest producer, has closed plants in Belgium and France and idled furnaces in Germany,Luxembourg, Poland and Spain. The cuts have sparked riots, strikes and even kidnappings…
    Should the steel industry be forced to leave Europe, carmakers and machinery shops will follow, risking more than 20 million jobs, said Eder, who was formerly president of the European steel lobby group Eurofer.
    “Steel is a strategic product,” Eder said. “If steel is not produced in Europe anymore, in the long run no cars will be produced in Europe.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-03/steel-towns-threatend-by-eu-fight-against-climate-change.html

    51

    • #
      the Griss

      “global warming and that Europe should take the lead in reducing industrial pollution.”

      Industrial pollution is more likely to cause global cooling than warming.

      Yes, real pollution should be controlled, but

      CO2 is NOT pollution.

      CO2 is the building block of all life on Earth and is currently at quite low atmospheric levels.

      CO2 has basically zero warming effect, which is unfortunate, because there are many places that will really need some warming over the coming decades !

      122

      • #
        TdeF

        I am fascinated by the Dutchman Jan Baptiste Van Helmont who worked out 400 years ago that you could grow a 75kg willow tree and use no dirt, or maybe 150gms. He concluded that trees were made from water. Who would have guessed that trees, plants were made entirely from CO2 and water? So are we. It is still earth shattering for most scientists who without thinking believe that plants are made from the soil, the good earth, the terroir. Dust to dust should be, CO2 to CO2. We, all life on earth is made from CO2. Tell that to the Greens and they will not believe you. It is why trees burn to nothing and so do we.

        21

  • #
    handjive

    Is a 97% consensus an example of conspiracy ideation?

    41

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    Darn – I’ve done in a whole sheet of Letraset on just that one 99.999% number.

    31

  • #
    Ian Hill

    The NineMSN Poll is currently running at 54% yes, humans are causing global warming.

    The last time I saw this poll ask the same question was in Novemeber 2009, just after the Copenhagen Circus, and it was, from memory, around 68% yes. The momentum is going the right way!

    Disclaimer – I’m not the person with the same name as me who commented in the linked CSIRO article.

    61

    • #
      TdeF

      Actually the CSIRO and BOM would all have voted YES, in their thousands.
      First, it is what they believe. Secondly their jobs are at stake. Lastly, they have nothing better to do.

      51

      • #
        Raven

        Well yes.
        Over at ‘The Conversation’ it lists the Authors:

        Philip Kokic
        Senior Statistician at CSIRO

        Mark Howden
        Research Scientist, Agriculture Flagship at CSIRO

        Steven Crimp
        Senior Research Scientist at CSIRO

        And immediately under the listed authors is the Disclosure Statement:

        The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

        And under that there’s the big CSIRO logo with caption that reads:

        Provides funding as a Founding Partner of The Conversation.
        csiro.au

        I suggest there’s 99.999% certainty that these guys work for the CSIRO by their own admission.

        41

    • #
      Ceetee

      54% is a bit of an inditement though innit. I’d be impressed if 54% said that they didn’t know.

      21

      • #
        Ian Hill

        There’s fewer than 90000 responses in about 24 hours. Normally the NineMSN poll attracts more than that. Lots of people couldn’t care less I reckon.

        01

  • #
    TdeF

    The phantom red hander is at it again. Amazing. Why would anyone bother? Is there a minimum age for this site?

    41

  • #
    davey street of hobart

    Ah yes but given every single Australian has not been asked to express an opinion about this [snip -- other objections to the poll in technicolor descriptions] why do we even fret over it ?

    The highest rating television programme of all time, the wedding of Charles and Diana on almost every TV station in Australia and thirteen stations in NYC in 1983, was NOT watched by more then SEVEN MILLION Australians or about half the population at the time. Today, the highest rating programmes are NOT watched by ALMOST TWENTY MILLION AUSTRALIANS. [snip - less YELLING thanks - Jo]

    Why would we even THINK about climate change (which used to be called global warming until there was no warming) and whether it’s caused by humans or not. Clearly SOME climate change POSSIBLY is but that is not the real question which is “Is it enough to cause us concern for the future and and is it worth handing a bunch of self-appointed climate change experts HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF US DOLLARS to pocket for themselves only to hear them spruik unutterable nonsense like “homogenised” temperature gradients (read changing the recorded temperatures [snip]) over the last one hundred years?” The young intelligent and oh so game Dr Jennifer Marohasy should be nominated as AUSTRALIAN OF THE YEAR and the [snip] taxpayer funded behemoths the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO should both be privatised immediately if a silly enough bunch of buyers can be found.

    10

    • #
      stan stendera

      Congrats Davey. I’ve only ever been snipped once by Jo’s site. You’ve managed to be snipped four times in one post. I guess I’m not trying hard enough. For your benefit for future posting Jo does not tolerate rudeness.

      00

  • #
    pat

    read it all…and celebrate:

    4 Sept: Market Oracle: Andrew McKillop: Ban-Ki Moon’s Climate Summit Dead In The Water
    (Andrew McKillop, Former chief policy analyst, Division A Policy, DG XVII Energy, European Commission)
    World Leader’s Declare Lack of Interest…
    Indian media has for weeks published that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leader of the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas-emitting nation, will not join his U.S. counterparts at the United Nations climate summit this month in New York. Chinese president Xi Jinping has now officially decided to skip this meeting of leaders to discuss climate change in New York. Possibly the supreme insult for Barack Obama and his all-new, all-fervent ally on defeating the menace of Global Warming, France’s Francois Hollande who will host the downsized 2015 summit, the German daily TAZ reports that Chancellor Angela Merkel is not going to bother to attend the Ban Ki-Moon conference in New York. TAZ adds that Merkel’s decision to snub the event is probably a clear sign that efforts to forge a global and binding climate agreement are already dead in water.
    Other national leaders who will certainly not be there include the prime ministers of Japan, Canada and Australia who have already formally abandoned any idea of Kyoto Treaty carbon taxes and obligatory emissions trading in their own countries
    Inside Europe, the world’s “last bastion” of self-righteous Carbon Correct, Donald Tusk’s nomination as the next President of the European Council to replace Herman van Rompuy is a major game changer for the dwindling band of the Climate Correct. Poland obtains over 80% of its electricity from coal-burning and has no intention of giving that up.
    Poland has already and consistently acted to block the extremes of “climate self-righteousness” and the pomposity which comes with it in Europe, and Tusk heavily favors the reduction of European subsidies to uneconomic projects, notably in the energy sector. He is also opposed to Europe’s ETS emissions trading scheme – a cesspit of crony traders and banksters which has made a laughing stock of EU emissions credits and certificates…
    In any case, in the French and British cases, their leadership stance of “climate purity” is only a thinly veiled nuclear power plant building strategy, forcing them to rack up electricity prices for all powere users at several times the CPI on a long-term and sustained basis. In the French case this is 7 times the CPI of around 1.5% per year, at least until 2017, by executive order of Mr Hollande in 2013. Nuclear power is expensive…
    The game was fun for some while it lasted, but it lasted too long.
    For the climate correct policy making elite in their corridors of power, and a few downstream profiteers like the Low Carbon urban design fraternity and their transport sector brethren, not forgetting the Green Business gurus, the game had to keep going. Whether it tore down the European power sector and left it in shambles was of no interest at all to them…
    President Obama’s pathetic and very unsuccessful attempts to force – rather than persuade – low income countries to “invest in carbon capture and sequestration” are another sign that time is up for this game…
    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article47182.html

    51

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    5 Sept: SMH: Cowley to be pursued over RM Williams company loss
    Rory Callinan and Matthew Cranston
    Former News Corp Australia chief executive Ken Cowley is to be questioned in court over his role in the collapse of farming company RM Williams Agricultural Holdings, which received nearly $10 million in taxpayer funding to establish the world’s largest carbon farm.
    Receivers for the collapsed company confirmed on Thursday that they were intending to conduct examinations of the directors involved in the “trading and operations” of the company that was chaired by Mr Cowley and failed owing nearly $100 million.
    The receivers are understood to be pursuing issues relating to secret share structures and standards around asset procurement that were exposed in a Fairfax Media investigation this year.
    A series of high-profile investors including News Corp, which invested $30 million, a Papua New Guinean retirement fund, New Hampshire-based millionaires and even the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission head Rod Sims lost money in the company, which was put into receivership in June last year by Westpac…
    Mr Cowley said on Thursday he had not been made aware of the examination, which is due to take place next month and November…
    Mr Cowley said he believed the move by the company to invest in the carbon industry was also sound investment.
    But he said he had not had any discussion with News Corp about repaying the media company’s $30 million investment…
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/cowley-to-be-pursued-over-rm-williams-company-loss-20140904-10ciks.html

    31

  • #
    pat

    ***the Progressive Left should blame themselves for not PAYING ATTENTION to reality & for blindly believing Obama’s CAGW rhetoric, just as they should blame themselves for not actually reading the Climategate emails, & for ignoring/mocking CAGW sceptical blogs with all their useful information, etc.

    wonder when ABC/Fairfax/Guardian will wake up to the reality of the CAGW scam, & fall out of love with Obama, & stop holding him up as a shining example for our PM Abbott to follow? best to read it all:

    4 Sept: Alternet: Michael Klare: Global Warming President Presides Over Drill-Baby-Drill America
    The Obama administration is on course to increase oil production on U.S. territory in every way imaginable.
    (This post originally appeared at TomDispatch.com)
    Considering all the talk about global warming, peak oil, carbon divestment, and renewable energy, you’d think oil consumption in the United States would be on a downward path. By now, we should certainly be witnessing real progress toward a post-petroleum economy. As it happens, the opposite is occurring. U.S. oil consumption is on an upward trajectory, climbing by 400,000 barrels per day in 2013 alone, and if current trends persist, it should rise again both this year and next.
    In other words, oil is back. Big time…
    In other words, global warming be damned!
    ***In a turnaround that has gotten next to no attention and remarkably little criticism, President Obama is now making a legacy record for himself that will put the “permanent reduction of our dependence on oil” in its grave. His administration is instead on a drill-baby-drill course to increase production in every way imaginable on U.S. territory, including offshore areas that were long closed to drilling due to environmental concerns…
    At a national level, such a situation — knowing one thing and doing something else — can only be described as some form of mass delusion or a collective version of schizophrenia. In one part of our collective brain, we are aware that petroleum use must decline sharply to prevent the sorts of global catastrophes that we are only used to seeing in science fiction movies; in another, we retain our affection for driving and gasoline use without giving much thought to the consequences. We have a global warming president presiding over a massive expansion of fossil fuel production. Think of this as a form of collective mental compartmentalization that should frighten us all — and yet from the president on down, it’s remarkable how few seem disturbed by it…
    Until we identify and begin treating this state of national schizophrenia, however, we will ensure that a time of mutual pain and hardship is ever more likely.
    http://www.alternet.org/environment/global-warming-president-presides-over-drill-baby-drill-america?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

    11

  • #
    RogueElement451

    Apologies if someone else has brought this to your collective attention ,but here we go , a new report from the US senate committee on environment and public works;-
    http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=965a39ae-f2a3-32bd-d277-148218b2517c&Region_id=&Issue_id=

    The report is quite long but well worth a read ,basically asking all of the questions we all ask and pointing out the failures of all of the predictions.
    Excellent stuff , the PDF file can be obtained by clicking on the page.

    41

  • #
    Eddie

    “99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study

    Add ‘pi’ to that and you can have the new stupi dity.

    31

  • #
    ROM

    Remember these names for the future as the authors of one of the most laughable claims ever made in recent times by what now passes for climate science as authored by “climate scientists “.
    Only they are not!
    That is climate scientists.

    They are out there in a very large field with it’s very strong competition with their truly outstanding contribution for one of the most laughable and imbecilic papers yet to appear which might just take the prize in that particular “climate science” category of the worst, most forgettable and most imbecilic climate science paper of the year.

    And that, considering the highly competitive climate science field that regularly shows up to try for this prize, including some very hot international climate science players regularly trying their damnedest for this big and much avoided prize for the worst published climate science paper for the year, to get their paper up and published and therefore to be in the running for this highly fought over prize is no mean feat.

    As they are Australian and employed by the CSIRO we should applaud them if they scoop the pool for the worst and most imbecilic published climate science paper for 2014.
    They are of course setting new standards for published CSIRO climate science papers which in recent years an increasing number of science level employees of the CSIRO have been trying to emulate and in some cases almost succeeding.

    So remember these names for the future as the authors of one of the most stupid claims in a published paper that has ever seen the light of day in climate science.
    I almost said any “science discipline” and then remembered that “who needs facts”. Lewendowsky who arguably holds the world prize for his inventive stupidity and his entire dispensation with any and all actual real facts at any conceivable level in a couple of his psychological climate science papers.

    And my reaction to the below is “God help Australian agriculture if this is the level of science that the CSIRO’s agricultural science section throws up”

    Although, come to think of it, a lot of farmers have already come to that conclusion in any case.
    _______________

    Dr Philip Kokic has worked as a statistician [ the mind truly boggles at the "statistician" label considering the claims in the paper ] in various academic institutes, for government and private industry, both in Australia and overseas. He has worked across a broad range of application areas including sample survey design and analysis, economic and econometric analysis, financial and credit risk analysis, and more recently in the application of statistics to climate risk. His skills include an ability to work effectively together with both scientists and economists to address important interdisciplinary problems. He has worked on many externally funded projects. Dr Kokic’s skills not only include statistics, but also the application of mathematical techniques particularly in economics, and the development of computer software systems. His work has been published in over 50 refereed papers.

    ****************

    Steven Crimp leads a multi-disciplinary team exploring and evaluating options to increase resilience of Australian cropping systems to climate variability and change.

    He joined CSIRO in 2006 as a climate applications scientist tasked with assisting farmers and farmer groups to improve on-farm climate risk management. During this time he has led a range of research projects working with farmers both in Australia and internationally to enhance current management practises to cope with the challenges of climate variability and change. This includes interactions with farmer groups, CMAs, conservation groups, state and federal government organisations, and development NGO.

    *****************
    [ I have a suspicion I have come across this CSIRO person previously although I may be mistaken .
    It may have been around 2007 or sometime in that era when I sat through one of the most disheartening and most morale and soul destroying sessions I have ever attended along with a couple of hundred other local west Vic farmers where about 4 CSIRO scientists and climate modellers unequivocally claiming that their climate models were definite in that the entire eastern agricultural areas of Australia were descending into a permanent drought and desertification situation due to global warming. and their climate models gave no hope for any better outcomes now or in the future.

    Followed a short time later by one of the wettest eastern Australian periods that have been seen since European settlement. ]
    **********
    Dr Mark Howden is an expert in the area of climate change and agriculture, working with rural industries to adapt to Australia’s changing climate.
    Dr Howden has been awarded a:
    Bachelor of Science with First Class Honours from the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, in 1983 with a focus on ecology, climatology and soil science
    Doctor of Philosophy from Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia, in 1990 for his research on tropical grazing systems.

    **********
    And the piece de resistance and as phony as they come as proven by Michael Mann who was forced to withdraw this identical claim by the American courts.

    Dr Howden was a major contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors and former United States Vice-President Al Gore.

    62

    • #
      ROM

      I have a suspicion I have come across this CSIRO person previously although I may be mistaken “
      Thats in reference to Howden.

      00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Do not forget that there is no known way to apportion temperature changes in climate records to man-made versus natural variation.
    You are dealing with guesses hy people using appeal to authority.
    99.999 etc is balderdash so bad that CSIRO people claiming it should be shown the door marked Junk Science This Way.

    61

  • #
    PeterS

    The global warming alarmist scientists are showing how more unscientific they are becoming. Their 99.999% certainty is a cowards way of saying they are convinced in their ideological faith that AGW is true without any definitive evidence. What’s even more telling is their belief that one can place a probability on AGW being true. This is not a lottery where one can state with reasonable accuracy the probability of winning where there are a know number of entries and winners. We are talking here about one climate, not some large number of climates. How can one even start computing a probability on a single event or change? The real probability can only ever be either 0 or 100% but without definitive proof there is no way one can give one or the other probability a higher probability, if you know what I mean! What’s the probability that 1 > 0? Hmmm, I better get someone at CSIRO to answer that question.

    21

  • #
    pat

    27 Aug: Bloomberg: Anthony Adragna: Any 2015 Climate Change Agreement Likely to Fall Short of Goals, Reports Say
    At United Nations negotiations set for next year, countries are unlikely to produce a global accord strong enough to meet common goals for addressing climate change, two recent studies conclude.
    Little political appetite exists for the necessary actions to achieve the goal of holding temperature increases since industrialization began to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), and those actions with political support aren’t adequate to meet that target, Norwegian researchers from the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research found this month. The researchers concluded the world is further away from an effective global treaty today than when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted.
    In a separate study this month from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, researchers found the climate agreement likely would result in emissions reductions but would fail to limit the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to below 450 parts per million…
    Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere could continue to rise to between 530 and 580 ppm by the end of the century if only voluntary emissions reduction pledges are incorporated into the final deal. Nevertheless, the researchers conclude, nations appear disinclined to make the kinds of pledges that would restrict the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere adequately.
    http://www.bna.com/2015-climate-change-n17179894163/

    discussing the Norwegian report:

    5 Sept: WUWT: Good news from a new report: Effective Climate Agreement Not Likely
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/05/good-news-from-a-new-report-effective-climate-agreement-not-likely/

    11

  • #
    Robert O

    It’s going from the sublime to the ridiculous. In science the usual level of significance is the 5% level, that is if you repeat an experiment there is a 1 in 20 chance you will get a different result. A 1% level result is better with the chances of 1 in a 100 getting a different result, or 99% certain. But as to being 99.99999% certain is totally beyond belief. What are these people taking, and more importantly, why would any sane person believe them?

    21

    • #
      Eddie

      They seem to think it’s that 10 in a million concession to uncertainty that gives them any scientific credibility. (I’m taking it the 6th & 7th nines were only added to highlight the already desperate cry for help).

      00

  • #
    • #
      the Griss

      I can see big woolly balloons floating over NZ !!

      21

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Eco-friendly sheep.
      I didn’t believe your link actually would say that. But alas, i was wrong.

      Have they forgotten what “Eco” means?
      When an animal isn’t Eco-friendly, we’re in a world of hurt.

      10

  • #
    DY

    Do I believe?

    I believe that the BOM and CSIRO climate change divisions should be shut down, and with due consideration for the latest 99.999 per cent so do the employees.

    11

  • #
    John Leal

    Revenge is sweet !!!

    00

  • #
    Eddie


    *The graph contains satirical-risk. The blue line is Vostok. The red line is Vodka, …

    :-) If satirical risk is the possibility of being taken seriously, I’m afraid it will. It wouldn’t be satire if everybody got it

    00

  • #
    Eddie

    ” We do not use physical models of Earth’s climate, but observational data and rigorous statistical analysis, ”

    but oops:

    “We developed a statistical model that related global temperature to various well-known drivers of temperature variation,”

    What are the chances they didn’t make an error in the calculations, not to mention in their assumptions ?

    20

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Eddie #52

      >”What are the chances they didn’t make an error in the calculations, not to mention in their assumptions ?”

      Kokic, Howden, and Crimp: Methodology and model fitting (my emphasis):

      “To conform to the approximate physical relationship between greenhouse gas concentration and temperature, eCO2 was converted to a radiative forcing value using the approximation f(eCO2) = 5.35 loge(eCO2/278) ( Myhre et al., 1998). These relationships also imply that temperature (in a closed system) increases linearly with the radiative forcing value of an input, suggesting that a multiple linear regression is a suitable approximation for modelling the global mean temperature anomaly. We examine the evidence for linearity in greater detail below.”

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

      Approximate“, “imply“, then “approximate” again.

      Then in Discussion (my emphasis):

      “The results of our statistical analysis would suggest that it is highly likely (99.999 percent)…”

      Their 99.999% certainty obviously does not apply to the methodology quoted above for which there is considerable uncertainty i.e. the 99.999% certainty due to their statistical model must be discounted for the above uncertainty.

      And they don’t appear to have grasped the implication with respect to f(eCO2), of the temperature-CO2 divergence this century (“the pause” vs projections).

      Or maybe they have because they end their analysis at June 2010 (2009/10 was El Nino). Foster and Rahmsdorf did the same.

      10

  • #
    bobl

    As usual absurd reports comming from CSIRO and from an Ag science person who’s supposed to know the carbon cycle..

    Fisrtly looking at the probability of a prevalence of above average days, months, years presumes that each trial (day, month, year) is independent of the previous day,month, year, and that there are no common factors driving them. Neither is true, firstly warmth is driven by the sun, without the sun, earth would be colder than pluto, the sun is a common factor driving warmth. Long term solar events eg orbital pertubations etc are known to drive climate (yes summer really is hotter than wimter) and therefore each period IS driven by common factors , such as the orbital distance from the sun, axial tilt and solar output. The distribution of temperature over time is not independent of these mutual influences. You can’t view annual temperatures against a mean as a set of independent throws of a dice, because each years temperature is not independent of the one before. Secondly temperature is a random walk, each years temperature is a function of the total energy in the system at that point, plus energy added, minus energy lost. The system does not get reset to average on the 1st of each month. The “average” is not a fixed value, it’s a moving value. A trial is whether this period was hotter than last period, (was any energy added this day, month, year) not was the energy above or below the mythical, nonexistant average.

    Finally, this article actually says 99.9999% sure than human contribute some warming (>0) to the earth, which in my view is a pretty uncontraversial strawman, even UHI is some warming. I don’t know too many people who’d suggest we have a cooling infuence! This is just a diversion from the real questions; is the human caused warming significant; if so is it dangerous or beneficial; and even if dangerous, is it worth doing anything about at the cost of billions of tax dollars, and thousands of dead grannies and children.

    00