Dear all, thanks for your patience – I had a rough trip back from the States with not one, but two flight cancellations. Back in Australia and will be blogging tomorrow.
Good to be back!
Mike @ WtD
Dear all, thanks for your patience – I had a rough trip back from the States with not one, but two flight cancellations. Back in Australia and will be blogging tomorrow.
Good to be back!
Mike @ WtD
Glad you made it back safely.
IMO America does air travel worse than just about anyone else, including the tin pot third world countries I have visited.
I have grim memories of being shuffled from one queue to the other and back again half a dozen times by increasingly angry airport security at LAX, until I finally called them both together to talk to each other, so they could make a joint decision which queue I should join.
Eric,
The problems with air travel in the US are apparently not new. My father spent over 40 minutes at LA Airport waiting for a bus at a stop where they were supposed to leave every ten minutes.
http://whenangelstravel.net/Memphis.php
I think LAX is special even for a US airport – apparently a couple of expansions were vetoed, which has caused chaos.
I had an easier time passing through multi layered third world bureaucracy in Santa Domingo airport, than trying to get to my plane in LAX. At least in Santa Domingo you could just pay the officials a bit of money to get to the next stage.
two years ago I flew to melbourne from NY. i was waiting in the terminal in LAX and wondered why my flight was not coming up at the gate. I had arrived a couple of hours early, so I assumed the flight after the one boarding would be mine. Yet it was not. When the new gate attendants came on, I asked them and they told me “Oh, that is in a different terminal. You have to back outside security go to the other terminal, go through security again and then get to the same gate number. Nobody bothered to tell me when i got the ticket. then in Sydney I had to go to another terminal again, and was almost late because they confiscated my spiruina powder at customs.
would not want to be a Saudi pressure cooker salesman in the US at present,
a bad day but how can they just ignore the 25 firearm murders per day and almost lock the country down over this, it is a daily hazard in Iraq.
in other words you have a far greater chance of some bastard shooting you than being killed by some mad bomber
An Algerian friend was passing through JFK in 2002, when the customs guy asked him what was the purpose of his visit to the USA.
He answered “Training”.
At this point things got fairly heated, until he pulled out paperwork to prove he was returning from a course at the US head office of a merchant bank.
Good pub story – but I hope he doesn’t try it again.
PETM boundary
a sobering perspective
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8UOKVCVknOc/UW3fFGiJFsI/AAAAAAAAJpc/UFy62K3pMKk/s1600/735375689457-668×340.jpg
Brr. Oh, maybe not. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/3
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-single-study-syndrome-nic-lewis-edition.html
Interesting that SkS don’t immediately toss a study which suggests a climate sensitivity of 1.6c / doubling. Methinks we are seeing the early stages of a climbdown.
Your problem is to view the whole issue in terms of “right” versus “wrong”, or “climbdowns”. That is a simple ignorant non-scientific approach to the problem.
There is nothing wrong with a thorough, careful, logical analysis of the data which this study appears to be. Scientists actually welcome these studies. And, subject to careful scrutiny, the conclusions seem plausible.
i.e. that the sensitivity could be at the lower end of previous estimates. That does not prove anybody right or wrong. It simply narrrows the uncertainty that has been there all along.
Since you referred to it, the obvious question is:
Do you believe the conclusions of this study? (i.e. that the sensitivity could be close to +1.6 deg).
A simple YES or NO will suffice.
I agree it is possible, though I think it is unlikely to be that high. Given the last 16 years of CO2 emissions, during which 1/3 of all anthropogenic CO2 ever produced has failed to shift the surface temperature, I suggest that the case for non anthropogenic forcings being responsible for a significant proportion of 20th century climate change is quite strong – hence the recent appearance of papers exploring the lower end of “acceptable” climate sensitivity.
The drift downwards in “acceptable” sensitivity estimates does raise an important question though – at what point do you guys apologise to Richard Lindzen for calling him a denier? Because a lower bound of 1.1c (the bottom edge of the 95% confidence band) intersects with some of his estimates.
As “acceptable” estimates of climate sensitivity drift downwards, the climate sensitivity estimates of Lindzen and other “deniers” are going to become more mainstream – and the name calling which he is endured will seem increasingly like a brutal unjustified assault on the integrity of a scientist, who future history will demonstrate was more right than wrong.
Lindzen has argued for low sensitivity for over two decades. The passing of that time has debunked his argument,simply and objectively,even with the so-called slow-down.
History,Eric. Learn some.
Are you sure? My point is papers like the Nic Lewis study are now exploring climate sensitivities which just a few years ago would have been considered “denier” territory.
The “passing of time”, and the observed lack of warming, is making low climate sensitivities more plausible Nick. Given that we haven’t necessarily seen the end of this process of considering ever lower sensitivities, its now IMO not beyond the bounds of possibility that Lindzen’s estimate, in a decade, will be considered mainstream.
Of course, you’re free to argue the Lewis study is an outlier, unlikely to be repeated. Time will tell.
The lower bound of the Charney sensitivity has been 1.5C since 1979.
The SkS article suggests a 95% confidence lower bound of 1.1c.
DS, this is something you could possibly work out – how many additional years of flatlining temperature will it take to reduce the lower bound of the 95% confidence level?
I’m genuinely interested in the answer – it will be fascinating in a few years to revisit this estimate.
Sorry, my question was probably a little unclear.
What I’m looking for is an equation I can use to estimate this metric.
For example, can this metric be reduced to a statement like each additional year of flatlining temperatures corresponds to a 0.05c reduction in the lower bound of the 95% confidence level of climate sensitivity?
Obviously this would be a simplification, a rough estimate, not a precise calculation.
Genuine curiosity? You said that 1.6C was “denier” territory but my link showed that the mainstream estimate was 1.5-4.5C,
I’ve already calculated statistical significance of the trend in UAH data. It didn’t matter- people who say they’re interested in statistics often end up just repeating misinformation.
But if you actually look at the PDF, you’ll notice that there hasn’t been a statistically significant change in the rate of warming. Thus your question is like asking how many years the carnivorous unicorn outbreak is going to continue.
According to SkS, 1.1c is on the lower edge of the 95% confidence band, so even 1.1c isn’t really denier territory anymore, is it?
My question though is genuine – I’m curious whether anyone has calculated what impact a continuation of the current flatline would have on the range of plausible climate sensitivities. Obviously hypothetical and all that – but surely someone has done this.
More discussion of statistical significance.
DS, has noone calculated what impact a continuation of the current flatline would have on sensitivity estimates? Or don’t you wan’t to give me the answer?
Just look at the estimates on that SkS page. The lower error bars of the lowest individual studies are low, and the upper error bars of the highest individual studies are high. Neither fact involves this d-word.
Apparently your curiosity isn’t genuine, because otherwise reading the two links I provided would have revealed that there is no carnivorous unicorn outbreak.
Wow, after I gave you two links describing statistical significance, you continue to ask about the carnivorous unicorn outbreak? Why? Just read them and learn. Please?
Eric,calculating equilibrium climate sensitivity to doubled [280-560ppm] is not affected by what weather noise/natural variability delivers to mean global air temperature in decade 2000-2010,or any other decade.
On another tangent, BAU means we end up with a more than doubled atmospheric CO2e situation,anyway.
Wow, after I gave you two links describing statistical significance, you continue to ask about the carnivorous unicorn outbreak? Why? Just read them and learn. Please?
A simple answer to my question would have sufficed.
You could have said something like “if the current flatline continues for another 4 years, I would expect the lower bound of the 95% confidence range of climate sensitivity to drop by 0.1c”.
Instead, you direct me to a long discussion. Educational, I’m sure, but its not really a direct answer to my question.
Nick, the importance of an increase in CO2 hinges on estimates of climate sensitivity. If sensitivity is low, the benefits of CO2 (increased plant growth) more than outweigh any negative consequences. At 1.1c / doubling, it would be quite an effort to hit the “2c” danger point.
The direct answer to your question is that there’s been no statistically significant change in the rate of warming. Look at the PDF I offered to see why, or read the other discussion I offered. There’s no need to talk about a carnivorous unicorn outbreak.
That’s the same reasoning I use whenever I play Russian roulette. I look at the lowest error bar on the most optimistic projection, and then pull the trigger.
Luckily, I’m only risking my own life and not those of future generations.
Yet the flatline continues. Perhaps since the warming is still occurring, you would would offer a prediction of when the flatline in surface temperatures will end? I’m happy to accept a range of values.
It would be nice to tie this “global warming is continuing” statement down to a falsifiable prediction.
‘Increasing CO2=increasing plant growth’…simple! Never mind that CO2 is not the limiting factor for most plants optimal growth. Never mind that plant yields fall beyond optimal temperature ranges. Never mind that increasingly erratic weather threatens agricultural success. Never mind the dynamic and worsening global agricultural and environmental weed crisis which is potentiated by your desired CO2 increase and two centuries of non-existent and poor biosecurity.
The point of the SkS article was ‘beware single sensitivity study syndrome’
You’re proving it,Eric. You are motivated to favor lower numbers by your openly stated beliefs,that’s no secret. You want to continue BAU even though it makes even low ECS estimates more dangerous because in some scenarios we will triple pre-industrial CO2 levels.
You’re proving it,Eric. You are motivated to favor lower numbers by your openly stated beliefs,that’s no secret. You want to continue BAU even though it makes even low ECS estimates more dangerous because in some scenarios we will triple pre-industrial CO2 levels.
Not so Nick. I’m not a motivated “denier” in the sense you are implying. I’m not a fan of fossil fuels – as a pollution triggered asthmatic, in a very real sense continued use of fossil fuels is a threat to my life.
We don’t have to agree about CO2 to find a way to live together – nuclear power offers a solution to decarbonisation which should make you happy, which reduces my exposure to life threatening pollution, without forcing unwelcome changes upon other aspects of life which right wingers like myself value.
Good grief. Look at the PDF I offered. The error bars always include 0.15-0.25C, so there is no carnivorous unicorn outbreak.
Clariication: 0.15-0.25C/decade, which my second link showed was the IPCC’s relevant projection. That shows up as 0.015-0.025C/year in the graph I made.
Using Hadcrut 4 figures, the 30 year trend is right on the bottom of that estimate.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1983/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1983/trend
So if the flatline continues, its not going to take very long before the 30 year trend drops below 0.15c / decade.
In your opinion, assuming zero change in temperature from today’s temperature, how many additional years of flatlining surface temperatures would constitute falsification of the IPCC estimate?
N’th repetition of the question: “How many additional years of this carnivorous unicorn outbreak would constitute falsification of the “no carnivorous unicorns” theory?”
Answer: Once again, you clearly don’t understand my point. There’s been no statistically significant change in the rate of warming. There is no carnivorous unicorn outbreak. The fact that you keep asking is just more evidence that you’re not genuinely curious. You’re simply employing motivated reasoning like before.
I’m bored with this pointless nonsense, and I’m going to sleep. Please have the last word.
Erric, you’re making a fool of yourself.
Your question has been answered.
All you are doing is demonstrating the DK effect.
If surface temperatures don’t start rising soon, as in the next few years, the 30 year trend will undershoot the lower bound of the IPCC estimate of 0.15c / decade.
No amount of high handed nonsense about carnivorous unicorns will avert this.
A real scientist would not consider a question about the falsification conditions of a scientific theory to be a tiresome waste of time – though a dumb scientist might.
Stop it Erric, or you’ll go blind.
AGW theory is not ‘falsified’ by flatlining periods of air temperature rise,or periods of decline . AGW theory is predicated on understanding that the system has many forcings which do not line up,which often oppose each other as much as work together. This is fundamental and is laid out in every one of the IPCC reports. If air temperature declines AGW theory already includes and explains that possibility: increased aerosols/major widespread and enduring vulcanism/slower ocean feedback/unpredictable change in solar output [which we have not seen recently BTW]. Don’t attempt to argue otherwise,unless you genuinely don’t know where in the reports these issues are covered.
DS is saying that since the behavior of GAT,as an expression of part of the physical process we understand to be occurring, shows no statistically significant departure from the predicted long term rising trend,then your question is ill-posed
AGW theory is not ‘falsified’ by flatlining periods of air temperature rise,or periods of decline . AGW theory is predicated on understanding that the system has many forcings which do not line up,which often oppose each other as much as work together.
If your theory cannot be falsified, then it is not scientific – it is an expression of faith.
One of the predictions of AGW theory was the IPCC prediction that the globe would warm at between 0.15 – 0.25c / decade. Its not unreasonable to assume that the reason for the range of temperatures is the forcings “which often oppose each other as much as work together”.
If global surface temperatures don’t start rising soon, or if they continue dropping, the 30 year decadal trend will drop below 0.15c. At that point, if it occurs, it is reasonable to conclude that the IPCC prediction of 0.15 – 0.25c / decade has been falsified.
google it, creationists claim exactly the same about evolution so not surprised that eric would push that line
http://www.debate.org/debates/Evolution-cannot-be-falsified/1/
Evolution theory has been validated through observational support of important non trivial predictions. My favourite is Darwin’s Butterfly – Charles Darwin’s famous prediction that since a flower existed which required a 12 inch proboscis to reach the nectar, that a moth or butterfly must exist which had such a proboscis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphingidae
Evolution has never failed, to my knowledge, to do a better job of predicting non trivial phenomena than any rival theory.
Alarmist climate theory, by contrast, keeps having to apologise for its string of failed predictions – for example, the way current temperatures are bumping along below Hansen’s Scenario C (emissions cease in 2000), and the way the decadal trend is about to crash through the bottom of the IPCC estimate.
To compare a successful theory like evolution to the half baked defective nonsense which is alarmist climate theory is utterly absurd.
You’ve just posted via WFTrees a thirty year pause in warming that occurred while CO2 increased…then as we know warming resumed,in confirmation of the views of the time. What does that tell you about ‘falsifiability? In a simple sense,pauses and declines are to be expected. There are forces at work that can and do make GHG warming non-monotonic.
The theory is fundamentally that forcings govern GAT. Thus adding GHGs will raise GAT to a new equilibrium because of the way the atmosphere functions all other things being relatively equal. Or adding sufficient SO2 over long periods will depress GAT. mIt’s that simple. If and when opposing forcings can overwhelm CO2,the theory is not disproven it’s confirmed. The theory is not ‘we think CO2 will raise GAT, but we don’t know why’. Doubt over how much /how fast is not doubt about the fundamental physics.
The theory would be ‘falsified’ if radiation physics proved wrong,and forcing signs were misunderstood utterly. Or if the stratosphere warmed instead of cooled under increasing CO2. Our whole understanding of climate would have to be wrong. Enhanced GH theory is simply an extension of known physics. It has many predictions,most of which have been realised.
A change in warming rate does not falsify AGW. A change in rate does not dictate that warming will be less by extension,or that ultimate sea levels will be lower.
I’ve never suggested adding CO2 to the atmosphere won’t cause some warming.
What I am arguing is that the evidence does not support the theory that any amount of CO2 we are likely to add to the atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming.
As my “escalator” demonstrates, the RS escalator does not prove that we are not in an early stages of a sustained pause in global warming.
What should concern you is the scientists at RS should know this – so why produce a nonsense graph, and promote it as if it means something?
Yours is the word ‘catastrophic’…the IPCC does not use the term ‘catastrophic’ but you certainly like your nice tidy story,don’t you. After a meter of sea level rise,we will have a new appreciation of the word ‘costly’. In fact,we will get there with less than a metre.
Welcome back, Mike.
Here’s some black comedy. Watts builds a strawman and gets Happer to wave his magic natural logs.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/knock-me-down-with-happer-anthony-watts.html
Now that all but the most entrenched deniers have moved from “it’s not happening” to arguing about whether climate sensitivity is 2 or 3 degrees, Anthony’s had to resort to uttery nuttery to fill up his blog.
That is shockingly mendacious,even for Watts….you’re right,desperate times,dismal responses.
Hilarious – just a little earlier in this blog, DS was arguing that 1.5c is the low end of acceptable estimates of climate sensitivity.
At least agree your narrative with each other.
Have you missed the point,Eric? Happer is ‘disproving’ a strawman. Fatih Birol did not say he or we were ‘looking at 6C by 2050′.
here are a few things that are all equally true, conveniently plotted for your amusement:
The linear trend in HadCRUT4 from August 1997 to August 2012 (181 months) is 0.03ºC/decade (blue) (In GISTEMP it is 0.08ºC/decade, not shown)
.
The trend from August 1975 to July 1997 is 0.16ºC/dec (green), and the trend to August 2012 is 0.17ºC/dec (red)
.
The ten years to August 2012 were warmer than the previous 10 years by 0.15ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, and which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC (purple).
The continuation of the linear trend from August 1975 to July 1997 (green dashed), would have predicted a temperature anomaly in August 2012 of 0.524ºC. The actual temperature anomaly in August 2012 was 0.525ºC.
The first point might suggest to someone that the tendency of planet to warm as a function of increases in greenhouse gases has been interrupted.
The second point might suggest that warming since 1997 has actually accelerated
, the third point suggests that trends are quite stable, and the last point is actually quite astonishing, though fortuitous. Since all of these things (and many others) are equally true (in that their derivation from the underlying dataset is simply a mechanical application of standard routines), it is clear that our expectation for the future shouldn’t be simply based on an extrapolation of any one or two of them – the situation is too complex for that.Gavin
Link please John?
sorry zoot. been out
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/short-term-trends-another-proxy-fight/
Thank you John.
That graphic is very, well, graphic. Ample evidence for anybody with a brain.
But it won’t convince our Erric, not until it appears on Reverend Watts’ site.
Hey I can produce a pretty escalator graph as well.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1905/to:1960/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1905/to:1960/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1905/to:1915/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1919/to:1930/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1934/to:1952/trend
Given that, with hindsight, the 1940s – 1970s saw a prolonged decline in temperatures, building an escalator which ends in the 1960s doesn’t demonstrate that global warming has not paused.
1940s – 1970s.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1970/trend
Now you’ve done that,Eric, ponder on it awhile…
Now you’ve done that,Eric, ponder on it awhile…
Given that even Phil Jones admits CO2 did not dominate climate until after the 1950s, whatever caused the rise in temperature in my “escalator” must have been a natural forcing.
Why dont you “ponder on that for awhile”, Nick. And ponder on the fact that I can draw an escalator graph not unlike John’s graph, that includes a substantial part of a period which is now acknowledged to have been a long period of mildly declining temperatures – and what it means for the significance of the RC “escalator”.
you have failed to understand the word dominate in this context,
Yes Eric, stop digging, dominate does not mean monopolize or exclude all others
And quit the immature loaded language: Jones did not ‘admit’ anything,he was not under interrogation,and he was not being asked to agree or disagree with a statement…once again if you’d read an IPCC report you’d find out all the ‘admissions’ of the scientific consensus position are in plain sight. They’re called statements.
If CO2 can be suppressed by natural forcings for 16 years, then some of the 1990s warming could have been natural forcings aligning with CO2.
Given that the late 20th century saw some unusual natural forcings, such as the highest level of solar activity for 8000 years, you can really start to question whether CO2 was as significant a factor as alarmists claim it was.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html
That paper says that temperature rises since the seventies cannot be attributed to solar factors. As also claims Pasini et al 2012 since the 1960s.
You can also see that Solanki et als reconstruction for the last 11400 years comes adrift through the Holocene Optimum.
flatline temperatures
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/_/rsrc/1359120486349/home/piomas/grf/pgd-volsep1.png
Keep looking in those gaps for your dangerous warming John.
Most (>90%) of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a result of radiative imbalance from GHG forcing is going into the ocean. See Levitus et al. (2012).
The claim that a brief increase in the rate at which energy diffuses into the upper ocean layer somehow “falsifies” AGW is nonsense.
The inclusion of recent observational data into hybrid calculations of climate sensitivity biases the results low.
The IPCC prediction of decadal surface temperature warming was supposed to take all this into account. If in the next few years, as expected, the observations undershoot the lower bound of the prediction, I guess we can safely conclude they got their calculations wrong.
Perhaps they also miscalculated how much global warming the Earth can absorb before surface temperatures shift significantly? This could have a significant effect on peak global temperature, when calculated against expected CO2 emissions and residency.
CO2 won’t be emitted forever. If we keep burning fossil fuels at current exponentially rising rates, we’ll probably run out in 50 years or so. If the top few metres of ocean hold the same amount of heat as the entire atmosphere, and if deep ocean mixing regularly removes large amounts of heat for prolonged periods, the peak heating we can expect from this FF burn, even if IPCC calculations of climate sensitivity are correct, could be a lot lower than predicted.
Funny things happen to your calculations when you introduce new factors in a panicked attempt to explain why you didn’t get it wrong.
When the strong warming trend resumes in the next few years, you will be proven to be mistaken. Since the energy is indisputably in the ocean (Levitus12 and others) then it is already clear that your hyper-focus on surface air temperature is misguided.
First, I would like to see your source for this assertion. Second it is barely relevant even if correct:
dT=2.8ln(800/280)ln(2)=4.2C
For 800ppmv CO2 where ECS/2xCO2=2.8C and pre-industrial CO2 concentration is 280ppmv.
So you are claiming that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas,
that is just too stupid to be worth a reply
No, I never said CO2 is not a greenhouse gas – I just don’t think it is the main driver of climate change.
It is one of several. But with the atmospheric fraction of CO2 now at ~396ppmv and concomitant forcing higher than at any time since the mid-Pliocene (~3Ma), it is emerging as the dominant driver.
Why do you not “think” this to be the case? Are you an atmospheric physicist by the way?
No.
But I’d have to be an idiot not to question failed predictions, and biased scientific practices. Hiding the decline is not part of any valid scientific protocol I was ever taught – its the sort of thing people did to try to conceal sloppy experimental technique.
I once did a physics experiment in class – momentum and kinetic energy, balls rolling down a slope then flying through the air, striking carbon paper.
My partner agreed to record the observations, I agreed to do the math.
Unknown to me, he decided our results weren’t “good enough” – they didn’t produce a clean conclusion. So he fiddled the location of the ball strikes to make the momentum calculations agree with the theory.
But the reason he wanted me to do the math quickly became apparent – he completely messed up the kinetic energy.
He would have made a good climate seantist.
Eric
What ‘failed predictions’? Seriously,what have the posers and explorers of the GH theory failed to predict??
This is really silly stuff from you,Eric.
Like this failed prediction Erric?
(My emphasis) From http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/ice-hockey/
Why is yesterday’s response to Eric Worrall in moderation? Still.
Eric Worrall says:
You would have to be an idiot to believe in this grotesque mischaracterisation of “climate science”.
Are you an idiot, Eric?
Eric
Your response is waffle.
It is one of several. But with the atmospheric fraction of CO2 now at ~396ppmv and concomitant forcing higher than at any time since the mid-Pliocene (~3Ma), it is emerging as the dominant driver.
Why do you not “think” this to be the case? Explain your reasoning.
Where is the flaw in the physics? Demonstrate it.
GHG forcings are uncontroversially calculated (eg here).
Eric Worrall says:
April 19, 2013 at 11:10 am
Evolution theory has been validated through observational support of important non trivial predictions. My favourite is Darwin’s Butterfly – Charles Darwin’s famous prediction that since a flower existed which required a 12 inch proboscis to reach the nectar, that a moth or butterfly must exist which had such a proboscis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphingidae
Evolution has never failed, to my knowledge, to do a better job of predicting non trivial phenomena than any rival theory.
Alarmist climate theory, by contrast, keeps having to apologise for its string of failed predictions – for example, the way current temperatures are bumping along below Hansen’s Scenario C (emissions cease in 2000), and the way the decadal trend is about to crash through the bottom of the IPCC estimate.
To compare a successful theory like evolution to the half baked defective nonsense which is alarmist climate theory is utterly absurd.
yet the creationist still claim that evolution cannot be falsified,
read again, cannot be falsified, which is the same claim that you have made about co2 greenhouse effect
try to remain coherent
Just to get you back on track
eric”If your theory cannot be falsified, then it is not scientific – it is an expression of faith.”
creationists” evolution cannot be falsified so it is not scientific”
now try to focus
Generally when a prediction of a theory is falsified, its time to at least revise the theory.
Will a 30 year decadal warming trend less than the minimum predicted by the IPCC constitute falsification of the theory which produced that prediction? Or is the IPCC prediction just PR fluff, not really backed by science?
No and no.
I forgot sorry – climate seance doesn’t do falsification.
if you want to falsify the theory then know what it is ,
the theory is the carbon dioxide greenhouse theory
good luck proving the physics wrong
“I forgot..” …you did not know. “Climate seance..” you’re reduced to second-hand sneering. This is why we never make progress.
Erric, have you worked out what DS was getting at yet? Or do you still insist there is an outbreak of carnivorous dinosaurs?
Die Zeit complains Germany was supposed to be warm like Italy – instead it is cold like Finland.
http://translate.google.com.au/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeit.de%2F2013%2F17%2Fharald-martenstein-klimawandel
They’re laughing at you in green Europe.
Before it was just Der Spiegel, a right wing German newspaper. Now Die Zeit has joined them. Thats at least 2 major German daily newspapers. How many more voices have to be added to the climate of doubt, before Germany backs away from her green policies?
Isn’t it funny how consensus amongst 97% of climate scientists counts for nothing, but two mainstream newspapers are an authoritative consensus.
You’ll be quoting The Australian next.
Every time an opinion writer says winter is cold, WUWT and Eric are there.
Because Eric and Watts have no science to back them up they have to scour the world’s newspapers instead, looking for whatever remote denier article they can find. With google translate, you can translate articles from almost anywhere. If fake skeptics put a tenth as much effort into reading science they wouldn’t have to bother with opinion writers complaining about winter – in whatever language.
Who needs science when you can have this:
James Hansen eat your heart out.
Looks as if it’s Harald Martenstein who will be laughing, if he ever reads the blogs of fake skeptics. WUWT pwnd!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/19/the-unraveling-of-global-warming-is-accelerating/#comment-1280434
The ten years to August 2012 were warmer than the previous 10 years by 0.15ºC, which
were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC
, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, and which were warmer than
the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC (purple).
getting a bit picky over 2/100ths of a degree
I found another denier via denmor on HotCopper. Not anyone anybody would be expected to know. He’s just some honorary adjunct geologist who managed to get affiliated at UWA (ie retired, no pay, nothing better to do than write in unknown polish geographic magazines).
A gish gallop of the usual claptrap (worse than Bob Carter. Probably on par with Ian Plimer).
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/dissecting-denmors-denial.html
sent an email to cliff and explained his mistake he replied
“even Pachauri accepts that the warming stopped 16 years ago”
that was the best argument he could come up with, a newspaper opinion piece?
According to desmogblog, he’s a stooge of the Lavoisier Group. Not surprising. They say he’s an emeritus professor, but UWA website only lists him as a “honorary research fellow” (which is a 3 year appointment only AFAIK).
http://www.desmogblog.com/cliff-ollier
The “journal” is mickey mouse and far from cutting edge or even solid. His “paper” will likely not get much attention outside of a few of the more extreme denier blogs.
I sent an email to the Dean and the head of school. I don’t expect them to take any notice, seeing they must have been the ones to give him his current honorary post. But at least it will be on record.
Australia over exposed to fossil fuel
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-20/report-warns-of-unburnable-carbon-scenario/4641144
“Citigroup’s analysts conclude that while the unburnable carbon scenario is an investment risk, the more likely scenario is greater fossil fuel use and a greater degree of global warming.”
I hope Citigroup’s analysts are wrong for the sake of my great-nieces and nephews.
I’ve been bangin’ on about that for ages. Our fossil fuel ‘bounty’ is actually an unrealistically priced ball-and-chain around the leg of prudent policy. Hence the haste at getting it dug up before the penny drops with institutional investors.
We are in Australia being royally screwed by the Austrian school and globalism. Small population large country history of high wages…economic deregulators and clueless politicians have exposed the country to death by a thousand cuts,as our manufacturing heads offshore,then our services themselves,leaving us with extractive industries and agriculture [facing tariffs]. Thus “Quarry Australia” has a free passage in the name of generating income and buying those things that we are too doctrinaire to manufacture here.
Our dependence on the dead end of coal and gas has becoming more entrenched by decree and slavery to doctrine. Our ability to legislate in our own environmental interest is hamstrung.
You guys are hilarious – you actually think anyone would leave valuable fossil fuels in the ground? Even if you are right about global warming, staying comfortable as the Earth burns will take a lot of energy – those 8Kw household air conditioners don’t power themselves.
When enough economists realise it’s more valuable in the ground, yes.
Mondeo man will win that battle.
Noone really cares if a few Africans fry, as long as they can refuel the ute. And if you are right, the ute will also need lots of cheap energy to power the big new automobile air conditioner.
The people who will suffer most in an age of harsh droughts, bitter cold, and climate chaos, are the people who refuse to use any scrap of cheap energy they can get their hands on.
Noone can look at their family and tell them “today is the day we die”, if there is any way to postpone that day, no matter how short term a solution, even if the ultimate consequences for the family and other people who might otherwise have survived are worse. Because people who are that desperate clutch at any straw to postpone the inevitable, even if they know that nothing can change the ultimate conclusion.
What a bleak POV! Any minute now and you’ll go all techno-optimist,and we can bin that comment,I suppose.
I think you’re the one who is being unreasonably optimistic. If your doomsday scenario is true, the tragedy of the commons will ensure people won’t act for the greater good.
Because the advantage of staying cool during scorching, life threatening heat, of harvesting food mechanically to stave off starvation, of being able to run hideously energy intensive desalination plants vs dying of thirst, far outweighs concerns about making things slightly worse in 10 years time.
Like the quote from “Lord of War” about HIV:-
“Why worry about something that will kill you in 10 years, when there are so many things that will kill you today?”
Bob Tisdale thinks I don’t know how Pinatubo affected the climate. His latest article shows him up as more ignorant than I thought about climate science. He’s diverted from his ENSO “plateaus” to write about CMIP5 – and is getting caught up in short term slopes (not proper stats analysis) and missing the bigger picture. (He also seems to have odd and inconsistent views about how models are constructed and what climate forcings have dominated at different times.)
Anyway, I’m getting a few visits from WUWT-ers. Not many. WUWT readers probably don’t follow links, they are too busy writing “climate science is crap and scientists don’t know nuffin’” Looking at IdiotTracker’s latest article, looks like WUWT’s readership has dropped a bit lately, too.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/tisdales-tricks.html
Yep,Bob’s nuts…and a tad long-winded.
Guys, I’m convinced – I just found my own hockey stick.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/fig3a.jpg
The start of your ‘stick’ shows that GAT and sunspot count are not in lockstep. Spot proxy shows high levels but the earth was in the LGA.
The spikes at the start of the graph coincide with a substantial warming event – the end of the last glaciation, which occurred around 11,000 years ago. The warmest period of the Holocene coincide nicely with the 8000 year spike.
Interesting though that say the Marcott reconstruction and looks remarkably like the NOAA sunspot reconstruction – at first I thought the NOAA graph was a temperature proxy reconstruction, until I checked the scale.
…and Milankovitch?
Why didn’t the high sunspot count of pre-10000y ago prevent the ice age ? Why all of a sudden after -10000 do sunspot and temp “sing together”? There’s 1500 years prior that shows a total decoupling…you realise that your sunspot idea is crap? And you remember Solanki et al 2004 discount solar influence post 1960s?
Yes, and Milankovitch.
But the hockey stick spike at the end of a long slow decline is striking, don’t you think? If the NOAA sunspot reconstruction is accurate, then the solar activity reconstruction has some striking similarities to reconstructions such as Marcott 2013.
Why didn’t the high sunspot count of pre-10000y ago prevent the ice age ?
Um, they may have – temperatures started soaring around 12,000 years ago. The reconstruction only goes back 12,000 years, which is a shame – I’d like to see further back as well.
Why all of a sudden after -10000 do sunspot and temp “sing together”? There’s 1500 years prior that shows a total decoupling…
See above – unless you are referring to a different period in the graph?
you realise that your sunspot idea is crap? And you remember Solanki et al 2004 discount solar influence post 1960s?
Given that 1940s – 1970s saw 30 years of mild cooling, despite soaring CO2, I’m a bit dubious about people who believe CO2 is the main driver of climate suggesting a short divergence between solar activity and global temperature falsifies solar activity as the main driver of climate change.
Arguing on one hand that CO2 surface warming can be concealed for extended periods by deep ocean heating, but on the other hand that solar activity must achieve near instantaneous equilibrium or be falsified, seems a rather blinked POV.
The recon goes back 11400 years,the years from 11400 to 10000 are decoupled from sunspot count. Sunspot count,and proxies for sunspot count, is not an unambiguous proxy for TSI.
Attribution studies listed in IPCC reports clearly include solar cycle variation in influencing temperature long term and contributing to some of post 1850 rise… but large decouplings –particularly at the start of the Solanki series– show that solar variation is not significant at all times. Other forcings can and do mask it or overwhelm it. This is what is happening now.
As well sunspot count methodology has a significant element of subjectivity that current researchers are trying to constrain. The Solar Grand Maximum of recent years is not set in stone.
I can see that the blue curve is Solanki but what is the red curve superposed at the end? And who put it there?
The sunspot reconstruction in Solanki et al. (2004) is derived from an 11,400y tree ring δ14C isotopic archive. This is not the final word on Holocene solar variability. The radiocarbon record *also* captures the effects of carbon cycling and deep ocean circulation changes *and* variability in solar magnetic flux/intensity of Earth’s geomagnetic dipole – see Snowball & Muscheler (2007). In other words, don’t over-interpret the Solanki curve because it is not what it seems.
Nick is correct to point to your apparent (and serious) confusion about the cause of glacial termination. This was a seasonal and spatial reorganisation of high latitude NH insolation caused by changing orbital dynamics (Milankovitch forcing). It has *nothing* to do with SSN.
As for modern SSN/GAT correlations – they break down over recent decades.
See for yourself.
Also, it is odd that you lift a figure from Solanki et al. (2004) but omit to quote this from the abstract:
I think you should leave paleoclimate alone, Eric. As I have already remarked once before.
Hello Eric
Now go here.
And then go here.