The classic hot spot prediction (A) compared to 28 million weatherballoons (B). Click to enlarge. You won’t see this in the new report.
It was a major PR failure in 2007. The IPCC won’t make the same mistake again. They’ve dumped the hot-spot graphs.
In AR4 they put in two graphs that show how badly their models really do. In the next report they plan to bury the spectacular missing-hot-spot images through “graph-trickery” and selective blindness. Each round of IPCC reports takes the spin-factor up another notch. It’s carefully crafted.
See the draft of AR5: Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
It’s hot-spot hidey games and PR tricks
In the new extra-tricky AR5 version, the IPCC “quote the critics” and ignore them at the same time. That way they can say they include the McIntyre’s, McKitrick’s, Douglass’, and Christy’s: the words are on the page, but that doesn’t mean the information is used in the conclusions. The models have failed and they bury that undeniable result under the clutter. (You’ll need to read the fine print). There is no acknowledgement that this issue of the “hot spot” drives more amplification of predicted warming in their models than any other point (though that is obvious and implicit in Fig 9.44, and you can see that below). Which policymaker exactly is going to notice that?
The IPCC are an abject lesson in how to hide a message in plain sight
In the new report they have dumped their former fingerprint predictions which looked so definitively and technical, but proved to be so wrong. However they will not join-the-dots. They won’t admit this is a major point their models have failed on, instead they flat out deny the results from 28 million weather balloons are conclusive.
In a sense, in AR5, the IPCC just throws up its hands and says “yes ok, the models don’t align with the data, but the data might be wrong, and rather than fix those models, we’ll quietly dump that test and the awkward results and pick a different set of inconclusive tests instead. It’s known as shifting the goal-posts. ” It’s what any rational weasel-grade bureaucrat would do if their job and their junkets depended on it. You can hardly blame them… 😐
The art of tricky-graphs: The All New Hot Spot is turned sideways, extended up, and “smallified”
The graphs up the top have been split into four bands, screwed sideways, and extended to far higher in the atmosphere. The net effect visually is to minimize the disparity at the point that matters. Only by reading the caption and text, and reams of information, would you figure out that the action occurs in the bulge of the red line in the second graph (that’s the models best shot at the tropics). Compare that to the black line which is what the weather balloons found. I’ve blown it up further below, and removed the clutter. The green line is irrelevant (that’s model predictions without CO2 — which is argument from ignorance with unverified models). The results in the stratosphere are not that important. The water vapor changes at the upper edge of the troposphere are what matters (about 200hpa or 10 km up).
Official caption: Figure 10.7: Observed and simulated zonal mean temperatures trends from 1961 to 2010 for CMIP5 simulations containing both anthropogenic and natural forcings (red), natural forcings only (green) and greenhouse gas forcing only (blue) where the 5 to 95 percentile ranges of the ensembles are shown. Three radiosonde observations are shown (thick black line: HadAT2, thin black line: RAOBCORE 1.5, dark grey band : RICH-obs 1.5 ensemble and light grey: RICH- τ 1.5 ensemble. After (Lott et al., 2012).
See the second graph on the left up, expanded close on the right below.
Close up of the second graph of Fig 10.7 (see caption above).
How do you say “we have no evidence” without saying it — like this:
“In many cases, the lack of long term observations, observations suitable for the evaluation of important processes, or observations in particular regions (e.g., polar areas, the upper troposphere / lower stratosphere (UTLS), and the deep ocean) remains an impediment.”
Blame the equipment. They have fifty years of data and millions of results.
This is the money statement:
In summary, there is high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.
What they don’t say is that this point on its own is responsible for half the warming projected in the models, and hence that after twenty years of trying to reconcile the models and observations it’s past time they turfed the models and trashed the assumption that humidity will cause monster positive feedback. Forget the projections of 6 degrees of hell, the best estimate would be half the current one (or less) and we can all go home.
Is water vapor feedback critical?
Is your skeptical brain wondering if I’ve got that point right about the positive feedback being so large? Remember it’s the IPCC that says without feedbacks CO2 will only cause 1.2C of warming.1,2 It’s the feedbacks that drive all the scary projections above that. Then gaze upon the graph below, 9.44. Spot the largest single feedback, one so big, it’s almost as large as “total feedbacks”. That would be “WV” or water vapor. This is almost the same graph as it was in AR4 – see Fig 8.14, on page 631.2
This is central to maintaining the scare.
Figure 9.44: a) Feedback parameters for CMIP3 and CMIP5 models (left and right columns of symbols) for water vapour (WV), clouds (C), albedo (A), lapse rate (LR), combination of water vapour and lapse rate (WV+LR), and sum of all feedbacks (ALL) updated from Soden and Held (2006). CMIP5 feedbacks are derived from CMIP5 simulations for abrupt four-fold increases in CO2 concentrations (4 × CO2).
For the die-hard IPCC interpreters, here is the full “Fifth Assessment Report” section where they discuss the pesky discrepancy that the whole crisis hinges upon.
9.4.1.3.2 Upper tropospheric temperature trends
Most climate model simulations show a larger warming in the tropical troposphere than is found in observational datasets (e.g., (McKitrick et al., 2010) (Santer et al., 2012)). There has been an extensive and sometimes controversial debate in the published literature as to whether the difference between models and observations is statistically significant, once observational uncertainties and natural variability are taken into account (e.g., Douglass et al., 2008; Santer et al., 2008; Christy et al., 2010; McKitrick et al., 2010; Bengtsson and Hodges, 2011; Fu et al., 2011; Santer et al., 2012; Thorne et al., 2011). For the thirty-year period 1979 to 2009 (sometimes updated through 2010 or 2011), the various observational datasets find, in the tropical lower troposphere (LT, see Chapter 2 for definition), an average warming trend ranging from 0.07°C to 0.15°C per decade. In the tropical middle troposphere (MT, see Chapter 2 for definition) the average warming trend ranges from 0.02°C to 0.15°C per decade (e.g., Chapter 2, Figure 2.15; McKitrick et al., 2010). Uncertainty in these trend values arises from different methodological choices made by the groups deriving satellite products (Mears et al., 2011) and radiosonde compilations (Thorne et al., 2011), and from fitting a linear trend to a time series containing substantial interannual and decadal variability (Santer et al., 2008; McKitrick et al., 2010). Although there have been substantial methodological debates about the calculation of trends and their uncertainty, a 95% confidence interval of around ±0.1°C per decade has been obtained consistently for both LT and MT (e.g., Chapter 2; McKitrick et al., 2010). Hence, a trend of zero is, with 95% confidence, consistent with some observational trend estimates but not with others.For the thirty-year period 1979 to 2009 (sometimes updated through 2010 or 2011), the CMIP3 models simulate a tropical warming trend ranging from 0.1°C to somewhat above 0.4°C per decade for both LT and MT (McKitrick et al., 2010), while the CMIP5 models simulate a tropical warming trend ranging from slightly below 0.15°C to somewhat above 0.4°C per decade for both LT and MT (Santer et al., 2012; see also Po-Chedley and Fu, 2012) who, however, considered the period 1979–2005). Both model ensembles show trends that are higher on average than the observational estimates, although both model ensembles overlap the observational ensemble. Because the differences between the various observational estimates are largely systematic and structural (Chapter 2; Mears et al., 2011), the uncertainty in the observed trends cannot be reduced by averaging the observations as if the differences between the datasets were purely random. Likewise, to properly represent internal variability, the full model ensemble spread must be used in a comparison against the observations, as is well known from ensemble weather forecasting (e.g., Raftery et al., 2005). The very high significance levels of model-observation discrepancies in LT and MT trends that were obtained in some studies (e.g., Douglass et al., 2008; McKitrick et al., 2010) thus arose to a substantial degree from using the standard error of the model ensemble mean as a measure of uncertainty, instead of the standard deviation or some other appropriate measure of ensemble spread. Nevertheless, almost all model ensemble members show a warming trend in both LT and MT larger than observational estimates (McKitrick et al., 2010; Po-Chedley and Fu, 2012; Santer et al., 2012).
It is unclear whether the tropospheric model-trend bias is primarily related to internal atmospheric processes or to coupled ocean-atmosphere processes. The CMIP3 models show a 1979–2010 tropical SST trend of 0.19°C per decade in the multi-model mean, much larger than the various observational trend estimates ranging from 0.10°C to 0.14°C per decade (including the 95% confidence interval, (Fu et al., 2011)). This SST trend bias would cause a trend bias also in TL and TM even if the models’ atmospheric components were perfectly realistic. The influence of SST trend errors on the analysis can be reduced by considering changes in tropospheric static stability, measured either by the difference between MT and LT changes or by the amplification of MT changes against LT changes; another approach is to consider the amplification of tropospheric changes against SST changes. For month-to-month variations there is consistency between observations and CMIP3 models concerning amplification aloft against SST variations (Santer et al., 2005), and between observations and CMIP5 models concerning amplication of TM against TL variations (Po-Chedley and Fu, 2012). The 30-year trend in tropical static stability, however, is larger than in the observations for almost all ensemble members in both CMIP3 (Fu et al., 2011) and CMIP5 (Po-Chedley and Fu, 2012). For two CMIP3 models, ECHAM5/MPI-OM and GFDL-CM2.1, this trend bias in static stability lies outside each model’s internal variability and is hence highly statistically significant The bias persists even when the models are forced with the observed SST, as was found in the CMIP3 model ECHAM5 (Bengtsson and Hodges, 2011) and the CMIP5 ensemble (Po-Chedley and Fu, 2012).
In summary, there is high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.
What’s the excuse?
The answer didn’t pan out the way they expected, and so post hoc, they now say that the radiosondes don’t really work as well as they thought.
The hot spot is apparently too difficult because the observations are too uncertain:
Observational uncertainties for climate variables, uncertainties in forcings such as aerosols, and limits in process understanding continue to hamper attribution of changes in many aspects of the climate system, making it more difficult to discriminate between natural internal variability and externally forced changes. Increased understanding of uncertainties in radiosonde and satellite records makes assessment of causes of observed trends in the upper troposphere less confident than an assessment of overall atmospheric temperature changes.
They have a choice here
The heat is missing from the oceans, the trends are not accelerating in sea levels, ocean heat, global temperatures, and their 1990 predictions have failed abysmally. The radiosondes show that the humidity is not rising in the upper troposphere, as well as the temperatures. The models are “right” except for for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else. The cloud feedback mistakes are 19 times larger than the effect of CO2. (See Man Made Global Warming Disproved).
Some of these data points make sense if the IPCC models wildly exaggerate the way humidity warms the world. The modelers could change one factor in their models and quite a few of their predictions would fit much closer to the observations.
But instead they deny the importance of 28 million weather-balloons, call the missing heat a “travesty”, they pretend that if you slap enough caveats on the 1990 report and ignore the actual direct quotes they made at the time, then possibly, just maybe, their models are doing OK, and through sheer bad luck 3000 ocean buoys, millions of weather balloons, and 30 years of satellite records are all biased in ways that hides the true genius of the climate models.
——————–
REFERENCES
1. Hansen J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy and J. Lerner, (1984) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, pp. 130-163 [Abstract]
2. IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. section 8.6.2.3 p631 [PDF] see also Fig 8.14.
3. Thomas H. Vonder Haar, Janice L. Bytheway and John M. Forsythe. Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L15802, 6 PP., 2012. doi:10.1029/2012GL052094.
Hot Spot Graph Sources:
(A) Predicted changes 1958-1999. Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP, Chapter 1, p 25, based on Santer et al. 2000;
(B) Hadley Radiosonde record: Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP,, Chapter 5, p116, recorded change/decade, Hadley Centre weather balloons 1979-1999, p. 116 , fig. 5.7E, from Thorne et al., 2005.
UPDATE: The former links are broken (why do government departments do that?) All original CCSP Chapters are stored at the Wayback Machine. See Wayback Machine copies of (Chapter 1) Specifically download the PDF. and Wayback Machine Copies of (Chapter 5) Specifically download the PDF. If they disappear there is a back up copies here of Chapter 1 SAP and Chapter 5 SAP 1.
Extra information
- Models get the core assumptions wrong– – the hot spot is missing
- Watts Up has the list of all the draft chapters
- So is the hotspot a “fingerprint” or signature? Is it unique?
- How John Cook unskeptically believes in a hotspot (that thermometers can’t find)
For facebookites – I’m trying to get organised…
It’s not elusive, it doesn’t exist. Like the Monty Python dead parrot skit.
310
this dead parrot has pretty colorz at least!!! skwaaaaRRRKKK!!!
62
Speaking of colourz, did any of you notice Nova’s little trick in her parrot coloured plot?
Joanne, your image compares two different timeframes (40years vs 20years) and uses two different temperature scales (-1.2 to +1.2 vs -0.6 to +0.6). Why then do you act surprised when they don’t match?
[Nice One: Since the CCSP created those graphs, not me, you can complain to them about the different timescales and color schemes. What you will find difficult to discover is a warming trend. Yellow is not red. I guess they didn’t want people to make an easy comparison, and not having their models at my disposal I could not do the ideal 1979-1999 time-period myself. Why don’t you write to them if you are so concerned? – Jo]
In a post about “graph-trickery”, the first thing you do is demonstrate. Most Amusing! Or should that be “Most Deceptive”?
[Since the “deception” of different time frames here belongs to the IPCC and the CCSP and not me, you’ll be apologizing right? If they wanted to make it easy for us to compare, they would, wouldn’t they? – Jo]
The comparison could have been made using images for the same timeframe and using the same temperature scales. The image for the observations comes from page 116 of this report (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf ) and on that very page, in the very same figure are FOUR model expectations, three of which look very similar to the observations.
[And in Chapter 1 of that very same report, as I listed, they go to great lengths to make sure we all know that their models predict a hot spot and it’s due to “greenhouse gases”– they do so again in the IPCC AR4 report as you can see here with a very similar graph. Though the timeframe is 1890 onwards, so different again and impossible to compare to radiosondes or satellites.
— I hope you don’t mind me dropping this in your comment. But presumably you’ll be delighted to see the full page IPCC graph you must have missed when you read Chapter Nine, IPCC p 675 – Jo]
http://i49.tinypic.com/1zogop2.png
In fact you seemed to have gone to quite a lot of trouble to use an image of Model expectations from another source (with different timeframe and colour scale), when four images representing Model expectations were readily available right beside the Observations image.
Why is that?
[Because the IPCC use many models, and though hardly any of them even overlap the UAH and radiosondes, I guess they could find a few? They but made it clear that their major models were expecting a hot spot, and if it occurred they would claim it was “greenhouse gases”. Ask them why they didn’t put those two graphs side by side for easy comparison? – Jo]
I guess none here bothered to click on Jo’s “expanded” image – or are just being too polite to mention that the image is corrupt? So much for having a critical eye.
[Thanks for reporting the upload was corrupted. It is fixed. I appreciate the proof reading. – Jo]
Likewise none of you “so called skeptics” bothered to point out that there are three radiosonde observations:
Nova only labels the outlier. Why is that?
[HadAT2 is not an outlier, being most like UAH in scaling ratio (see Christy 2011 Fig 10) and is used by the IPCC frequently (See iPCC fig 3.17 these upper troposphere trends which are supposed to be rising faster than the surface). RAOBCORE and RICH are both reanalysis sets. I’m repeating the broad conclusions used in peer reviewed papers that I have covered at great length. See Po-Chedley and Fu and Fu and Manabe and Mckitrick, Herman and McIntyre. – Jo]
754
Dear Mrs Nice,
This “yellow is red” gaff is old news to attentive skeptics. But even when you compare the observations to the model projection with the closest matching time period, the real warming still fell short of the projections.
As for why Jo chose the GFDL instead of the other three, perhaps that’s because the GFDL projection had the biggest HOTSPOT and the HOTSPOT was meant to be the fingerprint of man-made warming. If the models WITHOUT the hotspot best matched reality and you don’t see a problem with that, then what was the basis of all the hoop-la made by the warmists at that time about the HOTSPOT?
I seem to recall there are plenty of links on this site pointing to the pages and documents in which the hotspot claim was made. Go and have a look-see.
250
In the “two different time frames”, the one with the shorter, more current time frame shows no hot spot. Which means that even if there was one, these isn’t now. Wasn’t that the point? Plus, climate change people have already stated the hot spot was not really all that important and we should not worry about whether or not it ever existed. It was not part of the “real” hypothesis anyway. Whatever the real one was. Since I am not sure what the hypothesis is, I can’t really say if the hot spot was or was not important. Anyone want to throw in an explanation that makes sense, please?
120
Sure, I’ll give it shot. I’m typing this through my Xbox-controller so it’s gonna be awfully time-consuming. Basically the tropical troposheric hotspot is evidence of positive feedback amplification from water vapour. The theory is that increasing CO2 will cause a small bit of warming and this will increase evaporation rates (which occur fastest in the tropics) and dumps more water vapour in the atmosphere (water vapour is by far a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) and this feedback amplification is meant to continue until Earth settles down and finds a new equilibrium temperature. The IPCC’s original hotspot in AR4 covered the years 1958-2000 and the hotspot was between 0.6-1.2C. The increase in ‘radiative forcing’ from CO2 between those years according to the IPCC’s logarithmic equation gives us a temperature increase of 0.24C in the troposhere which means the forcing from CO2 alone can’t produce a hotspot. It needs feedback amplification. CAGW-advocates like Cook have argued that the hotspot is not important because “any type” of surface warming could theoretically create. That’s correct. But that argument is ridiculous because the IPCC have told us with 90% confidence that the warming over the last 50 years is anthropogenic so other causes of warming are irrelevant. Even if that were the case though, the point is, there is no hotspot which means there is currently no major amplification from water vapour. Sorry about the huge wall of text, I can only type through Xbox.
240
Thank you for being dedicated enough to type through an X-Box controller! Your explanation is very helpful. Now I understand why the hotspot is important and the absence is important. I did read Cook saying the lack of the hotspot is not a big deal, but it seems that the way climate change advocates deal with predictions that don’t work out is to claim those parts of the theory were never essential. I really question claims such as those. Again, thanks.
120
I’m glad I helped I guess. Just a small correction: That should read “1958-1999” and “theoretically create a hotspot”. LOL, one of the many limitations of using an Xbox to formulate a post is I can’t proof-read things very well. Oh, and the 0.24C figure was calculated with the Stefan-Boltzmann law asumming an emissivity of 1 for CO2 and using the average temperatue of the troposhere.
20
Just noticed I keep spelling troposphere as ‘troposhere’. LOL. Me so silly.
10
That’s the thing with the whole ‘end of the world climate change warming armageddon thing’ … it’s just someone’s wacky theory with not a skerrick of fact or observable anything to support it. In fact, without fear of contradiction, every piece of available factual evidence, model-free data, refutes it.
20
Helping was a good thing! I will note the corrections. I always go and further research, once I have an understanding of what the claim is. Sometimes I just don’t know where to start. That’s what I needed–a starting place that made sense to me.
40
Sheri,
To reaffirm the points raised by Richard on his XBOX, the hot spot forms a central plank of the AGW theory, without the hot spot AGW is just another scientific curiousity.
Thats why they have gone to so much trouble hide the fact that it does not exist so much so that Sherwood claimed to have found the hot spot by using the GPS data from the radio sondes.
He claimed that from the GPS data he could calculate the wind shear and from the wind shear he claimed he could calculate the temperature to a greater accuracy than the thermometers from the very same radio sondes that he considered to be inadequate for the task.
This was desperation on the cusp of madness and will go down in history as one of the saddess days in the history of science.
Now that they cannot find the hot spot, the hot spot itself has been down graded in importance but without the increase in water vapor where does all the warming come from? Wait a second its not warming is it!!!!!!!!
I wonder if there is a connection?
101
So while the models predicted a hotspot, we had warming. Now they can’t physically locate the hotspot in the real world, the temperatures have leveled off.
Ain’t climate seance wonderful?
50
Crakar24–I was reading on this on one of the warmists blogs. I really could not see how wind shear could be used to calculate the temperature, let alone more accurately. All this use of proxies seems to be done to get the desired results. I keep looking for a study where they use current temperature data and compare it to current proxies, or a study with ONLY proxies, but there does not seem to be much interest in actually verifying proxy accuracy. (I did see where it is still warming but now it’s all in the ocean. Another moving of the goal posts….)
40
Sheri,
Another moving of the goal posts? What goal posts, in fact i have come to the conclusion that there is not even a boundary line, which is why rational debate is an impossibility. How can you debate someone who believes AGW can cause angry summers whilst simultaneously cause fridgid winters and record snowfall?
Of all the 28 million soundings that Jo talks about from way back in 1958 to present how many would have had a GPS fitted? and of that very very small number would have had a military GPS fitted?
Civilian GPS data is not very accurate certainly not accurate enough to measure wind shear to such a high degree to enable a proxy temperature measurement to be derived.
What kind of a mind must a warmbot have to accept such jibberish?
81
Sheri,
As if on cue we have this mind boggling, bullshit baffling, oxymoronic, mind bending, logic defying voodoo science appear in the Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/global-warming-to-mean-a-greener-arctic-study/story-e6frg6so-1226610170830
Now as there are no goal posts and no boundary lines these idiots can say what they want without question from the very people who should be asking.
In the one story, they claim that computer simulations show the Arctic will be a winters wonderland covered in forest (not snow) due to climate change.
Then without breaking step they also state that the Antarctic is gaining ice (real world data not computer simulation) and this increase will continue and it is cause by climate change.
No goal posts, no boundaries, more like free range turkeys.
111
Actually, the Arctic becoming greener is really no problem–just clear cut the trees and brush and voila! Problem solved. I don’t know why they make such a big deal of this. If you cut the trees, no dark areas, no wind resistance, etc. Just barren land, which is the goal, as far as I can tell. (Yes, I am serious.)
I think the most fascinating thing is how they prove a model by using a model if the real world data doesn’t fit.
I have no idea how to deal with the believers. I end up moderating out comments on my blog because I just cannot get any kind of civilized behaviour. Plus, I repeat over and over and over that “authority” is not relevant and yet they come back with it. So I just cut the comment and call it good. This is very frustrating and I do admire people who can put up with this day after day after day. I also write on other topics and have not had to moderate comments, nor did people write books in the comments columns. Climate science is not civilized in any way.
I really appreciate when people can help clarify things here. It helps.
40
Are you designing a climate model there, Richard ? Playing with the XBOX and all.
40
Battlefield 3 more like it
31
Don’t diss video game climate models. I still have a spot of honor on my shelf for SimEarth
00
Mrs Nice, trust you don’t mind me replying inline. #1,.1.1 – Jo
310
The CCSP did NOT decide to compare graphs that spanned different timescale using different colour scales. That has been YOUR choice.
[Find me a better one where they compare their main models with their main radiosonde sets. They don’t do it, and we all know why. – Jo]
As pointed out already, the original CCSP image looks like this.
http://i49.tinypic.com/1zogop2.png
[And do the IPCC use those model predictions in their news releases? Are those the models that match the surface temps? Or have the IPCC used one set of models to generate headlines and “fingerprints” and found a few odd ones so they can pretend the radiosondes match? – Jo]
The original image had FOUR model comparisons using EXACTLY the same timescale and colour range. You could have used that!
[Don’t you hate it when I quote them and put together the images they won’t? The guru’s themselves admit there is a discrepancy. If you can find a model that’s been accurate in the last 20 years for the surface and the upper troposphere AND it predicts 4C by 2100, you better call the IPCC. They need you. They can’t find it. – Jo]
That’s no excuse for stitching together images that use different timescale and temperature ranges.
[Exactly. There is no excuse for them not publishing those graphs of their main models and main radiosondes. They must have done them. – Jo]
Since it is you that decided to stitch two different images together, not the IPCC or the CCSP, I would expect it is YOU that should be apologising to your readers for misleading them.
[See above. Everyone can see your faux concern to let the funded experts get away with something you attack volunteers for. – Jo]
Of course. Not all that is performed in models is for the purpose of direct comparison against observations. Despite the ever increasing amount of information being gathered, there is still much to learn.
Thanks for your concern, but I have read it.
[And you think people won’t notice you avoid the content of it completely? – Jo]
The CCSP did. The IPCC AR5 image you show DOES make a direct comparison (but obviously in a format you dislike – admittedly, I’m not a big fan either, the overlapping shades make for a confusing look).
One could also ask you why you persist with the image from a 13 year old publication (Santer et al., 2000) when newer model predictions are available?
[Quote: Climate Change Science Program 2006. Find me the page where the IPCC explain how they were totally wrong then and their new models predict something substantially different? – Jo]
It is an outlier, but of course we know you have your own brand of statistics. 😉
[Ahh. And your brand of Stats is “wikipedia”. I prefer the one used by mathematicians and climate scientists. – Jo]
]
I’m not saying we should exclude it, but it does differ from the other sets of available data.
Yeah. So what? According to the centre that produces the HadAT data:
It is important to note that significant uncertainty exists in radiosonde datasets reflecting the large number of choices available to researchers in their construction and the many heterogeneities in the data. To this end we strongly recommend that users consider, in addition to HadAT, the use of one or more of the following products to ensure their research results are robust.
– Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC)
– RAdiosonde OBservation COrrection using REanalyses (RAOBCORE) and Radiosonde Innovation Composite Homogenization (RICH)
– IUK (Iterative Universal Kriging) Radiosonde Analysis Project
But you are doing the opposite of their recommendation and only using the one dataset.
[I’m doing exactly what I said I would. I’m comparing the graphs the CCSP and IPCC used then, with what they use now. The top graph shows Hadley (it was the only dataset the CCSP used). So does the second and third graph. I showed the RAOBCORE etc results in the second graph. They don’t match either. You are desperate aren’t you? – Jo]
Great length does not equate with great accuracy. Your conclusions seem to take artistic license when compared to the authors. BTW: “hot-spot-2-tropospheric-warming-continues” covered all your hotspot topics recently.
[Quick! Send whatever you found to the IPCC. They admit the radiosondes don’t fit (see the post above), they can’t explain it, they’ve adjusted all the radiosonde sets as far as they can, they blame the data, not the models, and after 20 years of trying to think of a reason they say it’s “elusive”. Anyone with eyes can see water vapor is dominant. See Fig 9.44 above. – Jo]
[BTW “Artistic?” I quote the authors exactly. I use their graphs. I link to their papers. Time-wasting trolls toss insults they can’t substantiate. – Jo]
The Mckitrick, Herman and McIntyre suggest an ensemble mean of models is incorrect. Fascinating. I didn’t really need their paper to tell me the average of something, that includes a wide range of values, will fail to be correct.
[Good. So you’ll be asking the IPCC to tell us which ONE of their 23 models is right instead of averaging it with 22 flawed ones? – Jo]
Fu, Manabe, Johanson (2011) Seidel, Free & Wang, (2012) didn’t agree with their work. And they never suggest, as you do, that the hotspot is missing.
Po-Chedley and Fu found strong interannual agreement with the models. They also state: “The apparent model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming represents an important problem, but it is not clear whether the difference is a result of common biases in GCMs, biases in observational datasets, or both.”. Their conclusions don’t match yours.
[They match mine exactly. As I keep repeating, the models don’t match the observations, it’s “an important problem” and they don’t know why, could be the models, could be the radiosondes. Which is more complex: A weather balloon or a climate model? Use Occams razor. Are you sure you meant to quote them? – Jo]
Models exceed Observations on decadal scales, but it’s not “missing” as you claim.
[So says the anonymous commenter — contradicting himself in a single sentence. – Jo]
Models match Observations on interannual scales.
[Congrats. So you can predict the climate on interannual scales but not in the long term. That would be: Summer. Autum. Winter. Spring. Nice one! – Jo]
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/po-chedley-fu-2012-fig-4.gif
Not at all. If you feel the need to edit my post instead of replying like everyone else, go ahead. I suspect it gives you a sense of power and control that is otherwise lacking in your arguments.
[Mrs Nice, Sks, Lewandowsky, and all the others wouldn’t even let you post claims of deception like these (because they can’t answer them maybe?). But thank you. People can see “this is the best” Team-climate-change can come up with. I’m sure the fence sitters appreciate this exchange. – Jo]
40
Brilliant,
Thans Jo and Nice one.
60
LOL – it gets worse for you! I just noticed one more thing that you have done wrong. You are comparing “Well mixed greenhouse gases” against Observations (which is ALL FORCINGS). You should have used the “All Forcings” image from the CCSP report. Silly girl. Never mind hey, none of your “so called skeptics” noticed the error. That’s three errors they failed to notice.
[Irrelevant. It makes no difference whether I use the “All forcings” graph or the “greenhouse” graph. The IPCC failed on both counts, the graphs are almost the same, and that shows just how dominant the “greenhouse” effect is in the climate models. I chose the “greenhouse” graph because that’s the forcing they say causes the hot-spot (which is not there). Note when I quote them and use their graphs, you call it my “error”? Riiight. When I ask you to find graphs where the IPCC compare the correct timeframes, (below) you can’t. Those graphs haven’t been published, but you demand I use them, knowing that I don’t have access to the models to do that. Delusional? Unrealistic. Methinks. -Jo]
Find it yourself. You’re the one that wishes to do the comparison. I’m the one pointing out the job you’ve done so far is deceptive and full of simple mistakes.
[Not so. You are inanely repeating the same point I’ve already answered. The deception is the IPCC’s. Why won’t they publish those graphs in time-frames that are ideal, and side by side? -Jo]
The IPCC AR4 report showed model expectations from 1890 – 1999. Since there is no available observational data for this period, how exactly do you expect a comparison to occur?
[Exactly. Thank you. I repeat my point above. -Jo]
Hate is not the word I would use. I dislike the way you are misleading your readers.
[Yet you still can’t point to any actual examples where I supposedly mislead. Tough eh? -Jo]
Discrepancy – yes. You go on to draw further conclusions which the guru’s do not share. You place immense faith in one dataset and refuse to acknowledge the existence of all others.
[1. It’s not one dataset, you keep ignoring UAH. Even RSS and other datasets don’t support the models. 2. I published their full graph, including the other datasets, and you call that “refusing to acknowledge”? Sheer denial. It’s this kind of dishonest comment that would get you banned at most sites. 3. Those other datasets don’t show the hot spot in any case. Could this conversation get any less meaningful? -Jo]
Must they? If so it’ll be out there is the peer-reviewed literature, because as you (should) know, the IPCC don’t actually do the papers, they just summarise existing work.
[Your faith is endearing. You demand I do comparisons of equal timeframes, but don’t think that the IPCC ought too. If they haven’t done those comparisons they are incompetent. If they have and won’t publish them they are deceitful. Are you sure you want to pursue this? -Jo]
By “Everyone” I assume you mean the people that post in your forums. No, the handful here seem to have their minds made up despite the flaws in your argument.
[What flaws? You haven’t found any you can substantiate and that I don’t have a reasonable answer too. -Jo]
As said before, how exactly do you expect a comparison of the 19890-1999 timeframe to occur when there is no data covering that period?
[That’s my point. We’re stuck in an infinite recursive loop. I point out that the IPCC should publish a better timeframe, you blame me for them not doing that. I don’t see much hope this conversation will progress… -Jo]
You haven’t answered the question Jo. Stop avoiding.
[What question? You are avoiding my question by accusing me of ignoring a mythical one of yours? -Jo]
Ahhh, but yet again you fail to cite what “the one” is. Mysteriously it seems to only exist in your head.
[It is only a mystery to you because your knowledge of stats is deficient. You don’t realize that there is no magic “sigma” of significance where the test produces a “Yes” or “No” answer. As I keep explaining, it depends on how the statistical significance test is used, the assumptions, on the null hypothesis, and on the conclusion. Sometimes six-sigma’s is not good enough (like this CERN result), and sometimes a one sigma is worth publishing in peer reviewed climate literature. My conclusions matched the level of significance. Not that I expect you to understand this, since you didn’t the last 6 times I explained it. -Jo]
Doing exactly what you said you would, doesn’t make it right. Hadley state the HadAT2 dataset should not be used without using one of the other products. But here you are determined to use only HadAT2.
You rely solely on one set of data for your conclusions and ignore everything else. Very unscientific!
[You are in denial. How many times do I need to explain that almost all of the data falls far outside most of the models, even after a 20 year effort to adjust the data to fit? -Jo]
Actually they suspect both. It’s you that thinks the data is perfect. No expert does, only you. Don’t you find that a little weird?
[They admit discrepancies in the fine print, but to the public they say “the evidence is overwhelming” and anyone who disagrees is a denier. You can’t have it both ways. A rational scientist would change the models to fit the data. -Jo]
You quote some of their words, but then you go on to make your own unsupported conclusions.
[I support my interpretation with graphs and data. I answer your questions. You ignore my answers. -Jo]
Where do the Authors say the following. First from this post:
“The green line is irrelevant (that’s model predictions without CO2 — which is argument from ignorance with unverified models).”
“The results in the stratosphere are not that important.”
“Forget the projections of 6 degrees of hell, the best estimate would be half the current one (or less) and we can all go home.”
[The stratosphere has extremely low levels of water vapor. That’s why it doesn’t make much difference. This is really basic stuff. It doesn’t matter how well I defend these opinions, apparently you won’t read my replies, expect me to give you one on one tutorials of topics I’ve covered on other posts. If you don’t understand argument from ignorance, look it up. -Jo]
From Po Chedley:
You say: “In other words, the models can’t calculate climate sensitivity and future temperatures without getting this right.”
Po Chedley say: “The apparent model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming represents an important problem, but it is not clear whether the difference is a result of common biases in GCMs, biases in observational datasets, or both.”
[Exactly. This is the best spin they can put on it after years of trying to fix biases in radiosondes but not models. -Jo]
Another diversionary tactic? How’s your calculations coming along? Oh that’s right, you’re flying blind with no idea what the climate response will be!
[Yes. Whenever you have no answer you demand I solve the global climate, even though your favoured team of “experts” can’t do it. It is a diversionary tactic. “Yawn”. You can’t answer my question. -Jo]
In your head perhaps. What you write differs from what they say. See above example.
[The conclusions I draw are obvious inferences from the data they present and from their quotes. You might ask why they don’t come to the same obvious end-point, “the models are wrong”. -Jo]
Nope. The hotspot is not missing (as you say it is), but is less than the models predict.
[So says the anonymous commenter. I repeat, the results of most models fall far outside almost all the datasets. -Jo]
No, they are called seasons (except for Autum). Interannual agreement occurs when the surface temps change during the year, and troposphere warms with an amplification predicted by the models.
Interannual observations don’t suffer from the problems of stitching together data from multiple datasources over decades, hence they are not as likely to contain a bias.
[The models fail on long term trends. Your attempt to distract with irrelevant “interannual” matches is rather desperate. -Jo]
You’re most welcome. Let’s summarise.
– Your comparison image has three errors, timeframe, temp range, GHG vs All Forcings.
– You blame others for your errors.
– You ignore two radiosonde datasets and rely only on HadAT2, despite expert advice.
– You make statements which are NOT supported by the Authors/Papers to which you link.
– Unlike the experts, you hold the radiosonde data as the ultimate truth, despite the homogenisation problems associated with decadal data.
[I quote your “experts”. You blame me for the graphs they won’t make. The “errors” you list are either irrelevant or theirs. You avoid answering my questions, and ignore my answers, repeating the same mistakes. I use links, quotes and graphs with other datasets that are obviously there, you deny this. Ultimately there are uncertainties in the radiosondes, but the satellites don’t find the scaling ratios either, and the models fail on most other measures. Think about the implications of your argument. If we can’t get accurate radiosonde measurements after 50 years and 28 million measurements, then why on Earth would anyone assume that we can create 3D working global climate models that are more accurate? Occams razor begs: if the simple equipment is failing, the models –1000 x more complex — have little chance. -Jo]
[Nice One, it is unreasonable of you to expect to waste so much time and space on long comments with recursive, inane and repetitive arguments. You would be tossed off most blogs. You need to self-edit. It is a basic requirement of posting here. If you submit another long comment we will simply ask you to resubmit the one point you think matters and will not publish until you show some ability to honestly respond and self-edit – Jo]
20
Let’s stick with the two main points.
You show a comparison that, even IF the model were perfect, would fail to look the same because of the three different properties, timeframe, colour range and GHG vs All Forcings. You could have shown the CCSP comparison which IS the same timeframe, same colour temp range and same forcings.
The experts you selectively quote say ”it is not clear whether the difference is a result of common biases in GCMs, biases in observational datasets, or both”, whereas you make your own conclusion and suggest that the radiosonde are correct and everything else is wrong. But your conclusion is not one from any peer-reviewed research, nor have you abided by the Hadley recommendation with regards to using HadAT2.
06
Thanks. ONE point at a time. Regarding your first sentence…
1. Have I got this right? You think:
a/ that the reason the two graphs (models v predictions) are not more similar looking is because I didn’t do them over the same time frame and with the same color scale?
b/ it’s reasonable to expect me to make my own customized model projection graphs, even though I don’t have access to the IPCC favoured models.
c/ that the IPCC hasn’t thought of doing those graphs themselves, and when they do, they’ll kick themselves, for not trying that before.
Right?
I’ll answer the rest when we resolve this.
41
1a. Correctish. You also are not comparing the same forcing – GHG vs All. These three reasons are partly why the graphs don’t look the same. You’re not comparing apples with apples. The other reason they do not look the same, as demonstrated in the CCSP report, is because there IS a discrepancy between models and the HadAT2 data.
1b. No I do not expect you to make your own model runs. Your inability to do such modelling, for whatever reason is NOT justification for making a comparison of unequal length, scale and forcing.
1c. Wrong. I don’t presume to know what the IPCC thinks. Personally I don’t expect the IPCC to find science that compares observations against every single model projection ever made, whereas you seem to think they ought to. Either way, that doesn’t justify your incorrect comparison.
03
1a. Wrong. You can compare the numbers in the graphs. The model predictions run for 40 years, they estimate about 1.2C of warming in the upper trop. Because that upper T warming will only occur when the world is warming, most of the 1.2C would theoretically occur in the fastest warming decades. That’s 1979-1999. The Hadley radiosondes are given in decadal trend rates and for that exact peak period. The fastest warming of the upper t was 0.1C / decade. Multiply that by 4 decades (generously pretending that all four decades would have warmed at the peak rate, which we know is an overestimate) and we get 0.4C at most. That’s not 1.2C. Yellow is not Red. The models are wrong.
1b. Right, it’s unreasonable of you to expect me to create those graphs. Your apology for the baseless insulting claims of my “deception” is accepted. Obviously I can use those graphs to compare decadal trends and my point is valid.
1c. If the IPCC-scientists did compare the same timescales with the same scales and found the radiosondes supported their models, do you suppose they would hide those graphs? Exactly. And if they have the millions of dollars to make a model why wouldn’t we expect them to test THAT model (and all of its cohort) against the observations and publish those results?
Any questions about these three points?
If not, we can move on.
31
You can make guesses.
[ If you can’t read numbers off the scales on graphs, there is no point to the graph. (If the numbers are “guesses” why care if the scales don’t match eh?) there is no point in continuing the conversation if I have to explain the concept of “graphs”. – Jo]
[Rest of comment saved and held temporarily til we resolve this one point.]
[I made specific numerical points – see 1a in #58. “You can make guesses” is not an answer. If my numbers were incorrect, you can correct me. You can’t read graphs, I can’t help you, sorry… Jo]
02
I’m referring to your assumption about how much should be attributed to each decade, not the ability to read numbers from a graph.
Ahhhh. That would be a convenient way for you to stifle the debate. Rather than answering other points I have made (such as why you didn’t compare against the CCSP instead, or how you failed to compare like forcings, or how the radiosonde observations are known to be inaccurate, or how the experts don’t agree with your conclusion) you’ll “decide” I am wrong on the first point and thereby declare no need to answer anything else.
Rather pathetic in my opinion, but I guess this stems from your psychological desire to have control over something, if not the argument. Cutting my posts short on the basis that you don’t agree with something I said earlier is a spineless way of maintaining control.
North Korean are you? Or just hypocritical?
12
“Stifle debate?” — In your dreams. I do believe I’ve published 5000 of your words on this thread.
It’s obvious you have not answered the question. The obvious inference is that you can’t fault the numbers.
1.2C over 40 years is not equal to 0.4 over 4 decades. The graphs are comparible.
Is your strategy to have an honest conversation and show I’m wrong, or to post mindless insults you can’t back up, and write so voluminously, repetitively, and dishonestly that sooner or later you get blocked, because at least then you can crawl off to other blogs and pretend that “Nova censored you”? If you want an honest conversation at this point you can:
1/ Explain why my numbers are wrong. or
2/ Admit they are right, you were wrong, and move on, or
3/ Dodge the question by trying to distract people with a psychological analysis and preposterous claim of censorship.
Your call.
I repeat: I’m giving you the courtesy of holding your other text it until you answer the question. Then I’ll post it .
I am looking forward to dealing (again) with your point about the three models on page 116.
If you want me to answer another question, why won’t you resolve this one. It was your pick of first points to raise?
42
[Inaccurate unsubstantiated and irrelevant insults removed after explaining them privately to the author. Please lift your game Nice One. – Jo]
A. You are ASSUMING that the first two decade are the same as the last two. Looking at the CCSP comparison it is obvious they don’t agree with you. http://i49.tinypic.com/1zogop2.png Until you do a proper analysis on the entire graph, your 0.1 * 4 is just a guess.
[Nice One, I deliberately overestimated the first two decades would increase at the same rate as the maximum decades to show you that being as generous as possible, there is still no match. The hot spot only occurs when the world warms (Hansen 1984). Global temperature series show that the warmest rate of global temperature increase was 1979 – 1999. The period from 1958-1979 was “flat”. See Hadley GISS NCDC. The hot spot would hardly occur in the first two decades, but “lets pretend it did”. You are still wrong. Your attempt to bring the page 116 graph in here in entirely irrelevant (and you really should look more closely at those graphs). We are discussing the point you selected first #55 “You show a comparison that, even IF the model were perfect, would fail to look the same because of the three different properties, timeframe, colour range and GHG vs All Forcings.” Obviously this is wrong. — Jo ]
B. The 75N-15N side of the observations are mostly between 0.1°C and 0.3°C. Your basic method should be using a value of 0.2±0.1°C per decade which is 0.8±0.4°C over the 40 years, within reach of your cherry picked set of observations.
[Irrelevant: this is not the tropics. – Jo]
C. You STILL didn’t address the fact that forecasts are of Well Mixed Greenhouse Gases whilst the observations equate to All Forcings. This fact alone means the graphs are NOT comparible.
[Write accurately. I DID address this. Both hot spots are identical 1.2C. You had no response. – Jo]
[ The rest of this comment is on hold until we finish with the first point you raised. Please resubmit short accurate comments so I can publish and address them. — Jo]
02
Nice One,
Is there any point in arguing with Jo about what graph is used, yes i accept this would be a worthy topic if it actually changed the result but we both know it does not.
The bottom line here is the models are wrong no matter what graph you use, this arguing about graphs does not show you in a good light (what are you trying to avoid type thing).
Now onto the actual data, you have no idea if the models are wrong or the data are wrong but you are quite willing to offer YOUR opinion however it appears your opinion is the only one worth hearing.
I suggest you stop invoking your beliefs and stick to the science.
40
Nice One,
You say that the in AR4-2007 the IPCC’s models cover the years 1890-1990 and so cannot be tested. Right. Perhaps the IPCC’s models are correct between 1890-1990 for all I know but since no-one was measuring global tropospheric temperatures in 1890 that specific prediction has yet to be checked against observed reality. Until it can be so checked it remains merely an imaginative speculation.
But I think the IPCC’s predictions can be falsified simply on the basis of comparing their own equations and the estimated increase in the global temperature since 1850. It’s generally accepted that the Earth has warmed about 0.7C since we started burning hydrocarbons in 1850 and the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been about 115ppmv. The IPCC’s logarithmic equation is: ΔF = αln(C/C₀). The logarithmic equation quoted above tells us that a rise of CO2 since 1850 would be enough to produce an extra ‘radiative forcing’ of about 1.82W/sq.m increasing the surface temperature by 0.34C. The IPCC’s feedback-amplification formula is enough to boost that up to about 1.4C. This temperature rise has of course yet to materialise. When will these powerful positive feedbacks kick in one wonders? How long must we patiently wait?
00
Nice One, I wish you were as skeptical of the lame material produced by Climate Alarmists. But your skepticism is misplaced nitpicking.
Clearly a graphic seeking a hot spot and not finding one in the most recent 20 years is MORE relevant to those who think global warming is accelerating. Or did you think it was there and has disappeared in the more recent 20 years Nice One?
As far as the scale is concerned, when you are showing the ‘actual’ data, if there are no temperature plots outside the range shown of the graphic, why include them on the scale?
Most of us have seen the images before so we didn’t need to click on them, but I guess the missing hot spot is news to you as it is to many of the ‘believers’. No wonder you clicked on the images!
Your comment: “In fact you seemed to have gone to quite a lot of trouble to use an image of Model expectations from another source (with different timeframe and colour scale), when four images representing Model expectations were readily available right beside the Observations image.” I’ve passed this comment on to Professor Lewandowsky who is always looking for new conspiracy theories.
130
Stick a fork in it, it’s done!
Ms. Jo shows how to cook a parrot pining for frauds
fjords.70
NO is a glutton for punishment and a waste of time; the THS has been a ‘problem’ for many years; see Angell 2003 who notes:
That is based on radiosonde data.
The THS is a major fingerprint of AGW and what is not understood by idiots like NO is that a THS would be a product of water vapour feedback and is not a first order forcing; given that the lack of a THS is entirely consistent with the decline of water vapour levels in the mid to high troposphere.
On this point AGW theory has failed ompletely.
The other side of the THS coin is Stratospheric cooling, supposedly a product of upper level CO2 blocking and high emission where the top levels finally emit the ‘trapped’ heat. But Stratosphere temperature has been essentially flat since 1995.
Another complete failure by AGW.
120
Owned!!!!
50
I agree streetcred.
My first thought was Monty Python, my second was sir Humphrey!
It’s “shuffled off this mortal coil”! or alternatively: it only exists in a mindboggling, tortured, bureaucratic double speak, highly expensive but totally non accountable report or more likely numerous contradictory reports!
110
If the ABC Was Relevant, Part 23
(The Theorem Sketch)
[John walks into a shop.]
John: Morning!
Bryan: [Behind counter.] Good morning sir! How may we assist you today?
John: I have a complaint.
Bryan: A complaint? In regards to what, sir?
John: In regards this theorem purchased today from this very establishment. [Places large red volume, marked “IPCC” on counter.]
Bryan: Ooooh! A Global Warming Theorem! Lovely verbage…
John: The verbage is not the point of discussion. The underlying theory is… dead.
Bryan: [Gasp] Dead?
John: Dead. Demised. Invalid. Falsified. Lacking substantive evidence and or at odds with known physical reality. In breach of the basic rules of science and logic. No longer considered viable as a paradigm via which mankind can understand the cosmos and his place therein. Dead.
Bryan: It’s not dead sir – he’s just pining. Pining for the glaciers of the Himalaya’s.
John: My good man. The only pines involved were the late lamented Bristlecones vandalised by Michael Mann in the course of his fraudulent activities.
Bryan: We mustn’t speak like that sir! Professor Mann is a good man – an honourable man!
John: They are all honourable men.
Bryan: Absolutely sir! Thoroughly tried, tested, examined, investigated and totally cleared of any nefarious accusations made against them. All honourable men, sir.
John: Er. That’s nice.
Bryan: And I know what you’re thinking now sir.
John: Yes?
Bryan: The tropospheric hot spot.
John: The hypothetical region of hot gases located in the equatorial troposphere proposed by the IPCC as a necessary stage in global warming and a certain sign and precursor of forthcoming climate Armageddon? It did cross my mind.
Bryan: We found it sir.
John: You found the hot spot? Where?
Bryan: Exactly where it was supposed to be sir! It was there all along!
John: Then why wasn’t it discovered earlier?
Bryan: Because people were looking for the hot spot with thermometers sir!
John: Isn’t that what thermometers are for?
Bryan: Only sometimes sir. You see, the thermometer is a terribly quantitative instrument. And every time we measure something, there is a risk that we’ll be wrong. Perhaps only out by a fraction of a degree. But if we make thousands and thousands of measurements, then the cumulative errors are massive – tens or thousands of degrees! Have you any idea what that would do to the science?
John: No, but I still think it’s a good idea to measure temperature with a thermometer.
Bryan: But there’s a better way, sir!
John: Such as?
Bryan: Wind shear! A surefire potential indicator of inferring a possible temperature differential in a column of unhindered air. All we do is measure the wind speed and direction at various points in the troposphere, homogenise the data, synthesise a suitable algorithm, take away the wife’s birthday and – there you have it – a tropospheric hot spot!
John: Don’t have any data, perchance?
Bryan: Why certainly, sir! Consider if you may, this graphical illustration. [Pulls out chart.] It shows wind velocity as a function of longtitude and altitude. The dots in the middle are the data points.
John: And what are those bat-like wings projecting from the data points?
Bryan: They’re the error bars. They show the range of potential error in each measurement.
John: Which seems to extend from “Flat Calm” to “Hurricane Force”. The errors span the width of the Beaufort Scale!
Bryan: And notice, sir, how all of the data points lie comfortably within those limits! Clearly demonstrating that the physical measurements infer a situation that is not inconsistent with the existence of a tropospheric hot spot in the exact location nominated by the IPCC! You can’t ask for more than that sir.
John: I suppose you can’t. But what about the global temperature record?
Bryan: I’m glad you asked sir. Nothing demonstrates the effects of global warming more clearly than the global temperature record. Kindly peruse this further graphical illustration. [Shows temperature record since 1850.]
John: Yes, I see. And there is a corresponding increase in the atmospheric CO2 content over the same period. But how do you know the two are actually related? Did the CO2 cause the temperature rise or was it the other way around? Or was it just a coincidence?
Bryan: More CO2 always means more temperature – we all know that sir. And have you ever found a sceptic who could provide scientific evidence that the correlation was a coincidence sir?
John: No, I suppose not.
Bryan: There you go. Another sceptical argument shot to pieces. Their guile and sophistry is no match for our scientific and logical rigour, is it sir?
John: You’re right. But what about the paleoclimate – that period millions and hundreds of millions years ago?
Bryan: You mean a period in which atmospheric CO2 levels were a dozen times higher than today, in the course of which earth endured Ice Ages nonetheless? I’ve heard of them.
John: But how does one explain them?
Bryan: You forget, sir, that the sun is evolving. And that, during the period in question, its energy output was only 95% of what we see today. A colder sun means a colder earth – hence the forementioned Ice Ages.
John: But doesn’t Stephan-Boltzmann come into this somewhere?
Bryan: The basic law of radiation heat transfer which denotes that the equilibrium temperature of a black body surface varies as the fourth root of the radiative energy it emits?
John: Yes.
Bryan: An unnecessary refinement sir – it has little or no bearing to the issue at hand. And we all know that the surface of the sun isn’t black – it’s generally yellow with red patches. I wouldn’t worry myself about that sir.
John: Well, I think you’ve convinced me. There’s nothing wrong with this theory at all. Thank you for your time. Good day.
Bryan: No, wait sir! I sense that sir is not satisfied, and it is a well known tenet of science that when new facts are available, it is necessary to update one’s theory. [Takes book, places it under the counter.]
John: My theorem!
Bryan: And here it is sir, updated. [Recovers identical book from under counter, shows it to John.] It’s called the “Global Climate Disruption” theorem. Yours for only $500.
John: [Hands over money, takes book.]
Bryan: Lovely verbage…
John: [Leaving shop, smiling to camera.] Now that’s what I call service!
360
Recently I had an AGW fence sitter watch the “uncut” version of “I can change your mind” video that Jo and David recorded.
The most astounding thing to that viewer was the amount of hard evidence presented, especially the number of weather balloons and Argo buoys that collected data.
Needless to say that person is a fence sitter no longer.
I think that a condensed version of that video should be done and try to get it to go viral.
572
Main thing wrong with that video is the annoying smugness of the young lady who plays the part of the warmist. I found it quite difficult to watch when someone is clearly not prepared to debate anything, just smile like your talking to someone with a mental disorder who needs your sympathy.
90
Safety, Yes Anna Rose was smug and her intentions were clear before going into the interview by throwing an ad hom at Jo and David before entering their home!
Though it does stand as a great example of someone who goes in over their heads to end up standing there like a rabbit in the headlights.
My hat goes off to Jo and David for having the ability to endure a person like that in their home.
140
What uncertainties would they be?
140
They are uncertain why they aren’t showing a hotspot. The data disagrees with their models, so they disregard the data.
230
If the data confirmed he models the uncertainty on the data would be miniscule. Guaran-damn-teed. Of that one can be sure. This is how these fraudsters/ gangsters work. Now that the data disproves the model (note: incidently no knowledge of climate science required) doubt is cast on the integrity of the data rather than the Failed model. Suddenly the uncertainty on the data is large enough to question the data. Note that uncertainty is not the same as error. Error is the difference between the true and measured value whereas unceratainty is the range in which we have confidence that the true value lies.For example if the temperature we measure is 31.8°C and the true temperature is 31.7°C then the error is 0.1°C but the 95% confidence limits on the measurement may be +- 0.2°C i.e. we are 95% confident that the true value lies between 31.6 and 32.0°C. Actually the confidence limits (expanded uncertainty)on the data can’t be too hard to calculate. There are simple rules for these calculations. Why the doubt?
240
Nice comment Richard and as i have said many times here there is nothing wrong with the radio sonde data, it is calibrated before launch and is accurate enough for the purposes of validating/falsifying the models.
How could anyone with a modicum of integrity continue with this charade?
270
Easy,
groupthinkideate “charade” intosciencereligion……60
Indeed Richard, Thanks for that.
So,the uncertainty of the measurement is about twice the measurement error.
Let’s suppose that the thermometers can measure to 0.1C. That seems a fair assumption. That means that the uncertainty of the measurement error for the radiosondes and the satellites is negligible.
The uncertainty of the IPCC sems to be of an entirely different kind!
20
“an abject lesson”
Deliberate pun on “object lesson”?
40
RoHa:
Or a “Freudian” error, eg what one said is truer than what one intended to say. Abject in the sense of “of the most contemptible kind”. Alternative meanings are “showing humiliation or submissiveness” (er – don’t think so). “Most unfortunate or miserable” (we hope). “Utter resignation or hopelessness” (not yet apparently).
10
As is often said……..follow the money trail. So many people are employed to “find” evidence that CO2 matters in order to propagate a message of GUILT . We are soon bad, and need to be spanked for our sinful ways. Ha!
181
The Hot Spot does not exist because water vapor in the upper troposphere declines, whereas the models predict water vapor should increase. It is not just radiosondes that can measure humidity.
An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001.
The NASA water vapor project (NVAP) uses multiple satellite sensors to create a standard climate dataset to measure long-term variability of global water vapor. NASA recently released the Heritage NVAP gridded data, which gives water vapor measurement from 1988 to 2001 in three vertical layers.
Computations using a line-by-line radiative code program show that water vapour changes in the upper atmosphere layer from 500 mb to 300 mb air pressure (from 6 km to 10 km altitude) has 29 times the effect of changes in a layer from the surface to 850 mb air pressure on the outgoing longwave radiation.
While the total water vapour amount increased from 1988 to 2001, the water vapor decline in the upper atmosphere overwhelms the increase in the lower atmosphere by its greater greenhouse effect. The declining upper atmosphere water vapour allows heat to escape to space, offsetting the warming effect of increasing CO2 concentrations.
Radiosonde data also shows declining upper atmosphere humidity. Both satellite data and radiosonde humidity data contradict the IPCC theory.
See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
280
Agree with most of this but,
What is the “Green House Gas Effect” to which you refer?
20
There is a full explanation a the provided link.
A “Green House Gas Effect” refers to a reduction in the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) resulting from an increase in a greenhouse gas, such as water vapor, at a given surface temperature.
Figure 2 of the article, or;
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/OLR_PWV_bar.jpg
shows that a 0.3 mm precipitable water vapor change in an atmospheric layer 300 to 200 mbar pressure changes the OLR by 81 times the same change in a layer from surface to 850 mbar.
The radiation balance is therefore, determined in the upper troposphere.
A temporary reduction in OLR means the incoming exceeds the outgoing radiation, which causes heat energy in the climate system to rise until the surface and troposphere temperature increases enough to restore the top-of-atmosphere radiation balance by increasing the OLR to the previous value.
20
What is interesting Greg is that the OLR measurements show a distinct increase in OLR corresponding to the temp increase in the late 1990s. This is the exact opposite of what would you would see from GHG and is a signature that the observed global warming was caused by increased shortwave energy. Strangely enough the same warming corresponds to a 5% decrease in global cloud cover which the climate pseudoscientist have conveniently ignored! This change in cloud cover is calculated to be responsible for about 75% of the observed warming, leaving about 0.1deg C of warming due to CO2 in 30 years instead of the 0.6deg C predicted by models!
40
I think you have it right. Here’s a model of the greenhouse effect, refer to figures 2.7 and 2.8
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/Lectures/chap2.pdf
I think the modelers arrive at a “hot spot” by assuming an instantaneous increase in a mid-layer, blocking radiation to the stratosphere. Instantaneously dumping a bunch of water vapor or CO2 at a mid level in the atmosphere WOULD result in a warming at that level and cooling higher up, but of course we don’t instantaneously dump CO2 or water vapor into the middle troposphere. That warming of the middle troposphere and cooling higher up would ultimately cause an instability in the lapse rate, corrected automatically by convection.
Instead the entire atmosphere would slowly get warmer as CO2 and water vapor were added (assuming no atmospheric absorption of incoming solar radiation). Consider the case of n black body shells. Adding shells makes the ground hotter but the temperature of the top shell remains at TB, the blackbody temperature of the earth. More generally assume the top shell is a graybody shell with emissivity e. Then its temperature will be ((1/(2-e))**.25)*TB. Note this is an increasing function of e so even for the top layer increasing e causes the layer to warm. As we let this layer get thinner e will go to 0 and the temperature of the top layer will go to .84*TB. The temperature at the top of the atmosphere is effectively fixed at .84*TB.
I’m somewhat SHOCKED that the modelers proposing a mid level “hot spot” were too ignorant to spot this flaw in their rationale for stratospheric cooling and a mid troposphere hot spot.
00
We all know that a green house works via convective insulation where as Green house gasses work by radiative insulation.
The reason the term was coined is because the insulating mechanism does not block the incoming energy supply.
The term is merely supposed to be an analogy, not a scientific definition.
00
I thought CO2 was most important?
00
Nope!
CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activity.
There is roughly 50 times as much water vapor as CO2 in the atmosphere.
Line-by-line computer code simulations show that a 10% increase in CO2 concentration has the same effect as a uniform 1.80% change in water vapour on the out-going longwave radiation. See graph;
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/H2O&CO2_OLR.jpg
40
A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.–New Scientist 2007
It seems water vapour is the most important, then clouds, then CO2. The reason CO2 is most emphasized is this is the only gas which they can claim humans have an effect on. If we then say water vapor is a feedback mechanism and that the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a really long time, what people put in the atmosphere is MOST important as far as claiming we humans are the drivers of climate (which is really what climate change science says).
Or at least that’s what I am understanding at this point. Again, subject to change to match the latest data, I would assume…..
10
This table shows the ‘greenhouse’ properties of H2O, CO2 and O2; the latter is negligible while water vapor has about 2.5 times the effect of CO2.
00
“Ken Gregory
April 3, 2013 at 4:26 am · Reply
Nope!
CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activity”
I disagree here- I’d say CO2 has a negligible effect, and the water vapor produced by irrigation has a MAJOR effect- somewhat cooler days, somewhat warmer nights, with the averaged diurnal temps slightly warmer- compare US temps in the American southwest with nearby Mexican temps in unirrigated land.
00
In very lay terms, the hypothesis is that the sun warms the surface of the planet, which reradiates some of that energy as infrared energy. CO2 will absorb infrared heat, and then float to the upper atmosphere, where it will reradiate it. The hypothesis then goes on to say that this reradiated infrared heat will be reflected back by the water vapor up there, so trapping it, and preventing it from disappearing into space, thus causing the atmosphere to get warmer and warmer. It is the ability for water vapor to act as a mirror to infrared that is the major point of contention. Because without that water vapor mirror, there can be no run-away warming.
10
Somehow the theory of the Green Hose Gas Effect seems to have changed. It used to be that the infrared radiatiom from the surface was absorbed by green houss gases in the atmosphere. Then the re radiation from the green house gases was supposed to be absorbed by the SURFACE of the earth.
Now you are all talking about OLR (outgoing radiation), which is real and can be measured. The gaps in the OLR spectrum can be related to absorbtion spectra of the green house gases and that would help to warm the atmosphere (if it needed any more warming after convection and latent heat of condensation have already warmed it up).
What about the down welling radiation (DLR) that is supposed to come back to the surface. That seems a lot harder to get a handle on.
00
I will learn to type sometime soon.
Can anyone give some info on Downwelling radiation (DLR). Is there any such thing?
00
Downwelling or ‘backradiation’ is supposedly the mechanism by which AGW works; according to Modtran there is none.
Alternatively, and for the technically inclined Nahle shows backradiation has no effect.
In any event backradiation cannot, it appears, warm the oceans.
20
Thanks cohenite
10
The IPCC will obviously try to frame the ‘Climate Change’ debate to suit themselves, to avoid areas where the empirical evidence does not help their cause. They will emphasise areas where they can use smoke and mirrors to ‘prove’ their message. Excellent articles like this will help us ‘more interested’ observers to be aware of their PR games. But I still worry about the bulk of the population who get their information from news headlines and 30 second ‘grabs’. I am still pessimistic, particularly here in Australia about our media’s ability and willingness to cut through the IPCC bullshit.
We saw how hungrily our media latched on to the BOM’s predictions of the hottest day ever, and the publication of the Climate Commission’s ‘The Angry Summer’, with no regard or acknowledgement for the fact that GLOBAL temperatures have stalled since 1997.
Currently parts of the northern hemisphere are experiencing record cold temperatures and snow falls, but apart from ‘news’ items showing the localised effect of the bad weather, where are the Australian journalists making the obvious contrast with the Climate Commission’s and BOM’s ludicrous claims of accelerated GLOBAL warming and what is happening in the northern hemisphere?
No doubt the IPCC will assiduously avoid addressing such issues in AR5, and will distract the global media with measures of dramatically increasing CO2 emissions and climate model predictions of it’s impact, (delayed by up to 15 years apparently!). I have no confidence that main stream journalists will make the IPCC address real world data, nor will they help bring to the fore research which has been deliberately excluded by the IPCC in it’s bid to show the so called scientific consensus that CO2 is the problem.
That is why the Internet and in particular sites like ‘Jo Nova’ are so vital in making sure the information flow gets out. Not just to the curious public, but hopefully to the few curious journalists who have the courage to swim against the flow. This article is another great example of your good work Jo, keep it up!
In their evangelism to prove CO2 as the main climate driver, I have no doubt that the IPCC will continue to minimise the importance of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) on climate change. But what’s happening in the northern hemisphere makes Australia’s so called ‘Angry Summer’ pale to insignificance.
German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years – and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory as showing it is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a “Mini Ice Age.”
http://germanherald.com/news/Germany_in_Focus/2013-03-31/2331/Prof_Warns_Mini_Ice_Age_has_Started
This just continues to demonstrate the absurdity of those anti-science idiots who claimed “the science is settled”!
421
I cited Dr Abdussamatov’s Astrometria report and graphs in my submission to the Joint Select Committee on the Clean Energy Future bill back in 2011, and I am glad more skeptics and now western media are seeing this guy on their radar screens. There is climate science outside the western groupthink bubble and so far the Russians and Chinese scientists score basically zero for climate alarmism.
I was pleased to see later in the committee proceedings transcript that one of the ministers asked the Chief Scientist (paraphrased) ‘We keep getting people telling us about global cooling, what do you know about that?‘ IIRC, the Chief Stooge’s answer was something vague and dismissive, but that hardly matters. The point is, it’s now recorded that our message got through, we DID warn them, and they DID ask about it during the enquiry. If their chosen science stooge couldn’t give them much info they should have sought the advice of an expert on that particular subject. They clearly didn’t.
Abdussamatov in the German Herald is indeed good news.
180
The lamestream climate scientists are still trying to malign the weather balloon data after dozens of years of data! Amazingly stupid! There is no missing heat because their CO2 based run away global warming scaremongering is false!
200
The truly amazing thing is that they can get away with this fraudulent science. The authors should be with Chris Huhne. As the Telegraph puts it:
180
Science by Omission – once again – on display.
It’s a Travesty – h/t to Kevin Trenberth.
Spot Quiz [1], when evaluating information you should assess and rank the quality of which source of that information highest (a, b, or c)
(a) Physical instruments that provides repeatable, direct measures of the effect with a known calibration, and error range. e.g Radiosondes.
(b) Physical instruments that provides repeatable, direct measures of a proxy of the effect with a known calibration, and error range. e.g. AQUA Satellite.
(c) Computer model that provides repeatable simulations of an effect, where those simulations are known to disagree with information derived from sources (a) and (b).
Spot Quiz [2], if your salary, PhD, and future academic/bureaucratic/media career in tax payer funded employment depends on public belief in CO2 driven Thermogeddon, do you…
(d) Claim Computer models trump other sources of information.
(e) Ignore Spot Quiz [1].
(f) Shout that ExWarmist is a “Planet Hating Deniar who will go to Hell”.
(g) Consult dictionary on the meaning of Calibration.
Cheers ExWarmist
250
Geez, that’s hard.
Spot quiz 1: I play computer games, and sometimes I win, so I must be really clued up, so I will go with the computer simulations, at least until I get to the next level, then if it gets too hard, I might change my mind.
Spot quiz 2: I will go with computer models again, because then I can cross-correlate this answer to my answer to spot quiz 1, thereby demonstrating a consensus of opinion. Do I get bonus points for that?
30
Jo – love the expose.
The last statement copied below is EXQUISITE
“But instead they deny the importance of 28 million weather-balloons, call the missing heat a “travesty”, they pretend that if you slap enough caveats on the 1990 report and ignore the actual direct quotes they made at the time, then possibly, just maybe, their models are doing OK, and through sheer bad luck 3000 ocean buoys, millions of weather balloons, and 30 years of satellite records are all biased in ways that hides the true genius of the climate models.”
They must abhor your little web site (and I use that term with much respect – meaning – they get $BILLIONS and you run this site with $little and a few donations). Gee, it must be hard for their egos to get shot down so easily and so eloquently BEFORE AR5 is even released.
Cheers (and thanks),
240
I have never in my entire professional life seen graphs presented in such an illogical and confusing manner.
But that is always the intention of political sci-fi-entists.
It doesn’t matter what is real only what people believe to be real.
Luckily their bullshit isn’t flying anymore. The public is wakin up to the absence of climate catastrophe and the overwhelming feeling that we are all being ripped off based on a great big fat LIE.
Keep up the amazing work Jo!
140
And so it unravels:
A little parsing…
For the thirty-year period 1979 to 2009 the observational datasets find in the tropical lower troposphere (LT) a warming trend of 0.07°C to 0.15°C per decade. In the tropical middle troposphere (MT) the warming trend is 0.02°C to 0.15°C per decade. A 95% confidence interval of ±0.1°C per decade has been obtained consistently for both LT and MT. (loud sniggering heard in background) Hence, a trend of zero is, with 95% confidence, consistent with some observational trend estimates but not with others. (Raucous laughter breaks out)
Nevertheless, (said earnestly and in a manner of laboured tolerance when dealing with the tiresomely stupid) almost all models show a warming trend in both LT and MT larger than observational estimates. It is unclear whether the tropospheric model-trend bias is primarily related to internal atmospheric processes or to coupled ocean-atmosphere processes. (Laughter heard breaking out again)
The cause of this bias remains elusive. (Laughter becomes hysterical and uncontrolled)
Now to the really important part:
Crack a bottle of chilled, expensive champagne and drink the with friends of similar cultural climatic disposition.
130
No time for serious response, only time for a pun.
Instruments Pester Carbon Con
(ahh, low hanging fruit.)
50
Morning, Jo! Permission to repost?
I will of course link back to here.
40
Say, Jo?
Am I right to recall that a lot of reviewer comments were released with the report, on the memory sticks?
Is it possible that any of those comments relate to this particular issue?
40
Extract and link back posted at
http://wp.me/p3iq0h-7k
Please contact me if changes required.
20
Off topick. My apologies people. I recently watched a utube video produced by ‘The Sydney Institute’ detailing a soon to be published paper concerning the inability of climate science to distinguish between anthropogenic and environmental CO2 emissions. A game changer. Could anyone help mw with a link?
Thanks.
10
As far as I’m concerned CO2 is not created naturally. It’s an entirely artificial polutent which should be taxes accordingly.
511
Sonny
Great 🙂
And captured, and locked up, and stuffed in capsules, and sent out to space – all at the expense of the companies that produced it. If it were camels, cows, etc – they too should be stuffed in space capsules with the CO2.
In fact all carbon based living organisms producing CO2 should be sent into space – never, ever to return. That should cool down the planet.
Wait a second – it isn’t heating up, it’s cooling. OK, Bring them back. 🙂
90
Please stop breathing, you are polluting our planet with your “artificial” emissions.
51
Clearly forgot to add the /sarc tag!
Great to see so many new faces!
60
I always use a sarc tag when I`m using it as the alarmist position itself has become a comic parody .
Our Climate commissioner`s line about “We`ll never again get those dam filling rains again” followed by the rains and then some , followed by the climate commissions statement that “Global Warming had a role in the floods” is a classic example
00
Byron,
Those ‘lines’ from our highly salaried Palaeontologist weather guru, cost us taxpayers desalination plants worth $5.7 billion in Victoria, $1.8 million in South Australia, $2bn in NSW and $1.2bn in Queensland.
00
Stop breathing, or more specifically, don’t exhale. On the other hand you could try sequestration, but hold your breath between bags.
00
Timothy Casey has wrote about this some time ago:
10
The IPCC’s errors and omissions are leading us into dangerous territory.
http://www.naturalnews.com/036583_geoengineering_Bill_Gates_global_warming.html
20
Dangerous indeed, Tim #19. The Babylonian God Complex grows ever larger. As bad as geostationary mirrors to reflect sunlight, this clap trap (Bill Gates funds scheme to spray artificial ‘planet-cooling’ sulfur particles into atmosphere) celebrates the de Bono axiom that individuals rise to the height of their incompetence. In the case of Gates, it’s dizzying as it is titanic. Science fiction is resplendent with global enviro-engineering projects gone-wrong – often the source in such scenarios, of vigorous societal reorganisation.
20
Yeah its fine for us to sit here and point out that the highest likelihood is that there is no problem. But there are others who would happily swallow the entire population of spiders world wide to try and catch the fly they “think” they may have swallowed earlier. This is genuinely worrying news and if human stupidity is anything to go by, it will probably come to pass.
10
Inside the head of Pachauri of the IPCC:
“1. Struggling on in the face of adversity, alone and without support, is the sign of a Good man, a Righteous man.
I am a Good and Righteous man, so I struggle on despite what is stacked against me (current observations).
2. If you struggle long enough at anything, you will succeed.
I haven’t succeeded, therefore I haven’t struggled long enough.
3. Even in failure, there is nobility in a venture of this sort.
I am Noble, so I will continue on in the venture.
4. The alternatives – low career potential, lack of funding, low profile, low self-esteem – are unacceptable.
I need the job and to want to feel good about myself. This climate business is like good suits: what fits is important, and what doesn’t fit, can be discarded.
5. To do the same thing over and over again and yet expect different results is a sign of insanity.
Hey, how did #5 get in there! Delete, delete!”
90
Hi Doug
Surely the world isn’t being influenced by Megalomaniacs and Sociopaths. I thought they were humble Humanitarians devoted saving us all from catastrophe without personal reward!
40
Hi Tim.
Tim, Tim, Tim, what can I say? Humble! What the? Humanitarian!! God, give me a break! Tim, you are talking about losers, that’s right LOSERS! Give me sociopaths and megalomaniacs any day over these boring tedious energy draining types. Come on Tim, any self respecting red blooded man or woman who is at least half way alive must not touch these insipid weaklings you refer to with a 50 foot cattle prod. Let’s face it, unless your personality is in cryogenic deep freeze, awaiting reanimation in some far distant century, then like me you will want your world dominated by people who bring excitement, drama and spectacle into our lives. You know Tim, those who dare, those who take a risk, put their balls on the line, winners Tim winners! The guy who says, “So the bungy cord is frayed down to its last few threads, to hell with it man, I’m jumpin anyway”!!! How square, flat and beige would life be without a few wilful, glorious, spectacular accidents? Megalomaniacs, sociopaths, nutters, crazies, fruitloops, call them what you want, just call them, welcome them with open arms, put them in control of the levers that drive things, that’s what we want isn’t it? I don’t know about you Tim, but I don’t recon I’m here for a long time, so I want it to be a wild time, a crazy time and if having people with some kind of narcissistic personality disorder in charge of things can help bring that about, then more power to them. Cheers. PS. I don’t need to add the sarc tag do I?
00
Mc
Thanks for your insight. I’m converted. After my vaccination, I’ll go shopping for those yummy gm products, join Greenpeace and the WWF and submit my report to the IPCC : ‘No matter what the weather is – be afraid-be very afraid.’ Sure to be a money spinner.
(Sarc accepted.)
10
Hi Tim.
Let me try to put my dubious joke in a more direct form. You mention sociopaths in your comment; well it happens all too often that people with overblown egos get elevated to positions of power and prominence in our culture. We see their success, power, wealth and societal adulation and think , I want a slice of what he has, he has popularity, he has prestige, he’s a winner, and isn’t being a winner so much what it’s all about these days. We reward sociopaths for their sociopathic behaviour, that’s hardly an incentive for them to change, but to make matters worse this kind of vain, arrogant, triumphalist behaviour is portrayed as something to be emulated and celebrated so it radiates out and into the rest of the society. Of course those of us who are impressionable are particularly susceptible to looking to such “winning personalities” as role models. The real triumph in this is the triumph of false values. Hope that makes my point a bit clearer.
00
“…CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.”
That is awesome wording. In climate science an incorrect (or possibly incorrect) hypothesis is referred to as a “bias”.
IF
Data does not match projection
THEN
There must be something wrong with the data
ELSE
There is some bias whose cause is elusive
NO MATTER WHAT GO TO
The original hypothesis is still plausible.
120
They need to look at themselves, then they will see where all the bias comes from and what actually is bias.
80
Very clever and I think you may have inadvertently released the secret code behind the models lol
40
This gave me a giggle:
Yes, the warmists will stone me because its The Australian.
41
Akkkk… try link again: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/deluged-with-flannery-and-covered-with-viner/story-e6frgd0x-1226611185281
30
Oh how I wish I could read the rest of that report. LOL.
10
Oh darn! When I first looked at it, it was the full report… now its behind a paywall 🙁
31
I still had it open in another browser window, here is a little from the article:
31
Nice One..
Hello..Nice One..where did he go.??? 🙂
Shoot themselves in the foot..get corrected..
And then not have the integrity to admit they are mistaken..again.
Thats Climate science/NiceOne in a nut shell..
Keep posting here mate..!!
Too..funny
80
Don’t want to say I told you so, but:
I said back in 2010 the IPCC would quietly drop the hotspot
OK, so they didn’t drop it, but they have clearly tried to hide it
40
Stanford spinners 2013:
1 April: Yahoo: Even Doubters Want to Prepare for Global Warming
by Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
Some still insist that climate change is a hoax, but the vast majority of Americans believe the globe is warming, a new survey finds — and they want to prepare for the worst.
In fact, even 60 percent of climate-change doubters favored preparations, the survey found. Researchers collected opinions between March 3 and March 18 via an online questionnaire, using a nationally representative sample of 1,174 American adults, both English and Spanish speaking…
“Few people believe these preparations will harm the economy or eliminate jobs,” survey director Jon Krosnick, a senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, said in a statement. “In fact, more people believe that preparation efforts will help the economy and create jobs around the U.S., in their state and in their town than think these efforts will harm the economy and result in fewer jobs in those areas.
“But people want coastal homeowners and businesses that locate in high-risk areas to pay for these measures,” he said.
The survey found high levels of belief in global warming, with 82 percent of respondents agreeing that Earth’s temperatures have risen over the last century. People tended to see efforts to hold back Mother Nature as futile, Krosnick said…
Krosnick presented the results of the survey March 28 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
http://news.yahoo.com/even-doubters-want-prepare-global-warming-203510651.html
Stanford 2012:
8 May 2012: Stanford Uni: Support for climate change action drops, Stanford poll finds
The drop was concentrated among Americans who distrust climate scientists
The survey directed by Jon Krosnick, a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, shows that support for a range of policies intended to reduce future climate change dropped by an average of 5 percentage points per year between 2010 and 2012…
On average, 72 percent of respondents supported government action on climate change in 2010. By 2012, that support had dropped to 62 percent…
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/may/climate-change-survey-050812.html
20
There is no sign of a ‘hot-spot’ in the upper troposphere and there is no sign of an increase in World temperature since about 1998, so what exactly was it that was going to happen? If it gets colder, will AR6 report that?
40
If the IPCC were reporting on stock markets based on all this faulty science they would have been jailed years ago. The amount of money lost would have been about the same, if not irrelevant. It’s only the religious bias that maintains the fraud.
70
Don’t forget the New World Order Agenda 21 NASA conspiracy
40
For the radiosonde data to be rejected you would need to show that there is a systematic error in the temperatures measured near the tropopause in the direction of a cold bias in that region but no other. As you are above the low altitude clouds and a good deal of the atmosphere there, I’d expect incoming solar radiation(however the sensor is shielded)and reflected short wave from lower clouds to cause a warm bias if anything.
Surely somebody has done some validation of the sonde sensors?
10
Here you go Mike have a read for yourself, (we use the AM version).
http://www.vaisala.com/en/products/soundingsystemsandradiosondes/radiosondes/Pages/RS92.aspx
Cheers
81
Crakar24, just a quick skim of pages 15 -24 of the Mauritius intercomparison doesn’t exactly increase my faith in the sonde accuracy. I’ll try to look again later.
We are looking for differences near the trop of about 0.3 to 0.4 deg C. only. I see they mention the solar radiation effect and also the effect of evaporative cooling on the sensor after emergance from cloud. This could lead to a cool bias at altitude if there is any Ac/As cloud layer.
We should remember that radiosondes are designed to support short term forecasting for public weather, aircraft performance and thunderstorm hazards. Unfortunately this is like most other meteorological sensors. They aren’t designed to provide long term values for climatology.
Right now I wouldn’t make too much of the sonde record not supporting the hotspot.
31
Mike may i suggest you have a closer look at Pg 16
More importantly on Pg 21 we have this statement
And on Pg 22 we have
Therefore if we have no reference to T and U then how can we then state with any certainty how accurate or in fact inaccurate the sondes are? Is this why we throw out the data and put our faith in the models?
The PTU data is measured by the sondes and GPS data (where fitted) are direct measurements, the data is not derived by model simulations, the data is not derived by proxy measurements.
In essence Mike if you have doubts about the sonde data and decide not to use it then you have no data at all. As i said earlier i think you will find the sonde data is accurate enough to falsify this stupid theory.
Your next statement does nothing to ditract from the usefulness of the sondes
So if i launch a sonde twice a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks of the year from the same location i am only supporting short term weather forecasting? This is a joke right?
So what have you got that trumps the sonde data? Computer programs?, a hunch?, a best guess?, Opinion?, speculation?
81
I get a thumbs down for producing a link to a company that makes radio sondes…………..i will never fathom the mind of an idiot.
101
Well it wasn’t me.
So for the rest you wrote:
“Mike may i suggest you have a closer look at Pg 16
It is a known phenomenon of radiosonde temperature measurement that
radiosonde temperature sensors may retain humidity after emerging from cloud, humidity which affects subsequent temperature measurement data. As a temperature sensor dries after emerging from cloud, it may generate inaccurately low temperature data. This phenomenon can be mitigated or eliminated by temperature sensor design”
And by looking at the Mauritius data I’d say they haven’t done a great job.
“More importantly on Pg 21 we have this statement
There is no universal and absolute reference
for upper-air temperature measurement.”
Yup . It is difficult to do. Measuring from aircraft introduces other error from adiabatic heating. I did some of that once or twice, including sensor design. Also looked at many, many skew t log p charts both for a living and for soaring forecasts.
“And on Pg 22 we have
Due to the lack of an absolute humidity measurement reference, an
arbitary reference of “the average of Vaisala, Snow White and Sippican” was used for the calculations.
Therefore if we have no reference to T and U then how can we then state with any certainty how accurate or in fact inaccurate the sondes are? Is this why we throw out the data and put our faith in the models?”
Well if you cannot definitively state they are accurate and give error bars, then they aren’t accurate. Sorry.
“The PTU data is measured by the sondes and GPS data (where fitted) are direct measurements, the data is not derived by model simulations, the data is not derived by proxy measurements.
In essence Mike if you have doubts about the sonde data and decide not to use it then you have no data at all. As i said earlier i think you will find the sonde data is accurate enough to falsify this stupid theory.”
The difference between the heating near the ground and the trop is about 0.3 deg C. I wouldn’t even bet on that for $5.
“Your next statement does nothing to ditract from the usefulness of the sondes
We should remember that radiosondes are designed to support short term forecasting for public weather, aircraft performance and thunderstorm hazards. Unfortunately this is like most other meteorological sensors. They aren’t designed to provide long term values for climatology.
So if i launch a sonde twice a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks of the year from the same location i am only supporting short term weather forecasting? This is a joke right?”
No. That’s what I used to use the sonde data for and what the BoM uses it for every day. Each sonde flight is used for the next 12 to 24 hours until you get the next one to compare with the last and see how it changed over the period. Somewhere in head office the data is archived and sometimes somebody tries to use it for climatology. Much the same problem as surface temperature records unless very special sensors and exposures are used with frequent calibration against standards.
Right now I wouldn’t make too much of the sonde record not supporting the hotspot.
“So what have you got that trumps the sonde data? Computer programs?, a hunch?, a best guess?, Opinion?, speculation?”
Nothing. I meant what I said. This is not new. We have exactly the same problem with the surface temperature record.
For the record I’m not a warmist, just a used to be meteorologist and now working instrument engineer. Designed and built lots and put them together with my ten pinkies. Also pilot. 2700 hours in gliders, 900 power.
20
Mike,
Been here long enough to know who the warmbots are so dont worry i did not think you were one and i did not suspect you were the thumbs down giver.
However i must disagree re accuracy of the sondes.
1, Temp and humidity reference, i have shown that the references used are considered to be not 100% accurate (WMO) but yet you persist to use them to invalidate the sonde data. This is akin to using climate models as evidence of AGW.
2, Rather than just selectively reading a report from a competition why dont you look at the specifications of the sondes, you can find these at the same link i provided earlier. Have a look at the quoted accuracy of these devices, these figures are achieved via testing in a lab and this is where the calibration data comes from. So in essence we have accurate calibrated equipment that does not conform to an imaginary reference but you choose the imaginary reference?????????
3, Agreed emerging from cloud is an issue, however two points:
A, The manufacturer states this is a known issue and has a work around but reject this on what can only be described as opinion.
B, This issue would not affect every sounding and the ones it did effect would be only very temporary but yet despite this you wish to through all the data out as invalid.
In summary your achievements as an amateur pilot whilst impressive carry no weight in this debate, your business selling instruments whilst also impressive carries not weight here as i do not appeal to authorities.
To date you have produced no evidence to show the 28 million soundings data is invalid, please try again or concede you are merely stating your opinion.
Regards
Crakar
11
And a few snippets from todays media, just to punctuate the nonsense.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/deluged-with-flannery-and-covered-with-viner/story-e6frgd0x-1226611185281
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-03/scientist-endorse-report-that-says-climate-has-shifted/4606372 (wow “strong concencus”) so it must be true then. I think there was “strong concencus” we would have a budget surplus by now huh ? Given that the budget is something many would argue the government has a small element of control over lol.
And finally without even a link to a shred of verifiable data, Tim (or is it Hanrahan) reminds us well all be rooooned!
http://www.afr.com/p/national/climate_change_fuelling_extreme_ZQjg5tSeQhmR5bTiy7ydYL
So its never going to rain again, but if it does it will be SUPER rain LOL… funny yet sad and pathetic at the same time.
nb. Origin energy withdrew its partnership support and funding for the Geodynamics geothermal project in remote northern SA over the weekend. A project in which Prof. Flannery is a major shareholder. So despite his best efforts to lie the shareprice back up again, it has fallen from a Govt. subsidised high of $1.20ish to around 7.6c so if you think his ability to pick a climate winner is bad, dont follow him on shares baby!
50
Looks like We won`t have to listen to Flimflannery on the public dollar after the next election :
Tony Abbott forecasts job loss for Tim Flannery
The gist of it is We already know what Flannery`s got to say , Why should the taxpayer keep giving Him money to do so ?
60
True that. He was singing the same little ditty just as loudly before he got direct payment for it. I mean initially one can only surmise his opinions were shril based on his deep financial involvement with so called renewables. But now its just comical to think anyone would listen to him when he is so obviously in the pocket of both the Govt. and big wind.
00
Miss Nova (Joanne, if I may be so bold) you state the obvious: that these lying bastards are lyning bastards. The whole world knows that. But, as long as they hold the reins of finance and minds of mindless potliticians looking for a clue or excuse, they will continue to receive the Judus Geld from the politicos for providing them with the fig leaf justification for their actions.
Oh, soooo angry. When will this fraud end?
50
Jo,
The cream of Australia’s young economist-types over here;
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/04/climate-commission-sees-weather-changed-already/
who should be fearlessly rationalist and questioning of climate MSM dross, actually seem to be a bunch of unquestioning warmist muppets.
Please can you give them a serve of academic references that may rouse their supposedly rationalist brains
30
ZOMGZ the Australian climate has changed forevah!!1!!one
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-03/scientist-endorse-report-that-says-climate-has-shifted/4606372
I think the more concerning thing would be all those scary whirly things, suns and blue sharks attacking the map of Australia…
It is hard to determine whether Flannery has become a parody of himself or whether he thinks people are still consuming his drivel wholeheartedly. Truly sad. I assume he is probably good at something, but I am not sure what it is. Perhaps he should try comedy?
40
Nope, comedy requires timing.
51
This is one for those that enjoy the little things in AGW, 400 cold temp records broken in the US in March.
Cheers
http://iceagenow.info/2013/04/march-cold-cold-records-broken-u-s/
41
Richard Feynman said ” There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in “cargo cult science.”
“It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards.
For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.
You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it.
If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.
There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”
”Cargo Cult Science”, adapted from a commencement address given at Caltech (1974)
30
Are you saying this is how science is supposed to work? I keep getting hit with I have to present EVERY possible flaw in any study I use when discussing skepticism. I am supposed to present EVERY hypothesis that I can come up with, test all of them and report back. Is this what you mean? Or is it that one presents all the data they have, the methods used and then the conclusions reached?
20
Hi Sherri.
I agree with how Feynman describes a “cargo cult.”
Thought it was relevant, as, shown above, the UN-IPCC, home of the”settled science,” behaves as described.
Integrity, utter honesty, or hiding failed hot spot graphs, the very fact that the UN-IPCC could never produce not ONE list of possible ways to invalidate their results because
Alarmist Global Warmingclimate change causes everything.Feynman describing the scientific method. This is the one video you never see a “catastrophe warmist” link. I’m sure you’re aware of it:
“It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is.
It doesn’t make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
.
Thank you, Mr Feynman.
10
I agree with the science definition. However, how do you answer a warmist who expects me to post EVERY possible hypothesis and why it may or may not be wrong, or I am not using the scientific method? Is the scientific method to include every possible variant of the data you have and multiple hypothesis and why each one is right or wrong?
For example, If I say that the sun contributes to the warming of the planet, is good science to say: “We find that sun contributes to the warming of the planet, but we also find radiation, ocean currents, forests, CO2, water vapor and many other factors are involved. We think the sun is the most important as we have done the math and the sun is the strongest in this. It is possible our math is in error and we would note that several other scientists have found water vapor to be most important. We cannot at this time verify that, but have included it in the interest of complete honesty and openness.” This is what the warmists ask for if a scientific theory is presented. I always thought that one came up with an hypothesis, tested it and reported the results. If someone disagreed, they formulated their own hypothesis and tested it. Or someone presented evidence that the original hypothesis was wrong.
(I am curious if anyone has ever been tagged as a “spambot” by Google and required to fill in a captcha to continue searching? This happened to me yesterday (based on my searching at “unusual levels”. I found it rather annoying…..)
00
Handjive thanks for posting that.
I was woeful at math and science in school, it confused me and I switched off. It was reading the biography of Feynman (Genius) and Chaos by James Gleik as well as some of the historical writings around the Manhatten Project that sparked my adult interest in revisiting both topics. Now having completed post graduate studies in health science including a lot of statistics, I am better able to crunch my head around some of the things I did not and still do not understand about physics, math and climate science, but I try everyday to learn and understand more.
Feynman is the kind of person that should be reviewing the IPCC reports (though Im sure he has other time wasters) so we can get a view from a “genuine” scientist about how the work is done and the general rigour of the methods and conclusions. Id also very much like to hear what Richard Dawkins thinks, but he has remained very quiet on the topic for some time now.
Great post, thanks again.
00
I particularly like this from Feynman:
20
Prof Flannery’s stock and trade.
00
Bulldust –
the abc/sarah clarke headline is “Top scientists agree climate has changed for good”, which is funny in and of itself.
abc is obviously going to do multiple versions:
3 April: ABC Rural: Flint Duxfield: Floods set to increase as climate changes ‘for good’
The latest report by the Climate Commission warns extreme flood events like those experienced in Queensland this year could become an annual occurrence later this century.
Scientists say for the first time there’s a strong consensus that climate change is now having a noticeable impact on weather events.
Climate Commissioner, Professor Will Steffen, says there’s also clear evidence that the climatea of south-west Western Australia and south-eastern Australia have permanently changed…
“I don’t think it means it’s the end of agriculture, but it certainly means that those farmers who are adept, nimble and understand the science will be those who will be successful in the future.”
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201304/s3728742.htm
wacky steffen doesn’t think it’s “the end of agriculture”!
30
LOL:
Europe’s biggest emitters produce 9.4 pct more CO2 in 2012
LONDON, April 2 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The top ten emiting installations under the EU cap-and-trade scheme belched out 9.4 percent more carbon dioxide (CO2) year-on-year in 2012, countering a 1.4 percent dip in overall emissions across 10,000 sites, preliminary official data showed on Tuesday…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2257414?&ref=searchlist
Canada must slash oil and gas emissions to meet 2020 target: report
WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Canada should reduce the emissions it projects for its lucrative oil and gas sector 42 percent by 2020 in order to meet its global pledge to slash its emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels, a think tank said on Tuesday…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2257967?&ref=searchlist
20
Cap and Trade was always a license to pollute. Pay big bucks, dump as much carbon as you like. It was never to reduce pollution, only to increase revenues.
00
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/02/this-year-s-model
When the word “mystery” appears in a peer-reviewed paper, it is time to sit up and pay attention.
Did the 255 IPCC scientists meeting in Hobart early this year do so? Did they discuss the implications of this paper -The mystery of recent stratospheric temperature trends — during their one-week IPCC lead author meeting?
If not, they should; for it challenges the orthodoxy’s “settled science” mantra.
As blogger Doug Hoffman explained here:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/science-gets-stratosphere-wrong
Imagine part of the atmosphere “that is literally only 10km from anywhere on Earth, a component of our environment that science thought it understood quite well. Now imagine the embarrassment when a major review in a noted journal finds that previous datasets associated with this component are wrong – and have been wrong for more than a quarter of a century. Yet that is precisely what has happened. The area is the stratosphere. The impact of this report is devastating for climate scientists and atmospheric modellers everywhere.”
Even worse, the paper’s authors concluded “the new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances.”
30
[…] *JoNova sets out the case here that the climate is doing OK, which will further bust the Green heads warming science: IPCC plays hot-spot hidey games in AR5 — denies 28 million weather balloons work properly […]
00
another abc version, with greg hunt agreeing with the govt’s desire to reduce emissions:
3 April: ABC: Climate change report a wake-up call: Combet
The World Today By Sabra Lane and Eleanor Hall
Mr Combet says the report underpins the reason why the Government has put a price on carbon.
“These are things that people in the community need to be aware of and of course they are the underpinning reason why the Government has moved to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of an international effort to tackle climate change,” he told The World Today.
“The scientific facts are very clear and we’ve got to deal with this issue. You cannot bury your head in the sand like Tony Abbott would have us do.”…
Opposition climate action spokesman Greg Hunt says he agrees with the Government’s desire to reduce emissions, but says it is not working.
“You have a Government that’s silent about the fact that emissions in Australia go up, not down under the carbon tax,” he said.
“They’ll never talk about the fact that our emissions go up by 77 million tonnes between 2010 and 2020 under their carbon tax.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-03/combet-on-climate-change-report/4607734
20
Judas Priest, this bloke gets up my nose. That rissole Combet has been at it again. I listened to the interview on The World Today. What a load of bovine waste.
He still uses that old per capita crock, and surely you think somebody would advise him how wrong that is, because it’s obvious he hasn’t checked for himself.
The transcript is not posted yet, but they do have the full audio, which is around five and a half minutes long.
Combet decries climate change deniers
That audio counts backward, so just scroll forward to the 3.20 mark or thereabouts and he says this:
Prat!
Tony.
91
Did he manage to work in the word “mendacious” thats his favorite!
10
of battleships & grandchildren:
3 April: Brisbane Times (Fairfax): AAP: Warning: land of more drought and flooding rains on the horizon
The Critical Decade: Extreme Weather, released on Wednesday, says the global climate system is warmer and moister than 50 years ago, with the extra heat making extreme weather events more frequent and severe…
”Stabilising the climate is like turning around a battleship – it cannot be done immediately given its momentum,” its report states.
”When danger is ahead you must start turning the wheel now.
”Only strong preventative action now and in the coming years can stabilise the climate and halt the trend of increasing extreme weather for our children and grandchildren.”
The independent commission’s report draws on the latest research and observations from bodies including the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and Australian and international universities.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/warning-land-of-more-drought-and-flooding-rains-on-the-horizon-20130403-2h5ne.html
00
The turning circle of a ship is called its “tactical diameter”, The Japanese super-battleships Musashi and Yamato were very maneuverable, with a TD of only 640 meters.
HMS Vanguard’s TD was 1025 yards, and USS Wisconsin’s (Iowa Class) (also considered an extremely maneuverable battleship) 814 yards.
The USS Enterprise CV-6 that served in WWII had a TD of 790 yards when travelling at 30 knots.
To the calculations:
1 nautical mile (nm) = 2025 yards
1 knot = 1nm per hour
30 knots = 2025 x 30 = 60750 yards per hour
TD = 790 yards
Ergo:
Distance travelled is the circumference of a semi-circle of diameter 790 yards
= (pi x 790)/2
= 1241 yards
If 30 knots = 60750 yards in 60 mins
Then this = 1241 yards in 1.2 mins
Therefore with a TD of 790 yards at 30 knots it takes 72 seconds to turn a warship around 180 degrees. I dont know what Combet is talking about.
PS feel free to check my math.
71
Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzveUz-WRGQ
I think some coffee might get spilled though!
P.S. From a Navy man I knew the “quoted” performance is often lower than what ships can really do. He spent time on a nuke powered carrier and he personally witnessed “rooster tails” behind the ship when they did a test run. The speed they made (I won’t say) was unbelievable to me.
31
So here we are yet again using emotive arguments referring to the unborn. So what is the Labor Party’s policy on abortion? (I do not accept that the Climate Commission is independent)
It’s known as hypocrisy where I come from.
40
They also use the term “a loaded dice” which i have trouble with
They then go on to say
So lets take a closer look at the “best” analogy, firstly they use the term “dice” which means more than one, they dont say how many so lets assume two as in a game of craps which is rather ironic as the report is crap but i digress.
So we have two die and if we roll the dice we can get any combination from 2 to 12 and by the chance of probability and combination could occur on any roll.
Now lets label the numbers, lets say snakes eyes gives us a hot dry climate like the Sahara desert and 16 gives us something like Kevin Costners water world and varying climates in between. This analogy if true would lead us to a variable climate, climate change, climate shift and even climate extremes.
However Flannery et al claim we have now loaded the dice which in gaming parlance means that you weight the dice in a particular way so as to change the chance of probability and skew the results by artificially creating an imbalance in the die itself causing the same number to be rolled over and over again.
So in essence these clowns are saying that we can look forward to a more stable climate in the years ahead and not the climate extremes claimed in their latest booga booga story.
Of course the climate may be warmer/drier, or it may be warmer/wetter but it can not be both it will be one or the other.
This analogy ontop of the battleship fiasco leads me to think that……………well these dumb bastards dont think, they just say the first piece of junk that enters their empty heads.
61
.
Crakar24 – so right.
I hadn’t thought of it before – but you’ve exposed their idiotic emotive reasoning to explain CAGW. They don’t understand their own garbage spewing from their lying mouths.
1. Battleship – hard to turn around – we have to do it now. See Crakar24
2. Loaded dice – we’re against the odds. See Crakar24
3. Our climate is on steroids.
4. Increasing extreme weather for our children and grandchildren. See Backslider
5. Australia is the highest per capita emitter of GHG. See Tony from Oz
6. OLD – grape vines will have to move south – nothing yet.
7. OLD – our children will never see snow again – wrong – they’re still seeing it in the UK.
8. Our dams will never fill – What idiots?
9. There’s a secret Hot Spot – up above, down below, anywhere????
10.The bell curve of temperature is shifting to the right????
And there are so many more – it’s just a PR campaign to try and attract some of the undecided.
The whole thing is folding up when they try and grasp these last straws.
Goodbye Combet, Flannery, Gore, Mann, Parncut, etc etc etc
Everyone is totally fed up with all the CAGW alarmism lies and bullshlt.
81
An example from the new year 8 science curriculum:
97% of scientists agree that the climate is:
a) a battleship
b) a loaded dice
c) on steroids
d) all of the above
[however the student writes: e) a failed propoganda attempt]
10
Actually Im ok with them using dice analogies. I mean lets face it at least its an admission that despite their best efforts they cant seperate their results from a comparison against pure random luck. Sounds about right I reckon.
10
3 April: Australian: AAP: Weather events becoming more intense due to climate change: Climate Commission
(BIG OIL?)The Climate Commission’s Gerry Hueston, who recently retired as president of BP Australasia, said businesses needed to start considering how extreme weather would impact them…
Mr Abbott predicted chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery would lose his job if the Coalition won power at the next election.
He said climate change and carbon tax bureaucracies set up by Labor would also go under a Coalition government when it abolishes the carbon tax.
Asked on Macquarie Radio if Professor Flannery would be “consigned to the wastepaper basket of bureaucracy”, Mr Abbott said he thought there were four climate and carbon tax bureaucracies in place.
“When the carbon tax goes, all of those bureaucracies will go and I suspect we might find that the particular position you refer to goes with them,” he said.
“It does sound like an unnecessary position given that the gentleman in question gives us the benefit of his views without needing taxpayer funding,” Mr Abbott said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/weather-events-becoming-more-intense-due-to-climate-change-climate-commission/story-e6frg8y6-1226611402311
the “BENEFIT” of flannery’s views? i wouldn’t have described his views as beneficial, COSTLY is more like it.
50
OT or maybe not?
A funny video of the scientific method, enjoy http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/dawkins-bitchslaps-anti-science-cynic/story-fn5fsgyc-1226611489475
20
Interesting. Most of the examples he sites are the achievements of ENGINEERING (planes, rockets etc.)
All of which have a CREATOR.
Dawkins faith in the lack of any god in preference for a complete fairy tail of random atomic collisions –> the diversity and brilliance of life is to me extremely unscientific.
We don’t know how the fuck we got here. We can believe whatever theory we like but it’s not science. It’s pure speculation whatever your faith is.
Global warming is a great illustration of the folly of putting too much faith in a majority consensus viewpoint which is driven ultimately and invariably by consensus ideology.
Bitches.
52
Sonny, The video was about the scientific method.
If I wanted a stupid argument about religion I’d go to youtube, also using the word “diversity” while claiming to be a skeptic is conflicting ideals.
Are you a troll or just arrogant? Show some manners or shove off.
04
Quite on your side, Sonny. Once’s belief in God has Nothing to do with disbelieving in AGW.
31
Make the most of it while you can Tim: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/abbott-forecasts-flannery-job-loss/story-e6frfku9-1226611491455
50
It’s a good start. Now how about suing him for malpractice? That salary ($180k/year for a 3 day working week) is a pittance compared to what his policies have done to the country. (Or that the government has done in his name.)
And while you’re there – how about the Bureau of Meterology? And the CSIRO – I hope you’ve got your office tidied out, Megan Clark!
Cheers,
Speedy
30
Jo, correct me if I’m wrong or speaking out of line but I have discussed with my esteemed collegues, and after a long and satisfying session of wanking each other off we came to the conclusion that to a certain extent (although we aren’t certain of the extent of the certainty) for a long period of time the best we can hope for, at least in terms of [our] grandchildren, is to stabilise the planet and it will stabilise at a temperature which is probably 2 degrees or more above the pre-industrial!
We believe our opinions to be our own, formulated without undue bias from government controlled sources like the ABC.
00
“The pre-industrial”
This is only a term used by the absolute cream of the cream of climate wankers.
If you hear somebody use this phrase, run away.
21
“The use of analogy by an opponent in a debate is the first sign that you are dealing with a twit – even more so when the debate is of a scientific or technical nature. One must avoid attempting to rebut such an opponent with logical reasoning. Such an approach will be as effective as trying to solve algebra equations by chewing bubble-gum”.
20
I like that quote. Where did it come from ? Moreover It’s a sign that the ‘twit’ thinks they can get away with treating their audience like idiots, as if they haven’t the intelligence to understand a proper explanation, whether the ‘twit’ is capable of offering one or not. The favourite one of likening Climatologists to Cancer Specialists always strikes me like that.
00
I get that “oncologist” analogy all the time. It is impossible to get the warmists to understand that a biopsy is NOT a computer model. Do you suppose if we made a “food model” we could convince the warmists to go by that and eventually they would starve because the “model” said they were getting enough calories? How far can the “models are my life” philosophy be taken?
00
I came to the conclusion that one of the major failures of the models & IPCC climate projections is to think that the “inside” part of the atmosphere is a constant heat transfer with no influence on the climate. They then try to simulate all the climate through variations of “forcings” like solar & greenhouse, through radiation.
They cannot imagine the climate is more complex? I guess that El Nino/La Nina are only a part of the complexity that we started to understand.
Possibly the Bond events and other short term variations of the climate are due to climate variations inside the system, like clouds variations caused by galactic rays. The galactic rays do not only “initiate clouds” and thus modify the reflexivity of the planet, but might also intensify/speed-up the water cycle or let it slow down – this being an amplification factor.
A nice description of “their” greenhouse theory is here – all clear in a nutshell:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/25/dispelling-myths-about-global-warming/
(Of course a skeptic describe better and clearer their theory)
“In order to maintain equilibrium with the incoming UV/VIS radiation received by the earth, the surface temperature would need to increase enough to allow it to radiate an additional 2.7 watt/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere after any CO2 doubling. ”
It ignores the heat transfer inside the system as the radiation is at the top of the atmosphere. Or better said it considers it a constant heat transfer.
But an intensified water cycle would cool the ground faster, or a slowed down cycle would let it warm, exactly what has been observed. And this is not due to “their” “forcings”. However for “climate scientists” the inside cycle is driven by CO2, which again does not let them see what is around the corner.
20
Michael Chriton posed the question “if we cannot acurately model the stock market to the point we can predict it’s behaviour, what makes us think we can model a far more complex system, being the climate”.
I guess the answer is faith and delusion in equally heavy doses.
10
Because the stock market is “adjusted” and manipulated too!
10
You would think that such an important parameter would warrant the simple act of releasing a bunch of balloons over the planet. The IPCC models say where it should be right now and the apparent discrepancy is large. So measure it! Unless the IPCC is afraid that the non-hiatus is not just a hiatus in the troposphere but an actually cooling from a “Trenberth Event” for which they would have no explanation.
Note: a “Trenberth Event (TE)” is an event which no one observed, no one can find evidence for it having occurred, but which modelling says must have occurred.
Climatologically, there are two types of TEs at present. The atmospheric TE is similar philosophically to the marine TE, but the first is about hot air that can’t be found and the second, about cold water that shouldn’t be there. Throwing the second on proponents of the first would be socially useful at this time, but is considered Not-Done in Team society.
Second Note: A third TE might be the acceleration of sea-level rise and a fourth, decreases in Northern Hemispheric cloud cover. Each of these TEs is also critical to the CAGW narrative. Once again, the third is something that can’t be found but must be there, and the fourth, that can’t be there but can be found.
10
They cannot find the hot air because they do not know where to look. Were they to stop and listen to each other they would find it immediately!
Yes, folks, we have global warming due to all the hot air generated by climate alarmists….
10
Well done Douglas. I was about to make a similar point. Could the Missing Hotspot be hiding in the same place along with all the other of Trenberth’s missing heat ? ;-). But you beat me to it.
“A Trenbreth Event” – I like it ? Not entirely unlike the elusive Higgs Boson, though it turned out to really exist after all, apparently. I wonder if perhaps one day they’ll find it ?
00
From the amount of action after comment 1 alone you would get the idea that there was actually something in AR5 to be worth discussing. And then there is a whole lot more commentary following.
Face it, the IPCC is not worth the effort spent reading its output. From what I can see, they don’t even believe their own stuff. Disguise here, dodge there, fudge it another place to keep on making things look bad. This is another load of bullshit!
It’s either about someone’s personal ego trip or about the UN’s ruling the world — or someone’s place in that ruling hierarchy — and that’s it. And it always has been.
Not even the trolls will come out to support this — except nice one, of course. Yes, here we have nice one knocking graphs before even looking to see where they come from. Oh so niccceee, yesss Precious, we loves it, we needs it, we deserves it! Yesss! Misss Nova has it all wrong, she does; yesss Precious; all wrong! But He will get her soon, yesss, He’ll get her! And then it will all be as it should be! Yesss Precious, He’ll show her alright! Oh yesss…
Anyone who disagrees with me is entitled to take it up with me personally. Just e mail:
[email protected]
Or better yet — take your best shot right here, publicly. I’m waiting either way.
20
For some time now I have summarised my basic position as almost supported by the actions (or lack of) by believers. In other words I look at the reports, the policies, the positions and actions taken by the main culprits on the AGW side and it comforts me that the problm must be either non existent or no where near as bad as they would have us panic over.
I mean the carbon tax is just A grade baloney! Even Prof Flannery admits it wont have an impact (if any) for 1000 years. So anyone who thinks, wow it must be just a revenue raising exercise for a Govt. that had to sell its most basic ideologies out to gain power (greens deal) and is now so far in a debt hole they cant even see light anymore, would have a lot of supporting evidence to back that hypothesis, most of it from AGW apostles.
If a Govt. genuinely believed in AGW they would have taken much more dramatic and effective action. Such as quickly phasing out all coal power generation, mining and exports and replacing it with gas turbines for a massive emmisions saving. The very actions of the people most involved screams…. there is no real problem.
20
I keep trying to explain this to the “true believers” but they seem stuck in the argument from authority and just blindly follow. I outlined why I question climate change (based on the behaviour of the scientists in part) and the first thing I got was a demand for examples. It seems that logic and intuitive thinking are just not there in many of these people. However, I do keep on explaining. It’s not always the data that alerts us to questionable science. I am providing examples of these problems/inconsistencies next, so we will see how that goes. I suppose it’s a lot like anything else in life–some people want to be told how to think and act while others want to figure things out for themselves.
10
Aren’t Logic & Intuitive Reasoning rather like the Missing Hotspot & the Higgs Boson ? (plse. forgive the idiotic use of analogy, it’s only for fun). They must exist, but who would recognise them if they saw the ? 😉
00
I keep wondering if a lot of it isn’t intellectual laziness, a lack of burn to discover what’s actually going on.
10
It’s easy to follow the “consensus” but more importantly, if you just follow what other people say, it’s not your fault if the information turns out to be wrong. I learned this from listening to people who never take responsibility for their lives. If you think for yourself, it shifts responsibility to you. I’ve also tried arguing that you WANT things to be your fault because you can then act on the situation and you have control over it. However, this is meet with the “deer in the headlights” look. If one follows the science on global warming and then it’s wrong, it’s the fault of the scientists. I think this is why “skeptics” often follow the warming beliefs–if it’s wrong, it’s not their fault. They were just going with the “best science” and how could they possibly understand something so complex? All of it is a complex mixture of lack of self-confidence, wanting to shirk responsibility and not wanting to actually have to think. Sadly, it is becoming the predominate behaviour in our society.
00
Am I unique then? I’ve always wanted to think for myself. On the other hand I don’t really want things to be my fault because I don’t want to make mistakes. Which is not to say that I never make them — I certainly do. But when I do, I own up to them to myself and do what I can to fix them.
I haven’t found understanding this global warming thing to be all that complex. I’m guessing that’s because I learned early in life to look for the principles involved in something and master them. Once I’ve done that I can still understand, say a discussion on the physics of the thing even long after I’ve forgotten a lot of the details. I can always go back and look up the details; as I’ve had to do with the laws of thermodynamic, for instance.
Anyway…the principle that keeps me from stumbling over anyone’s arguments in support of climate change madness is that there needs to be evidence showing a link between the supposed cause and the supposed effect. And Jo’s The Skeptic’s Handbook was my real introduction into this stuff, courtesy of The Heritage Foundation. I took away a simple application of that cause and effect principle — there’s so little evidence linking CO2 to anything that it amounts to nothing. That CO2 can do what what it’s blamed for doing is not only not shown by any evidence, it’s not even a credible theory in my mind (I disagree with Jo on that point).
So you see me asking these trolls for evidence of a link and you see them staying very silent about it. I’ve never had an answer.
Either I’m either crazy or one of the few sane ones on the planet. 😉
10
I don’t want to make mistakes, either, but I certainly don’t want other’s mistakes messing up my life. There’s so much of that out there that I try to hang onto anything I still have control over and can be blamed for!
On this blog, it works to discuss the basics of science. However, if you get in with the SkS type thinkers, they are very short on scientific methodology and mistakes and very big on asking for examples and so forth. I have a background in science, social science and philosophy. Spotting the errors in climate change was not hard, especially if I just look at at the methods and the attitudes of the scientists. However, that leaves me kind of short in the “give me examples” department. It’s probably a good learning exercise that I have to go back and find the specifics. I was used to logic and reasoning types of exchanges, but then the “science only” threw me off base.
10
Everything the IPCC says is irrelevant. THERE WILL be a new LIA – MIA the evidence is there. Extremely cold winters in the NH which have been getting longer for the glast decade continually. Theres is now a Grand solar minimum with lower sunspot numbers than expected for cycle 24 which has nearly failed. The world has totally gone the wrong direction we need to prepare for a new Iceage not a fake ‘great heating’. The economies will collapse and people will die on mass as the extreme cold strikes. Unfortunately it is unlikely that the perpetrators (Gov liers, Wall St. banksters, fake climate scientists, idiot extreme greenies etc.) will ever get the jail time (time in Siberian salt mine @ -70C) they deserve.
20
HERE for more evidence
http://icecap.us/
10
Damnation, I’ve just lost a long post explaining why no hot spot. I’m late to the pub so, biefly:
Oil and surfactant pollution reduce stratocumulus cover. Enough oil and surfactant comes down the world’s rivers to coat the oceans every four weeks.
Google NASA shiptracks to understand some of the mechanism.
JF
Sorry, skiffle is more important than explaining Australia drought effect caused by India and China suppressing your aerosols. I did a 750 word explanation somewhere on Judith Curry’s site, it should be there somewhere. right, pub!
02
And still none of the usual trolls except Nice One, who got shot down point by point.
40
Nice One seems to be the argument through verbosity type, ignoring the details are against them and just posting falsehoods that take a little effort to see through.
But with lots of points that little effort starts to mount up to a lot.
If someone isn’t willing to answer them point by point (like Jo has above) then they claim victory.
Well done to Jo for actually taking the time to answer Nice One
10
Here is the latest attempt by some to explain Trenberths travesty
1] The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean’s role in the Earth’s energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observational-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
I like the way they call it elusive LOL, so now we have to revert to a reanalysis, but why do that when we can look directly at the data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-microwave-sea-surface-temperature-update-for-feb-2013/
Sorry but no matter how hard i look i aint seeing no warming.
00
[…] Read complete article on Jo Nova’s site. Rate this:Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailStumbleUponLike this:Like Loading… « Climate Nutters Go Full Stupid!!! Suddenly Forget Laws Of Physics!!! Antarctic Ice Growing Because Heat Is Lingering At Depths!!! New political sections » […]
00
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/ipcc-plays-hot-spot-hidey-games-in-ar5-denies-28-million-weather-ba… […]
00
D. The graph is still visually deceptive. Anyone glancing at the graph, would draw a false conclusion even if the observations matched the forecasts perfectly.
You forgot one.
—–
Yep. If the observations matched the radiosondes and I said “they didn’t”, I’d be deceptive. They don’t, and I didn’t.
So do you want me to publish your points A to D? — Jo
00
Excellent expose Jo. Each iteration of the IPCC report tries to hide the already discovered problems with the “consensus” analysis, regardless of how those problems keep growing. Surprising that more of the rats aren’t jumping this sinking anti-science ship. Shows that it is not just self-preservation that motivates them. They are ideologically loyal to anti-science, willing to sacrifice themselves for it.
My explanation? Their true ideology is anti-capitalism. They have a foundational belief that economic liberty and the economic growth it produces is gobbling up the natural world and so to save the planet they must find some way to restrain economic activity. Pretending that human consumption of fossil fuels imperils the planet fits this bill very nicely. They aren’t actually physical scientists at all, but are just really bad economists.
In fact, the absolute best thing for the planet is economic growth, which primarily comes through technological progress, allowing us to do more with less, as is obvious from even a cursory comparison between the environmental health of first world and third world countries.
21
A. You seem to think I want them to match, they don’t. I know that.
[Thank you for finally admitting the graphs don’t match. congratulations. -Jo]
Other evidence, newer evidence, ones that don’t solely rely on HadAT, DO find better agreement.
[The draft of the IPCC 5AR says they still don’t match. You had better call their office. They need you. -Jo]
But your deceptive comparison ensures that it looks more different than it otherwise would.
[See The Post. The Hadley radiosondes don’t match the models, but it’s hidden by clutter in their graphs. Let me know when you write to the IPCC to complain they are deceptive OK? The IPCC could have put a comparative graph next to their fingerprints graph. They didn’t. -Jo]
And you are STILL guessing what the first two decades might have been.
[I’ve used the maximum possible estimate. It still fails. -Jo]
That is not a scientific approach.
[The IPCC are 90% certain. The models don’t match the observations with their most important feedback. That’s how you define science. I’m glad I don’t “fit”. -Jo]
You are the one to bring PART of the pg166 graph into the picture and compare it against something quite different. A pretty silly thing to do.
Did you just not realise, or was the thought of comparing it against a bigger hotspot just too tempting for you?
[Answered above. #1.1.1 and #1.1.1.3.1 -Jo]
B. Part of it is in the tropics. That you didn’t know this makes this new point even more pertinent.
[The hotspot is 30S – 30N, not 15N – 75N. You can’t be serious? -Jo]
E. You are expecting people to pick out a small section of each of those graphs (to represent the tropics and the upper troposphere), figure out that they are of different forcings and of different colour ranges, with different uncertainties and then pixel-by-pixel determine the differences. Why do that when you could have used the CCSP comparison?
[Well given that you’ve now admitted my graphs do show the models don’t match the obs, we can move on. Good. In those three graphs you think match the radiosondes — all of them fail in the stratosphere. None of them are representative. -Jo]
Yes, you are very deceptive and dishonest and you hide these posts away so people don’t see just how pathetic you really are.
[I guess that’s why this comment and 5000 wild unbacked insulting words are not visible and you aren’t reading them now? -Jo]
You’ve no real justification for placing all of my posts in moderation, except that it gives you a false sense of control.
[Actually I’ve no real justification for letting you post repetitive anonymous baseless insults, but since there are so few fans of AGW who bother to defend their faith, I’ll take what I can get. -Jo]
00
Nice One, I don’t know why your and my comments are being displayed in the wrong order.
You made #56 after #67, and #58 last.
Here’s why I didn’t find the graph on page 116 CCSP Chapter 5 report informative or convincing.
1. The big fingerprint graphs were presented as definitive predictions in both the CCSP, IPCC report and it started back in 1984 with Hansen et al. The Hot spot is specifically due to “Greenhouse gases”. Isn’t it dishonest of the IPCC to pretend that 3 of 4 of their models don’t predict their own stated greenhouse fingerprint? The Hadley graph on page 116 was the best comparative graph I could find (you haven’t found a better one either). Why wouldn’t the IPCC publish a better one? Ans: They can’t.
2. The IPCC not only have 23 models to pick from — they have dozens of versions of each model. This below is the graph you think is so important. Note how the three that do match the radiosondes for the hot spot, don’t match in the stratosphere.
3. These graphs are not representative of the rest they use. On page 111, the CCSP compare “49 different realizations of 20CEN experiments performed with 19 different coupled models.” See Table 5.4. They publish those results in Figure 5.4.
You can see that most of the models give wildly different results to most of the observations.
4. Page 111. They describe how the models fail with 3 of the 4 major sets, and barely overlap RSS. Did the CCSP cherry pick these graphs? Seems so.
In the model results, trends in the two measures
of tropical lapse rate (TS minus T2LT and
TS minus T*T) are almost invariably negative,
indicating larger warming aloft than at the
surface (Figure 5.4F,G). Similar behavior is
evident in only one of the four upper-air data
sets examined here (RSS). The RSS trends
are just within the range of model solutions
01
Might I just say that after finding IPCC plays hot-spot
hidey games in AR5 on Silex, what a delight to find someone who basically understands
what they’re talking about on the web. You seriously realize how to bring a problem to light and make it worthwhile. Many more people have got to have a look at this and understand this side of the story. I can’t
believe you’re not more widespread, since you most really have the gift.
00
AGWScienceFiction’s fake fisics has taken out the Water Cycle which takes heat away from the surface and releases it in the colder heights, that’s how we get our weather.
If they put back the Water Cycle there is no “33°C warming by greenhouse gases from -18°C it would be without them”, because the Earth without water but with the rest of the atmosphere in place, practically all nitrogen and oxygen, would be 67°C and not minus 18°C. Think deserts.
The real greenhouse gas blanket is the real gas atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen. Not the frankly idiotic trace gas carbon dioxide which makes a blanket of practically 100% holes..
00
[…] To cut a long story short, the 95% certainty of Working Group I boils down to climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause in surface temperature trends (von Storch 2013) . Even under the most generous interpretation, models are proven failures, 100% right except for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else (Taylor 2012). They get cloud feedbacks wrong by a factor 19 times larger than the entire effect of increased CO2 (Miller 2012). They don’t predict the climate on a local, regional, or continental scale (Anagnostopoulos 2010 and Koutsoyiannis 2008). They don’t work on the tropical troposphere (Christy 2010, Po-Chedley 2012, Fu 2011, Paltridge 2009). The fingerprints they predicted are 100% missing. […]
00