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

What’s really warming the world — NASA has no idea (Not the Sun, Never the Sun!)

In the twit-world, it’s being called Bloomberg and NASA’s “proof” that man made CO2 is causing global warming.

But it’s just a zombie rehash of the same-old routine I described in How to create a crisis graph in 6 simple steps. It’s all in the art of what you don’t say and the things you leave off the graph. This is a “NASA” graph that reduces everything about the sun to one single temperature. As if the magneto-nuclear-dynamo 1.3 million times the volume of the Earth would have a weather report that just read “still hot”. Nothing to see here…

Want to scare people with graphs?

  1. Pretend your climate models work. Ignore the missing hot spot, the pause, the record antarctic sea-ice, the lack of accelerating seas, and the utter failure of climate models to model anything before the last 150 years, as well as stuff like “rain[1]“, “ drought [2]” and “humidity[3]“.
  2. Include all the factors you can think of that don’t explain the latest bump in the squiggly line.
  3. Ignore all the factors that might like cosmic rays, solar wind, solar magnetic effects, solar spectrum cycles, lunar effects on our atmosphere, and who knows how many other potential factors.
  4. Draw sophisticated trendy-sparse-graphs with a nice “flash” rolling action.
  5. Pretend that many of those same great scientists and engineers are not weeping. The largest astronomical body in our solar system has been reduced to a one line, single temperature. Forget magnetic flux ropes, solar weather, sun spots and jet streams. Who cares about polar fields, particle flow and proton storms. We’ve barely begun to understand the sun, but we Know These Things Don’t Cause Climate Change (because the models say so).
NASA, GISS, Global Waming, climate models, temperature, cause,

 

Sun, Graph, Temperature, Global Warming, climate models, 2015

 

Earth's Orbit, Graph, Temperature, Global Warming, climate models, 2015

 

Volcanoes, Graph, Temperature, Global Warming, climate models, 2015

There is a solar model that can explain climate change. (Yes, I’m working on an update …) Hindcasting the climate without CO2 is possible.

See also:

h/t Tom, Rick, Pat, Will, and BilB.

REFERENCES

[1^] Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]

[2^] Sheffield, Wood & Roderick (2012) Little change in global drought over the past 60 years, Letter Nature, vol 491, 437

[3^] Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.3/10 (71 votes cast)
What's really warming the world -- NASA has no idea (Not the Sun, Never the Sun!), 8.3 out of 10 based on 71 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/nftrq9w

161 comments to What’s really warming the world — NASA has no idea (Not the Sun, Never the Sun!)

  • #
    Tom O

    You know it really is quite simple. No it isn’t the sun that warms the world. It isn’t the oceans or volcanoes. And when you really look at it, you will clearly understand.

    Since the rise in population began, and took off in earnest in the 1900s, there have been more nations with more governments, and the governments have all grown exponentially. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize, then, that what is causing global warming is the increase in politicians that always comes with the increase in size of government, and all the hot air they pump continuously. Why can’t anyone else see and understand this?

    Do I really have to say /sarc?

    580

    • #
      Dennis

      The further to the left they are the more hot air they pump out.

      452

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      Aha! But CO2 doesn’t correlate well with your independent variable, the number of politicians. It’s definitely H2S you should be tracking.

      160

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      You say /sarc, I say /farc.

      80

    • #

      Tricksy Bloomberg and tricksy NASA are relying on a single, dodgy stunt here. If you have something in your pocket and it’s not an apple, an orange, a banana or a mango…logically, it must be a pineapple.

      The stunt only works if the reader doesn’t think too long or too hard, and is solely interested in having the most acceptable opinion-set. That would be a Bloomberg reader.

      50

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Lindzen said long ago that progress in climate science is hampered by a lack of good quality data.

    How can it be argued that the official energy budget is valid and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) hasn’t changed when:
    • there are at least two (sometimes three) different “measurements” of TSI at any one time,
    • they differ from each other by more than the alleged impact of increased greenhouse gases,
    • they show TSI changing within the same solar cycle and between peaks of adjacent solar cycles.

    How can it be argued the cloud cover is on average constant and has not been altered by changes in solar activity when:
    • there are at least five different “measurements” of cloud cover,
    • the measurements differ from each other by 1% of Earth’s ~29% average cloud cover, implying a 0.0058 difference in Bond albedo, which seems small until you multiply it by the TSI of 1366W/m² to find the cloud cover discrepancy makes double the amount of radiation caused by a doubling of CO2,
    • If ISCCP D2 is correct then some of the warming in the 1980s and 1990s was due to a reduction in cloud cover – because warming should theoretically cause increases in cloud cover so the observed (?) decrease had to be a primary forcing and not a feedback. The more warming that is attributable to natural causes the less can be attributed to aCO2.

    They’re going to have to “settle” the measurements before any subsequent “science” can be “settled”.

    But I do not mean to imply that the experts are sitting on their hands. They are hard at work on these problems. They have meetings about it. Here is a PDF full of photos of the who’s-who of the solar science world holding a workshop in 2011.
    Oddly, most of these people seem to be giving presentations on something which doesn’t officially exist: variations in the activity, output, and earth climate impacts of, The Sun.
    e.g. Stergios Misios (Max Planck Inst., Germany) discussed the solar cycle signal in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Presumably Mr Misios was presenting a chart of a flat line, because officially the sun has not been affecting the flow of heat on Earth.

    The final Summary and Conclusions page of that document is worth reading. e.g:
    ° “Both bottom-up (surface/ocean heating) and top-down (UV atmosphere heating) contribute to the solar influence on climate.”
    ° “TSI variations clearly include sunspot darkening and faculae brightening components and perhaps a longer-term component.”

    621

    • #
      ROM

      Definitely a green thumb allocated there Andrew.

      And maybe a couple of appropriate quotes to fit the status of the “science” of the global warming ideology that you drew above;
      .

      Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

      Martin Luther King, Jr.
      &

      Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.

      George Bernard Shaw

      131

  • #

    0. Pretend your global temperature records are both honest and accurate (they are not: see US Temperatures Have Been Falsely Adjusted…”, for example, and “25 years of fraud”. James Hansen, the leader of the AGW pack, was willing to cheat back in 1988, when he locked the windows and turned up the heat while presenting his “science” to the government.) It’s now 27 years of fraud and counting.

    0′. The Venus/Earth temperature ratio, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is a constant, and is precisely explained by the difference in solar distances of the two planets, and nothing else. There is no discernible greenhouse effect whatsoever, all the way from 0.04% CO2 (in Earth’s atmosphere) to 96.5% (Venus).

    1110

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      PSA: Remember there is nothing gained by replying to anything Harry says because he does not monitor his comments for replies, he is in output mode only.

      112

    • #
      Peter Yates

      Actually, Venus is a lot different to the Earth. Its distance from the Sun is *not the only thing that should be considered when comparing the planets.

      1. Venus (like Mars) does not have a strong magnetic core. Therefore there aren’t any extensive magnetic fields to help protect the planet. Apparently, gases like hydrogen, helium, and oxygen ions, would have been swept away (over very long periods) by the solar wind, leaving the higher-mass molecules like carbon dioxide. (“Venus as a more Earth-like planet”, _Nature_ 450, Nov. 2007.)
      2. Venus was left with a very dense atmosphere. It is more than 96% carbon dioxide.
      3. The atmosphere’s pressure at the surface is 92 times more than Earth’s pressure.
      4. Venus is considerably closer to the Sun, at about 0.72 of the distance from the Sun to the Earth.
      5. The equator rotates at 6.5 km/h or 4 mph. (The Earth’s is about 1,670 km/h or 1,040 mph). Therefore a Venus day is *very long! Venus takes 243 Earth days to rotate once.
      6. Naturally given the above, Venus does not have biomass (or oceans) to absorb some of the CO2, and it does not have a carbon cycle to lock carbon back into the rocks.

      PS. I don’t really mind if Harry “does not monitor his comments for replies”. He is only one person! ;-)

      41

  • #
    Denis Ables

    The graphs all start in the 1800s, but our current warming (such as it is) began during the 1600s, when the LIA bottomed out (NOT when it ended). So (using the same argument) something else has to be the culprit because, as the alarmists have all long since acknowledged, the co2 increase didn’t begin until the mid 1800s and would not have had any impact on global temperature until about 1950.

    Let me be the first to propose a new AGW hypothesis. It’s a guy behind the current…..

    101

    • #
      EyesWideOpen

      Exactly. If the same logic can be applied prior to the 1800′s, then something other than CO2 caused the previous warm period that was greater than at current. NASA offers nothing in respect to this question, by avoiding it completely (as usual), and starting the graph in the 1800′s.

      But of course, this NASA strawman argument (which is what it is), was only designed to make simplistic ‘the Sun controls the temperature’ rebuttals look unfounded, and wasn’t designed to prove that the ‘consensus’ behind CO2 being the driver is correct.

      In other words “You’re all wrong and we’re all right” because “We frame the arguments and graphs”.

      He who frames the argument wins the argument … a bit like the average referendum question.

      00

  • #
    Denis Ables

    In case it’s not obvious, and/or you mistakenly believe in the hockey stick graph, there’s been a LOT of temperature increase beginning in the mid 1600s, most of it long before 1950.

    121

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Pepys noted hot dry summers in 1660, 1665,1666. There was a fire in London after the last.
      On the other hand 1695 and 1709/10 were very cold winters, but summers in England in the 1730′s are still among some of the warmest recorded. Someone (name escapes me) recorded in 1745 that the Mt. Blanc glacier had receded 2 musket shots away from its maximum.

      With respect to Andrew McRae progress in climate science is hampered by a lack of good quality scientists. The present mob are obsessed with the years since 1975 and lack even basic knowledge of before that.

      201

  • #

    The problem I think we might be looking at is that a certain someone has got his hat on and decided not to come out and play for some time to come.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDIpkz6DOi8

    Pointman

    80

  • #
    ivan

    How does this square with the BoM report in the telegraph as shown here

    30

    • #
      Manfred

      …or a summer in the UK recorded as the coldest in Scotland for the last 40 years – June temps averaging 9C, or the blerdy miserable cold winter in the lower South Island NZ with temps in some regions down to -22C….more ‘record breaking’ bone chilling reality, rather than the modeled warmth designed to fleece us all.

      60

  • #
    Yonniestone

    NASA knows it’s stuff, the sun is very hot yes but recent models have shown that if a human was sent there they would barely be able to stand on the surface, think of bare feet on hot sand.

    It’s been speculated the sun might have a melted cheese consistency with hot winds comparable to a good quality hair dryer, considering these observations from the “Analogy Model” it’s not surprising the sun has little effect on our fragile ball of glass.

    151

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Well we know that Icarus didn’t get too close.13 million miles or so from the sun- then “poof” no wings.Someone should tell NASA.

      91

  • #
    John Smith

    here in US, everyone knows all bad things are caused by historically uncomfortable flags
    CO2 is scary
    flags are scarier
    I accidentally watched and old ‘Dukes of Hazard’ episode
    it was scary
    don’t know about AU, (we don’t get much news of the outside world with the Khardashians and all)
    but our politicians spend a lot of time talking about scary flags

    251

    • #
      John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia.

      Cousin Daisy Duke was a stunner, but the way the Duke boys drove General Lee was definitely scary.

      20

  • #
    Schrodinger's Cat

    Jo, I still look forward to the next post on the notch theory.

    Any comment?

    50

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    The use of huge scales on the y-axes to discredit relationships would not pass high school science. For shame.

    161

  • #
    Ruairi

    The warmists will cleverly shun,
    Any climate effects from the sun,
    As too many would query,
    A breach in their theory,
    Leaving them and their models undone.

    271

  • #
    TedM

    The NASA argument looks like it has been put together by a 13 year old kid. In fact I think most 13 yo’s could do better than that.

    192

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    The greenhouse gas graph was ended in 2004. Of course! The last 11 years don’t support their thesis. Again, shame on them.

    221

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    Take the graph back a couple more years and it’ll show the temperature declining. What made it change direction and begin warming?

    51

  • #
    CC Reader

    The Royal Academy of Science says – it’s the Sun stupid!

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm

    A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645

    121

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      CC Reader.

      A 60% drop in activity may not mean much of a change in TSI. They are probably referring to sunspot activity.

      We will have to wait until Prof Zharkova presents her model.

      BTW I thought climate change dissenters did not like models.

      16

  • #
    CC Reader

    The proper cite is….

    Royal Astronomical Society (RAS). “Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to ‘mini ice age’ levels: Sun driven by double dynamo.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 July 2015. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm

    40

  • #
    Ross

    So if it is as simple as they are trying to make it out to be, why do they continually alter all the historic data to prove their case?

    151

    • #
      tom0mason

      Also Ross,
      If it’s all that easy and obvious why does it cost so much and demand so many, mostly desk-bound, employees?

      10

  • #
    spangled drongo

    When the average natural variability of climate per century for the last 80 centuries has been 0.98c and since 1880 we have varied only 1.4f [0.5c, less than half average for those 1.35 centuries], surely this indicates that the extra ACO2 = cooling?

    60

  • #
    • #
      William

      Warcroft, it is amusing to read the Guardian’s expose of Exxon’s alleged $30M funding of the evil denier lobby. Missing though, is any mention of the many millions it paid to alarmist scientists that dwarfed its sceptical spending, including $100M to Stanford University for climate research. If I were Exxon, I would have thought it prudent to fund scientists and policy makers working to prove the CAGW theory as well as those who are sceptical of it.

      That said, the amount that has gone into funding sceptical scientists is microscopic compared with the billions (trillions) spent on, and invested in alarmism – and more and more is being spent to protect that investment and the reputations of the scientists and politicians promoting CAGW. Sadly, it is throwing good money after bad.

      160

    • #
      William

      Interestingly Lenny Bernstein speaks well of Exxon’s social responsibility (overlooked in the article) and writes that “Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question – legitimately, in my opinion – the validity of some of the science.” Consequently its decision to fund sceptics is a no brainer.

      Much of his time at Exxon and Mobil, and later with the Global Climate Coalition was when the science was new, and the models seemed to be working. His email was written in October 2014 and clearly, as highlighted above, he questions the “science” – but again, this is glossed over by the Guardian.

      80

    • #
    • #
      me@home

      Warcroft, thanks for the laugh. It is really amusing to read the pathetic comments at the Guardian – especially yours. Do you ever think to look at the actual science or consider the relative funding of the warmist camp compared to the meagre funds available to real scientists and others who do look at the actual science?

      10

  • #
    Greg House

    The “global temperature” as established in climate science is bogus, so we do not really know if “the world” is warmer or colder or whatever. We have no idea if there were warmings or coolings in the past either. All those diagrams look nice on paper, but have nothing to do with real science.

    As for CO2, it can not warm by the “greenhouse effect”, because the “greenhouse effect” as established in climate science and IPCC reports is physically impossible. On the other hand, adding CO2 in its present concentration to the rest of the air slightly changes its heat capacity, the effect is between 0.0001 and 0.001°C. Also CO2 blocks some solar IR from reaching the surface of the Earth, which contributes to cooling.

    612

  • #
    John M

    Where is the graph showing the adjustments ?. The cause of at least half of the modern warming.

    91

  • #
    Chris Geo

    I spent two minutes in Photoshop stretching the “Is it the Sun?” graph to get the scale more appropriate, then overlaid it on the “What’s Really Warming the World?” graph and the correlation is quite good. Better than I expected considering I assume the graphs have been doctored. I do not know how to post the image unfortunately.

    81

  • #
    tom0mason

    Mods please dump my previous with an error in email address

    Funny how government run Meteorology Agencies and Bureaus worldwide will often tell alarmingly about droughts and heatwaves that are record breaking. Headlines will scream banal headline of their causes from so called scientists representing these national bodies. Somehow now, according to NASA, these hot period are not part of natural climate variation, and could not be cause by variations in insolation.
    Funny how an innocent gas, CO2, can cause counties and continents to get hot for a while but the sun can not do this. NASA has a strange disconnected from logical thinking. Apparently, and according to NASA, atmospheric CO2 levels changing by hundredths of a percent is a massive hazard to all life on the planet, but tenths of a percent insolation change does nothing.
    Ho-humm –
    Post modern logic, as used in ‘climate science’ and NASA, is just a brownian motion of jumbled theories held together with strange attractors.

    61

  • #
    IbSnooker

    What’s really warming the world? It’s become apparent that AGW is caused by an excess of P02 in the atmosphere. Of course, by atmosphere, I mean the alarmists’ underpants, and by P02, I mean P00.

    71

  • #
    Manfred

    We repetitively call out this house of cards, over and over again, yet the encroaching bureaucracy has moved on to the phase of implementation. Manufacturing the evidence and writing the guidelines, the algorithm for the future is pointless unless you have implementation strategies and tactics to instigate them. Paris in December is seminal.

    Green totalitarianism is well down the road into implementation. The focused eco-socialist agendas of the UN, US and EU have rammed that through courtesy of third rate academics, teachers and a collusive MSM and invertebrate politicians. Strangely, the latest fly in the ointment for George Soros is a Greek tragedy that could lead to a collapse of the proto-UN global socialist state, one very good reason why POTUS has been rallying the troops across the ditch.

    If we are ‘saved’ by anything it might be the economic shambles engendered by the bureaucratic carbon shackles, in the face of growing cold. The warm diarrhoea of klimate disaster coupled with the stream of revisionist versions of various temperature datasets must eventually prove insufficient. At that point, the goal posts will be moved and resistance decreed futile.

    Paris is a gossamer Green Balloon filled with hot CO2 surrounded by smoke and mirrors. It’s a perfect time for the concerted release of an enraged Bull of Reason.

    121

    • #
      Frank

      Dear Jo,
      RE; Manfred #24, ———and you wonder why I call your site out for conspiracy theories ?. This is a convenient defensive tactic that deniers take when their’ evidence is rejected by the scientists who know what they’re talking about.



      The Manfred comment is #26 now. But what site? Manfred has no site? Your namecalling “deniers” is a bore. Name the observations we will not discuss? You have to use accurate English here. The inane “conspiracy theories” accusation is a convenient way to pretend to win any debate about government bureaucracy without even discussing it. All governments, all politicians are honest, happy players who never have ulterior motives, is that what you believe? The opposite of “conspiracy theorist” is a “useful idiot”. — Jo

      69

      • #
        RodM

        Well said Jo. However I mistakenly voted thumbs up thinking it was for your response but it is actually linked to Frank’s post. Sorry.

        40

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        JoNova.

        I think you are being inconsistent.

        How is it people can claim without evidence on this blog that scientists, politicians etc are involved in a conspiracy, yet discussion about “Conspiracy Theories” is frowned upon?

        Many of your own articles are based on accusations and ad hominems. So I really cannot see why you have an issue with an accusation of a Conspiracy Theory.


        I call it incompetance and systematic problems and you address this comment at me, and claim I said “conspiracy”. Your fantasy eh? Just like your science judgement. Based on nothing. Jo

        113

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          JoNova,

          whether you say conspiracy or imply it, the intent is the same. My guess is you are careful with your exact wording to try and avoid a charge of defamation. “It’s all in the art of what you don’t say” as you point out in your article.

          29

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            I kindof agree with the otter on this one. Baseless accusations are counterproductive for society.
            However defamation doesn’t seem likely here when no specific person or group was named by Jo.

            Now let’s talk about how all climate skeptics are just paid shills for fossil fuel companies, because some conspiracy theories are obviously self-validating. :)

            51

        • #

          Twinotter — The only inconsistency is that I could have made it clearer that my comments in #26.1 applies to the generic term “conspiracy theorist” which is used as a namecalling diversion in many controversial debates to stop people having a discussion. I did say “any debate”. My reply in #26.1.2 is about my site and my personal specific statements on the climate debate.

          I could have been more comprehensive and accurate in my responses but I can’t take this inaccurate, swampy, namecalling subthread seriously. Frank at #26.1 was incomprehensible to start with. And you (maybe Frank too?) appears to be suggesting I agree with every comment published on my site (and simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with myself). Truly? Publishing someone’s comment is not an endorsement.

          Frank was not even clear on which site he was talking about and uses the namecalling “denier”. Sets the tone for a pointless discussion when people abuse English.

          I allow discussion and speculation and disagreement. Is that so bad?

          I was merely pointing out #26.1 that some conspiracies are real (and most are not). I can’t believe I have to see say the banal truth. This is an inane discussion.

          I’m talking about English, not even thinking about defamation.

          53

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Agreed.

      It’s not just presenting the data and showing “no effect”. That’s been done a million times to no effect.

      It’s not disproving a link between CO2 and global warming, nobody would listen.

      It’s not creating a more plausible link between whatever is causing the warming and the actual measured warming. Again your audience is so small and the people who don’t want to know about it, won’t know about it. They’ll make sure they don’t know about it.

      Like any business; it’s not just creating a great product that makes you successful. It’s in the marketing. It has to be marketed and it has to hit the right chord.

      70

      • #
        Manfred

        Greg,
        I’m musing that recapturing the minds and imaginations with awe inspiring progress with imaginative consequences, or some other event that is an innately compelling emergency, the whole Green miasm would be eclipsed into total irrelevance, catapulted into bathos.
        Some potential examples:
        + Fusion is demonstrated as commercially highly viable, stable, controllable.
        + An imminently successful Martian landing.
        + A razor close planetary encounter with an errant asteroid where the uncertainty remains until an hour out.
        + The eruption of the giant caldera at Yellowstone.
        + Teleportation of a live cat achieved successfully.

        11

        • #
          el gordo

          Fascinating story on teleportation, but when it comes to space travel I’m inclined to think hubots will be paving the way on Mars.

          10

        • #
          diogenese2

          Manfred – would it count if it was Schrodinger’s Cat?

          00

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          Eventually this whole CAGW will fade into forgetfulness when somebody finds (or invents) some new emergency. Global Warming and the money/power it attracts won’t be killed over night become of some new proof that all is well. It’ll either die a slow forgotten death or be replaced with something new and exciting. A war, a large scale catastrophe or new political opportunism to replace the old.

          Those who pushed the idea for so long and cost society so much will be silently be forgotten as well. No accounting for wrong-headedness and no retribution for wrong policies or corrupted science that hurt countries so badly.

          00

  • #
    Robertos

    The development of communications energy waves introduced into the atmosphere continues to increase almost daily with radio, TV, mobile phones and other gadgets yet to be introduced. Since all these waves are finally dissipated in heat this is another way to graph human activity against temperature.
    Of course this would be another ludicrous argument for the alarmists but it would lay comfortably alongside failed models

    20

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Stochastic process and the Markov paradox

    Jo great post :D

    when I saw this graph I was immediately struck by its relative “smoothness” and the very typical though “synthetic” appearance of its output.
    (see Weiner process or Brownian motion ) continuous time stochastic processes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_process

    What is a unclear is that this graph appears to be a “hindcast” output from the ModelE2 (NASA-GISS) which uses a gamma distribution (Markov chain) in its calculations.
    If that is the case then this is paradoxical in that for Markov models this particular type of stochastic process negates the use of historical data as a means to determining current and future states for its variables.
    It seems that the climate model (ModelE2) execution path for “hindcasting” maybe different than for “forecasting”

    I suppose one could also ask the question , where are the “bumps” in the graph which are typical of a real world observation ?

    130

  • #
    el gordo

    Its clear to see that the bright orb is the elephant in the room, but the only way to prove our point is with a sharp drop in world temperatures.

    50

    • #
      ianl8888

      No, the proof is required from those people actually postulating the hypothesis, not from those who simply question the postulation

      Reversing the burden of proof (as you are suggesting) is placing yourself in the position of proving a negative – an impossible, and silly, task

      BTW, a paper now published in Science resurrects the “hiatus”:

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/08/science.aaa4521.abstract

      As usual, the paper is most irritatingly paywalled but there is a discussion on Judith Curry’s website

      60

      • #
        el gordo

        I fully expect temperatures to fall by at least 0.5 up to 2020, which would come as a huge shock to scientists, media and politicians who have faithfully gone along with this AGW nonsense.

        The brainwashed masses from all walks of life, old and young, will need to be reeducated. This will be no mean feat and I need proof that its just a cool sun causing the hiatus or are other orbital mechanics involved.

        11

        • #
          tom0mason

          el gordo,

          “The brainwashed masses from all walks of life, old and young, will need to be reeducated.”

          I hope by 2020 everyone, will be rightly suspicious – cynical even – of any and every person, NGO, institution, and government that says that their actions or work will help ‘save the planet’.
          Hopefully they’ll realize only ¢harlatans, fr@µd$ters, and ¢on-men use such language.

          80

      • #
        Frank

        ian,
        The ‘can’t prove a negative’ argument doesn’t always hold true. Like Russell’s celestial teapot, if something is so improbable and unlikely and has withstood an exhaustive search ,then you can fairly conclude disbelief , the burden of proof being fully with the postulator.
        The deniers’ evidence is consistently discredited for good reason.

        412

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘…the burden of proof being fully with the postulator.’

          That’s true.

          ‘The deniers’ evidence is consistently discredited for good reason.’

          Are you the devil’s advocate?

          20

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Frank.

          The “can’t prove a negative” argument is just wrong. It is trivially easy to prove a negative.

          I suspect people are confusing it with proof of existence or evidence of absence – that is a different kettle of fish.

          29

          • #
            tom0mason

            Harry,

            I’m glad you think “The “can’t prove a negative” argument is just wrong. It is trivially easy to prove a negative.” Was that thought before or after you stopped hitting teenage girls?

            32

        • #
          me@home

          Frank would you like to try again in English?

          42

        • #
          James Bradley

          Frank,

          The problem with Tribbles is that they breed like warmists.

          “The deniers’ evidence is consistently discredited for good reason.”

          The ‘deniers evidence’ is the Null Hypothesis which is: global warming and climate change are natural.

          The work for real scientists is to test the ‘null’ with alternative hypotheses to discover if there is an outcome that does not explain the ‘null’ along with results that are reliable, relevant and replicated.

          The problem for warmists is that instead of trusting the ‘null’ – which must hold true as it evolved with the birth of the planet – they start with a partisan alternative hypothesis, researching further alternative hypotheses to prove the primary alternative hypothesis.

          If you are going to start with an alternative hypothesis at least have the good manners to test it first to see if it holds true.

          But, hey Frank, I’m all for equality, I’ll stand and be counted if you choose to go trans-null, more power dude.

          131

          • #
            Frank

            James,
            There is nothing partisan with the climate science community ,no more than with the physics , astronomy, etc, communities. You accuse them of confirmation bias, which is the backbone of the denier sphere, more peer reviewed evidence please dude – and not your pocket calculator climate model variety either.

            312

            • #

              James, yes, and Frank the anonymous says so. So there. Frank, you need to give us that definition of “denier” in English, with the evidence we deny. You can’t keep posting unless you address this point. English. You need to speak it.

              122

            • #
              tom0mason

              Frank,

              I’ll agree with everything you say when you prove that you have really stopped kicking cats, and are not just denying it.
              It’s now up to you to prove that you’ve stopped, preferably via a fully verified and publicly reproducible method.

              71

  • #
    Dennis

    Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop told a forum yesterday that Australia is supporting Pacific Nations effected by climate change, Australia paid the first $70 million to the UN recently of $200 million pledged to the UN Fund.

    40

    • #
      TdeF

      My reading of this at the time was that the money was going anyway to seriously disadvantaged countries to build infrastructure under strict Australian government controls. It is politically opportunistic to label this as gifts to countries affected by Climate Change.

      70

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      While I don’t like giving anything to the UN, of which Australia has no partnership in anyway. It was created as a European construct to prevent something like WWII from happening again. Not that it has any power or success in that area.

      There is a highway interchange upgrade near me which is estimated at $300 million for stage 1. So comparatively speaking, giving away $200 million is not big money at least.

      60

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘…giving away $200 million is not big money at least.’

        No and it had already been earmarked, they just dressed it up a bit with CC tinsel.

        40

  • #
    TdeF

    So +0.5C in 10 years was projected to +5C in 100 years and the world was going to explode.

    Now they are talking about +0.5C in 50 years and asking rhetorical questions about the reasons? Remember, the science was ‘in’.

    The answer is that it was a scam, a political opportunity for the communists who took over the Greens, a raison d’etre for the new IPCC and a huge money spinner for the UN and merchant bankers and a chance for new relevance for organizations suffering Attention Deficit Disorder, like NASA.

    As for career opportunists and born again climate experts, they are in Climate organizations around the world and very worried about one all important question. What will the weather be like in Paris in December?

    131

  • #
    old farte

    I was thinking about how the CAGWers wish for the 2200 denial that America sent men to the moon. Here is why: the CAGWers hate industrialization and technology. They want a halcyon world with 90% less “enemies of the earth” human beings, living simple life of lots of nature prevailing, men going out to hunt, women digging in the dirt (or maybe the other way around). In this vision, technology and industrialization must be eliminated. But to do so means that the vision must eliminate countervailing arguments. For example, “But our great-great-great grandfathers sent men to the moon, did they not?”

    The environmentally-sage rulers reply, “That is a myth. Dispose it from your mind. We have better things for you to learn.”

    Think about it. Marcuse wrote about shutting up debate. Hitlerians practiced it. Maoists practiced it (recall “reeducation camps”). The Church did. All plutocracies seek to create a vision which brooks no dissent. As Orwell saw it, history can be erased.

    Ultimately, if the anti-industry-anti-technology “Greens” prevail, man will not have landed on the moon, through industry and technology, because industry and technology are evil. Therefore industry and technology’s amazing and inspirational achievements,will have to be ridiculed and denied. As the “Greens” change society to their primitive like, the accomplishment will fade in human memory, and become a “false myth”.

    61

    • #

      I’ll bet that they will still want electricity to come out of the hole in the wall. They’ll use magic! (that’s all they’ll have)

      Tony.

      150

      • #
        ROM

        Tony,
        A question for which I suspect a long reply with lots of caveats will be needed.
        A bit of background first.

        1 / At the end of WW2 when the Allies did their assessments of their successes and failures they found that the Germans had been quite paranoid about the possible destruction of their electrical power generating plants as they only just had enough power sources to keep their war economy running.

        Unfortunately the Allies assumed that the german generating system was very robust and bombing it would make very little difference to their power generation output so they concentrated on destroying synthetic fuel plants and etc.

        2 / I sometimes think of the Esso’s 1998 Longford Gas plant explosion in Gippsland that wiped out most gas supplies for Victoria as everything gas from Bass Strait went through just that single automated processing plant in Gippsland.
        We were lucky in that most Victorians only had to go for some 20 days without any gas supply before supplies started to be resumed .

        The cost to the Victorian economy was estimated at some $1.3 billion 1998 dollars.

        .
        So the question is;
        What is the available level of redundancy in the power generation system in eastern Australia’s power generation system that would still enable domestic as well as industry to continue to operate at a satisfactory level?
        or How vulnerable are we if a part of the eastern Australian power generation structures were destroyed or severely damaged?

        70

        • #

          Look, I know this is off topic, but the question has been asked here.

          For those of you with google earth, type Bayswater Power Station into the search engine at top left. When the position comes up at centre screen, scroll out just a little, and look at the top left of screen, and you’ll also see the Liddell Power Station, barely 3 kilometres away.

          If just those two power plants went completely offline, both of them, New South Wales would grind to a halt, totally and utterly. In fact, virtually ALL of Eastern Australia would be under stress for power generation.

          These two plants alone supply around 12 to 13% of the total power consumed by the whole of Australia in the average year, and there’s only around 3 kilometres separating them one from the other.

          These two plants alone supply 2.7 times the power of EVERY wind plant in Australia.

          Bayswater is 30 years old, and Liddel is 44 years old.

          Currently, right now, (1PM Friday 10Jul2015) Bayswater has all four units in operation, and Liddell has three of its four units in operation. These seven units at the two plants are delivering right now, 3,700MW of power into the Eastern Australian Grids, and that is currently around 15% of what Australia is currently consuming.

          Take that away, and Australia .. might … just ….. stop.

          Three Kilometres.

          Tony.

          30

          • #
            TdeF

            Not so different in the LaTrobe valley near Melbourne.
            Hazelwood 1600mw 1971, Loy Yang 3000mw, 10km apart, 4600mw.

            30

            • #

              TdeF,

              same thing. Right now, Hazelwood 6 of 8 units operating for 1178MW, Loy Yang A, all four units operating for 2195MW, Loy Yang B, both units operating for 1070MW. Total Power into Victoria from these two plants is currently 4443MW, and that’s what is keeping Victoria running at the moment.

              Every Wind tower in Victoria is currently delivering (again, right now) 720MW, a little more than one unit at Loy Yang B.

              Tony.

              40

              • #

                ….. and that’s what is keeping Victoria running at the moment.

                Oh, and also assisting South Australia as well, via the Interconnector, as all their wind is also only delivering 720MW.

                Tony.

                60

          • #

            For those of you with google earth, type Bayswater Power Station into the search engine at top left. When the position comes up at centre screen, scroll out just a little, and look at the top left of screen, and you’ll also see the Liddell Power Station, barely 3 kilometres away.

            Umm, sorry about that. Liddell is off to the top right, on the banks of Lake Liddell.

            How’d I miss that when I proof read it.

            Tony.

            30

          • #
            John in Oz

            I am currently reading Overload by Arthur Hailey which, although first published in 1979, is written using many of the same issues we are facing now. E.g.:

            - electrical generators damage nature
            - the world would be better if we used less power
            - the building of new generators can be stopped through court actions by ‘green’ groups
            - the general populace does not understand the long term planning and investment required to keep the lights on
            - nuclear power is bad

            Interesting that not much has changed since 1979

            30

      • #
        ianl8888


        They’ll use magic!

        Yep …

        Kapow, thwack !! Superman flexes his cape and Tesla provides a wall bank of batteries

        Sock, biff !! Mandrake gestures hypnotically and the Tesla power wall is charged

        What’s so hard, then ?

        20

  • #
    thingadonta

    AGW is Gaia’s plan of increasing plant production and fighting back against ice ages.

    40

  • #
    PeterS

    I see that NASA still resorts to the illegitimate and false belief that correlation implies causation. I’ve seen far better correlation between global temperature and sunspot activity or earth’s magnetic field yet I don’t see NASA peddling those more believable ideas, albeit unproven. Clearly NASA has a political agenda not a scientific one with respect to climate change. Imagine if they had a similar agenda in other areas of studies, such as space exploration. Other countries, such as China and Russia would have a field day and make NASA look like a bunch of idiots. NASA should stick to what they are good at, and leave areas like climate change to the real experts.

    30

  • #
    pat

    yet another hour for The Guardian’s Nick Davies on ABC. approx 6 mins from the end of the program, he says the following (paraphrasing):

    DAVIES: i love this country (Australia), but it’s becoming a pariah State. all around the world, Govts are waking up to the need to do something about climate change, and THIS Govt not only says we’re not going to help the rest of world, we are going to actively sabotage it by getting as much coal out of the ground as we possibly can. it’s an outrageous thing to do. future historians are going to look back on Tony Abbott, like we look back on the GREAT SINNERS of human history. it’s a terrible, terrible thing that’s going on…

    AUDIO: 9 July: ABC Big Ideas: Nick Davies – Hack Attack
    On a recent trip to Australia, Nick Davies sat down with Dennis Atkins, National Affairs editor at the Courier Mail for a wide ranging conversation on phone hacking scandal and the state of newspapers.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/nick-davies/6590528

    “GREAT SINNERS”!!! how much more religious can the CAGW debate get?

    61

  • #
    David Maddison

    I am wondering, is CAGW the biggest “big lie” of global reach that has ever been told?

    51

    • #
      gai

      No,
      The lies told by socialists are.

      It all depends on whether your view point is that the individual should serve the State or whether the State is there to protect the rights of the individual. It really is that simple.

      If you believe the State should be served by the individual you have Sparta:

      Ancient Spartan Communism

      …such subordination is, of course, of the very essence of socialism in its general sense, as distinguished from that species of socialism generally referred to as communism. From the day of his birth, when he might be not merely subordinated but suppressed for the good of the state, [or killed] the young Spartan continued to be disposed of in one way or another until death opened up for him a way of escape. The common education, which began at the age of seven, was wholly designed to make good soldiers, to teach men to suffer uncomplainingly the extremes of heat and of cold, of hunger and of pain, and in each was implanted the conviction that he belonged not to himself, but to the state.

      Socialists tell lies to make people believe they want actually to be slaves of the state (and the bureaucrats that run them.) CAGW is just one of the hobgoblins being used to scare the populace into that belief.

      “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — H. L. Mencken

      So where is it we are being lead? Christiana Figueres, a disciple of Al Gore, who was appointed as Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Jan. 2015 tells us. she said;

      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”

      Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

      I am sure she would be very happy with Ancient Sparta as a model too.

      70

      • #
        Manfred

        You could add Maurice Strong to the list of endorsees.

        30

      • #
        sophocles

        It’s not a particularly impressive model. China is going through it’s own `1929.’ (stock market)

        Everything being said in the Media about it by Chinese spokespeople or commentators is obviously designed to try and placate and calm. So far, with billions injected to try and prop up the `market’ the government has had to curtail, or stop, trading in major corporations’ shares.

        They might be able to contain the meltdown. They may not. Time will tell.

        Sic transit gloria mundi.

        00

  • #
    gai

    An older paper I stumble across recently is of interest. Ice cores from the Freemont Glacier in Wyoming show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warm Period warm in the ten years between 1845 and 1855. Seems Mikey’s Hokey Schtick is off by a century.

    Chronological refinement of an ice core record at Upper Fremont Glacier in south central North America

    ABSTRACT
    An ice core removed from the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming provides evidence for abrupt climate change during the mid-1800s….

    At a depth of 152 m the refined age-depth profile shows good agreement (1736±10 A.D.) with the 14C age date (1729±95 A.D.). The δ18O profile of the Upper Fremont Glacier (UFG) ice core indicates a change in climate known as the Little Ice Age (LIA)….

    At this depth, the age-depth profile predicts an age of 1845 A.D. Results indicate the termination of the LIA was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures around 1845 A.D. and continuing to present day. Prediction limits (error bars) calculated for the profile ages are ±10 years (90% confidence level). Thus a conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the LIA climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10 years, suggesting the LIA termination in alpine regions of central North America may have occurred on a relatively short (decadal) timescale.

    70

  • #
    Grant

    Ok – now I’m confused… so the official NASA graph shows a warming over 150 years of less than 1 degree.

    Surely this in itself demonstrates that “the end of the world is (not) nigh…”? (Unless of course you plan to live to 500)

    70

  • #
    pat

    9 July: Forbes: Forbes: Devin Thorpe: UN Says We Can End Extreme Poverty, Hunger, Global Warming and Gender Bias By 2030
    At the outset of the current millennium, the United Nations led an effort to set a group of goals to be achieved by 2015.
    UN Secretary-General reported in 2014, that “the MDGs have made a profound difference in people’s lives. Global poverty has been halved five years ahead of the 2015 timeframe. Ninety per cent of children in developing regions now enjoy primary education, and disparities between boys and girls in enrolment have narrowed. Remarkable gains have also been made in the fight against malaria and tuberculosis, along with improvements in all health indicators. The likelihood of a child dying before age five has been nearly cut in half over the last two decades. That means that about 17,000 children are saved every day. We also met the target of halving the proportion of people who lack access to improved sources of water.”…
    Today, the world is looking forward to what we can accomplish over the next 15 years. The UN has established the Global Goals for Sustainable Development…
    She (Amina Mohammed, Special Adviser to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon) adds that the Secretary-General said it best in his Synthesis Report, “The Road to Dignity by 2030: We must transform our economies, our environment, and our societies. We must change old mindsets, behaviors, and destructive patterns. All in pursuit of international peace and stability.”…
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/devinthorpe/2015/07/09/un-says-we-can-end-extreme-poverty-hunger-global-warming-and-gender-bias-by-2030/

    THE GLOBAL GOALS For Sustainable Development
    On September 25th 2015, 193 World Leaders will sign up to these 17 Global Goals to achieve 3 extraordinary things in the next 15 years.
    Be the first generation to end extreme poverty.
    Be the most determined generation to fight inequality & injustice.
    Be the last generation to be threatened by climate change
    RECRUITING THE WORLD’S GREATEST TEAM – LET’S MAKE THESE GOALS FAMOUS…
    Our ambition is to share the global goals with 7 billion people in 7 days. Every website, TV station, cinema, school, radio station, mobile phone, pinboard and milk carton will be put to use to make sure everyone knows about the new UN global goals.
    The more famous these global goals are, and the more widely understood they are – the more politicians will take them seriously, finance them properly, refer to them frequently and feel the pressure to make them work…
    The Global Citizen Festival 2015 kicks off on September 26th, in New York City on the Great Lawn of Central Park where global citizens will gather to end extreme poverty…
    Ed Sheeran will be there and so will many other celebrities and global leaders. Will you?…
    http://globalgoals.org/#intro-goals

    01

  • #
    pat

    amazingly BBC’s “More or Less” program has been exposing some inconvenient facts & figures about the UN’s claims re the Millennium Development Goals:

    BBC “More or Less”: Millennium Development Goals
    Fifteen years ago at the Millennium Summit the United Nations set eight goals for addressing extreme poverty. They became known as the Millennium Development Goals. A deadline of 2015 was set to achieve what the UN said were ‘quantified targets’ – so how did we do?
    ***We find that in many cases the targets are incredibly difficult to quantify and that progress in some areas might not be all it seems.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02vmb62

    (rough summary, in part: claim is that poverty target was met 5 years ahead of time, but there’s no way to know, apparently, because the data is not based on observation but on models. starting date was also changed.
    2012 claim about increased number of people with access to safe water had caveats, which the MSM don’t report, and the public didn’t read, and water was not tested. there has been an “effort” though. UN admits robust data remains scarce in many countries. nonetheless, new goals are being discussed & planned – Sustainable Development Goals – and efforts are being made to make these goals more measurable.)

    21

  • #
    pat

    7 July: Thomson Reuters Foundation: Nita Bhalla: New UN development goals will drive nations “nuts”-Indian economist
    An Indian economist and member of a key government panel which formulates policy on social issues slammed the United Nations’ new development goals on Tuesday, saying that having so many goals and targets would drive governments ‘nuts’.
    World leaders are due to adopt a set of new development objectives in September, to replace eight expiring UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These will include objectives like ending poverty, reducing child mortality and tackling climate change. Although the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be finalised only in September, UN officials say member states have identified 17 goals and 169 targets…
    Bibek Debroy, member of the NITI Ayog – a panel appointed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to act as a think-tank and advise on development priorities – said the SDGs were overly ambitious. “I am going to provoke my hosts, but I am greatly disturbed by what is happening on the SDGs. Eight goals, 21 targets, I can understand. But 17 goals, 169 targets? We’ll go nuts. Imagine the plight of the countries which will now have to collect data for these, if collecting that data at all is possible,” he said …
    “I look at some of those proposed goals and I don’t understand what they mean. It’s as if you are looking for a unified field theory and are trying to solve every problem under the sun.”…
    http://www.trust.org/item/20150707150437-g6o7o/?source=hpMostPopular

    01

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    9 July: Business Standard India: Bibek Debroy: For goals in plain English
    Successors to Millennium Development Goals should be achievable – and clearly written
    With MDGs, there were eight goals, 21 targets and, depending on how you count, 60 indicators. In case of SDGs, if we start with 169 targets, we will probably end with 600 indicators. 169 has nothing to recommend it except for the mathematical trivia that 13×13 = 169 and the even more interesting trivia that, with digits reversed, 31×31 = 961. Since SDGs are serious business and not trivia, one hopes in September, goals and targets are pruned and language simplified.
    http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/bibek-debroy-for-goals-in-plain-english-115070901214_1.html

    01

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    JoNova.

    “utter failure of climate models to model anything before the last 150 years”

    Do you have evidence for this claim?

    33

    • #
      gai

      utter failure of climate models to model anything before the last 150 years”

      Do you have evidence for this claim?

      YES

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg?w=640

      The IPCC even admitted the models aren’t worth spit 15 years ago but that hasn’t stopped them from claiming the models show CATASTROPHIC WARMING if we do not change out ‘bad behavior’

      …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible

      IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

      44

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Gai.

        A reference to WUWT – seriously? That website has a nasty habit of saying things that are not backed up by the given references. I speculate they are counting on people not checking them. It is a dishonest discussion technique called “building a straw man”.

        You did not provide evidence, so you answer should be no.

        This is the rest of the IPCC quote which, for some strange reason, people leave off.

        “The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles”

        24

      • #
        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Gai.

          You did not provide evidence. Jo Nova’s claim is “utter failure of climate models to model anything before the last 150 years”

          15

      • #
        gai

        satellite data
        UAH
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2015_v61.png

        From Remote Sensing Systems (RSS satellite data)

        http://images.remss.com/figures/blogs/2014/rss_model_ts_globe_tlt_mears.png

        In this figure, the thick black line is from a climate data record derived from microwave sounding satellite (MSU and AMSU ) measurements. Each of the thin light blue lines represents the temperature anomaly time series for the same atmospheric layer from one of 33 IPCC climate model simulations that I have analyzed. I have adjusted each individual time series so that its average is 0.0 for the 1979-1988 period. This has no effect on the trend of each line, but it does make it easier to see long term changes in the plot…” — Author: Carl Mears (Who calls skeptics denialists)
        …………………………

        The first plot that I originally showed was an average of all of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. Only ONE model can be the model of the earth’s climate and all the rest have to be false models so the IPCC is just throwing as many darts at the target as they can and hope maybe one will hit the target.

        As I said the IPCC is well aware the models are crap.

        …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible

        IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

        The question you FAILED TO ASK IS WHY the long term models are crap AND ALWAYS WILL BE!
        x

        42

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Gai.

          You did not provide evidence. Jo Nova’s claim is “utter failure of climate models to model anything before the last 150 years”

          15

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Harry Twin-Otter,

            If you had taken the time to click on the link, read the post, and used your head instead of your mouth, you would realize that the overall trend in the ice cores shows cooling going from the past to the present while the models simulations ‘behind-cast’ warming from the past to the present.

            Just because the models simulations show the recent rise in temperatures doesn’t mean they’ll continue to rise because as you can see from the ice core data, although there are ups and downs, there are lower drops in temperature than there are increases.

            Cyclical with an overall downward trend.

            Abe

            32

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Do you have evidence for this claim?’

      Had a quick look and can’t find much on ‘backcasting’, could you give me a few links?

      22

    • #
      el gordo

      I found one paper backcasting to the LIA, but we really need all the models (which have failed so miserably in predicting what’s coming) to be run backward to see where they went wrong.

      All the way back to 1200 AD would be a good start.

      43

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        el gordo.

        I am still waiting for someone to tell me why the models have “failed”, and to give a citation for the info. It is one of those things that gets repeated and echoed again and again, but is there any substance?

        I do not think it is possible to run climate models backwards.

        I suspect what is required is the initial conditions have to be estimated for the time in question, and the climate model ran forward and compared with observations. I have this vague recollection I read the current hindcasts start at around 1850 for some technical reason.

        23

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Harry Twinotter,

          You wrote:

          . . . to give a citation for the info. It is one of those . . . bla, bla, bla

          You’ve asked for citations before and when they’re provided, you ignore them and continue ranting.

          If you want a citation, park next to a fire hydrant.

          Abe

          52

        • #
          gai

          From Physicists:

          Alex H (@USthermophysics)

          October 16, 2014 at 11:36 pm

          I’d like to add my humble two cents to this good post to touch on one additional topic. I was the principal developer of large, 3-D electromagnetic codes for radiation transport modeling, which have been run on several thousand processors on one of the largest and fastest computers in the world; much like GCMs. After the initial architecture was in place, one of the first orders of business was to perform a rigorous set of validation exercises. This included comparing to analytical solutions for radiating dipoles and light-scattering spheres, which Gustav Mie on the shoulders of Hendrik Lorentz impressively accomplished. These validation procedures were *absolutely* necessary to both debugging, model verification and validation (separate things) and providing the incremental confidence we needed to eventually perform our own studies, which ended up demonstrating–through both model and experiment–the breaking of the optical diffraction limit using nanoscale transport mechanisms. I can’t overstate how important this validation was. The writeup fo this work was later awarded the national Best Paper in Thermophysics, which I mention for appreciation of co-authors Theppakuttai, Chen, and Howell.

          But descriptions of climate modeling by news and popularized science didn’t satisfy my sniff test. Certainly I agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which has a net warming effect on the atmosphere. We understand the crux of the debate has clearly been the quantification and consequences of this effect. As I would recommend to anyone with the capability and/or open mind, on any subject, I studied primary sources to inform myself. I approached my investigation from the standpoint of a computational fluid dynamicist.

          I was immediately shocked by what I saw in climate science publications. There is much to say, but the only thing I want to comment on here is the lack of rigorous validation procedures in the models, as far as I can tell. Various modules (and I’ve looked at NCAR and GISS, primarily) seem to have limited validation procedures performed independently of other modules and within a limited scope of the expected modeling range. I have not found any conjugate validation exercises using the integrated models (though I am hopeful someone will enlighten me?). To not have the coupled heat transfer and fluid dynamic mechanisms validated to even a moderate degree, let alone extreme degree of confidence required when projections are made several orders of magnitude outside the characteristic timescale of transport mechanisms is no better than playing roulette. It is like obtaining a mortgage with no idea what your interest rate is…absurd. The uncertainty will be an order of magnitude larger than the long-term trend you’re hoping to project. This is not how tier-1 science and engineering operates. This is not the level of precision required to get jet engines capable of thousands of hours of flight and spacecrafts in orbit and land rovers in specific places on other planets. Large integrated models of individual component models cannot rely on narrow component-level validation procedures. Period. It is an absolute certainty that the confidence we require in the performance of extremely complicated life-supporting vehicles cannot be claimed without integrated validation procedures that do not appear to exist for GCMs. This is one reason, I believe, why we see such a spread in model projections: because it does not exist. V&V is not a trivial issue; DOE, NSF, and NASA have spent many tens of millions of dollars in efforts begun as late as 2013 to determine how to accomplish V&V, for good reason. I support the sentiment behind those efforts.

          So where does that leave us? GCM’s can’t be validated against analytical solutions of actual planetary systems, of course. That is a statement that can’t be worked around and should provide a boundary condition in itself for GCM model projection confidence. But there are analytical fluid dynamics solutions that are relevant, idealized planetary systems that can be modeled and compared to ab-initio solutions, as well as line-by-line Monte-Carlo benchmark simulations which can be performed to validate full-spectrum radiative transport in participating media. I’ve seen nothing that meets this criteria (though I am open to and welcome correction. I will give a nod to LBL radiation calcs which use the latest HITRAN lines but still don’t present validation spectra and are then parameterized from k-distribution form for use in GCMs)

          My conclusion is that current GCMs are like lawn darts. They are tossed in the right direction based on real knowledge, but where they land is a complete function of the best-guess forcings put into it. This is in direct contrast to the results of highly complex models found elsewhere in science and engineering, which are like .270 rounds trained on target by powerful scopes. And they bring home prizes because they were sighted in.”

          Dr. Brown @ Duke Univ NC is a theoretical and mathematical physicist. Specialties: Physics, mathematics, statistics, random numbers, axiomatic reasoning, Bayesian analysis and modeling, neural networks (per Linkin)

          He gets pretty P.O. about the sloppy work with G.C.models since he can spot the problems.

          …. I think your description of the properties of solutions to Navier-Stokes equations actually describes the numerical approximations incorporated into GCMs etc. Actual solution of these pde’s is still, as far as I know, one of the top ten unsolved problems in mathematics ($1million if you can do it). So the numerical methods used in climate models likely produce ill-specified, chaotic dynamics and it is not even clear whether they relate accurately to the solutions of the actual fluid dynamics equations, about which relatively little is known!….

          …How about presenting results with simple scientific objectivity include clear statements about the limitations and uncertainty of the results given the data and models? How about using standard, commonly accepted statistical theory and thoroughly debugged tools in the processing of their results instead of inventing homemade principle component analysis software, badly, in order to deliberately and with malice aforethought eliminate the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period on the basis of a single series of bristlecone pines from a single part of the world? How about presenting results with a clearly visible picture of the range of probable error, both statistical and systematic? How about not pretending that the warming in the first half of the 20th century did not almost precisely match the warming in the second half without the help of CO_2, making their claim that latter half warming could only be explained with the help of CO_2 spurious (and by the way, the models fail to reproduce the warming of the first half of the 20th century altogether as is clearly evident at a glance at figure 9.8 in AR5 because the actual temperature has never varied like a hockey stick in the thermometric era, so one doesn’t even have to use their failure to reproduce “the pause”, they had already failed to reproduce the thermometric era hindcast)?

          How about acknowledging that the General Circulation Models are unproven, almost impossibly difficult computations solving coupled Navier-Stokes equations known to have highly nonlinear, chaotic, multivariate solutions on an absurdly coarse spatiotemporal grid with incomplete descriptions of critical physics and an appalling lack of predictive treatment of named climate structures empirically known to have a profound effect on the evolution of the climate? How about letting the leaders of the world known that when four GCMs were applied to a toy problem vastly simpler than the actual Earth (a simple water world) all four converged to completely different climates, climates that had completely distinct temperatures, circulatory structure, and heat flow? How about not first linearizing CO_2-driven expected gain, then introducing a completely unproven nonlinear feedback from water vapor to amplify the un-alarming warming expected by a factor of two to five, in the teeth of a functioning climate that has enormous negative feedback stability and utterly lacks runaway self-amplifying warming solutions from fluctuations in water vapor alone?

          Of course, if they did all of these things and then avoided the problem associated with delivering a message instead of honestly done and presented science, then 90% of the world’s climate science would be working in some other field, Europe would be economically stable instead of on the edge of financial collapse, millions of people who have died in both the first world and third world in the meantime because of energy poverty perpetuated and exacerbated by the entirely artificial inflation of the prices of energy and the imposition of ludicrous restrictions on the emission of carbon dioxide in energy generation processes while simultaneously continuing to oppose the only energy source (nuclear) that is even approximately capable of providing the energy the world needs without generating carbon dioxide, and millions more would not have died of mere starvation caused by the diversion of basic foodstock into inefficient “biofuel” production, raising world food prices beyond the means of the world’s poorest citizens.

          So yeah, they have some explaining to do. But don’t worry guys, I helped you out up above. You could still make it right, maybe even in time to avoid the pitchforks and torches…

          62

        • #
          gai

          My other longer comment is in moderation. This is a continuation with the emphasis on whether the earth is headed into glaciation.

          The quotes are again from Dr Robert G. Brown a theoretical and mathematical physicist at Duke University. Specialties: Physics, mathematics, statistics, random numbers, axiomatic reasoning, Bayesian analysis and modeling, neural networks (per Linkin)

          From Duke University

          Research Description: Prof. Robert G. Brown is interested in using algebraic and statistical methods to study a wide range of equilibrium and nonequilibrium problems. With collaborator Dr. Mikael Ciftan, Dr. Brown has developed new Monte Carlo Langevin equation-based techniques that allow dynamic/nonequilibrium and static/equilibrium phenomena to be studied on the same footing. His recent work includes algebraic and computational studies in dynamic and static critical phenomena in quantum optics and magnetism. In earlier work, Dr. Brown also developed a generalized (non-muffin-tin) stationary multiple scattering theory including applications to band theory and quantum chemistry. This work formally eliminates the muffin-tin approximation from KKR-type band theory and its equivalents in quantum chemistry, without the need for so-called “near field” corrections.

          …..Let me also comment on the connection between HK dynamics and statistics and chaos. Complex nonlinear multivariate systems often exhibit “strange attractors” — local fixed points in a set of coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations — that function as foci for Poincare cycles in the multivariate phase space. In classical deterministic chaos, a system will often end up in a complex orbit around multiple attractors, one that essentially never repeats (and the attractors themselves may migrate around as this is going on). In a system such as the climate, we can never include enough variables to describe the actual system on all relevant length scales (e.g. the butterfly effect — MICROSCOPIC perturbations grow exponentially in time to drive the system to completely different states over macroscopic time) so the best that we can often do is model it as a complex nonlinear set of ordinary differential equations with stochastic noise terms — a generalized Langevin equation or generalized Master equation, as it were — and average behaviors over what one hopes is a spanning set of butterfly-wing perturbations to assess whether or not the resulting system trajectories fill the available phase space uniformly or perhaps are restricted or constrained in some way. We might physically expect this to happen if the system has strong nonlinear negative feedback terms that stabilize it around some particular (family of) attractors. Or, we might find that the system is in or near a “critical” regime where large fluctuations are possible and literally anything can happen, and then change without warning to anything else, with very little pattern in what happens or how long it lasts…..

          A few months later Dr Brown made this clarification in response to my comment:

          “So far there are those on both sides of extended interglacial vs headed into glaciation debate. Dr Brown @ Duke, made a comment eons ago about the climate being bistable. The questions are what tips it from one state to the other, how rough is the ride down from interglacial to glacial and how fast. Growing glaciers are not the real problem, unstable climate is.”

          Personally, I don’t think we understand any of this yet. Not even close. Milankovitch is a glib hypothesis, but one with many open questions (such as why the period of glaciation changes over the Pliestocene.

          If I had to try to muse on the probable nature/structure of the poincare cycles that describe the climate, it would be something like two major attractors but with NUMEROUS lesser attractors in the neighborhoods of the major attractors and with slow processes — e.g. Milankovitch — driving the actual motion and stability of the attractors themselves. As the interglacial draws to a close, the warm phase simply becomes less and less stable. Depending on pure chaotic chance, motion around the attractor will eventually carry the system into a state where transition to the cold phase attractor becomes likely — just enough positive feedback from e.g. glaciation albedo that glaciation becomes favored. Again depending on pure chaotic chance, the transition can be anything from very rapid and sudden to slow and with many bobbles.

          Empirically, the bobbles are a lot more likely in cold phase, though. The warm to cold transition is more usually quite rapid in geological time.

          I sometimes wonder why people do not try to match up a chaotic oscillator in N dimensions that has the right qualitative properties to describe this. Sure, it is blatant numerology, but if a good heuristic numerical model was found that had the right properties, it might give us insight into the underlying critical dimensionality, which in turn might give us insight into how many independent variables are important in the PRIMARY baseline evolution of the locally stable attractors themselves.

          42

    • #
      ScotsmaninUtah

      Harry,
      This is a link to the CIMP5 models from various institutes.

      http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/availability.html

      Some of the models are available for download and inspection by the public, and the link gives further details as to the operating parameters for each Model.

      overview of ModelE2 from NASA-GISS

      http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/mi08910y.html

      They all are atmospheric and oceanic coupled models.
      The range of dates that the models simulate are 1850 to present day.

      I will not answer for Jo Nova, but in my opinion the reason for not modeling the climate prior to 1850 is that the climate models have been designed to prove CO2 is the primary driver in Anthropogenic Global Warming and it would be self defeating ( from the perspective of the climate scientists and AGW theory) to model before this time frame, especially if you are only concerned with human influence.

      23

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        ScotsmaninUtah.

        I know where the modelling info is, it is readily available on the internet.

        I was hoping Jo Nova would provide evidence for her claim about the failure of models before the last 150 years.

        03

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        ScotsmaninUtah,

        You wrote:

        I will not answer for Jo Nova, . . .

        You may not be willing to so so, but I’ll quote her from a comment earlier in the thread.

        Jo wrote:

        Your fantasy eh? Just like your science judgement. Based on nothing. Jo

        You see, what Harry’s interested in is diversion and obfuscation. He’s snot interested in rational debate.

        The answer to his question was given before he even asked it. Had he bothered to click on the link below the words ‘to model anything before the last 150 years,’ he’d understand that while the ice cores show a clear downward trend from the last ice age forward to today, the climate models simulations show only a warming trend because, as you’ve pointed out, that’s what they were designed to do. i.e.. To model simulate only the upward swing of one of the temperature cycles evidenced in the ice cores.

        All this was pointed out to Harry two days ago but he chose to ignore it, as he’s done in the past.

        We’re now well past the peak of that upward cycle and well into a downward trend.

        Harry thinks his nonsense will change the weather, i.e. the facts on the ground, i.e. the actual observations.

        Silly, really.
        or,
        Really silly.

        Take your pick.

        Abe

        10

  • #
    William

    Jo, Dr Brian, aka Philip Sheehan, is verballing you over at Andrew Bolt’s site

    “Even Jo Nova believes in the hockey stick, although the graphs of proxy data she displays stop at 1950, and do not include the instrumental increase in temperature (0.8 C) since then.”

    41

  • #
    el gordo

    Ed Caryl gets a guest post at NTZ.

    ‘There were two peaks in temperature, one in 1989 and a second during the El Niño year of 1998 which caused a steep upward in temperature world-wide, and especially in Antarctica. But since then there has been a dramatic cooling. There is no “hiatus” on the Antarctic Peninsula, there is marked cooling.’

    See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/07/08/south-polar-ice-age-stations-show-dramatic-antarctic-peninsula-cooling-since-1998-sea-ice-surge/#sthash.sDicjQ56.dpuf

    21

  • #
    gai

    What is really funny is the ClimAstrologists have the whole thing BACKWARDS!!!!

    Thanks to the energy bound in the heat of vaporization, if the water vapor goes up, as demanded by the CO2 global warming conjecture***, the world temperature should actually be go DOWN!!!!

    For example look at the humid Brazilian rain forest, Barcelos, Brazil, and the dry N. African Desert, Adrar, Algeria.

    This data is from May (2012) which is midway between the vernal equinox and the summer solstice and therefore the sun would be midway between the equator and the Tropic of Cancer (the latitude line at 23.5° North) so the solar insolation at both locations would be roughly equal with a bit more expected in Barcelos, Brazil.

    Barcelos, Brazil
    ….monthly min 20C, monthly max 33C, monthly average 26C
    Average humidity 90%

    Adrar, Algeria
    …..monthly min 9C monthly max 44C, monthly average 30C
    Average humidity around 0%

    The effect of the addition of water vapor (~ 4%) is not to raise the temperature but to even the temperature out. The monthly high is 10C lower and the monthly low is ~ 10C higher when the GHG H2O is added to the atmosphere in this example. The average temperature is about 4C lower in Brazil despite the fact Algeria is further north above the tropic of Cancer. Some of the difference is from the effect of clouds/albedo but the dramatic effect on the temperature extremes is also from the humidity.

    I took a rough look at the data from Brazil. Twelve days were sunny. I had to toss the data for two days because it was bogus. The average humidity was 80% for those ten days. The high was 32 with a range of 1.7C and the low was 22.7C with a range of 2.8C. Given the small range in values over the month the data is probably a pretty good estimate for the effects of humidity only.

    You still get the day-night variation of ~ 10C with a high humidity vs a day-night variation of 35C without and the average temp is STILL going to be lower when the humidity is high and the effect of clouds is removed.
    DATA from: classic(DOT)wunderground.com/history/station/82113/2012/5/22/MonthlyHistory.html

    This data would indicate GHGs have two effects. One is to even out the temperature and the second is to act as a “coolant” at least if the GHG is H2O, the most significant GHG.
    ……………….

    ***The CO2 global warming conjecture***
    Here is the ‘BIG LIE’ about CO2 causing an increase in water vapor straight from NASA:

    Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

    Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change. [In other words water is what has a big effect on earth’s climate not CO2.]

    Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere….

    “Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”

    The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. [There is the twisting of cause and effect used to make CO2 increases catastrophic.] Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. [Adding in the fear component just in case you need to be hit by a hammer and completely neglecting the fact that the temperature on earth has upper bounds as seen in the geological record.]

    Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

    “The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous,” Dessler said. [Well at least he has that part correct.]

    Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth’s surface temperature. That’s because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth’s troposphere — the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth’s surface to about 10 miles in altitude….

    Andrew Dessler has a great career ahead of him as a used care salesman.

    42

  • #
    Richard111

    This farce has been going on for so long now that I’ve reached the opinion it should succeed. If humanity as a whole is this stupid it needs a good clear out. Look on it as a sort of evolutionary step. Only the well prepared will survive. Hopefully they will realise “go forth and multiply” is not a good policy.

    01

    • #
      gai

      Richard,
      Since I am old and have no children, I am inclined to agree with you.

      The welfare in the USA and other countries has been encouraging the Parasites to proliferate while the Productive Class that supports them has been strangled with red tape and taxes.

      Yes it is time for a cleansing of the gene pool and glaciation not only clears out the useless parasites it also increases the brain size. Something the human race desperately needs.

      The Homo sapiens with the biggest brains lived 20,000 to 30,000 years ago in Europe. (As the result of crossing of Neanderthal and Homo maybe? – Hybrid vigor and all that.)

      John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell….

      Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” If our brain keeps dwindling at that rate over the next 20,000 years, it will start to approach the size of that found in Homo erectus, a relative that lived half a million years ago and had a brain volume of only 1,100 cc.
      http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

      The beginnings of Agriculture coincided with the end of the Wisconsin Ice Age.

      First Farming Societies (12,000-5,000 years ago)

      Beginning about 12,000 years ago, humans begin to invent a whole range of useful behaviors that together we call the Neolithic Revolutions. Most importantly, humans began to tend and then deliberately grow crops and animals, including a range of domesticated animals and plants.
      http://archaeology.about.com/od/temporalstudies/u/human_history.htm

      The Holocene climate with the exception of The Younger Dryas (10,800-9,600 BC) has been very benign allowing the weak and stupid to proliferate. So yes, it is time for another good culling especially within the useless ‘Regulating Class’

      30

  • #
    Harold

    ha, didnt they conclusively prove the cost of US postage tracks better with real world land based temperature sets than their computer model/predictions. It’s also funny noone talks about magnatism, when it is an essential component of everything that happens in the universe.

    I guess ‘astrophysisit’ isnt comparable to the disciplined stewarts of ‘climate change scientist’.

    22

  • #
    TdeF

    Just looking at comments on another site, discussing the record extent of Antarctic sea ice. Global Warming apologists are arguing that the ice is not as thick as usual, so it doesn’t count. Firstly, they do not know. Secondly, what utter rubbish.

    Ice on the water tells you plainly that the water underneath is freezing and the extent of freezing water is a record. The warmest water is at the top and that is freezing. Increased saline below may allow the fresh ice to float on even colder water.

    How thick the ice is hardly matters and just a matter of time, especially when the water is 4km deep. As in a lake, ice on the surface is a direct thermometer measuring water temperature and the massive extent of the Antarctic Sea which is covered by ice is a record. That is a worry.

    It is a little bit like the ice ages. The thickness of a glacier hardly matters when it crushes your house.

    72

    • #
      TdeF

      Warmists would have you believe that the ice has melted in Antarctica (-50C) and fallen in the water. At about 62 Latitude, the sea ice is solid up to 1,000km from land. The idea that it is perhaps thinner than usual and doesn’t count is absurd, especially when it has never reached this far.

      51

    • #
      gai

      Actually they did go look at the sea ice trying to prove it was ‘thinning’ no doubt but got a big surprise.

      Robot Sub Finds Surprisingly Thick Antarctic Sea Ice

      Antarctica’s ice paradox has yet another puzzling layer. Not only is the amount of sea ice increasing each year, but an underwater robot now shows the ice is also much thicker than was previously thought, a new study reports.

      The discovery adds to the ongoing mystery of Antarctica’s expanding sea ice. According to climate models, the region’s sea ice should be shrinking each year because of global warming. Instead, satellite observations show the ice is expanding, and the continent’s sea ice has set new records for the past three winters…..

      What they are not going to tell you is the “melting” in the Antarctic is due to geothermal heat.
      The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report: Researchers Find Major West Antarctic Glacier Melting from Geothermal Sources

      And more importantly that increasing Antarctic sea ice is Really Bad News since the increase is nearer the equator (ALL of the “excess” sea ice was between latitude 60 south and latitude 59 south) and therefore five times more effective in reflecting sunlight compared to polar Arctic Sea Ice.

      It is the Antarctic that we should be watching to determine whether or not the earth is headed for a cooling mode and not the Arctic. Even the major shipping companies are very worried that Drake Passage around Cape Horn will be blocked and who the heck knows what that will due to the wind driven the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. The Humbolt current “is a cold, low-salinity ocean current that flows north along the west coast of South America from the southern tip of Chile to northern Peru.” and has a major effect on ENSO. It is THE reason for the names El Niño and La Niña.

      The ClimAstrologists however are going to continue with diverting attention to the Arctic which is a minor player.

      Actually the worst case scenario is growing sea ice in the Antarctic reflecting sunlight ‘close to the equator’ while the Arctic open seas dump heat to space near the pole. RACookPE1978 has done a lot of work on this.

      22

    • #
      gai

      Also do not forget the record ice on the Great Lakes last year (2013-2014) and the very high level of ice this year. This indicates the water in the great lakes is COLD (they are rather deep lakes)

      …. One of the coldest winters on record covered most of the Great Lakes with ice this past year, including an entirely iced-over Lake Superior, and it took a while for it to melt. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) declared on June 12 that the Great Lakes total ice cover finally reached 0% . This year was the longest ice has been seen on Lake Superior in 40 years of NOAA records. (4)

      The Great Lakes hit the second-highest ice coverage on record on March 6 with 92% of the five lakes covered in ice. Temperatures in the Great Lakes region averaged 7 degrees below normal from January 1 to April 1. More than a third of the Great Lakes remained covered in ice by mid-April this year, and that caused problems for shipping. The Coast Guard was out on the lakes breaking up ice from early December through spring. (4)….

      link

      National Geographic 2014 Frigid Forecast for Water Temperatures on Great Lakes This Summer

      20

    • #
      gai

      And when you get to the winter of 2014-2015 you are talking sea ice not only in the Boston MA area but even in Chesapeake Bay near Washington DC!

      …A satellite image (above) of the Mid-Atlantic region captured on February 24 [2015] shows ice in Delaware Bay—between New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware—and in the northern end of the Chesapeake Bay between Maryland and Delaware. Other images show closer views, including ice streamers…..
      Hundreds, maybe thousands, of record low temperatures – NASA

      20

  • #
  • #
    MRW

    This link doesn’t work: How to create a crisis graph in 6 simple steps.

    00

    • #
      tom0mason

      el gordo link ok, article says (after the video),

      THIS thing is going to be massive. America had its Polar Vortex in 2013, when frigid air streamed down from the north pole causing major snowfalls and record cold temperatures.

      Eastern Australia, it’s your turn now.

      Prepare for the Antarctic Vortex. That’s not a technical term. It’s the nickname we’ve given this weather system, but we’re sticking with it. Others, meanwhile, have developed their own monikers.

      #Snownami. Starts tomorrow. Runs at least 3 days. Probably longer. 50cm minimum. 100cm possible. Maybe more in some places. #BeThere. -CW
      — ski.com.au (@skicomau) July 9, 2015

      21

  • #
    el gordo

    Simply everyone is now talking about the approaching mini ice age, apparently its the sun after all.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm

    31

  • #
    Dan Pangburn

    “Proof that CO2 has no significant effect on AGT” can be found if you search for it. Also identified are the two factors (sunspot number is the only independent variable) that do cause climate change (R^2 greater than 0.97 since before 1900).

    22

  • #
    Paul Vaughan

    NASA has more than 1 wing. GISS comes across as corrupt, but JPL knows this:

    http://s12.postimg.org/cjk19opyl/Sun_ERSST_ICOADS_Had_NMAT_Solar_Cycle_Sunspots.gif

    Updated with 17 more months of data:

    http://s15.postimg.org/g8wfenpgb/Sun_Climate_101_ERSST_Thermal_Equator_SCD_RI.png

    Updated with 1 more month of data (cumulatively 18 more months):

    http://s3.postimg.org/5hmdwvl4z/Sun_ERSST_Thermal_Equator_SCD_RI.gif

    not f’ing around folks

    32

  • #
  • #
    el gordo

    ‘After the European heat wave of last week, the pendulum has swung to the other extreme.

    ‘Currently the weather pattern dominating Central Europe is bringing unusually cold air over the continent, and early this morning regions in a number of countries were hit by ground surface frost.’

    NoTricksZone

    01

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Many cycles are double peaked but this is the first in which the second peak in sunspot number was larger than the first. We are currently over six years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.’

    NASA on Solar Cycle 24

    11

  • #
    Wombat

    I read that southern Queensland is expecting temperatures down to a few degrees with the possibility of snow. Meanwhile here in Europe, in (at least in theory) high summer in northern Denmark, we’re all [expletive deleted] sick of waking up to a temperature of 11 degrees. My wife’s theory is that Somebody Up There is poking fun at the global warming loonies.

    21

  • #
    Robert Wagner

    The scientific proof of debunking man made climate change is extremely simple, and all it does is require a simple application of the scientific method to the ice core data.:
    1) Statistical analysis of the Holocene demonstrates that current temperatures are well off the peaks of the past 15k years, even though CO2 is claimed to be at a record high for the period.
    2) There is absolutely nothing statistically abnormal about the past 50 or 150 years variation in temperature.
    3) Anyone familiar with econometric modeling knows that the climate models suffer from an having an overweight to an insignificant variable. It is a mis-specified model that has far too much weight on CO2. That is why 100% of them over forecast temperatures. CO2 is essentially linear, temperature is not, so when they focused on CO2 they were 100% certain to create a model that would forecast higher temperatures. real world temperatures don’t continually trend higher, they infrequently step higher in a non-linear fashion.
    4) CO2 aborbs and radiates at a relatively narrow peak centered around 15 microns, which is consistent with a black body of -80 degree C. As the earth warms CO2 absorbs and radiates less and less. Nature has a built in mechanism to prevent CO2 from causing run away warming as the warmists claim it will cause.
    5) We have 600 million years of geologic records and never has CO2 caused run away warming, never. Temperatures never got above 22 degree C, and CO2 reached levels of 7000 PPM. We fell into an ice age with 4000 PPM CO2.
    6) The oceans are warming, IR doesn’t penetrate or warm the oceans. What is warming the oceans is what is warming the atmosphere above it, that being the sun.
    7) It isn’t the Sun’s output that is important, it is the radiation that reaches the earth’s surface that counts. A hot sun and dense cloud cover will result in global cooling.
    8) The atmosphere holds 1/2000 to 1/4000 the heat of the oceans, once again, the atmosphere can’t warm the oceans. What is warming the oceans is what is warming the atmosphere, and it isn’t CO2.
    9) Water vapor absorbs effectively the same wavelengths as CO2, and many more, yet much higher concentrations of H2O don’t cause the warming warmists claims CO2 will cause. Once again, CO2 is 400 PPM, man only produces 5% of atmospherics CO2, an amount less that the annual variation of the ocean’s absorption and outgassing.
    10) Daytime temperatures have been increasing. CO2 is transparent to visible light. Visible light is what warms the earth and oceans. CO2 can’t cause record daytime temperatures, only the sun can. CO2 and other GHGs can’t warm anything above the temperature of the radiating body, they only delay cooling. Record temps demonstrate more visible sunlight is reaching earth, not CO2 trapped IR.
    11) CO2 absorbs a very small fraction of the IR spectrum, and its peak of 15 microns is a full 90+ degrees below the 15 degrees of the globe which has a peak of 10 microns.
    12) Ice core data demonstrates that CO2 lags temperature, it does not lead it.
    13) Using any econometric software and the “stepwise” function, there is 0% chance that the unbiased computer would select CO2 as a highly significant variable for inclusion in a climate model. Simply letting the computer select the variables would pretty much rule out CO2, unless CO2 was uploaded as a lagged variable (today’s CO2 would be lined up with temperature from 800 to 1500 years ago).
    14) All GHGs are increasing, not just CO2. Clearly there is a natural cycle going on.
    15) Spreads between desert daytime and night time temperatures have not been narrowing and temperatures at the S Pole have not been increasing. Those are the best “controls” for the impact of CO2 and they aren’t showing anything.

    Anyway, what we need is a congressional investigation into the data and statistical methods used to reach the conclusion that CO2 is the most significant factor in climate modeling. The models pretty much demonstrate that CO2 is meaningless. That should be all that is needed to expose this hoax. Prosecute 1 or 2 climate scientists for perpetrating this fraud and you will never hear about this nonsense again. Once again, simply run a stepwise model on the available data sets of the Sun, water vapor, ocean temperatures, cloud cover, etc etc etc and the computer will expose the fraud. Only a climate scientist would focus on CO2, a computer never will.

    30

  • #
    ren

    A comprehensive spectral analysis of both the solar background magnetic field (SBMF) in cycles 21–23 and the
    sunspot magnetic field in cycle 23 reported in our recent paper showed the presence of two principal components
    (PCs) of SBMF having opposite polarity, e.g., originating in the northern and southern hemispheres, respectively.
    Over a duration of one solar cycle, both waves are found to travel with an increasing phase shift toward the northern
    hemisphere in odd cycles 21 and 23 and to the southern hemisphere in even cycle 22. These waves were linked to
    solar dynamo waves assumed to form in different layers of the solar interior. In this paper, for the first time, the
    PCs of SBMF in cycles 21–23 are analyzed with the symbolic regression technique using Hamiltonian principles,
    allowing us to uncover the underlying mathematical laws governing these complex waves in the SBMF presented
    by PCs and to extrapolate these PCs to cycles 24–26. The PCs predicted for cycle 24 very closely fit (with an
    accuracy better than 98%) the PCs derived from the SBMF observations in this cycle. This approach also predicts a
    strong reduction of the SBMF in cycles 25 and 26 and, thus, a reduction of the resulting solar activity. This decrease
    is accompanied by an increasing phase shift between the two predicted PCs (magnetic waves) in cycle 25 leading
    to their full separation into the opposite hemispheres in cycle 26. The variations of the modulus summary of the
    two PCs in SBMF reveals a remarkable resemblance to the average number of sunspots in cycles 21–24 and to
    predictions of reduced sunspot numbers compared to cycle 24: 80% in cycle 25 and 40% in cycle 26.
    http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentina_Zharkova/publication/266799418_PREDICTION_OF_SOLAR_ACTIVITY_FROM_SOLAR_BACKGROUND_MAGNETIC_FIELD_VARIATIONS_IN_CYCLES_21-23/links/559fbc8c08ae3dbcbe86d891.pdf?disableCoverPage=true
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.gif

    10

  • #

    My Al Gore Model clearly shows when the man gets a lot of face time on TV, the temperature goes up, such as in the 1990′s.

    When you don’t see Al Gore much on TV, such as the 15 years after he lost the 2000 election, there is no global warming.

    There is also a significant positive correlation between how much Al Gore’s lips are moving, and the average temperature of our planet.

    My theory is Al Gore’s hot air is the primary climate driver, not CO2, and certainly not the sun.

    What could the sun possibly have to do with the temperature?

    My climate blog for the average guy***:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com

    *** There is a climate centerfold
    to keep men entertained

    00