.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Same old, same old from WUWT deniers

Sou | 5:54 PM Go to the first of 2 comments. Add a comment

There's not been much happening in the climate denier blogosphere worth writing about with some exceptions, which I'll address in a future article.

Anthony Watts is copying and pasting some stuff from WUWT deniers like Larry Hamlin and paid disinformers like Pat 'n Chip, wailing that "all the models are wrong".  The same nonsense that Anthony wheels out when he runs out of ideas for new material.

It's nothing new.  They are trading on the false idea that global warming has stopped.  I guess they figure that they need to get in while they can because the slow down in global surface temperatures won't last.  And if the anticipated El Nino eventuates and it follows the pattern of previous ones, then next year would be hotter than any previous El Nino year, which would make it the hottest year on record. Hotter even than 2010. Which would mean the deniers would have to write about something else altogether to try to persuade the public that:

  • global warming isn't happening, or
  • if it is it's not bad, or 
  • if it is bad, we'll adapt, or 
  • if it is bad, some of us will adapt and
  • if it is bad and some of us manage to adapt, it won't cost much to adapt, or 
  • if it is bad and some of us manage to adapt and it does cost a lot to adapt then taxpayer's shouldn't have to pay to adapt - or 
  • something.

I'm a bit too busy to go through their articles and arguments line by line, so I'll just put up a couple of charts that highlight the problem we are facing.  First, earth is still getting hotter as seen in multiple ways:




Next, we're not even close to cutting CO2 emissions yet.  And time is running out:

Adapted from IPCC AR5 WG1

Finally, from WGIII Summary for Policy Makers, the longer we wait the fewer options we'll have:
Delaying mitigation efforts beyond those in place today through 2030 is estimated to substantially increase the difficulty of the transition to low longer‐term emissions levels and narrow the range of options consistent with maintaining temperature change below 2°C relative to pre‐industrial levels.



From the WUWT comments


You'll all have read the empty protests, like those archived here and here before.  I won't bother picking holes in them - the IPCC reports themselves do that.  Here are some choice comments from the WUWT deniers to Pat 'n Chip's article (archived here):


Latitude opts for the fantastical climate hoax conspiracy theory favoured by many science deniers and says:
April 16, 2014 at 6:10 pm
Why do so many people discuss the science or computer models…without first acknowledging they are all based on fraudulent temperature records that have been fudged.
Even if they had invented the perfect model…they would never know it….because the models are all tuned to temp histories that have made the past colder and the present warmer….to show a faster rise in global warming…
They cooked their own goose with this one…they will never get an accurate computer model…with out first admitting they cooked the temp record

SIGINT EX is, I think, trying to be clever or funny or something and says:
April 16, 2014 at 7:42 pm
IPCC Titanic.
Do not trust the … “Captain” !
The “Watch Maker” turned “Ship Designer” on 2nd Deck standing by the spiral staircase and looking at the Ship-clock and glancing to his Swiss Chronograph on his wrist … knows !

Joel O'Bryan opts for ethno-religious imagery and says:
April 16, 2014 at 9:29 pm
This analysis is devastating to the “CO2 is evil” CAGW believers.
Ayatollah Al “Jezeera” Gore will issue a Fatwah against this blasphemy any day now.

Bob Greene's intuition is off.  Climate models are geared for long range not short range.  In the short term, random weather fluctuations can dominate. In the long term, these even out.  And like many others, he seems to be held in thrall by the mighty dollar and says:
April 16, 2014 at 9:15 pm
Results of 108-114 models were compared to actual temperatures. The models give a wider spread of results (0.4°C) for shorter time periods (Fig. 1 a and b) and a narrower spread for the longer time period. This seems to be intuitively wrong if the models had any capability to match reality.
Models that don’t work so large numbers are used to create reality. How many wrongs do you have to use to make a right? The ensemble doesn’t do too well at matching reality. It’s total gibberish. How many billion dollars were poured down this rat hole? And they give advanced degrees and nice tenured professorships for this?

norah4you says something about "courses to learn".  It looks as if she could do with some "learning" herself:
April 16, 2014 at 9:59 pm
Had been better had IPCC sent their so called experts on courses to learn by understanding Theories of Science what they forgot to learn during attending same courses once upon a time….

Peter Miller brings up the subject of satellites and says:
April 16, 2014 at 10:40 pm
And let’s not forget our gratitude for the satellites which measure global temperature, for they have kept the statistics reasonably honest for the past 35 years. Prior to the late 1970s, the manipulation/torture/homogenisation of temperature data has run riot, especially the GISS numbers.
Without the satellites acting as the police, the IPCC models would have undoubtedly been shown to be ‘correct’. 

Not a bad note to end on. Let's compare the two satellite records of lower troposphere temperatures (UAH and RSS) with that recorded below on the surface (HadCRUT4 and GISTemp). Click for larger view:

2 comments:

Catmando said...

I just read Larry Hamlin's illustrates perfectly how the denier mind works. There are some uncertainties and unknowables in climate projections therefore Larry tells you the IPCC must be fatally flawed and any policy suggestions can be thrown out.

By analogy, the weather forecast for tomorrow suggests it will rain, 70% chance. But since there is significant uncertainty, I don't need the take an umbrella.

Larry doesn't bother to prove or lay out his case. He just states it so it must be true. In his mind, anyway.

Dave said...

Larry Hamlin is a retired Southern California Edison vice president of power production, and former state energy construction czar under Gov Gray Davis. So this makes him perfectly qualified to discuss climate science. (Only in the Bizarro world of climate deniers). I just don't get it, how deniers worship those who are the most unqualified to discuss climate science and have been so intimately involved in the fossil fuel business, yet dismiss the actual experts. What gives?

Look, it's well known by the climate science community that for regional areas, climate models are quite poor, but for global averages over long periods of time, they perform spectacularly well. These short comings are well known, and are accounted for. Climate models will, and always will, remain just another tool in the varied toolkit of the climate researcher. They still require expert assessment. But to the average denier, they are of the mindset that climate models are wrong, so everything else about climate science is also wrong. But this is clearly not the case. But trying to convince a climate denier the facts is pure folly.

For a really good assessment of climate models, check this out.
http://berkeleyearth.org/graphics/model-performance-against-berkeley-earth-data-set#decadal-temperature-anomalies-since-1870