Scroll To Top

Sunday, April 20, 2014

HotWhopper Competition: Best Name for a Denier Lobby Group (in 25 words or less)

Sou | 7:59 PM Go to the first of 321 comments. Add a comment


CONTINUED: The number of comments has made the discussion difficult. I've closed this article to comments. Feel free to continue the discussion here.



NOTE: there are a lot of comments here, mostly about another topic altogether. It's my fault, I confess. Most comments are about the long-awaited and still-to-come WUWT paper that will "prove" all the temperature data sets are "wrong". I'm finding it hard to navigate and even hard to get all the comments to load. If you have the same problem and are wanting to read the comments, scroll to the bottom of the page and check if there is a note that says "load more" or similar, and click on it.

Sou 24 April 2014


Today Anthony Watts is asking his readers if there should be a fake sceptic/denier organisation formed (archived here, latest update here).  An "official" one.  Yes, another "official" one.

I don't know why he doesn't just piggy back on one of the existing ones, except that maybe he's looking to get paid to head it up.  Or maybe he's not satisfied with the current disreputable anti-science lobby groups and envisages himself as America's version of Lord Lawson. (He does cite the GWPF as an example of what he has in mind).

Not sure that he'll get that far.  This is the response from one of his readers.  It's not a Poe, unless someone has co-opted the internet nic.

Col Mosby says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:19 am
I’m not sure, but if there is one, Christopher Monckton should be its head.

If anyone wants to give Anthony a helping hand and suggest a name for the Watts/Monckton outfit, have at it.  While you're there you could suggest some funding sources :D


More from the WUWT comments


I can't resist (archived here)

Jimbo says he wants the world to know how dangerous they are /sarc (excerpt):
April 19, 2014 at 10:51 am
...We should be careful about the name. I suggest a ‘Dangerous Global Warming Skeptics Organisation’. 

Shub Niggurath advocates a stealth approach and says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:48 am
If there is an organization, it shouldn’t have the words ‘climate’ or ‘skeptic’ in its name.


David in Cal asks what's the point - he has a point:
April 19, 2014 at 10:48 am
It won’t do any good IMHO. The Heartland Institute plays this role, but the media ignore it. Another commenter pointed to the NIPCC. The media ignore them, too. Skeptics need to find a way to get fair media coverage, but that’s easier said than done.

pokerguy sums up the obstacles and says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:48 am
A firm “no” vote here. First it feels antithetical to the free thinking ethos embraced by most skeptics. When you talk about an starting an organization, you’re implying the need for some some sort of platform on which to base it. What are its goals? What are its core beliefs? Inevitably, we’d be trying to reach some sort of a consensus of our own. I don’t see it working. 

Eugene WR Gallun wants to adopt the name of Al Gore's setup and says (excerpt):
April 19, 2014 at 7:16 pm
...A name like the following with an attached mission statement:might set the tone.
CLIMATE REALITY — The past and the present compared and shoddy science exposed.

ren votes yes and says (excerpt):
April 19, 2014 at 10:52 pm
CLIMATE REALITY — The past and the present compared and shoddy science exposed.
100% yes. 

Conspiracy theorists vote NO!


Johnny says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:30 am
No. Because such an organisation would very easily be infiltrated and corrupted and turned into something it was not meant to be.

Katou says (excerpt):
April 19, 2014 at 12:19 pm
I voted yes but on thinking about it a little further ,that might not be a good idea .Any origination can be infiltrated and taken over .  


Walter Dnes says:
April 20, 2014 at 7:20 am
I voted “NO”. An official organization can be spied on, infiltrated, and taken over by a “Manchurian Candidate”, who would go out of their way to discredit climate skepticism. Skeptics are independant by nature… otherwise they wouldn’t be skeptics. They come from many different political/religious/social backgrounds, and have different takes on what’s wrong with the CAGW worldview. I believe that we should continue attacking on multiple fronts, which gives the warmists a hard time. And an organization would divert us from productive work on our cause, to internal politics. Do not want. 

Read more here if you've got some time to waste - there are over 300 comments.  Deniers have finally found something safe they can all disagree on.

321 comments :

  1. Thanks for pointing out that thread... I had missed it before.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would be in favor. By now it is clear that most WUWT posts are pure misinformation and it is hard to convince someone to read that stuff. If they could first agree with each other what the problem with mainstream science is, that would make me more willing to read and comment on it.

    That is also the main reason why this organization will never come into existence, the only thing these people have in common is that they are against the mainstream. And they will not be able to come to an agreement because that would necessitate reasoned disputes, with weird stuff like "arguments" and "evidence". If they were capable of doing that and putting their ideology on hold during such disputes, they would not be in the community they are in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of people on that thread have stated that they voted no, and gave their reasons. A lot of the reasons they gave are valid reasons. You are right that this organisation will never happen, but it's not for the reasons you stated.

      Delete
    2. Skeptikal, do you think your pseudo-skeptikal friends would be able to come to an agreement whether the global mean surface temperature is decreasing (Eric Worrall), shows no trend (Global warming solved), or only shows half the trend of the mainstream (WUWT PR optimum)?

      Delete
    3. I wouldn't exactly call them my friends... and I don't think it really matters if the temperature is decreasing, stable, or increasing... most sceptics are mainly sceptical of the supposed catastrophic effects from any warming. You don't need a consensus on how much it's actually warming to question how dire the effects of any future warming will be.

      Delete
    4. Temperatures are indeed a less important issue than what they imply for circulation patterns, precipitation, snow-pack, and sea-levels.

      Hence my suggested title : the Pangloss Awareness Project, or PAP, which (on the evidence available) should appeal to the WUWT audience. They're fed a regular diet of it, after all, and seem to lap it up.

      Delete
    5. Interesting, that you do not find the temperature trend interesting. Your colleagues do find that highly interesting. Antony Watts the host of the most read climate nonsense blog still did not retract his erroneous manuscript that claims that the warming is due to microclimate and not due to global warming.

      It would be a great improvement in the quality of the climate "debate" if we were talking about its consequences, which is very much a topic for debate and quite uncertain, instead of stuff that is childishly wrong, which are the more common topics of "debate".

      Your answer does dodge the question whether you think your colleagues could come to an agreement and how they would do so.

      Delete
    6. I've already told you... they're not my colleagues and they're not my friends... and I'm not dodging the question... I really don't care if they reach an agreement or not and if they choose to do so, it's entirely up to them how they achieve it.

      Delete
    7. most sceptics are mainly sceptical of the supposed catastrophic effects from any warming.
      It's interesting that the people who mention the supposed catastrophic effects of warming the most, appear to be those who are skeptical of these supposed catastrophic effects. It's almost as if they're skeptical of their own made up narrative.

      Delete
    8. "You don't need a consensus on how much it's actually warming to question how dire the effects of any future warming will be."

      Surely this is a crucial question? If there is 2C temperature rise then the effects may not be catastrophic. If it is 6C then they most certainly will be. I do not understand why you state the temperature rise does not affect the nature of the debate.

      Delete
    9. You missed a crucial word, JD - "question". It doesn't matter what the subject is the one common element with fake sceptics is they they will "question". They aren't interested in the answer, as that statement demonstrates as plainly as anything. All they want to do is generate doubt and uncertainty by questions.

      It's the same tactic that gossipers use. The old standard tactic is to make something up by planting an idea ("they turned off the air conditioning"), sit back and wait a bit while the idea takes hold. Then come in and say "there's no smoke without fire"and repeat the planted fake idea. It's also a good time to elaborate on it. Before you know it you've got a nice juicy conspiracy theory ("climate science is a hoax").

      This can be elaborated on further ad infinitum. Fake sceptics can keep asking empty questions, but now they have some fake material ready in case any one of them is a real sceptic and actually wants an answer. Most are happy to just question as Skeptikal points out.

      Delete
    10. Yes Sou, exactly so. It is very noticeable that Skeptical has made no attempt to explain/defend his statement though I asked perfectly politely what he meant by it. Another aspect of deniers I notice is never to actually engage in discussion to help others understand what you are trying to say. That way lies rationality and, heaven forbid, having to adjust what you think and believe!

      Delete
    11. "If there is 2C temperature rise then the effects may not be catastrophic. If it is 6C then they most certainly will be."

      There's nothing certain about the effects regardless of how much increase in temperature. Nobody has seen the planet warmer, so nobody is in a position to say what the effects will be. It is entirely possible that any future warming will be benign. Even Victor Venema said... "It would be a great improvement in the quality of the climate "debate" if we were talking about its consequences, which is very much a topic for debate and quite uncertain".

      Delete
    12. Skeptikal, while nobody has seen a planet warmer, they have observed the effects of it warmer from measurements of what happened in the past plus knowledge of how the system works. It's plain that six degrees of warming at the pace of change we're causing would have severe consequences.

      Delete
    13. That's conjecture, and you know it. If our knowledge was that good, then there would be no 'might/could/may/possibly happen' in the predictions. We should have seen coastal inundations and climate refugees by now... but it hasn't happened. How good were those predictions?

      Delete
    14. On what do you base that "we should have seen coastal inundations by now"? Do you know something the scientists don't? Or perhaps you think this year is 2114 instead of 2014.

      There are already lots of people who've been displaced by weather events - some of those events have been made worse by global warming.

      Delete
    15. How can you say that weather events have been made worse by global warming? Is there a known limit to weather events that can only be exceeded in a warmer world?

      Delete
    16. I'm stating what scientists have found, Skeptikal. It's in the literature. Examples are the big drought in Australia, last year's record hot year in Australia, the Russian heat wave - these are all events that have been studied as being so far outside the norm that the chances are very remote that they could have occurred without global warming.

      Think about it and you'll soon realise it makes sense. All weather is affected by global warming. Weather would be different if there was only the same amount of energy in the system as there was 100 years ago.

      Would you like me to dig up references or are you able to do your own lit search? (Google scholar might help if you're happy to DYOR.)

      This is where I learnt of research on last year in Australia.

      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/not-looking-forward-to-hotter-and-drier.html

      Delete
    17. By the way, you haven't said why you expect there would have been coastal inundations by now. Where did you get that from, Skeptikal? It's true that coastlines are already receding in places with rising sea levels, but except in a few places not so the ordinary person would notice yet.m The biggest impact for now and the next few years will be things like king tides and storm surges.

      Delete
    18. I remember hearing somewhere quite a few years ago that some expert was predicting sea-level rise to accelerate dramatically and flood low-lying communities, swamp island nations and create climate refugees... and it was all supposed to happen in a short amount of time, but I really can't remember where I heard that now. I remember the prediction because I live on the coast and it got me thinking that my local beach looks unchanged for as long as I can remember it... I'm sure tidal guages will show the rise, but it's not apparent just by looking at it. Anyway, I can't substantiate that claim right now, so I'll withdraw it until I can remember where I heard it.

      I'm quite happy to do my own research... I was just curious how you attribute a portion of a weather event to global warming. It's a pity that Victor isn't here, I'd be interested in his take on it.

      Delete
    19. What I've understood from reading is that sea level will rise more obviously after the ice from West Antarctica and Greenland starts slipping into the sea more quickly. And it's more likely to happen in sudden jumps as the ice sheets won't move gradually always, there will be big shifts - and it's likely to be closer to the end of the century than now. Between those spurts the rise will be more even.

      That's one of the things that's likely preordained already, now that CO2 is 400 ppm. What we can still have some control over is how quickly it happens. If we can cut emissions soon enough we may be able to delay things somewhat. If we're smart and keep CO2 lower rather than higher, we might be able to limit the long term consequences too.

      Delete
    20. "There's nothing certain about the effects regardless of how much increase in temperature."

      Well, you can only say something like this if you live in la-la land. You cannot be seriously trying to suggest that you cannot predict any effects from a rise in temperature, however high it goes? (Perhaps you are the troll that has caused moderation to be switched on?)

      I repeat - deniers do not like to actually engage in real discussion in case it bursts their bubble of delusion.

      Delete
    21. Cutting emissions... If you are talking about Australia alone, I'd have to disagree with you. Our CO2 emissions are insignificant on a global scale. I'm not talking per capita emissions, I'm talking in absolute values. Unless there's a global reduction in emissions, anything we do in Australia is futile.

      Delete
    22. Oh give us a break, Skeptikal. Quit being so anti-social and gutless. Were you the kid that always said "I won't stop (whatever it is) until everyone else does"? Tell me how that works if everyone says it.

      Of course it has to be global. Every nation has to do its bit including Australia. Actually especially Australia because we emit more per capita than almost any other nation. Plus we can afford to shift more than most other countries. Plus we have plenty of sunshine and wind to spare.

      Delete
    23. Skeptical: " It's a pity that Victor isn't here, I'd be interested in his take on it."

      I think it does matter how strong the temperature increase is and all the other changes of our climate are. :-)

      It is clear that many types of extremes are increasing, heatwaves in general and strong precipitation in many regions for example and that there will be regional increases in floods and droughts. The special IPCC report on extremes is a good starting point for your reading, if you are interested in understanding the situation better.

      Not all types of extremes will increase, if only not cold waves (also the last US winter was not exceptionally cold, just colder as we are nowadays used to) and for some types of extremes (tropical cyclones, for example) science is not yet sure what will happen. The latter are what pseudoskeptics like to focus on, "forgetting" the inconvenient clearer cases.

      Delete
  3. Oh, I think I can see a reason for its existence. They can use their habit of miraculous multiplication to make a small number of numpties appear to be a massive movement.

    As for a name: one trick faux institutes use is to appropriate the name of a respected historical figure who - being dead - cannot object to being associated with them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. International Coalition for Sound Science (Na, sounds too close to Advancement of Sound Science Coalition)

    International Coalition for Misinformation and Lies (Na, it actually reveals what they would really do)

    Not a Fossil Fuel Company Front (Hmm, getting close)

    The Real Climate Science Coalition (Almost there)

    Friends Understanding Climate Knowledge Yearning Over Understanding (Check the initials)

    Yet Another Climate Science Astroturfer That Actually Does No Science (What was I thinking, too close to the truth)

    Ex Aircraft Engineers Turned Climate Science Denier Club (ICSC's next name)

    No Climate Scientists Wanted Club (I like this one)

    International Coalition of Climate Pseudoscience (Is this already taken?)

    Don't Mess With Us (or we will troll your blog!!)

    Thinskinned and Angry

    Well, that's my collection so far ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Coalition of Realists on Atmospheric Pollution?

    Support the Hiatus In Temperatures?

    Group Against Really Bad Atmospheric Geophysical Examinations?

    Denying the Research Objectives of 'Skeptical Science'?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, given their extreme deeply held convictions, which no amount of evidence seems to sway, they're not very sceptical are they? So "sceptical" doesn't really work. How about "Dubious"? They do have all sorts of doubts...

    "Science" doesn't really work does it? Scientists publish in the peer reviewed literature, and te Watties won't even open links to it. What could they have as an alternative to "Science"? How about "Mumbo-Jumbo", maybe.

    "Foundation" - why not?

    So, pulling all that together...

    The Dubious Mumbo-Jumbo Foundation!

    Or the DMFers for short.



    ReplyDelete
  7. OT but don't tell.

    Spotted this which might interest some people (Victor?). It looks as if Anthony's paper (work done by Evan Jones) is still quite a way off.


    evanmjones says: (excerpt)

    April 19, 2014 at 7:26 pm
    Latitude says: April 19, 2014 at 6:13 pm (Edit) Evan, adjustments…..when there’s no reason for them at all

    Sometimes there is. I’ve had to deal with that. There are three issues: TOBS bias (the biggie), MMTS conversion, and station moves. To get where I need to get, I have simply dropped all TOBS-biased stations (the bias is real but I don’t trust the adjustments), and any station that has a record of moves (slightly more to it, but that’s the essence). MMTS adjustment I have to apply myself, but i think i’ve figured out a clever way that is consistent with Menne et al. (2009 & 2010).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Sou. Very interesting. A first acknowledgement that adjustments can be justified.

      The rest of Evans comment is also interesting: I know. If it were possible I would evaluate the entire GHCN. But I would need not only the station locations and raw/adjusted data for Tmax, Tmin, Tmean (at least), but the metadata as well. And, to be honest, I don’t think much of the crucial metadata even exists anymore.

      That acknowledges that metadata needs to be complete, which it never is (especially if you go back centuries or work with data from other countries, but just as well also for the USA in recent times). That is why you should not only consider metadata, but also detect non-climatic changes using statistical homogenization.

      As interesting that Evan Jones does not "trust" time of observation bias (TOBS) corrections, but cannot give any reason why. You can compute the size of the TOBS from modern automatic measurements made around the clock. It should be pretty easy to check, if you are interested in a better understanding and not just in spreading distrust.

      Delete
    2. Victor, I think Evan can add up but his skills don't go much beyond that.

      Anthony himself doesn't have a clue, which is why he's got Evan doing all the work. Anthony will happily take all the credit if it ever sees the light of day.

      Then he'll have to rope in John N-G or another willing scientist to clean up the mistakes, re-write it so it makes sense - in effect, to redo the work - if he ever wants it published. But since it probably won't show anything new he may have some trouble getting a publisher. (Even BEST had trouble finding a publisher and they used different techniques to others.)

      Delete
    3. Why, hello, Dr. Venema. I'd be very happy to respond to your points.

      Yes, one cannot ignore TOBS. It results in a serious cooling bias (as most USHCN TOBS-bias is PM-OBS to AM-OBS). The record must be adjusted (or "split") for purposes of trend evaluation. Or something. But I find that it cannot be used straight-up.

      You can compute the size of the TOBS from modern automatic measurements made around the clock. It should be pretty easy to check, if you are interested in a better understanding and not just in spreading distrust.

      Nossir. That only describes the mechanism. It does not provide the actual numbers. To do that properly, you need to deconstruct the data from each individual station and make a vast number of matching comparisons, because the amount of bias varies with immediate conditions. Or maybe a Monte-Carlo deal with repeat round-the-clockers?

      I have not the skills for that, nor would my results be accepted if I tried. Plus, attempting that on hundreds of stations would require time and money I do not have. Il fait pour manger, you know. Hook me up with a nice fat Big Oil check and we'll talk TOBS. #B^)

      Perhaps I should have been clearer. While I don't trust TOBS adjustment, neither do I necessarily distrust it either. But it is a whopping big step change and it works all hell with your MoE. We spitballed over this issue awhile, and then I came up with the solution (based on something Dr. Christy had suggested some months earlier): simply drop all the stations that are affected by TOBS bias. (HOMR has that data.) Sometimes the best way to go through a problem is to go around it.

      So I (laboriously) recorded the observation data for each station and dropped all the biased stations (weeping copiously as some of my favorites hit the bin). Dr. N-G ran my numbers and the raw data or the remaining stations and compared it with NCDC TOBS data for each of them and and it matched to ~0.001C/decade.

      It reduced our sample size, but it left us with a pristine set. (Fear not, we'll provide full stats for ALL the ones we dropped in order to establish definitively that we are not cherrypicking.)

      So that is addressed.

      That acknowledges that metadata needs to be complete, which it never is (especially if you go back centuries or work with data from other countries, but just as well also for the USA in recent times).

      Fortunately, someone in NCDC personnel made a good hire. Their recent metadata is quite on the up and up for our study period (1979 - 2008). Those stations lacking data were generally long since closed, and we never did (and ever could) find them, anyway, so they are not included in the study.

      That is why you should not only consider metadata, but also detect non-climatic changes using statistical homogenization.

      Oooh! Ick! (Makes horns signs.) Not into that for USHCN.

      GHCN, on the other hand, is a witches' brew, so for that, I dunno, maybe. But I'll cross that ridge if and when I come to it. besides, how are you gonna infer TOBS bias or station moves when the surrounding stations are also missing metadata? Take a poll? (Please don't say yes.)

      This is not some dang logic puzzle game from a cheap mystery magazine. You are going to wind up making wholesale judgment calls where the uncertainty (unknown uncertainty, to make it worse) is going to swamp what you are trying to measure, and globally there just isn't enough oversampling to give that a beatdown.

      When the paper's out, you'll have full access to every scrap of data and methods. You'll be able to reproduce it (or falsify it), and I'll be more than happy to help anyone over the humps that asks.

      And if I did anything wrong, I have every confidence y'all won't fail to thus inform me.

      Delete
    4. Hello Dr. Jones. Nice that you are visiting us.

      TOBS: You do not need skills to implement the time of observation bias corrections, NOAA already provided a dataset where they are implemented. Not using that without providing evidence that these TOBS adjustments are wrong is somewhat special.

      It should be very easy to show that these corrections are wrong. For the US there is a beautiful several decade long dataset with hourly measurements from 500 stations. This was also used to develop the TOBS adjustments. You can redo this development. You can leave one station out of the dataset and redo the development and check on the left-out station how well you did (cross-validation). Or you can leave half of the period out and see how well you do for the other half. NOAA already did so, you can do it again if you do not trust them.

      Your method of only using stations without changes in the time of observation will also work, but you unnecessarily remove data and make your results weaker that way. A scientist that would use such a trick, would at least also present the results for the conventional route using the NOAA TOBS adjustments and discuss the differences. That would also avoid any accusations of cherry picking and a good scientist anticipates the objections his colleagues may have.

      Furthermore, while you can deal with this one type of non-climatic change (inhomogeneity) this way, it would be hard to do so for all inhomogeneities and that is what you will have to do to present a convincing case.

      Oooh! Ick! (Makes horns signs.)

      I am aware you have emotional problems with homogenization. It would be nice if you could prove that it does not work. A proof that would show where the validation studies of Williams et al. (2012) and myself and colleagues go wrong.

      That would be a much more important study than the micro-siting study of the Watts et al. manuscript. Because even if you find a problem in the US raw data, people will expect that this will be largely removed by homogenization, just like the trend bias due to urbanization in the raw data is removed by homogenization.

      Delete
    5. Hello Dr. Jones. Nice that you are visiting us.

      Thanks. Note well that I am no doctor. I have only a Masters in History.

      TOBS: You do not need skills to implement the time of observation bias corrections, NOAA already provided a dataset where they are implemented. Not using that without providing evidence that these TOBS adjustments are wrong is somewhat special.

      That I know. But there is more going on here than I have said or that you may be aware.

      Your method of only using stations without changes in the time of observation will also work, but you unnecessarily remove data and make your results weaker that way. A scientist that would use such a trick, would at least also present the results for the conventional route using the NOAA TOBS adjustments and discuss the differences. That would also avoid any accusations of cherry picking and a good scientist anticipates the objections his colleagues may have.

      Now, you would be right to complain if we simply disappeared all the stations we dropped. But we retain them separately for purposes of comparison. As you say, we need to make it obvious that we are not cherrypicking.

      Here's where oversampling proves its worth. We want to use as raw a sample as we possibly can. After dropping those that are affected by TOBS we still have a sample size that exceeds 400 pristine (metadata-wise) stations.

      J-NG has run confidence intervals. For the "all stations" nationwide sample, that result is 0.000. So we obviously do not need to retain the biased stations to bolster sample size.

      We do discuss the differences. Based on the aggregate, TOBS-biased station Tmean trends run ~0.08C/decade lower than stations that are non-TOBS biased. (That's very big.) Any adjustment of that sort, that big, is going to have a big MoE.

      Our data clearly demonstrates that for stations affected by TOBS bias, the gap in trend between well and poorly sited stations remains intact. That should answer any arguments that we are cherrypicking.

      One of our central “themes’ here is that we are avoiding adjusted data as much and wherever possible. That means rather than adjust and include, we identify and exclude. Otherwise, it’s just another study using adjusted data. And, as I say, the excluded data (which we bin separately) demonstrates the difference between well and poorly sited stations, same as the data we retain.

      As for homogenization, you yourself may be able to answer that here and now. See my answer to you, below (April 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM.) You should be able to tell me if my criticisms pertain.

      Delete
  8. I know I am intruding in "enemy territory", here, as it were, but that ain't no nevermind. We are men of the world and we are here to discuss science. And that's a planet where your best friends do their durndest to rip your work apart, anyway (if they're doing their job). Besides, if you can't answer your critics (or won't), science it ain't.

    And we are talking extraordinary findings (which damnwell require extraordinary proof). Especially as we are striking at the basic stats, the root, the very foundation on which everything is based. If our findings are established, thousands of previously published papers are waking up back at the old drawingboard.

    Victor, I think Evan can add up but his skills don't go much beyond that.

    Quite so. Look at it this way. I am but a lowly history major (MA, Columbia University). But historians, particularly US historians, eat basic statistical analysis for breakfast. I am a history major, and I am conducting a historical study of the the US climate record, using standard historical techniques.

    Anthony doesn't need a "clue" in the sense you mean (regardless of whether or not he has one; you'd be surprised). He's the Grand Old Man with the hypothesis, and he and I collected the data (and let's not leave out the hundreds of volunteers). The rest of us are running it all down. And we we got real brains on the crew giving me the hairy eyeball. (A jaundiced one.)

    But since it probably won't show anything new he may have some trouble getting a publisher.

    Oh, it's new, alright. Not the premise that microsite bias offsets the readings, of course. That's old hat. The question here is not whether poorly sited stations are warmer. It's whether they warm faster.

    The Menne premise is that if a station is badly sited in 1979, has the same bad siting throughout (until 2008, in our case), hasn't moved, and has no TOBS bias, that the trend (sic) will be unaffected, even if it is offset a bit higher.

    Well, that's intuitive, alright, I'll give it that.

    But it turns out that the trends themselves are very seriously affected by bad siting. And we are talking Tmean trend, here, not just spitballing over Tmax or Tmin like in Fall et al. (2011). So, preview pending, the intuitive is dead; long live the counterintuitive.

    If you have any further questions, I'll be glad to answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Especially as we are striking at the basic stats, the root, the very foundation on which everything is based. If our findings are established, thousands of previously published papers are waking up back at the old drawingboard.

      I am sorry to have to hamper your enthusiasm about your study. A lot is well organized in the USA, but the introduction of automatic weather stations (AWS) was not one of them. That took place in a time where many already saw the government was their enemy that should be starved to death. Consequently, the national weather service did not have much funding for the new AWS and the technicians had to install one every day. As they need power this caused many of them to be installed near buildings. The bad micro-siting is thus likely a unique American problem. Not that also bad stations exist elsewhere, but not on this scale.

      On this page of the Dutch weather service (KNMI) you can see links to all of the Dutch stations including photos. The page is unfortunately in Dutch, but just click the links and look at the photos. You will see that the micro-siting is much better as in the USA.

      I fully agree with you on this statement. That is the key to the problem of the study: Oh, it's new, alright. Not the premise that microsite bias offsets the readings, of course. That's old hat. The question here is not whether poorly sited stations are warmer. It's whether they warm faster.

      To make the claim that the temperature trend at badly sited stations is larger, you have to distinguish this trend from non-climatic changes, especially the ones that change the classification. However, you only know the quality of the stations at the end of the period you are studying and do not know whether they changed for better or for worse.

      A change of quality from good to bad (inhomogeneity) will cause a strong artificial trend. You will have to distinguish this artificial trend from an enhanced micro-siting local trend (if something like that exists).

      I agree that the metadata (station history) in the US is quite good for the recent period. However, because of your refusal to homogenize the data, you are assuming the metadata to be nearly perfect. Only a few percent of missed inhomogeneities would be sufficient to invalidate your conclusions. Maybe the quality of the metadata is that good when it comes to changes in instruments and relocations, I would already be sceptical there. The metadata is surely not that good when it comes to changes in the surrounding, that can affect the micro-siting classification.

      If you find an effect of micro-siting in the homogenized data where the non-climatic changes are removed as well as possible, that would be interesting. Even in that case, I would expect the result to be due to imperfect homogenization, that did not manage to reduce the effect of non-climatic changes sufficiently, rather than that the trend at bad stations is stronger.

      If you only find an effect in the raw data, the peer reviewers will not let you state that your paper changes our understanding of the climate. Because that understanding is based on homogenized data. Again, if you want to claim that the temperature record is biased, you will have to study homogenization methods, no matter how emotionally challenging that is.

      The Menne premise is that if a station is badly sited in 1979, has the same bad siting throughout (until 2008, in our case), hasn't moved, and has no TOBS bias, that the trend (sic) will be unaffected, even if it is offset a bit higher.

      I am quite sure, he would formulate this differently. The claim more likely would be that after homogenization the effect will be small relative to the global warming we have observed.

      Delete
    2. First, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

      Consequently, the national weather service did not have much funding for the new AWS and the technicians had to install one every day. As they need power this caused many of them to be installed near buildings.

      That’s what Anthony thought (maybe he still does). yet what I find is that in most (if not nearly all) cases is that MMTS has no worse exposure than CRS. On the one hand, MMTS needs trenching. But on the other, to read a CRS you have to slog your butt over to where it is and do the reading. Usually at 6AM in January with a nice wind in from the north in the snow. But an MMTS you can read in your bathrobe because the Nimbus readout is in your house. So there is plenty of incentive for bad siting in both cases.

      If there are both, normally they are side by side. (I sometimes wonder if the equipment itself, such as a monel pan creates its own microsite bias.)

      The bad micro-siting is thus likely a unique American problem. Not that also bad stations exist elsewhere, but not on this scale.

      Can’t tell until we check. USHCN is said to be the “crown jewel” of the HCN. (But a lot of things are “said”.) Australia, for example appears to have relatively hideous siting. And BOM has a net that is considered famous for its quality, same as the US. At first glance, Bulgaria was just butt-ugly, but I couldn’t find most of them and I don’t know if they were HCN. Besides, I had my hands more than full with USHCN.

      Thanks for the link to the Dutch stations! I’ll be trying to zero in on them via Google (photos alone miss a lot of obstructions). Some look better than others, at first glance. But remember, microsite is tricky. One lousy equipment shed a few meters away or one tarmac you can’t see from the photo angle turns a Class 1 into a Class 3 quicker than you can say, “Menne et al.”

      But you’ve got my hunting instincts up again. The coordinates are imprecise, but I will see what I can find when I can make the time for it.

      To make the claim that the temperature trend at badly sited stations is larger, you have to distinguish this trend from non-climatic changes, especially the ones that change the classification. However, you only know the quality of the stations at the end of the period you are studying and do not know whether they changed for better or for worse.

      See below.

      A change of quality from good to bad (inhomogeneity) will cause a strong artificial trend. You will have to distinguish this artificial trend from an enhanced micro-siting local trend (if something like that exists).

      Jawel! (But see below.)

      Maybe the quality of the metadata is that good when it comes to changes in instruments and relocations, I would already be sceptical there. The metadata is surely not that good when it comes to changes in the surrounding, that can affect the micro-siting classification.

      Yes, quite. They do include historical exposure data, but I use the Google Earth historical “wayback machine” to observe the sites for precisely this sort of change.

      Note well that in a case like this, it does invalidate the station for the ratings comparison, as you say, but the official trend can be spuriously warmed in that manner just as easily as from bad siting throughout – moreso, even.

      Be that as it may, we identify and drop those.

      Delete
    3. I agree that the metadata (station history) in the US is quite good for the recent period. However, because of your refusal to homogenize the data, you are assuming the metadata to be nearly perfect. Only a few percent of missed inhomogeneities would be sufficient to invalidate your conclusions.

      Fortunately, we have a very large number of stations, even after the ones we dropped. We also have many curator interviews. One of the problems with the NZ comparison that made such a big flap was they had under 10 stations.

      Even so, if a station goes from good to bad and this is not accounted for, that impacts the record. Interestingly, the stations we dropped show significantly lower trends than those we retained.

      If you find an effect of micro-siting in the homogenized data where the non-climatic changes are removed as well as possible, that would be interesting. Even in that case, I would expect the result to be due to imperfect homogenization, that did not manage to reduce the effect of non-climatic changes sufficiently, rather than that the trend at bad stations is stronger.

      We look at raw and homogenized data separately. And there’s more. Remember that nasty trip-up I mentioned before . . .? Suffice it to say this is an important facet of our findings. #B^)

      If you only find an effect in the raw data, the peer reviewers will not let you state that your paper changes our understanding of the climate. Because that understanding is based on homogenized data. Again, if you want to claim that the temperature record is biased, you will have to study homogenization methods, no matter how emotionally challenging that is.

      Ah, but there is an external method you are not considering. I’ll give you a sneaky hint (which you already know full well, of course): homogenization identifies outliers.

      Note that homogenization raised the USHCN trend only by around .02C per decade. Adjusted data is not all that different from raw, once TOBS bias is removed (That’s a more subtle hint. Think cheap mystery magazine logic puzzle.)


      The Menne premise is that if a station is badly sited in 1979, has the same bad siting throughout (until 2008, in our case), hasn't moved, and has no TOBS bias, that the trend (sic) will be unaffected, even if it is offset a bit higher.

      I am quite sure, he would formulate this differently. The claim more likely would be that after homogenization the effect will be small relative to the global warming we have observed.

      And take that as your third hint! See if you can figure out where I’m going, here. Follow the pea . . .

      Delete
    4. Evan Jones.

      Will you also be investigating the "bad" siting of Arctic sea ice?

      Delete
    5. Evan Jones: Can’t tell until we check [how important micro-siting is outside the USA].

      I am glad we agree on that, that is needs to be checked and is not automatically true as your previous statement suggested: Especially as we are striking at the basic stats, the root, the very foundation on which everything is based. If our findings are established, thousands of previously published papers are waking up back at the old drawingboard.

      They do include historical exposure data, but I use the Google Earth historical “wayback machine” to observe the sites for precisely this sort of change.

      Interesting. I was unaware the Google street view has data from 1979.

      Remember that nasty trip-up I mentioned before . . .? ... That’s a more subtle hint. Think cheap mystery magazine logic puzzle. ... And take that as your third hint! See if you can figure out where I’m going, here. Follow the pea . . .

      If you would like to contribute to science, it would be helpful not to speak in riddles. That is more for Nostradamus.

      Delete
  9. By the way, Dr. Venema, homogenizing is playing with fire. And, as it happens, NOAA has (quite inadvertently) fallen victim to a diabolical trick of statistical fate, rendering the homogenization procedure a complete catastrophe. When you render it down from an external perspective, it sticks out a mile. One of our more intriguing findings. From the picket line I'm goldbrickin', it's hey-ho, hey-ho homogenization's gotta go.

    If you are interested why, I'll be happy to discuss it.

    Besides, way go to all the (quite considerable) bother of oversampling if you're just gonna turn around and make pap out of your data?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would be very much interested in such a discussion. That is exactly the topic I am studying. Up to now, I have not seen any evidence that homogenization methods would produce an artificial trend. If there is a non-climatic trend in the raw data, homogenization will not remove it fully, it is not infinitely powerful, but it will improve the trend.

      The idea promoted by WUWT that homogenization algorithms smooth the data is pure nonsense and should be backed up with arguments discussing how homogenization actually methods work or possibly easier by numerical validation studies that show that this is happening.

      When I performed my numerical validation study of homogenization methods, I was an outsider and had an external perspective. For me it would have been great if the validation had shown that homogenization methods are responsible for the temperature trend and that AGW is a hoax. That would have been a beautiful Nature paper. Unfortunately for me, the data spoke and found that homogenization improves the temperature data. That was just a Climate of the Past article. Still nice. I will keep on trying.

      Delete
    2. Okay, here's the deal from the outside. You can tell me if I've got it wrong, because, if so, I'd like to know. Take this as is an illustration of a less intelligent person (me) using top-down, outside-in mentality to question the bottom-to-top findings of a far more intelligent, educated, and qualified person (you).

      Let us stipulate that one in five stations is well sited.

      Let us stipulate that raw data from well sited stations, on average, has much lower trends than raw data from poorly sited stations.

      Let us further stipulate that what homogenization essentially does is identify outliers and bring them within constraints.

      (See where this is going? Follow the pea.)

      Now what happens to your typical well sited station when four out of the five surrounding it are poorly sited? How does it get adjusted? And in which direction? And as the data is adjusted, the trends fall into conformity.

      That's what's happening with the USHCN.

      Okay, now, what if four out of five stations were well sited? Or if (whopping big) microsite adjustments were made to the poorly sited stations before homogenization (same as TOBS)? Or the poorly sited stations were simply dropped from the record? Then homogenization would do exactly what it was intended to do. But they ain't -- so it don't, see?

      I'll bet you credits to navy beans, that's what the testing looks like. All the results look jes' fine. But I am a old wargame designer, and playtesting is in my bones. And I've seen this same sort of failure to sufficiently test contingencies dozens of times. Intelligence won't help you here. Nothing short of bitter experience will turn the trick. Or perhaps sage advice thereto and thereof, which is all I have to offer you.

      And, besides, in terms of Tmean trend, NOAA does not regard microsite an an issue. So they just pluck their outliers, pour in their FILNET, adjust for TOBS and let 'er rip. As for SHAP? For those boyz it's a positive trend adjustment, lord help us.

      And there's more. Someone is now bound to step forth and indicate that the homogenized data really isn't so different from the raw data, after all. But try doing that for the well-sited stations only, and see what you get! A gap five times as great, that's what you get.

      It's all the more diabolical when one realizes that the adjusted data for the stations is much the same and that all visible trace of the raw data from well sited stations has vanished into the ether. So every last vestige of the red flag is gone.

      And the crowning glory is that if anyone pipes up, the (quite sincere) response is that microsite is indeed indirectly adjusted for and the proof of that is that poorly adjusted sites have the same trends as the well adjusted sites.

      "Little boxes on a hillside . . . and they all come out the same."

      Delete
    3. I guess you were using sarcasm, Evan, but I in case you weren't I don't think anyone here thinks you are "less intelligent".

      I'll leave it to the expert(s) (eg Victor) to respond if they feel so inclined :)

      Delete
    4. Oh, come on. In any real test of intelligence, VV can run circles around me. I know it and he knows it.

      The subject matter we're discussing, however, is within both of our abilities to comprehend. Furthermore, I suspect he is quietly making it easy on me by sticking to simple, non-techinical language. I consider that to be noblesse oblige, and it does not go unnoticed nor is it unappreciated.

      As for me, if I turn out to be right on this, I'd dearly love to have him on my side. If he's right and he can clue me in on where to look, then that's valuable to me, too. And if I'm basically right, and he points out a flaw that needs to be addressed, then I am very grateful indeed.

      Delete
    5. Evan Jones: Now what happens to your typical well sited station when four out of the five surrounding it are poorly sited? How does it get adjusted? And in which direction? And as the data is adjusted, the trends fall into conformity.

      That is indeed a difficult case. If four stations have a similar non-climatic trend and only one has the right climatic trend, you are right that homogenization would assume that the one outlier is wrong. (If the trends are not similar and the periods are different, it might be possible to separate the effects.) (If the four bad stations are nearby in the same city and you would have a second distant rural station, the situation already becomes a lot different and a manual or good automatic homogenization algorithm may solve it right.)

      Because this is a difficult case, the influence of urbanisation on the climate record has been studied in so much detail.

      In case of micro-siting problems, the non-climatic factors happen by definition close to the observation. The installation of a new air-conditioning produces a jump, the building of a new parking lot happens within a few months, which is climatologically a jump.

      In this respect, micro-siting is a very different problem as urbanization. In case of urbanization the increases in temperature are due to developments in a large area. As a consequence these changes are expected to relatively gradual because they are averages of a large number of small events.

      In case of jumps, homogenization works much better as for gradual non-climatic changes. Now we only have a problem if the jump would simultaneously happen in the majority of stations. (Simultaneously in the sense of within the confidence interval for the date of the jump, which is almost exact for large jumps (jump larger than the noise of the difference between the station of interest and its neighbours, which in the USA will be a few tenths of a degree), but can be some years for smaller jumps.)

      But try doing that for the well-sited stations only, and see what you get! A gap five times as great, that's what you get.

      Just like the currently bad stations may have an additional artificial positive trend because they could have been better in the beginning of your study period, the currently good stations may have an additional artificial negative trend because they could have been worse in the beginning of your study period.

      Delete
    6. The subject matter we're discussing, however, is within both of our abilities to comprehend. Furthermore, I suspect he is quietly making it easy on me by sticking to simple, non-techinical language. I consider that to be noblesse oblige, and it does not go unnoticed nor is it unappreciated

      I am doing my best to write as simple as possible so that everyone can understand this discussion. I would expect you to know the technical language by now, after having studied this problem for such a long time, I feel it should be allowed to assume that you and Watts have read the most important scientific articles on the topic.

      It would be much appreciated if you also tried to formulate your arguments as clearly as you can, which is more than just not using technical language. I was unable to understand much of your last paragraphs. A less colourful and dispassionate language may also help you in keeping your thinking more objective. That is the main reason why the rules of the scientific community produce such boring articles. It helps you stay objective.

      In the climate "debate" intelligence is not the problem, the problem is humility. The humility to make yourself expert before making strong erroneous public claims.

      The worst example of this is the latest pseudo-sceptic talking point that the greenhouse effect could not exist because CO2 is heavier than air and would "thus" sink to the bottom of the atmosphere. This assumes that scientists are extremely stupid and have never measured the vertical profile of CO2. And it ignores that mixing by turbulence is much more important as the weight difference.

      Another example would be to claim that TOBS adjustments are wrong without being able to show this. That is either a lack of humility or intentionally spreading doubt for ideological reasons, I am sorry to have to say.

      Delete
    7. A less colourful and dispassionate language may also help you in keeping your thinking more objective. That is the main reason why the rules of the scientific community produce such boring articles. It helps you stay objective.

      #B^)

      But science is such a grand story! The song of the universe!

      Sing out, I say, sing out!

      Another example would be to claim that TOBS adjustments are wrong without being able to show this. That is either a lack of humility or intentionally spreading doubt for ideological reasons, I am sorry to have to say.

      Let's be precise. I did not say they were wrong. I said I did not trust them. I qualified that by saying that neither did I necessarily distrust them. It is a walloping large correction. Something in the neighborhood of four times that of MMTS conversion. It's an MoE I would just as soon avoid, if possible.

      Believe me when I say that TOBS adjustment is 'way. 'way down the queue on my list of gripes. The reason I drop them is that . . . I can. We have amazingly tight confidence numbers without them.

      I cannot drop MMTS stations. There are so many, and every last one of them converted at least four years after 1979. So I have to adjust for that. No choice. It's a modest (upward) adjustment to Tmean. But TMin, it's a large minus, and to Tmax, it's an even larger plus.

      But I want as few adjustments included as possible, based on the sacred scientific principle that when it comes to your data, if ya shake it more than three times, yer playin' with it.

      (Gotta sing, it, Doc. It's the song of the universe!)

      Delete
  10. which is why he's got Evan doing all the work. Anthony will happily take all the credit if it ever sees the light of day.

    Whoa, there. I just took that one in. A bit slow on the uptake on my part.

    Not so! Anything I can do, Anthony can do. He can spot (very good eye for that, too), survey, rate, evaluate, do error bars, all that stuff. The only reason he lets me do that is he knows I'm good, too -- and I have an undying passion for locating missing stations via satellite map resources. (I've hunted at least a dozen down in the field as well. And I never missed a one I was looking for, either.)

    And not only has he not taken all the credit, but he has bent over backwards to include me in. That's likely the reason you even know I'm busting my hump on this -- he makes sure that is known. You'll be doing him a disservice to think otherwise. Besides, I may be his Murat, but he's Nappy, himself.

    As for "seeing the light of day", you'll be Reading All about It some fine Tmax coming soon. Bank on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Anything I can do, Anthony can do." That may be so but it probably demeans your abilities rather than enhances Anthony's :)

      "he has bent over backwards to include me in" - not sure that too many other people have noticed.

      "you'll be Reading All about It some fine Tmax coming soon. Bank on it." Good to know.

      Delete
    2. Where will we be reading it?

      Delete
    3. That I do not know yet. We did JGR last time, but there's been some debate about it this time. It's all beyond me. I was never one much for the cocktail circuit even in the old days. So I am happy to let the others on the team handle that stuff.

      I stick with my beloved climate stations. Going from MMTS to CRS to ASOS. Maybe one day I'll find a nice Hazen Screen and settle down . . . #B^)

      Delete
  11. Coalition Against Climate Alarmism

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good one. Makes me think of names that would have a good acronym, like the "People Opposed Organisation" :)

      Delete
    2. So I should have more blatantly 'spelled out' my suggestions above? ;-)

      Delete
    3. Oh, lovely Bill. I was probably the only person who missed them :(

      Delete
    4. Bear in mind that both Anthony and I are lukewarmers. Arrhenius without the feedbacks, pretty much. Sky Dragon Slayers we ain't. (It's also worth bearing in mind that Anthony started out square in the alarmist camp.)

      Delete
    5. Anthony started out in the alarmist camp? Pull the other one. Oh I know he likes to say that. Anthony says a lot of things that aren't true. (He also said that his biggest problem with the science isn't anything scientific, it's that he's worried about taxation!)

      So, you don't think there are any feedbacks? You don't think more water evaporates as it gets hotter? That when ice disappears there won't be less light reflected? That's plain dumb.

      PS Sounds as if you idolise the man and "believe" whatever he "believes", Evan. Do you think global warming is caused by Russian steampipes like Anthony did? Or that airports can suddenly catch UHI disease like Anthony did? Have you figured out that baselines thingy yet? Do you think that an asteroid impact is "the biggest threat to humanity, far bigger than global warming/climate change, (and) is about to get bigger, much bigger"?

      Delete
    6. Evan wrote
      "Arrhenius without the feedbacks, pretty much."

      Without the feedbacks?

      Looks like a perfect time for a lesson by David Randall a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, you know, an actual qualified and distinguished climate scientist, someone who actually knows what they are talking about. He is also the editor of 'Journal of Climate' and has received the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjE4GDC7afQ

      When you have finished watching the video, perhaps you could read his book.

      http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9773.html

      Or read the long list of his publications.
      http://kiwi.atmos.colostate.edu/group/dave/Rpubs.html

      Do you realise how freaking crazy you sound when you say you 'don't believe in feedbacks'. (Oh, I forgot, you live in a Bizarro world where climate scientists know nothing and people with no qualifications are experts in the climate.)

      Delete
    7. So now we discover that ice isn't white in denial land. Priceless.

      Delete
    8. Marco

      Can we shove in an extra bit for a better acronym:

      Coalition of Libertarian Optimists Against Climate Alarmism

      Or 'Club Guano' for short?

      :-)

      Delete
    9. Evan

      On feedbacks: what Dave said.

      Without net positive feedbacks, mid-Pliocene warmth becomes difficult to explain. And early Cenozoic hyperthermals become very difficult to explain.

      Parsimony is a useful mode of thought.

      Delete
    10. Do you realise how freaking crazy you sound when you say you 'don't believe in feedbacks'.

      I suppose I would -- had I actually said that.

      I was not expecting to get into a discussion about it. But it is true I was unclear. What I mean is that I do not see any strong net positive feedback in play. I base that on strictly empirical evidence (which I understand, of course, can take off in any direction at any time, at which point reevaluation is necessary).

      I model top-down, which, yes, is a meataxe approach. But I consider bottom-to-top models where there is seriously incomplete knowledge to be playing crack-the-whip with your inputs, which is far worse. make just one fiddlin' miscalculation and, often as not, it's mouse in one end, elephant out the other.

      You might as well try to simulate the East Front using Advance Squad Leader rules (my favorite analogy du jour, I'm a old wargame designer, talk about your modeling) -- change the freakin' echo-fire factor by one, and, poof, Germany all of a sudden magically wins the war every time. (Just to scratch the surface.)

      You can, indeed, must, use bottom-to-top models when, say, designing a bridge. But you are doing so in a milieu in which (nearly) all factors are known and "projections" have been replicated many times.

      But I digress.

      So let's look at the period since 1950. That's the best, non-cherrypicked startpoint I can think of: It is right at the point when CO2 took off at roughly its current rate of increase. And it neatly encapsulates both a positive and negative PDO (so those roughly cancel out). So I think that time period works. As an aside, CO2 forcing is steady. The pause appears to be due to the PDO flip, and temps would be cooling rather than flat without AGW.

      With me so far? Okay, then, the top-down external evaluation goes as follows.

      HadCRUt4 shows a net increase of 0.07C (adjusted), or ~1.1C per century. Now IPCC says at least half of that is anthropogenic (probably more), and I agree: I am a 97%-er by either Oreskes and Cook parameters. And not all the warming is from CO2 (e.g., Arctic particulates, etc.), but we can stipulate for our current purposes that most if not all of it is.

      Now CO2 went from ~305 ppm or so to ~400 ppm, a ~30% increase. The raw forcing is +1.1C per doubling, i.e., there is an inherent diminishing return factor in play.

      Run those numbers (it was pointed out correctly I can do sums) and I am simply not seeing much, if any, room for net positive feedback.

      That leaves us with several possibilities (or combination thereof):

      -- The trend data is incorrect (too low).
      -- Arrhenius was highballing it but net positive feedback making up the difference.
      -- Arrhenius was roughly on the mark, but we ain't seein' no net positive feedback. Or not much, anyway.

      But in any event, unless massive net positive feedback leaps, fully grown and armed, from the brow of Zeus, I just can't make the +3C by 2100 numbers fit, even in terms of equilibrium. (IPCC AR5 low-end, maybe?)

      When I claim the extraordinary things I claim (re. microsite and trends), I need to produce extraordinary proof. Not only for critics to believe it, but equally for me to believe it.

      With that in mind, I think the proposition that AGW is going to go POOF and almost triple all of a sudden requires at least -- some -- real-world indication.

      So you can call me crazy for all that, but at least now you'll be doing so for the right reason. But when it comes to strong net positive feedback, this Liberal Atheist New Yorker comes from Jesuslives County, Iowa: I need to actually see it to believe it -- In the actual trend data. If so, then I will reassess. Are we clear?

      Delete
    11. HadCRUt4 shows a net increase of 0.07C (adjusted)

      Make that 0.7C

      Delete
    12. So how do we explain mid-Pliocene warmth and the Cenozoic hyperthermals? No-feedbacks/weak-feedbacks don't do the job.

      You are apparently arguing that:

      - a warmer troposphere will not hold more water vapour than a cooler one

      - water vapour is not a GHG

      Can you really support this?

      Delete
    13. Evan -- do you mean 3 degrees by 2100 or 3 degrees from a doubling of CO2? If you mean what you said (CO2 by 2100), what is your CO2 estimate for 2100?

      Delete
    14. @ BBDApril 22, 2014 at 8:20 AM

      Now that is the problem with bottom-to-top modeling. When we have near-full knowledge of the factors (like building a bridge), nothing else will do. Or if it's all we have and there is no case in point, yes, we're stuck with it.

      But we have our sample. 1950 - date.

      If strong net positive feedbacks were in play, we would see the effect over that period. It would be in the data. It isn't. It just isn't.

      You are doing, by analogy, a psychological study on why the accused never could possibly have picked up the gun. Bottom-to-top.

      I am showing the fingerprints on the gun. Top-down.

      You are also forgetting the other side of the coin: offsetting negative feedbacks. Some theorized, possibly some unknown.

      What if we make a civil war game that (bottom-to-top) includes every possible factor known and the South wins every time? What would one conclude?

      Okay, such a game would probably take longer to play than it did to faht the wawah, but you get my drift.

      But just one "top-down" 50-50 die roll would be a more "accurate" simulation in terms of result. Imperfect meataxe though it would be.

      I've been around this block twice or once.

      Bottom Line: If significant net positive feedback pertained here, it would jump out of the data and do an Alien on us.

      Like I say, anything can happen. If it does, we reassess. But it hasn't happened so far, and I don't see any reason why it will if it hasn't already.

      Delete
    15. Evan -- do you mean 3 degrees by 2100 or 3 degrees from a doubling of CO2? If you mean what you said (CO2 by 2100), what is your CO2 estimate for 2100?

      Point.

      It does depend on how much CO2 is emitted. We'd have to get to 800 ppm for a doubling. I doubt we'll ever get there, because I think technology -- that works and pays -- will have left fossil fuels (at least for electricity generation) in the dust long since, and nary a treaty nor a law necessary. But IPCC "business as usual" is pessimistic on this point.

      The IPCC and I have had a minor meeting of the minds. Their low end is now my high end. In the pessimistic scenario (tripling of output, i.e., roughly doubling by 2100), I figure 1.0+ to 1.5C with an equilibrium under 2.0. But that's just a guess.

      For the more optimistic scenario I expect, we'll be at or lower than current output levels (possible much lower) by 2100 And we'll get by at the low end at ~1.0C maybe even after transitory effects.

      Delete
    16. Sou, note that I'm bagging the pants a bit here for some possible positive feedback.

      Delete
    17. Evan, I can see why you are going wrong.

      "Now CO2 went from ~305 ppm or so to ~400 ppm, a ~30% increase. The raw forcing is +1.1C per doubling, i.e., there is an inherent diminishing return factor in play."

      You essentially inserted your own personal ideology into the calculation, the "there is an inherent diminishing return factor in play" bit, which more than halved the result. You actually need to provide a physical reason for this and the resultant calculations. You can't just arbitrarily half a result like that.

      If we take a very loose calculation, i.e. 0.7C x (1/0.30) you get a TCS for a doubling of CO2 of 2.1C, which you then converted to 1.1C. i.e. you inserted a very large negative feedback. What negative feedback is that?

      The problem as I see it, is that those who are actually qualified in the subject, and have published their results in a respectable journal, and as such, had their work peer-reviewed, have come to a very different result.

      Take this for example.
      http://www.princeton.edu/~gkv/papers/Padilla_etal11.pdf
      which calculates a best estimate of TCS at 1.6C

      This is a also a good paper, that takes a slightly different tack.
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL059141/abstract

      Which estimates that "TCRE resulting from varying emission pathways to be 0.76 to 1.04°C/TtC". Given that conventional reserves of fossil fuels are estimated to be about 5 TtC, getting up to 3C is not difficult. If you include unconventional sources, the figure goes up to about 10 TtC, and getting past the 6-7C threshold for the methane hydrate gun to go off, leading to a Permian like extinction event, becomes a distinct possibility.

      Evan, the difference between you, and me, is that I know I am hopelessly unqualified to do any climate science. That is why I refer to published journals, that is, the people most qualified to do the science. You on the other hand are arrogant and condescending to the hundreds of dedicated climate scientists around the world. Do you really think that your latest incarnation of your flawed paper is really going to published, and as you put it, wake thousands of previously published papers that are at the back at the old drawing board. Really, are you that deluded!!

      Delete
    18. Evan, spend your time writing a publishable peer-reviewed paper, not crap on blogs. "I figure 1.0+ to 1.5C with an equilibrium under 2.0. But that's just a guess." Yep, that's all it is.

      Delete
    19. What does this mean "We'd have to get to 800 ppm for a doubling. "?

      280 times 2 is 560. The "doubling" in ECS and TCR calculations refers to pre-industrial, not the current CO2 levels.

      If CO2 gets to 800 ppm that's 2.85 times pre-industrial levels. Putting that on an AR5 charts and it's a temperature rise of almost 3 degrees above that of 2000 at RCP8.5 taking the average, dropping to a rise of just under 2 degrees above the 2000 anomaly if we managed to drop to the RCP6 pathway. The range is wider, of course. Temp could rise more than that.

      Anyway, just taking the average readings, that's around 3.7 degrees and 2.7 degrees respectively above the temp a hundred years or so ago.

      I annotated Figure 12.43 here to illustrate. (Note: AR5 prefers to present data now in terms of cumulative emissions not ppmv as in chart TFE.8, but it did include the chart below.)

      http://hotwhopper.com/Charts/Fig12_43annot.png

      Delete
    20. You essentially inserted your own personal ideology into the calculation, the "there is an inherent diminishing return factor in play" bit, which more than halved the result. You actually need to provide a physical reason for this and the resultant calculations. You can't just arbitrarily half a result like that.

      Um, if a thing increases at a fixed rate per doubling that -- by definition -- means diminishing returns. Strongly diminishing returns. Call it my personal ideology. I confess I'm quite unpersuadable on the point.

      In addition, it appears you are assuming, quite contrary to the IPCC evaluation, that 100% of the warming is anthropogenic and that 100% of the anthropogenic warming is due to CO2.

      What negative feedback is that?

      Arithmetic?

      I am not doing some arcane bottom-to-top simulation model here. I am looking at real-world data in real time. Those are the numbers. They are what they are.

      Evan, the difference between you, and me, is that I know I am hopelessly unqualified to do any climate science. That is why I refer to published journals, that is, the people most qualified to do the science.

      Well . . . I'd like to think we have other differences as well.

      The data I have discussed (Arrhenius, HadCRUt4, CO2 levels) is all peer-reviewed and published. And the latter two are more or less empirical, to boot.

      I am then comparing empirical peer-reviewed data with with projected peer-reviewed data and doing the third-grade arithmetic (of which I have been deemed capable) to indicate the differences.

      And when I see a difference between the two peer-reviewed results, I notice it. What do you do?

      You on the other hand are arrogant and condescending to the hundreds of dedicated climate scientists around the world. Do you really think that your latest incarnation of your flawed paper is really going to published, and as you put it, wake thousands of previously published papers that are at the back at the old drawing board. Really, are you that deluded!!

      Well, there's a dedicated climate scientist here right now I've been corresponding with, which you have obviously been reading. It's been a polite conversation so far as I can tell. YMMV!

      If VV is right and it's the US stations alone that are the problem, then he is right. If the problem is widespread, then I am right and any study based on those trends is suspect. Neither one of us has evaluated the RoW stations. It's really as simple as that.

      Delete
    21. 280 times 2 is 560. The "doubling" in ECS and TCR calculations refers to pre-industrial, not the current CO2 levels.

      That only goes askew if you apply disproportionate forcing from positive feedback. But there is no strong net positive feedback in evidence. That is where I differ with the IPCC.

      For raw forcing (Arrhenius) start-point doesn't matter. You get 1.1C raw forcing per doubling from what ever point you start. Our current rate of increase is ~2 ppm/year, or a little under 4 BMTC/year to an atmospheric sink of ~780 BMTC. If that increase is constant, then we hit ~600 ppm by 2100. If the rate of increase is proportional (say, 0.5% per year or so), we could hit 800 ppm.

      If fusion stops being "on the horizon", or we wake up and smell the safe nukes in our livingroom, then all bets are off.

      I only saw the projections before they were revised. I understand they have come down a bit, as you are indicate immediately below.

      If CO2 gets to 800 ppm that's 2.85 times pre-industrial levels. Putting that on an AR5 charts and it's a temperature rise of almost 3 degrees above that of 2000 at RCP8.5 taking the average, dropping to a rise of just under 2 degrees above the 2000 anomaly if we managed to drop to the RCP6 pathway. The range is wider, of course. Temp could rise more than that.

      Right. Presuming the feedback. But that's been my gripe all along. Call me Cracko, but I ain't seen no Federation. Maybe they only got a couple of guys up there. As we know, Cracko was wrong. Both on point and on projection. But he was calling it as he saw it. And when he did see it, he changed his mind.

      What I see is a 0.7C increase, "over half" of which is anthropogenic, after a 30% CO2 increase, over a period of 60+ years. I don't see no Federation. If and when do, I will change my mind.

      BTW, Thanks for your polite, professional demeanor. The fact that we so profoundly disagree causes me to appreciate it all the more. And the discussion with VV could be quite valuable to my efforts; my thanks to him as well.

      Delete
    22. Evan, it's more likely more than 100% of the surface warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. This is offset by aerosol forcing (negative) plus some volcanic forcing (negative) plus in recent years by reduced solar forcing (negative).

      May I call you "Cracko" from now on? :D

      Delete
    23. Evan writes
      "What I see is a 0.7C increase, "over half" of which is anthropogenic, after a 30% CO2 increase, over a period of 60+ years."

      and

      "What negative feedback is that?

      Arithmetic?"

      Hmm, it's just that you are disagreeing with the scientific and published literature.

      For instance in AR5 they say this

      "Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period."

      The problem is that by looking at only CO2 and the warming of 0.7C in one pop, and then halving the result because you say "over half" of which is anthropogenic", ignores the physics and models and the published research. (Trust me when I say that you will look like a fool if you continue to do that and instead rely on your 'feelings')

      Natural forcing and natural variation, according to AR5 is almost 0, (You can see this visibly in Figure TS.9 pg60 of the AR5 Full) so in reality, all of the anthropogenic warming and cooling combined is the 0.7C, as anthropogenic warming is more than the anthropogenic cooling. How can you just make up that it's half, in defiance of the research?

      Also you need to understand that CO2 alone actually represents more than 100% to the increase.

      What, I hear you say? How can that be?

      Yes that's right. It's the fatal flaw that Monckton and yourself make.

      For an in depth explanation, and perhaps a mind f**k, take a look at this.

      Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31 ◦ C (0.85–1.76 ◦ C) to the increase, that is 159% (106–212%) of the total warming.

      http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/huber11natgeo.pdf

      Delete
    24. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    25. Evan

      Will you please answer the question I actually asked you. I'm not interested in your inability to understand the methodological issues with calculating ECS from a short sample of surface temperature data when we don't have a good handle on aerosol negative forcing or the effects of transient changes in ocean heat uptake. So you can give that one up right away.

      How do we explain mid-Pliocene warmth and the Cenozoic hyperthermals? No-feedbacks/weak-feedbacks don't do the job. You are arguing flat in the face of the evidence.

      Underpinning your unphysical denial that feedbacks net positive is your apparent belief that:

      - a warmer troposphere will not hold more water vapour than a cooler one

      - water vapour is not a GHG

      Can you really support this?

      Answer the questions you are being asked.

      Delete
    26. And you can stop inserting assertive nonsense like this into your responses as well:

      If strong net positive feedbacks were in play, we would see the effect over that period. It would be in the data. It isn't. It just isn't.

      And:

      Bottom Line: If significant net positive feedback pertained here, it would jump out of the data and do an Alien on us.

      There is no incompatibility between the existence of net positive feedbacks and observational data. You seem to imagine that this somehow means instant thermageddon, which indicates that you don't understand the topic very clearly.

      Delete
    27. I missed more nonsensical assertion on the first pass:

      You are also forgetting the other side of the coin: offsetting negative feedbacks. Some theorized, possibly some unknown.

      No I'm not. If they existed and had any real clout, then the mid-Pliocene would have been cooler and the early Cenozoic hyperthermals would not have happened. In fact nothing much would have happened at all because you are arguing for a climate system largely insensitive to radiative perturbation. You are arguing flat in the face of the evidence, by which I mean all known paleoclimate behaviour.

      Delete
    28. Evan Jones said:

      "Um, if a thing increases at a fixed rate per doubling that -- by definition -- means diminishing returns. Strongly diminishing returns. Call it my personal ideology. I confess I'm quite unpersuadable on the point."

      and in doing so demonstrates why he is not competent to comment on the issue of climate sensitivity and the effect of warming on the biosphere.

      First, let's get something out of the way. Every scientist working directly or indirectly with climate change understands the logarithmic relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and temperature increase. Jones hasn't discovered anything that isn't already well understood - he just seems to think that he's on to something profound...

      However this logarithmic relationship isn't the good news that Jones imagines it is, because it means that the highest proportion of temperature increase occurs early in the trajectory of CO2 increase: in other words, probaly before humans ever get to actually doing anything serious about it. Bit of a problem, that.

      There's also the issue that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas whose emissions are increasing, so the overall effect is that the trajectory of temperature increase is effectively linear right into serious danger territory.

      It gets worse though. Denialists of the science seem to think that any effects (where they can actually avoid choking on acknowledgment that such will occur...) will accumulate in a gradual and linear way. This is wrong, and it reflects a staggeringly poor or (more likely) an absent understanding of the kinetics of biological processes.

      Take enzyme function, for example - something that underpins just about all life processes. Enzymes have activity rates that show a distinct bell-shaped response to temperature. In other words, they function at their respective optima and this activity is maintained relatively well close to these optima, but activity drops ever more rapidly as temperature shifts away from the optima. In a single enzyme system there is a tailing, but for effective biological function this tailing is irrelevant - it's the rapid drop from the central optimum that matters most. Further, because of the complex interaction of enzymatic and other physiological processes in the intricate system of a whole organism, or in the interplay of species within an entire ecosystem, the existence of 'tails' around bioclimatic envelopes is pretty much irrelevant.

      What this means is that even if there was an appreciable "diminishing" effect of increasing CO2 emissions on temperature, this would be more than countered by the exponentially increasing harm that shifts from bioclimatic equilibria would bring. And given that temperature increase is likely to be linear or greater than linear over the next 50 to 100 years, the most probable outcome is a rapidly accumulating toll on a wide variety of biological functions, across a huge swathe of the planet's biodiversity.

      It's going to be an unpleasant ride, with many predictable and also many unforseen consequences, and it's "unpersuadable", "ideological" idiots like Jones and his brethren who are responsible for the delay in mitigating the approaching nastiness.

      I hope that each and every one of them live long, long lives, so that they may eventually* realise the profound enormity of the damage thaty they're inflicting on the only known biosphere in the whole of existence.


      [*This is predicated on them having sufficient intellectual and moral capacities to one day come to such a realisation...]

      Delete
    29. Evan, it's more likely more than 100% of the surface warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. This is offset by aerosol forcing (negative) plus some volcanic forcing (negative) plus in recent years by reduced solar forcing (negative).

      Beware conflating offset and trend. Stipulating that aerosol cooling was prevalent in the 1950s, and that this decreased the readings, that would not decrease the 1950s - present trend. it would increase it.

      But I don't even go that far. It touches on another point: How did AGW become such a big flap in the first place? I think I know why, and it does not necessarily reflect negatively on the scientists involved nor does it impugn their integrity.

      Here's how I see it. The problem came to the fore in the 1980s. Trend had taken a significant turn upward. What was believed was that there would have been just as much warming in the 1950, except for aerosols. And that by the 1980s antipollution measures removed this downward pressure and that the true forcing was asserting itself.

      But all that was without accounting for PDO cycles. 1950 - 1977 was a negative PDO cycle, while the 1977 - 2007 comprises a PDO positive. That explains the flat-to-cooling of the 1950s, (mostly) incorrectly ascribed to aerosols. It accounts for the greatly accelerated warming from 1977 to the post-2000 period. And, as PDO waffled, and then recently. has flipped to negative, that accounts quite nicely for the "pause", too.

      But the forcing has been relatively constant, throughout the post-1950s period, I agree with you there.

      Why wasn't the PDO taken into account? The PDO was not even described by science until 1996, and it took years for it to become accepted. So there is zero blame on the climate scientists in this regard. In fact, credit is due for the discovery in the first place, picking up on the salmon proxy described by fisherman, and following where that led. Good science.

      Where does that leave us? In a twist. Had the scientists been aware that the PDO-fueled warming of the post-'50s era was only half potentially anthropogenic and half PDO forcing, there would perhaps have been concern, but little alarm. But the alarm was sounded, and loudly. And that, lamentably, brought the politics into it, and we have never been able to properly separate the two since.

      But We have looked at PDO from both sides now. From up and down, and still somehow it's aerosol's illusions, we recall. And we really don't know clouds at all.

      there is is, then. And I didn't use the word "fraud" or "conspiracy" or "New World Order" or "International Bankers", or "Big Oil", or "Greenpeace" or "Koch Brothers" or "Hockey Stick" even once.

      May I call you "Cracko" from now on? :D

      Why not? Lord knows, I have been called worse.

      Besides, Oxmix is yesterday's news. Lost his spirit. Lost his ambition. Too long at the top. My boys'll put him down, easy. Besides, I know Oxmix, he didn't even offer you a dime out of that there warming trend. But I'll give you a thoid. Skimmed right off the top.

      Delete
    30. That explains the flat-to-cooling of the 1950s, (mostly) incorrectly ascribed to aerosols.

      And still more assertive nonsense. See here.

      Is a warmer troposphere going to hold more WV? Yes/no?

      Is WV a greenhouse gas? Yes/no?

      Delete
    31. If feedbacks to radiative perturbation are weak the the climate system will be insensitive to radiative perturbation. True/false?

      Paleoclimate behaviour is characterised by considerable, sometimes abrupt variability. True/false?

      Delete
  12. I think they should just name it after an amalgamation of Watts and Monckton.

    Something like "Wankton"....

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes Anthony is a neanderthal .
    Check the evidence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha ha, good one. Did Anthony really put that monstrosity together? (Are you sure it's his or is it just someone else's that he put up at WUWT.) I love the way he tacked the global temperature onto the end of the 1850 temp at the summit of the ice sheet. And the labels are great. How many people brewed beer in the middle of Greenland's ice sheet back then :D

      (I don't think I've ever seen a chart that Anthony drew himself before. That's hilarious. Crazier than even Don Easterbrook - though it's prettier.)

      Delete
    2. You might enjoy this one, too, Anonymous. It was also based on something from WUWT :)

      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/denier-weirdness-this-is-denialism-at.html

      Delete
  14. Anthony started out in the alarmist camp? Pull the other one. Oh I know he likes to say that.

    Is there any evidence that it isn't true? He wouldn't be the first who went south on that (Judith Curry, another lukewarmer, springs to mind).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to Watts he knew nothing about AGW when he started looking into it and immediately discovered it was all down to the UHI. That's about when he first got noticed by anybody. Curry first got noticed by anybody when she started being a contrarian.

      How many people who get to post at WUWT would have global exposure if they weren't denying AGW? How many would we have heard about at all? Certainly not Watts.

      There's a pattern emerging, don't you think?

      Delete
    2. I don't see Judith having changed her position on the science over the years. She's just become more strident in her goal of spreading FUD when she took the decision to become a political advocate on what we do about it (like Anthony, she doesn't like the policy implications of the science).

      Delete
    3. She was one of those who was very big on 'extreme weather". But now, not so much.

      Delete
    4. Anthony started out concentrating almost exclusively on Station microsite. He had no idea whatever where it would lead. You don't just go and say, "Gee, I want to be on the world stage, so I'm going to start a blog. Now what position should I take?"

      If that tipping point had occurred (the one everybody seems to have expected but has now forgotten about), Terrible Tony would have been tipped right off the map.

      You might as well say that I was glomming onto fame by posting, and ultimately moderating there. But I assure you that back in 2008 I had not the slightest notion where this would all lead. I wasn't even doing any stations surveys until the very end of 2008.

      I have seen this in historical studies (my own field). Certain players are accused of carefully and opportunistically plotting their fame from the very start. Sometimes, yes. But usually it's just a result of riding an entirely unexpected wave.

      How WUWT all got so big is a complicated subject.

      Delete
    5. You're referring to her paper on hurricanes I presume. She got her taste for publicity from that paper. The science (by other scientists) is very ambivalent on that score when it comes to whether they will increase, decrease or decrease but with more intensity.

      I don't see Judith saying much different from the mainstream in regard to extreme events except, of course that every second word she utters is "uncertain". (She knows what it means and knows that deniers as well as many normal people don't know what it means.) Oh, and she will publicise the views of naysayers in a leading manner (as if she endorses those views) while herself staying carefully non-committal as to whether she agrees with them or not. She is very political and transparently so.

      There is other extreme weather where trends have been attributed to AGW (eg heat waves, intense downpours etc). I don't see where she has done any work to contradict those findings.

      With Judith like with Richard Lindzen and John Christy, you need to distinguish between what they say in public and what they write in scientific journals. Their public statements are for the public not their colleagues or the scientific community - and are not necessarily supported by science.

      Delete
    6. Evan, the fact that you chose a pseudo-science blog (WUWT) as a base indicates your predisposition to reject science.

      Now doing the work that you are doing is a good thing but you don't seem to have learnt much about the broader field from the work you've done over the past few years. Bear in mind surface station siting is a microcosm of the field of climate science. You cannot expect it to overturn the findings of climate science. You would have to do a lot more than look at satellite images of weather stations.

      Your comment about how WUWT grew is (semi) interesting. Is there more to it than the surface station project and the emergence of some influential supporters from the disinformation brigade who saw it as an opportunity? (Wasn't hard, given Anthony's traits, for them to use him and give him a leg up the disinformer hierarchy. I doubt he'll ever be able to join the disinformation elite though. He doesn't have quite the right qualities to fit in.)

      Maybe you could write a book about it (did you say you were a history major?)

      Delete
    7. Anthony started out concentrating almost exclusively on Station microsite. He had no idea whatever where it would lead.

      That's might be true but his intention was clear. His earliest blog posts on the topic are not "I'm studying this for the sake of it" they were "Something Must be Wrong". And "it cant' be getting that hot" and "look at the peeling paint" or "siting" etc.

      He went in looking for evidence that the temperature readings are too high. That plus the fact that he had so much trouble (for years, maybe still) understanding anomalies explains why he couldn't see that if a particular reading was too high, it didn't really matter. It's the trend that counts. Your paper with him showed that while there was a difference in diurnal variation, siting made no difference in the average trend.

      Even with this coming paper he has said he doesn't believe his own past findings (or that of anyone else), he wants to disregard those and prove that the temperature record for the US is wrong. I doubt he will find anything that makes a substantial difference to the US trend in anomalies let alone the global record. If he does then so be it. However the trend from satellites of the lower troposphere mirrors the trend at the surface, so he'd have to find something wrong with the satellite measures too.

      Anthony naturally gravitated to contrarians and pointed to an exchange with Roger Pielke Sr (of all people) in one of his early posts:

      http://archive.today/Kd8td#selection-1151.0-1155.224

      Delete
    8. By the way, since I linked to a discussion of Pielke Sr's paper, I should probably link to the realclimate.org article about it, which clears up some (un)common misperceptions:

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/comment-page-1/

      Delete
    9. "Anthony started out concentrating almost exclusively on Station microsite. He had no idea whatever where it would lead."

      Bullshit. RPSr had been suggesting that supposed warming was an artifact of microsite problems and station data adjustments and suggesting that a "citizen science" project to prove it would be a good use of time. Watts stood up to the plate. From the beginning, the goal was to undermine the obvious.

      Quit lying, Evan.

      Delete
  15. Evan, the fact that you chose a pseudo-science blog (WUWT) as a base indicates your predisposition to reject science.

    Actually, I can tell you exactly why: it demonstrated that there were severe problems with the instruments that produced the base data.

    Further investigation indicates that bad siting affects trend even if said bad siting is a constant.

    And even if that didn't, encroaching obstruction (usually mislabeled as UHI) does. And, to be frank, SHAP ain't makin' it.

    Now doing the work that you are doing is a good thing but you don't seem to have learnt much about the broader field from the work you've done over the past few years.

    You think not? I think I have already demonstrated otherwise. YMMV. #B^)

    BTW, I was wondering why, in the discussion of feedback, no one adduced Milankovitch Cycles. There's about a clear a case as you can get.

    Your comment about how WUWT grew is (semi) interesting. Is there more to it than the surface station project and the emergence of some influential supporters from the disinformation brigade who saw it as an opportunity?

    Nah, so far as I know, that sounds about right. The surprise-free scenario: Pretty good fire to start with. Spread from there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Your paper with him showed that while there was a difference in diurnal variation, siting made no difference in the average trend.

    Fall's and Anthony's paper. With Christie pushing and Pielke pulling. and J-NG picking up the bits. I was #4 co-author on that one. Much less legwork that time 'round (a mere couple hundred hours), because Leroy (1999) is a far easier metric than Leroy (2010) to use for rating stations. Leroy (2010 ) rating actually required me to "do some sums".

    Part of the fun is that now we flatly dispute our previous findings.

    If you are interested in how and why those differences emerged, we can discuss that. But it's not as if we weren't fully aware of them, i can assure you.

    your predisposition to reject science.

    *Mischievous Grin* But isn't that what science is? Isn't that what science does? Isn't that what science is all about? Hasn't 99% of science throughout the ages already been "rejected" -- by science?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Quit lying, Evan.

    Well, well, speak of the devil. If it ain't my dear friend dhogaza, himself. I see you have retained the dulcet demeanor I recall so well. This is going to be fun. But do you not realize that, stipulating what you say is true, does not in the least contradict anything I said? Nor even redirect its meaning or change its context?

    And do you have any comment on the upcoming paper? I'd love to have your input on that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evan, you guys have been announcing that "upcoming" paper for over a year. September 2012 you got shot down minutes after Pielke sr announced it as yet another potential game changer. July 2013 and another few comments from you on Stoat that it was on its way. We're getting close to yet another year with the promise it is on its way. Stop wasting your and our time and get it done already!

      Oh, did you already get Mcintyre interested? Without him or another who can do Monte Carlo you'd still be stuck, right?

      Delete
    2. These things take time.

      Evan, you guys have been announcing that "upcoming" paper for over a year. September 2012 you got shot down minutes after Pielke sr announced it as yet another potential game changer.

      The criticism was that TOBS had not been accounted for (we acknowledged this in the paper and said we would address it later).

      The proposition was:

      -- TOBS is a cooling bias.
      -- Rural sites were more likely to be affected by TOBS.
      -- Rural stations are better sited than urban stations.
      Therefore correction for TOBS will wash away the differences between well and poorly sited stations.

      This was all very well except for the unutterable fact that it wasn't true. Rural stations are not better sited than urban stations. Urban stations are more likely to be well sited than rural stations. Confusing mesosite and microsite is common as cheese in this discussion, including among those who really should know better. But it's a mistake.

      When I ultimately identified the TOBS-biased stations and dropped them, it did not narrow the trend gap between well and poorly sited stations. It did narrow the trend gap between raw, well sited stations and the official overall adjusted record from ~100% to ~80%.

      Like three quarters of shootdowns reported in war, nothing was actually shot down.

      July 2013 and another few comments from you on Stoat that it was on its way.

      Actually, that was quite valuable. It motivated me to do another massive round and prune every moved station where one location was unknown or where the ratings changed. I don't recall if I had already made the MMTS conversion adjustments at that time, but that had to be done, too.

      Stop wasting your and our time

      It is beyond my power to waste your time. You can read my stuff and arguably waste it yourself (by reading this, for example), or just scroll on by, in which case you will have wasted nothing.

      and get it done already!

      It's not up to me. The ball has been passed on. (Which means, "Real Soon Now". Or something.)

      Oh, did you already get Mcintyre interested? Without him or another who can do Monte Carlo you'd still be stuck, right?

      J-NG. Done. (Confidence 99.999%. Skin that one, Pilgrim!)

      Delete
    3. Evan, you are wasting our time by making large noise about a non-existing paper. It's clearly all about creating doubt and maintaining the interest of the WUWT readers (although perhaps not consciously). Menne et al almost took the wind out of all of you, requiring you guys to follow up with Fall et al, which until John N-G got involved was supposedly still showing a warming trend due to bad siting.

      You then came with a new analysis, which ignored several known issues, so you at least could get your old meme in the literature: "warm biased trend!". Color me skeptical that you know what you are doing, but at least you have now been smart enough to involve someone who does not share your goals.

      Delete
  18. However the trend from satellites of the lower troposphere mirrors the trend at the surface, so he'd have to find something wrong with the satellite measures too.

    Fair point.

    But do recall that UAH and RSS are not surface measurements. The part of it that we "care about" measures is lower troposphere. We've got Christy as co-author on this, recall.

    He has always claimed his calcs show that LT trends ought to be ~20% (possibly as high as 40%) higher than surface trends, and has been perplexed when that has not shown up in the data. The amplification of our current results pretty much splits the uprights at factor of 1.25.

    One of those cases where top-down gets its comeuppance from bottom-to-top at the end of the day.

    ReplyDelete
  19. That's might be true but his intention was clear. His earliest blog posts on the topic are not "I'm studying this for the sake of it" they were "Something Must be Wrong".

    But isn't that, or it's converse "This Has to Be Right", been a primary motivating factor in a whole lot of science? (As Hayden remarked to Smiley, "Since when is ambition a sin in this beastly outfit?")

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope. Either of those attitudes can get you into strife, depending on how strongly you hold them. And your team members are very determined to prove something by hook or by crook. If you don't find what you're hoping to find, will you change your tune or will you bury your results and move onto something else - or try another approach?

      What evidence would you accept to show your hypothesis is wrong, or at least that it means not a lot in the context of global warming. (I'm assuming your hypothesis is what Anthony wrote - that he reckons the US temperature trend is overstated on the warm side).

      You are bound to find problems with individual surface stations, but you'll have a much harder time showing the global anomaly trends are askew.

      Delete
    2. And your team members are very determined to prove something by hook or by crook.If you don't find what you're hoping to find, will you change your tune or will you bury your results

      We didn't last time.

      or try another approach?

      Why, yes. Me (I think the other had more or less given up.) And that's this time.

      What evidence would you accept to show your hypothesis is wrong, or at least that it means not a lot in the context of global warming.

      As VV said, if the problem is isolated to the USHCN. I doubt that, but have not yet made the observations (which will be difficult at best). Now if I could somehow procure a grant . . . but I would have no idea about thow to go about doing that.

      The other way is if my ratings are wrong. I don't think they are. I carefully reviewed them while pretending I was my own worst enemy out to get me. Others have spot checked and found them on the money. But if I did screw up, that would be an avenue of falsification.

      Another way is if NOAA badly screwed up either the data or metadata. But that is very unlikely.

      Delete
    3. Exactly. You, or Anthony at least, didn't change his tune last time. As John Abraham said last year:

      The fact is that Mr. Watts is not a pragmatic sceptic. Real scientists are sceptical by nature. We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves. Scientists honestly develop views of how the world works and they test those views by experimentation. As a result of approximately 150 years of climate science, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change. Mr. Watts, on the other hand, dismisses evidence that is counter to his viewpoint. That is not scepticism–that is plain denial.

      And Anthony quickly responded and proved John Abraham right by dismissing evidence that is "counter to his claim". Even his own evidence.

      Delete
    4. Exactly. You, or Anthony at least, didn't change his tune last time. As John Abraham said last year:

      On surfacestations? Quite. But that's the point, isn't it? Last year we knew our 2011 results were incorrect. And we knew how and why. All through experimentation.

      But in 2011, though, after Fall et al., Anthony was not saying that at all. Keynes' immortal quote springs forcibly to mind, here.

      As a result of approximately 150 years of climate science, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change. Mr. Watts, on the other hand, dismisses evidence that is counter to his viewpoint. That is not scepticism–that is plain denial.

      But neither Anthony nor I deny any of that. I think someone palmed the pea halfway through that paragraph.

      Delete
  20. It may be that: Further investigation indicates that bad siting affects trend even if said bad siting is a constant. But you're talking about individual stations I presume - and your current study. That doesn't necessarily affect the global temperature trend (or the US temperature trend).

    And the rest of my comments holds true. You'd have a hard time showing that the worldwide surface and atmospheric (satellite) record is "wrong" or overstated. (Cowtan and Way suggests the reverse, that it's understated.)

    Heck, you guys have been trying to disprove the record for more than seven years and haven't managed to do so. Meanwhile yourself (Fall et al) showed no issue with the average US trend. Lots of other people have shown that the different global data sets align well - including BEST.

    I think what you're doing may add some value in a minor way, but your attitude - deciding the outcome you want and trying like heck to prove it (rather than disprove it) leaves a bit to be desired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re the troposphere warming, I guess you are talking about this:

      http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/tropospheric-hot-spot/

      BTW it's not a good advert to have John Christy on your team unless you have a reputable scientist to triple check what he writes.

      Delete
    2. I'm wondering what the timescales on this magnum opus are. From past experience of denialist papers its usual for preliminary results (game changing potential Nobel prize winning importance blah blah) just before some event of political significance. Publication, rapid debunking and assignment to the garbage bin follows after the political event.

      So I'm guessing that this one is for the US mid term elections?

      Delete
    3. Even if Evan shows that 2% of the earth's surface has a temperature half of what is currently accepted, it won't be as ground breaking as he expects. For a start, what about the other 98% of the earth's surface?

      Plus, it's in conflict with other independent lines of evidence, such as satellite measurements. But most of all, it would be in conflict with what I consider is the best thermometer in the world, the world's oceans. Just think about it, a conventional thermometer works by measuring the thermal expansion of a liquid, such as mercury or alcohol, stored in a bulb. The oceans act like a giant bulb, and the measurements of the level of the sea is like the graduations on a thermometer. The beauty is that it doesn't suffer from any micro-site influences, UHI or changes in location. I see Evan's 'obsession' as just another denier folly that is destined to fail. Good luck with overturning 150 years of climate science, and the immutable laws of physics.

      Delete
    4. tropospheric-hot-spot/

      This is lower troposphere. The hot spot is "missing from" the middle or upper troposphere. So not that, exactly.

      So I'm guessing that this one is for the US mid term elections?

      A little bird tells me the GOP ain't gonna need any help this time. But we want it out ASAP at this point, whenever that turns out to be.

      It may be that: Further investigation indicates that bad siting affects trend even if said bad siting is a constant. But you're talking about individual stations I presume - and your current study. That doesn't necessarily affect the global temperature trend (or the US temperature trend).

      Depends on how many. Think every unmoved, non-TOBS biased USCHN station in the US except for those that were long closed and we therefore couldn't find.

      BTW it's not a good advert to have John Christy on your team unless you have a reputable scientist to triple check what he writes.

      He'll just cover the stuff on the satellite record. All very basic stuff.

      Publication, rapid debunking and assignment to the garbage bin follows after the political event.

      Bets? Although I imagine there will be a multitude of claims it it debunked -- entirely regardless of whether it is or not.

      Delete
    5. The bit that I was referring to was the following para, which I presumed was what you were talking about:

      http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/tropospheric-hot-spot/

      Based on theoretical considerations and simulations with General Circulation Models (GCMs), it is expected that any warming at the surface will be amplified in the upper troposphere. The reason for this is as follows: More warming at the surface means more evaporation and more convection. Higher in the troposphere the (extra) water vapour condenses and heat is released. Calculations with GCMs show that the lower troposphere warms about 1.2 times faster than the surface. For the tropics, where most of the moist is, the amplification is larger, about 1.4.

      If not, do you have any references to show what you were referring to?

      Delete
    6. I imagine there will be a multitude of claims it it debunked -- entirely regardless of whether it is or not.

      Persecuted victim plus nefarious intent? You've been spending too much time with Anthony Watts.

      (There's no reason to think that if the work is solid and supports the findings.)

      Delete
    7. "Bets? Although I imagine there will be a multitude of claims it it debunked -- entirely regardless of whether it is or not."

      Oh thats a bingo! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugpg8XruhVk

      So which of the many denialist screeds commonly held to be debunked are you going to cite as evidence for such an unkind world?

      Delete
  21. So FUNNY...You all are getting a taste of what I had to put up with for some 2 years!
    Prepare for THOUSANDS of comments...Boy, is this comical. Evan "Terminator Troll" has arrived! Go get them, Evan....he takes a licking and keeps on ticking, no matter what. Hey, ask him about ocean acidification and ph change due to CO2 increase output. That would be a good topic to hear his wise thoughts as an "expert" marine biologist.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm curious...

    Can any of the Australians here remember the advertisment to which I refer here:

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-esld.html#90179

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bernard, that would have been at the height of the Regional Forest Agreements. I recall there being one advert that the timber industry peak bodies didn't like too much, though I don't think it's the one you're referring to. I can't remember the details too well. (I'd say my memory isn't what it used to be, but my memory has always been a bit like a sieve.)

      Delete
  23. "Anthony started out concentrating almost exclusively on Station microsite. He had no idea whatever where it would lead. "

    Sorry, Evan, but dhogaza is correct - that is not a reality-based statement. In 2007, after only a few % of the data had been collected, Watts gave an interview to the Pittsburg Tribune in which he flatly stated

    "I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

    I thought in science, you were supposed to draw conclusions from the data, not the other way round? Can you say 'confirmation bias'?

    Then there was the ridiculous Heartland-published 'report' on the reliability of the US record, featuring a bunch of surface station money-shots, miraculously the 'well-sited' ones had a flat or cooling trend, while the ones with siting issues showed a warming trend...

    Then there was the 2010 SIPP 'report' Policy Driven Deception? from Watts and D'Aleo which has as its lead conclusion:-

    'Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.'

    Not much point analysing further then. Then when the BEST paper made that position untenable, history had to be rewritten ...

    '1.The Earth is warmer than it was 100-150 years ago. But that was never in contention - it is a straw man argument. The magnitude and causes are what skeptics question.'


    My bold. One hallmark of a scientist is that he or she is careful to correct any errors as new information comes to light. Watts leaves his contradictions around to mislead and misinform (all the above reports are still available for download). He is not a scientist, he is a propagandist. Given his reluctance to clear up his previous 'whoppers', and rewrite history when it suits the agenda, why should anyone ever believe a word he writes?


    http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html#axzz2zcldAqUD
    https://heartland.org/policy-documents/us-surface-temperature-record-reliable
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/best-what-i-agree-with-and-what-i-disagree-with-plus-a-call-for-additional-transparency-to-preven-pal-review/

    ReplyDelete
  24. How do we explain mid-Pliocene warmth and the Cenozoic hyperthermals? No-feedbacks/weak-feedbacks don't do the job.

    I explain it by strong net positive feedback.

    But no need to go back three million years. We have a much better set of examples that are far more recent: Milankovitch Cycles. Same question, same answer. (Ice albedo delta in that case.)

    You are arguing flat in the face of the evidence.

    You say that a lot. I do not think I mean what you think I mean. Perhaps I have been unclear. I shall explicate.

    We can posit net positive feedbacks in play during the PO because there was a large change in temperatures and the immediate causes require a catalyst to produced the observed effect. Therefore, we may infer positive feedback and pursue our examinations on that basis.

    But we are not talking Pliocene. We are talking 1950 to present. We know that strong net positive feedback cannot be in play during this period because for a feedback to be a feedback, it actually has to Feed Back. It ain't. Not in evidence. Not in the data. Not in a box. Not on FOX. Not here nor there. Not anywhere.

    You cannot have a net positive feedback that does not manifest itself in the data.

    Sou takes a more logical tack. Her premise is that net positive feedback from CO2 increase is masked by outside effects such as industrial and volcanic aerosols. I think that hypothesis is incorrect, because of the both attribution and distribution of the effect (as I explained in my reply to her), but at least her argument is reasoned out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This claim is false:

      But we are not talking Pliocene. We are talking 1950 to present. We know that strong net positive feedback cannot be in play during this period because for a feedback to be a feedback, it actually has to Feed Back. It ain't. Not in evidence. Not in the data. Not in a box. Not on FOX. Not here nor there. Not anywhere.

      Why have you skipped away from the sub-thread containing our exchange?

      Why have you failed to answer any of my questions directly?

      Here they are again:

      Is a warmer troposphere going to hold more WV? Yes/no?

      Is WV a greenhouse gas? Yes/no?

      If feedbacks to radiative perturbation are weak the the climate system will be insensitive to radiative perturbation. True/false?

      Paleoclimate behaviour is characterised by considerable, sometimes abrupt variability. True/false?

      Delete
    2. but at least her argument is reasoned out.

      As is mine. It's your position that is blatantly flawed.

      Delete
    3. We know that strong net positive feedback cannot be in play during this period because for a feedback to be a feedback, it actually has to Feed Back. It ain't. Not in evidence. Not in the data. Not in a box. Not on FOX. Not here nor there. Not anywhere.

      That's just nuts. The earth is warming faster than maybe any time in the last 65 million years at least, and you say there are no positive feedbacks?

      http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html

      It looks to me as if Evan has no sense of time (or scale). Climate science deniers commonly act as if something that, if left to natural changes like a change in tilt, might take several thousand years (at least) hasn't happened already then AGW isn't happening.

      Evan, Marco is right.

      (We do get our share of utter nutters here at HW.)

      Delete
  25. Persecuted victim plus nefarious intent? You've been spending too much time with Anthony Watts.

    (There's no reason to think that if the work is solid and supports the findings.)


    It happened before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh? When? Not with Fall et al. I wasn't aware that you'd published anything else relating to climate/weather.

      Delete
  26. Sorry, Evan, but dhogaza is correct - that is not a reality-based statement. In 2007, after only a few % of the data had been collected, Watts gave an interview to the Pittsburg Tribune in which he flatly stated

    "I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

    I thought in science, you were supposed to draw conclusions from the data, not the other way round?

    Where I come from we call that "stating the hypothesis". And a very measured and cautious one, at that. Believe. Some. Show.

    And in 2011, he was conceding that Tmean was likely not affected. We reported and published those findings. We did not drop them down a hole.

    It was only the solid results of my fortuitous continuation of the project that have caused him to claim otherwise since.

    And I want to emphasize, there was no innovation here on my part, just carrying on from where we had left off with the next logical approach. Like a bug fished out of an inkwell, I was discouraged -- but alive; I simply marched on.

    It's been a long time coming. It's going to be a long time gone. But you know, the darkest hour Is always, always just before the dawn. And it appears to be a long, appears to be a long, appears to be a long time, such a long, long, long, long time
    before the dawn.

    Can you say 'confirmation bias'?

    That's why god made peer review. #B^)

    ReplyDelete
  27. You are arguing flat in the face of the evidence.

    I am arguing evidence in the face of the flat.

    ReplyDelete
  28. As is mine. It's your position that is blatantly flawed.

    I have addressed your position, both indirectly and very directly, and clearly stated the reasons therefor. I have further explained, in detail, that the position that you appear to think I hold is not my position at all.

    Have you any material response?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Answer the questions please, Evan. And please stay on ONE THREAD while you are doing it.

      Thanks.

      Is a warmer troposphere going to hold more WV? Yes/no?

      Is WV a greenhouse gas? Yes/no?

      If feedbacks to radiative perturbation are weak the the climate system will be insensitive to radiative perturbation. True/false?

      Paleoclimate behaviour is characterised by considerable, sometimes abrupt variability. True/false?

      Delete
    2. And Evan, this claim is still false:

      But we are not talking Pliocene. We are talking 1950 to present. We know that strong net positive feedback cannot be in play during this period because for a feedback to be a feedback, it actually has to Feed Back. It ain't. Not in evidence. Not in the data. Not in a box. Not on FOX. Not here nor there. Not anywhere.

      Delete
  29. Is a warmer troposphere going to hold more WV? Yes/no?

    Is WV a greenhouse gas? Yes/no?

    Clearly. But what if the increase in atmospheric water is going more into low-level cloud cover rather than into ambient vapor?

    If feedbacks to radiative perturbation are weak the the climate system will be insensitive to radiative perturbation. True/false?

    Depends. Positive or negative feedbacks? But if there is a radiative imbalance there will be forcing absent the presence of outside factors. (If I understand the question.)

    But I am not speaking theoretically.

    I am addressing the established data over a defined period. You are questioning, by analogy, if anything was going on in the suspect's head that might or might not have have caused him to commit a theoretical murder. I am pointing at a body.

    I might just as well ask you: If there is no amplification of trend, over a given period, beyond raw CO2 forcing, are strong net positive feedbacks likely to be in play? Yes/No?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly. But what if the increase in atmospheric water is going more into low-level cloud cover rather than into ambient vapor?

      Oh, I see how you work. Evasion and and irrelevance. Hands and waffle.

      Those four questions illustrate why you are wrong. Since you will not accept your error, there's no point in continuing to point it out to you.

      Delete
    2. For the record:

      Is a warmer troposphere going to hold more WV? Yes/no? YES

      Is WV a greenhouse gas? Yes/no? YES

      If feedbacks to radiative perturbation are weak the the climate system will be insensitive to radiative perturbation. True/false? TRUE

      Paleoclimate behaviour is characterised by considerable, sometimes abrupt variability. True/false? TRUE

      The first two questions illustrate how positive WV feedback is engaged by warming, eg increased TSI or GHG forcing.

      The second pair illustrates that the real climate system is indeed moderately sensitive to radiative perturbation, something only possible if feedbacks net positive.

      Interested readers will note that Evan Jones simply refused to make clear, unambiguous, unqualified responses despite being asked repeatedly to do so.

      Delete
    3. On the one hand, I agree with the answers.

      On the other hand, they had nothing directly to do with what was being discussed.

      (And on my third hand, you failed to answer every question I put to you.)

      Delete
  30. And Evan, this claim is still false:

    But we are not talking Pliocene. We are talking 1950 to present. We know that strong net positive feedback cannot be in play during this period because for a feedback to be a feedback, it actually has to Feed Back. It ain't. Not in evidence. Not in the data. Not in a box. Not on FOX. Not here nor there. Not anywhere.


    Yet you fail to explain why.

    But I have explained why not: It does not show up in the data. The data shows 0.11C per decade warming since 1950. PDO phases cancel. Aerosols, if anything, increase the trend, seeing as how the bulk occurs towards the beginning of the sample period.

    Your bottom-to-top approach is leading you astray. You are allowing your calculus to get in the way of your arithmetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're spouting rubbish again Evan. You have managed to convince yourself that 0.11 degrees a decade since 1950 is "nothing to worry about", which is rubbish. Take a look at this decadal chart from the 1980s to 2010.

      And I have no idea what you're on about with "aerosols increasing the trend". You think aerosols on balance are a positive forcing? That's nonsense. It was when aerosols started to decline with clean air regs while CO2 emissions rose hugely that temperatures went ahead in leaps and bounds. Look at what happens to surface temperature when a big volcano erupts. It doesn't heat up the surface.

      Imagine what the surface temperature would be without the asian smog.

      Delete
  31. Clearly. But what if the increase in atmospheric water is going more into low-level cloud cover rather than into ambient vapor?

    Oh, I see how you work. Evasion and and irrelevance. Hands and waffle.


    In what manner is this evasion? In what manner is this irrelevant? I am sorry if my negative feedback is waffling your positive feedback. Pero no problemo: We simply check the trend data (0.11C per decade) and we can easily see if I am evading or am on the right track.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ocean heat content. Transient variability in ocean heat uptake. You are another one who treats the troposphere as the entire climate system. Your conceptual model is wrong and so your reasoning is faulty.

      Since you refuse to accept other errors when they are pointed out, you will refuse to accept this, which is why I can now see that talking to you is a waste of my time.

      Delete
    2. 0.11 degrees a decade is "no problemo"?

      That has to be one of the more ignorant comments in the thread. I guess Evan is saying he'll be six feet under soon enough so to hell with the coming generations. Let them clean up our mess (if they can).

      That complete disregard for the world of the future is ugly, but common among science deniers.

      Delete
  32. And your characterisation of forcing change since 1950 is wrong as well.

    GAT vs forcings

    GAT (surface) annual means are shown at the top (green). The four lower curves are coherently-scaled forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue, top), solar (yellow), total net forcing (red), reflective aerosols (pale green, bottom).

    By using the 1950 - present decadal trend during a period of net forcing growth you create a misleading impression, presumably deliberately. And Sou is of course correct to point out that negative forcing (eg aerosols) has *increased* over the period 1950 - present and so offset much of the increase in GHG forcing over the same period.

    ReplyDelete
  33. However this logarithmic relationship isn't the good news that Jones imagines it is, because it means that the highest proportion of temperature increase occurs early in the trajectory of CO2 increase: in other words, probaly before humans ever get to actually doing anything serious about it. Bit of a problem, that.

    Yes. Exactly. An early trajectory of 0.11C per decade (adjusted). Bit of a non-problem, that.

    There's also the issue that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas whose emissions are increasing, so the overall effect is that the trajectory of temperature increase is effectively linear right into serious danger territory.

    Quite. Methane in particular. CO2 persists like the devil, and when anthropogenic CO2 circulates into the other sinks, it displaces natural CO2, which remains in the atmosphere.

    But methane persists for only~11 years. At which point it is chemically abraded. Unlike CO2, when CH4 is gone. It’s GONE.

    Methane emissions do continue to increase – but at a continually decreasing rate. And that’s why we hardly ever her about it anymore. Methane is a one-hit wonder. But CO2 plays on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, methane oxidizes into CO2 after about a decade in the atmosphere. When methane is gone, it's CO2.

      Also, the physics of water vapor haven't changed since the Pliocene.

      Delete
  34. Ocean heat content. Transient variability in ocean heat uptake. You are another one who treats the troposphere as the entire climate system. Your conceptual model is wrong and so your reasoning is faulty.

    Actually, I have repeatedly and without exception accounted for PDO. (Besides, OHC has leveled off surprisingly over the last decade.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the most comprehensive 0-2000m heat content (graph 2) keeps rising. A real skeptic retracts mistakes while a merchant of doubt just evades and jumps to the next opportunity to spread confusion.

      Delete
    2. Leveling off? Doesn't look like it to me. Here is ocean heat content

      http://hotwhopper.com/Charts/World2kheat13.png

      Here is ocean temp

      http://hotwhopper.com/Charts/World2k13.png

      Source: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

      Delete
    3. Sorry, DS - I missed your reply while updating the charts. Evan does like spouting off without doing any fact-checking. Not very scientific is Evan.

      Delete
    4. No prob- you're putting a lot more work into this than I am. ;)

      However exasperating and individually pointless, it probably helps lurkers gauge the credibility of anyone who claims that OHC has "levelled off". Maybe his monitor is tilted?

      Delete
    5. Going by the rest of Evan's comments, he just regurgitates nonsense he's read on some denier blog or other. He doesn't bother fact checking. He doesn't want to be mistaken for a "warmist" I suppose.

      Delete
  35. That's just nuts. The earth is warming faster than maybe any time in the last 65 million years at least, and you say there are no positive feedbacks?

    Net positive feedbacks are not required. Raw CO2 forcing alone is sufficient.

    But I think it quite a stretch to claim there have been no 150-year periods during the Cenozoic that have seen today's rate of warming. What about the warming from the nadir of the Maunder until the conclusion of the Dalton, to name just one recent example. That's at much the same rate as today.

    I need to get to work, folks. I'll be back when I can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, 420 million years of paleoclimate evidence rules out a climate sensitivity less than 1.5°C. Raw CO2 forcing alone is NOT sufficient. A real skeptic retracts mistakes while a merchant of doubt just evades and jumps to the next opportunity to spread confusion.

      Delete
  36. No, methane oxidizes into CO2 after about a decade in the atmosphere. When methane is gone, it's CO2.

    Yes. And water vapor. But methane is only present at 1/200th the rate of CO2. CH4 also gets et by organisms. And CO2 is ~20 times less powerful a GHG than CH4. So the detritus is spit in the ocean.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you acknowledge that you were wrong to say that "when CH4 is gone. It’s GONE."? Remember, a real skeptic retracts mistakes while a merchant of doubt just evades and jumps to the next opportunity to spread confusion.

      Delete
    2. Actually, having read the rest of your comments, it's obviously ridiculous to expect you to retract a mistake. I'll note for posterity, though, that you simply evaded my point that the physics of water vapor haven't changed since the Pliocene. Or maybe you don't realize that your earlier evasion about low-level clouds requires the physics of water vapor to change between the Pliocene and now. Either way it's clear that talking with you is pointless. Please have the last word.

      Delete
    3. Problem is, as has been pointed out already, more methane is replacing what's "gone" (that has "gone" into CO2 in large part). And methane is a very potent greenhouse gas.

      Delete
    4. I've come to the same conclusion, DS. Evan thinks that physics was different in the past. He's not a scientist and doesn't realise that the properties of CO2 and water vapour are the same now as they've always been.

      Delete
  37. Actually, having read the rest of your comments, it's obviously ridiculous to expect you to retract a mistake.

    Oh, for heaven's sake. I have sat here for hours and hours fielding questions from half a dozen different directions on all sorts of diverse aspects. Not one other person present has retracted thing one, and a fair chunk of what I say and what I believe, in my opinion, has been characterized incorrectly. Like the one about how I do not believe in the concept of positive feedback. I have not made personal comments. I have not indulged in ad hominem. I have not deteriorated into politics. I have bent over backwards to grant the scientific community every benefit of the motivational doubt. I have not said they lied. I have not said they conspired. I have excused what I perceive to be errors, because that is part of the scientific process. I have not been evasive. I have answered every question put to me to the best of my limited abilities as completely and honestly as I know how.

    To say that it is an "error" to be "retracted" that methane is not "GONE" when it degrades into well under 0.5% of its original forcing is picayune, to say the least. Especially as no one even mentioned the fact that CH4 degrades in the first place or gave any indication of that factor at all. And if I hadn't brought it up, I doubt anyone else would have.

    I am not a physicist nor any other kind of scientist and never claimed to be. I have a broad, fair-to-middling top-down knowledge of most of the relevant issues. No worse than most, and better than some, I daresay. No, I do not think physics was different in the past. I think conditions were different in the past.

    I have pointed out what I believe and demonstrated why. Having covered so much ground, I know that there is no way everything I have said can have been 100% correct. I am doing my best.

    And yet I also realize that many of you are less harsh on me than might otherwise be the case. My thanks especially to VV and Sou. I know I wasn't "invited" here.

    The reason I believe that feedbacks apply during the PO is that, so far as we can tell, atmospheric temperatures rose faster than the base forcings. The reason I do not believe they pertain to the post-1950 period is that the amount of rise, or at least the bulk of the anthropogenic portion can be attributed to raw CO2 forcing. What is going on now is not what was going on during the PO.

    I don't know why feedbacks applied back then and do not much appear to now. I don't even know how reliable or certain that sort of paeoclimatology is, in the first place. I have seen half a dozen reconstructions of longterm paleo, and none of them look much alike.

    The single thing at issue I see here is aerosols, and the scientific graph for aerosol forcing flies in the face of my historical studies regarding output and response. Maybe it's right and I'm wrong. I dunno. But even if the graph is 100% correct, the amount of forcing represented appears insufficient to catapult us to mainstream IPCC levels.

    Having said all that, I have tried to answer questions put to me and I will continue to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Water vapor feedback applies whenever Earth has exposed oceans, because physics like the Clausius–Clapeyron relation don't change. Anyone who wants to deny that precipitable water vapor has increased by ~4% since 1970 is welcome to deny water vapor feedback. Anyone who wants to deny that Pliocene water vapor formed low-level clouds just like today's is welcome to do so.

      However, a real skeptic would notice that paleoclimate estimates (like this other similar review of the last 65 million years) are actually more reliable and certain than instrumental estimates of Charney sensitivity. Real skeptics would notice this by looking at the larger uncertainties on the instrumental estimates, or by listening to Dr. Andrew Dessler (an actual climate scientist) explain exactly this point.

      Delete
  38. Problem is, as has been pointed out already, more methane is replacing what's "gone" (that has "gone" into CO2 in large part). And methane is a very potent greenhouse gas.

    I know, Sou, but that's the point, isn't it? CH4 has to be continually replaced to sustain a constant level. It is at ~1800 ppb and has ~20 times the GH forcing of CO2. But there is 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and that dwarfs methane in terms of overall effect by a factor of over 10.

    CO2, on the other hand, accumulates straight-up. I cannot tell you how many times I have patiently explained to skeptics that adding "a mere 3%" (i.e., ~9 BMTC per year) extra to the CO2 cycle per year adds up continually. And yes, I know how the CO2 exchange works, as well as how much exchanges between each sink and the volume of the major sinks. I am not an expert on this subject, but I have a reasonably good understanding of the dynamics.

    The CH4 graph is a concave curve: Output is increasing continually, but at a continually lower rate, at least since 1970, which is about as far back as I have seen any graph go. The atmospheric methane sink is growing, but more and more slowly. Not so for CO2.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi Evan - you said:

    "OHC has leveled off surprisingly over the last decade"

    This graph with the last 10 years clearly shown in the box I drew proves that you were wrong.

    http://s21.postimg.org/u3ag37kjr/heat_content2000m.png

    Do you now acknowledge that your claim OHC has leveled off over the last 10 years was wrong?


    ReplyDelete
  40. 0.11 degrees a decade is "no problemo"?

    That has to be one of the more ignorant comments in the thread. I guess Evan is saying he'll be six feet under soon enough so to hell with the coming generations. Let them clean up our mess (if they can).

    That complete disregard for the world of the future is ugly, but common among science deniers.


    Not so fast. You are not considering this fairly. I suggest you ask before you strike out. Do I really give you the impression of someone who has complete disregard for the future of the world? A history major who has complete disregard for the future of the world, no less? Do you really think someone who has managed to warehouse what I have done, and conduct disciplined studies on a peer-review level is "anti-science"? I enjoin you to stop and hear me out.

    First, I respect your intentions, motivations, and concerns -- and also that of those who beat up on me the worst here and elsewhere. I believe you are concerned about the future and I do not think you are "anti-science", either.

    Second, the reason I consider 0.11C per decade to be no problem is that I do not think AGW will sustain throughout this century. I think we will warm at that rate for a while (less during negative PDO, more during positive PDO. But CO2 effect is a diminishing return. The raw effects are 1.1C per doubling. We are at 800 ppm now. A further doubling is 1600 ppm.

    I think that technological advance will keep us even under the 800 ppm level. probably well under. Even the IPCC concedes net benefit from additional CO2 for some time to come. That is why I think the warming from 1950 to date represents no problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A dozen national science academies have already said that “the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”

      Sadly, many nonscientists spread misinformation like claiming that OHC has "levelled off." A real skeptic retracts mistakes, but someone who has complete disregard for the future of the world would just evade and jump to the next opportunity to spread confusion about the urgent need to address climate change.

      Which are you?

      Delete
  41. Do you now acknowledge that your claim OHC has leveled off over the last 10 years was wrong?

    Yes. It is wrong at the 700 to 2000 m. level.

    But it is quite correct at the 0 - 700 meter level, which is the depth which can effect climate.

    http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/

    You are also failing to correlate PDO cycles and SAT on the oceanic level.

    Look at the following graph for 1000 m. and lower. not the difference between the 0 - 700 m graph.

    http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/warming_ocean/ocean_heat_content.html

    Note also the correlation with PDO. When PDO pitched into positive phase, OHC came to a halt and actually declined. When positive PDO went into its waning phase around 1990 (i.e. ~ halfway though, as one would expect), OHC kicks up again.

    That's why we have a pause now. That which would be heating the atmosphere is now heating the oceans.

    Something that OHC does not tell us, other than indirectly, and something no one really seems to want to talk about, is how much ocean warming (sic) this additional heat, these "4 Hiroshimas per second" as the shock jocks like to put it actually causes. To put it simplistically, water is dense, air no so much. Air releases heat, well, like air. Water, not so fast. Also lost in the discussion is how well trapped heat becomes in the deep oceans and how quickly it emerges, and over what intervals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it's wrong at the most comprehensive 0-2000m level, which includes the 0-700m level. Trying to support a mistaken claim that "OHC has leveled off surprisingly over the last decade" by linking to a graph that stops before 2000 has to be some kind of joke.

      Again, a real skeptic retracts mistakes, but someone who has complete disregard for the future of the world would just evade and jump to the next opportunity to spread confusion about the urgent need to address climate change.

      Which are you?

      Delete
  42. A real skeptic retracts mistakes, but someone who has complete disregard for the future of the world would just evade and jump to the next opportunity to spread confusion about the urgent need to address climate change.

    Which are you?


    While you were posting that, I was pounding out that which immediately.

    But spare me the false dichotomies. I don't suspect your motives. I don't think there is any urgent need to address climate change. I think it is a potential problem that will, essentially, be resolved by high tech not far down the road. I think this will occur without the need for the passage of a single law and without the need for a single treaty.

    If it comes to that, emissions, writ large, is out of out hands. The US is back to early 1990s levels, anyway.

    The ball is in the court of China and to a lesser extent, India. Don't count on them slowing their development. Not happening. To indulge in a small polemic, they do what they do because they actually care for their grandchildren. They want a life expectancy of over 50. And they will have it. There is nothing the west can do about it, nor, would I argue, should we. It's easy for us pampered pets of the west to preach austerity.

    China and India will develop. That will probably the last gasp of CO2 rise. After that, things will level off. Their coal plants will aquire scubbers 9for particulates, only), and they will eventually age out and go offline to be replaced by fusion, safe fission, or whatever the effective (as in "costeffective") solution happens to be.

    The panic over AGW is nothing new. Consider the Club of Rome. Consider Ehrlich -- a copy of PB sits on my shelf. Right next to Dennis Meadows' opus. You want a few quotes from it? You think I am "certain"? I assure you that in that regard, I have nothing on Brother Paul. Nothing. There is always a grain of truth in these concerns. Likewise, there is never anything even vaguely resembling the apocalyptic scenarios they envision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, that's a lot of other opportunities to spread confusion about the urgent need to address climate change.

      If there's no urgent need to address climate change, why did over a dozen of the most respected national science academies say with one voice that “the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable”? Widespread incompetence and groupthink that's functionally indistinguishable from a conspiracy?

      And again, your claim was wrong at the most comprehensive 0-2000m level, which includes the 0-700m level. Trying to support a mistaken claim that "OHC has leveled off surprisingly over the last decade" by linking to a graph that stops before 2000 has to be some kind of joke.

      Again, a real skeptic retracts mistakes, but someone who has complete disregard for the future of the world would just evade and jump to the next opportunity to spread confusion about the urgent need to address climate change.

      Which are you?

      Delete
  43. No, it's wrong at the most comprehensive 0-2000m level, which includes the 0-700m level. Trying to support a mistaken claim that "OHC has leveled off surprisingly over the last decade" by linking to a graph that stops before 2000 has to be some kind of joke.

    I have already conceded that OHC has risen at the 0-2000 m level.

    But you are conflating the two. Ocean heat down to 700 m. can affect the atmosphere. The thin skin of the ocean surface very much so. Think PDO and AMO.

    Heat below 700 m.? Not so much. Or do you disagree? Or will you simply not answer?

    Again, a real skeptic retracts mistakes, but someone who has complete disregard for the future of the world would just evade and jump to the next opportunity to spread confusion about the urgent need to address climate change.

    Which are you?


    Spare me the sermon and the preachers' false dichotomy. Asked and answered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Despite incorrect misinformation, ocean heat content continues to rise over the last decade. Regardless of depth, this raises sea level and shows that we still haven't equilibrated to the radiative forcing. This is one reason why those who incorrectly claim that instrumental estimates of climate sensitivity are more certain and reliable than paleoclimate estimates (despite my links to Dr. Dessler's explanation and the smaller error bars on paleoclimate estimates) should consider taking science classes rather than drinking deeply from the fount of WUWT "knowledge".

      Delete
  44. A dozen national science academies have already said that “the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”

    Spare me the vacant appeals to authority. One good graph beats a dozen national academies of science every time.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1976/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend

    Warming? Yes. Some concern? Yes. Indisputable need for world action? Not so much.

    I'm just incredibly grateful that none of that near-universally called for "urgent action" back in the 1980s occurred.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If "one good graph" with NO error bars (!) from a nonscientist shows that there's no urgent need to address climate change, doesn't that imply that the scientific community is afflicted by widespread incompetence and groupthink that's functionally indistinguishable from a conspiracy?

      Delete
  45. Regardless of depth

    You do not regard depth? If not, why not?

    Yes, there is an equilibrium factor. That pertains not only to the oceans, but to atmosphere as well. Size matters.

    As for the rest, I get my data from the sources. I have the self-confidence to come to my own conclusions and follow them up for verification. And I don't need to be spoonfed the pap of another man's premade conclusions.

    Besides, how many other skeptics do you know who believe what I believe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regardless of depth, increasing ocean heat content raises sea level and shows that we still haven't equilibrated to the radiative forcing.

      Again, if "one good graph" with NO error bars (!) from a nonscientist shows that there's no urgent need to address climate change, doesn't that imply that the scientific community is afflicted by widespread incompetence and groupthink that's functionally indistinguishable from a conspiracy?

      Since you "eat basic statistical analysis for breakfast", it should be easy for you to fit autocorrelated noise to the timeseries and come to your own conclusion about the error bars. Right?

      Delete
  46. Yes, one graph (HadCRUt4) with (gasp) no error bars.

    doesn't that imply that the scientific community is afflicted by widespread incompetence and groupthink that's functionally indistinguishable from a conspiracy?

    It simply means I couldn't care less about them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since those error bars are directly relevant to your point, and you "eat basic statistical analysis for breakfast", it should be easy for you to fit autocorrelated noise to the timeseries and come to your own conclusion about the error bars. Right?

      How much you care about the scientific community isn't the issue. How do you explain the fact that the scientific community disagrees with you? Widespread incompetence and groupthink that's functionally indistinguishable from a conspiracy? Or something else?

      Delete
    2. Evan Jones couldn't care less about the scientific community. After all, he can see what's obvious and the scientists can't.

      The ego has landed, folks.

      Delete
    3. Evan, that you couldn't care less about what science has found is silly. "Them" is who have spent their entire careers giving you the knowledge you have (not the disinformation you acquired, though the knowledge they have is why the disinformation you acquired was prepared and handed to you on a platter, which you accepted gratefully and with a sigh of relief).

      As you say "I get my data from the sources". Think about what those sources are and ask yourself why you, a historian, would be correct and all the world's scientists wrong. (If you are simply referring to surface temperature data in the USA and not to any other climate or weather data, then you are basing your conclusions on a miniscule amount of data and ignoring the whole. I don't think you would be so foolish, but then again I read your other comments and have to accept that you would.)

      I think it is a potential problem that will, essentially, be resolved by high tech not far down the road. I think this will occur without the need for the passage of a single law and without the need for a single treaty.

      As for your Ridley-esque Pollyanna faith in "the future" sweeping in and rescuing humanity without having to make any rules, that never applied to environmental problems in the past so on what do you base your optimism? There are already some international agreements in place and these in large part are what have prompted nations to introduce rules without which the world would be in a worse place in regard to emissions.

      Rules are what cleaned up smog. Rules are what reduced land clearing. Rules and international agreements are what limited ozone-reducing substances. Without rules and international agreements the world would be in a worse place than it is right now.

      And let me go back to your escalator chart, doesn't that make you squirm a little? Look hard and then consider the science. Look hard and ask yourself, why is the last line you drew any different to any of the denier lines on the escalator chart?

      Pig-headed denial won't change the science. Is it because of your ideological view of the world that you reject climate science? That you are in favour of small government and unfettered markets? How has that worked in the past? (Since it's never happened outside Somalia, I suppose it's an unfair question.)

      Delete
  47. Anyone who wants to deny that precipitable water vapor has increased by ~4% since 1970 is welcome to deny water vapor feedback.

    And that's the point, isn't it? By analogy, I am saying, "There is no murder." You reply, "But there is a gun." I reply, "But there is no body".

    If water vapor increases and warming does not accelerate, all that tells us is that in this case water vapor is not causing the acceleration of warming. Either its form is incompatible or there are counterbalancing related negative factors in play.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone who still wants to deny that OHC continues to rise is welcome to do so.

      Again, since those error bars are directly relevant to your point, and you "eat basic statistical analysis for breakfast", it should be easy for you to fit autocorrelated noise to the timeseries and come to your own conclusion about the error bars. Right?

      How much you care about the scientific community isn't the issue. How do you explain the fact that the scientific community disagrees with you? Widespread incompetence and groupthink that's functionally indistinguishable from a conspiracy? Or something else?

      Delete
    2. Since water vapour feedback is continuous and essentially linear over a small range then no acceleration would be expected. Try again, I'm sure you've got more ill-thought ammo in the locker.

      Delete
    3. There are two things wrong with "But there is no body". There is a body, a huge body. It's called global warming. You reject the evidence and that's your choice. What it means is that you are wilfully ignorant and complicit in spreading disinformation. You know the information is there but you've said, the "scientists don't know nuffin"" and you know better than the lot of them.

      As for this sentence: "If water vapor increases and warming does not accelerate, all that tells us is that in this case water vapor is not causing the acceleration of warming."

      This isn't accelerating fast enough for you?

      Water vapour is increasing and has been since CO2 started to rise. What amount of "acceleration" are you expecting? How have you separated out the warming from the increased water vapour from the other forcings and feedbacks?

      Energy is increasing therefore something is going on. If water didn't play a part how warm do you think the world would be right now?

      And when you talk about warming, are you only talking about surface warming? Ocean warming? Ice melting? Seas rising? If you think this means that warming is going to stop any time soon then you engaging in magical thinking.

      What signs are you reading - is it just thermometers in the USA or is it surface temperatures world-wide? Do you factor in rising seas and melting ice? What about the atmosphere itself?

      Or are you referring in a more general sense to all the extra energy in the system combined?

      Delete
  48. How do you explain the fact that the scientific community disagrees with you? Widespread incompetence and groupthink that's functionally indistinguishable from a conspiracy? Or something else?

    I don't. Any more than I explain why USGS claimed in 1976 that there would be sever oil shortages by 2000. I'll leave the psychoanalysis to someone else -- and then won't bother reading it. I am indifferent if I agree with them. I am indifferent if I disagree with them. I threw over the cocktail circuit decades ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jenny McCarthy is also indifferent to the medical community when she spreads misinformation about vaccines that threaten everyone by reducing herd immunity. But indifference is preferable to explicitly stating the only reasonable conclusion that McCarthy could possibly hold, which is that the scientific community is afflicted by widespread incompetence and groupthink that's functionally indistinguishable from a conspiracy.

      Again, since those error bars are directly relevant to your point, and you "eat basic statistical analysis for breakfast", it should be easy for you to fit autocorrelated noise to the timeseries and come to your own conclusion about the error bars. Right?

      Delete
    2. The USGS did not claim in 1976 that there would be severe oil shortages by 2000.

      Delete
  49. If "one good graph" with NO error bars (!) from a nonscientist shows that there's no urgent need to address climate change, doesn't that imply that the scientific community is afflicted by widespread incompetence and groupthink that's functionally indistinguishable from a conspiracy?

    Error bars will have no effect on overall conclusions. But as you appear to desire them, here you go. Straight from the met office.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/figures/Figure7.png

    I'm guessing that they are going to have exactly 0% (+/- 0%) effect on your conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you should calculate the error bars yourself using the timespans you selected on WoodForTrees. I've shared open source code to calculate autocorrelated error bars. They match error bars given by the more user-friendly SkS trend calculator:

      1977-2000: 0.160 ±0.079 °C/decade
      2001-now : -0.009 ±0.141 °C/decade

      Notice that their error bars overlap. Since you "eat basic statistical analysis for breakfast" why are you implying that the situation has changed significantly?

      1977-2000 has smaller error bars, because longer timespans average away more weather noise than shorter timespans. So a more fair comparison with the 13 year period since 2001 is a 13 year period ending in 2000.

      1987-2000: 0.177 ±0.196 °C/decade

      Notice that the 2001-now error bars overlap with those of the 1987-2000 estimate. Since you "eat basic statistical analysis for breakfast" why are you guessing that calculating the error bars will have exactly 0% (+/0 0%) effect on your conclusions? Can't you calculate these uncertainties yourself?

      Delete
  50. Since water vapour feedback is continuous and essentially linear over a small range then no acceleration would be expected.

    Well, no acceleration is certainly what we're getting. And the rate of warming is consistent with Arrhenius. I.e., pretty much, raw CO2 forcing only.

    Try again, I'm sure you've got more ill-thought ammo in the locker.

    I'm sure I do. Meanwhile have loads of fun trying to stuff that 3C cat into a 1.5C bag.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Notice that their error bars overlap. Since you "eat basic statistical analysis for breakfast" why are you implying that the situation has changed significantly?

    That's not my point. I consider forcing from 1950 - date to be relatively constant. The reason for the wiggles is that 1950 - 1976 was a negative PDO, 1977 - 2007 or so was a positive PDO (some make the cutoff at 2001)., And the remainder (aka "the pause) is negative PDO.

    The split trend lines are just there to outline the ocean cycles. The overall trend is there as well, for sake of comparison. AGW forcing via CO2, roughly constant, throughout.

    The question, as always, is how much is that constant forcing. And will it take off like a bat out of hell all of a sudden, as the IPCC "projects"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So when you said "I'm just incredibly grateful that none of that near-universally called for "urgent action" back in the 1980s occurred" you weren't implying that the situation has changed significantly since the 1980s? And when you repeatedly referred to a "pause" you weren't implying a statistically significant change in the surface warming rate? And when you ignore >90% of the climate system to imply that surface temperatures aren't consistent with IPCC projections, you weren't implying that the IPCC's relevant near term projections of "about 0.1°C/decade to about 0.2°C/decade" falls outside of the observed error bars?

      And again, a real skeptic would notice that paleoclimate estimates (like this other similar review of the last 65 million years) are actually more reliable and certain than instrumental estimates of Charney sensitivity. Real skeptics would notice this by looking at the larger uncertainties on the instrumental estimates, or by listening to Dr. Andrew Dessler (an actual climate scientist) explain exactly this point.

      Delete
    2. Evan writes
      "I consider forcing from 1950 - date to be relatively constant."

      You might consider the forcing to be constant, but mother nature and the scientific community doesn't, and to disagree with physics, well, is just plain stupid in the extreme.

      From AR5

      "Based on concentration changes, the RF of all WMGHGs in 2011 is 2.83 [2.54 to 3.12] W m–2 (very high confidence). This is an increase since AR4 of 0.20 [0.18 to 0.22] W m–2, with nearly all of the increase due to the increase in the abundance of CO2 since 2005."

      and a nice diagram for those who are visually orientated.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_radiative_forcing.png

      Not exactly a flat line as you assert!!

      Delete
  52. So when you said "I'm just incredibly grateful that none of that near-universally called for "urgent action" back in the 1980s occurred" you weren't implying that the situation has changed significantly since the 1980s?

    I was unclear. I was not referring to Climate Change at all. I was referring to policies pertaining to population control and resource depletion. (Or even standing up to the beastly sovs.) All at the dire urgings of "expert organizations".

    CC did not become a hot topic in the US until the 1988 hearings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evasion noted. Again, when you repeatedly referred to a "pause" you weren't implying a statistically significant change in the surface warming rate? And when you ignore >90% of the climate system to imply that surface temperatures aren't consistent with IPCC projections, you weren't implying that the IPCC's relevant near term projections of "about 0.1°C/decade to about 0.2°C/decade" falls outside of the observed error bars?

      And again, a real skeptic would notice that paleoclimate estimates (like this other similar review of the last 65 million years) are actually more reliable and certain than instrumental estimates of Charney sensitivity. Real skeptics would notice this by looking at the larger uncertainties on the instrumental estimates, or by listening to Dr. Andrew Dessler (an actual climate scientist) explain exactly this point.

      Delete
    2. Oh, so you don't approve of all government subsidies for mineral exploration and extraction? You don't approve of all the domestic and foreign aid for education and family planning? You think that any efforts to limit excess population growth and all the money spent on making resource use more efficient were wasted? In other words, you don't agree that anyone should have listened to the warnings and done something about them.

      What would the world be like if no one had rung the warning bell? (That's a rhetorical question - it should be obvious even to someone like Evan what the shape of the world would be without waste disposal regs, clean air regs, birth control, family planning, resource development etc etc. Unless he is so deluded he thinks there was no government interference.)

      Delete
  53. Evan Jones couldn't care less about the scientific community. After all, he can see what's obvious and the scientists can't.

    And furthermore, I don't care two cents what they do or do not see.

    The ego has landed, folks.

    One that does not need his thinking done for him by a crowd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jenny McCarthy also doesn't care two cents what the medical community does or does not see when she spreads misinformation about vaccines that threaten everyone by reducing herd immunity. But not caring is preferable to explicitly stating the only reasonable conclusion that McCarthy could possibly hold, which is that the medical community is afflicted by widespread incompetence and groupthink that's functionally indistinguishable from a conspiracy.

      McCarthy might ask why her amateur opinion conflicts with the medical community. Or she can just not care, and keep spreading misinformation that threatens everyone. Just as long as she doesn't ever ask herself why the professionals disagree.

      Delete
    2. Evan writes.
      "One that does not need his thinking done for him by a crowd."

      The old 'groupthink' rhetoric raises it's head. 'I don't listen to the scientific community as I'm an independent thinker' argument. I reckon I've lost count how many times I've heard deniers resort to that tired line. It's a cop out, pure and simple. It's funny that deniers seem to think that they are a new age Galileo, persecuted for overturning dogma.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm

      I wish that climate sceptics would not sound and talk like every other climate sceptic. It might actually make a conversation with them, you know, interesting.

      Delete
    3. It's the usual case of cherry picking from the scientist's work what he likes and discarding what conflicts with his world view. After all, if global warming were a problem like smog - well, you know what happened there. All those nasty clean air regulations came into force and polluted the very air he breathed.

      He's been slaving over Google Earth and Microsoft spreadsheets for the best part of four or five years, squinting at weather station temperature records in the USA. Now thinks he knows all there is to know about the science of Earth. Delusions of grandeur. A modern-day Galileo.

      Kind of like an accounts clerk entering sales records into a ledger for forty years and imagining they are Warren Buffet or Paul Krugman.

      Delete
  54. Hi Evan - I said:

    "Do you now acknowledge that your claim OHC has leveled off over the last 10 years was wrong?"

    You said:

    "Yes. It is wrong at the 700 to 2000 m. level."

    "But it is quite correct at the 0 - 700 meter level, which is the depth which can effect climate."

    This graph with the last 10 years clearly shown in the box I drew proves that you are wrong again.

    http://s30.postimg.org/pjhnyil9t/heat_content55_07.png

    You said:

    "I have pointed out what I believe and demonstrated why. Having covered so much ground, I know that there is no way everything I have said can have been 100% correct. I am doing my best."

    Being 100% incorrect on your claim OHC has leveled off over the last 10 years is doing your best?

    ReplyDelete