tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post7765542576257757035..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Christopher Monckton and fraud - fact check of @wattsupwiththatSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40070943502366328842016-07-25T22:02:53.555+10:002016-07-25T22:02:53.555+10:00And the build-up is fastest now.
Proving Monckton&...And the build-up is fastest now.<br />Proving Monckton's complete succes.cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70475374675314380582016-07-25T09:53:15.235+10:002016-07-25T09:53:15.235+10:00Yes - the choice of baseline is tricky. It is a se...Yes - the choice of baseline is tricky. It is a sensitive issue because skeptics make a song and dance over the difference. The possibility that the CMIP5 models are slightly too warm is actually an entirely separate issue to the robust observed warming. In any case, the difference is not that great.<br /><br />p.s. I am not sure about this:<br />"If the calculation was done on each of the members of the ensemble separately and the baseline for each was worked out, then only after that the new CMIP5 mean was calculated, there would be a different result."<br /><br />I suspect that you will find that there may be no difference since all the operations are simple arithmetic.Dr Nonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60319884648076924542016-07-25T00:54:01.700+10:002016-07-25T00:54:01.700+10:00Being both a nonentity and a self-publicist has an...Being both a nonentity and a self-publicist has an inherent problem that can be solved in only one way.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67674601897908238722016-07-24T21:48:41.982+10:002016-07-24T21:48:41.982+10:00"Pre-industrial" isn't the point as ..."Pre-industrial" isn't the point as much of the early Industrial Revolution used water and biomass for power. For example charcoal was used for ironmaking in much of the 19th century. The real point here is to establish the fossil fuel takeoff point.jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29612960912366942782016-07-24T13:30:38.681+10:002016-07-24T13:30:38.681+10:00As a final bit of trivia, I compared the two using...As a final bit of trivia, I compared the two using the baseline for CMIP5 that was used in the IPCC report - 1986 to 2005. The difference in that case, compared to using the "native" GISTemp baseline of 1951-1980, is 0.009 C instead of 0.03 C. That is, CMIP5 is effectively shifted up by 0.009 C relative to GISTemp compared to the chart above.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41297152494503514362016-07-24T13:11:23.861+10:002016-07-24T13:11:23.861+10:00I should add that KNMI appears to adjust the CMIP5...I should add that KNMI appears to adjust the CMIP5 baseline *after* working out the multi-model mean. If the calculation was done on each of the members of the ensemble separately and the baseline for each was worked out, then only after that the new CMIP5 mean was calculated, there would be a different result.<br /><br />As well, the envelope of the multi-model mean would straddle GISTemp whatever approach was taken.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10422448469646085002016-07-24T12:47:19.956+10:002016-07-24T12:47:19.956+10:00Correction - that should be 0.069 C difference for...Correction - that should be 0.069 C difference for CMIP5 of course, not 0.69 C :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48087962450576220712016-07-24T12:42:34.052+10:002016-07-24T12:42:34.052+10:00Dr No - that's interesting. I took a look and ...Dr No - that's interesting. I took a look and found that it's just a quirk of the averages for the particular thirty year periods. Using annual temperatures, with CMIP5 the difference between the average of 1961-1990 and 1951-1980 is 0.69C. The difference between the averages for GISTemp is 0.10 C. So when you shift GISTemp baseline up to the 1961-1990 as zero, you're shifting the CMIP5 chart up by 0.03C more than the GISTemp chart.<br /><br />Strictly speaking, I shouldn't shift any baselines because that effect will operate with all the datasets. I only align them for comparative purposes. (The different groups work out temperatures differently. However if you went back to basics, you'd undoubtedly find that if GISTemp used a different baseline such as 1961-1990, it wouldn't be exactly 0.10 C different from their 1951-1980 baseline.)<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/bob-tisdales-perspective-on-baselines.html?showComment=1390754094623#c1759277806624181976" rel="nofollow">thefordprefect pointed this out some time ago</a>, and it took me a while to see what he was getting at. (That's because I just use a rough and ready approach, mostly to compare datasets.) He's right though.<br /><br />For the same reason, you find that the differences between datasets appear huge if you align them all to, say, a baseline of 1880-1910. On the other hand, they line up quite well if you use a 1981-2010 baseline. That's because there are much bigger differences between them in the early years than in more recent years, which is what you'd expect.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46881905635565353422016-07-24T11:07:52.197+10:002016-07-24T11:07:52.197+10:00I think your comparison between CMIP5 and GISS tem...I think your comparison between CMIP5 and GISS temperatures may look very different if you focus on anomalies relative to the 1961 to 1990 averages. My quick analysis indicates CMIP5 values far above recent GISS values.Dr Nonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58616873431618567042016-07-24T10:26:20.159+10:002016-07-24T10:26:20.159+10:00To it's credit, east San Diego county also has...To it's credit, east San Diego county also has Mt. Palomar, so it is not completely drenched in ignorance and hate.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71747850653691739402016-07-24T10:03:04.207+10:002016-07-24T10:03:04.207+10:00Monckton thinks he deserves attention. His need fo...Monckton thinks he deserves attention. His need for it overwhelms his regard for reality. It's long established that it can safely be assumed that all Monckton claims are falsehoods.<br /><br />WUWT are helpless in the hands of people like Monckton. They must find something daily to get outraged about, and who is he to not enable their habit?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537772941984056434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30140102543882990762016-07-24T08:16:49.447+10:002016-07-24T08:16:49.447+10:00:):)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43794851993068290022016-07-24T08:15:08.202+10:002016-07-24T08:15:08.202+10:00"Did you read the Reuters article Bellman?&qu..."Did you read the Reuters article Bellman?"<br /><br />Yes I did, but probably not closely enough. Re-reading I agree it doesn't directly link the last 6 months to the 1.5C target and may have been referring to the next two decades. <br /><br />And no, there's practically nothing I could agree with in this article, or anything else Monckton says or writes. Bellmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04872924578152375407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23824584540729519962016-07-24T07:29:56.357+10:002016-07-24T07:29:56.357+10:00Did you read the Reuters article Bellman? It doesn...Did you read the Reuters article Bellman? It doesn't directly link the last six months with reaching 1.5 C. And it does point out that El Nino accounted for a lot of the recent record high temperatures.<br /><br />Even if the rate of warming doesn't pick up, we're on track to hit 1.5 C above the average of 1881-1910 before two decades is out. That's "soon" and getting sooner every year, and probably not enough time to stop that from happening.<br /><br />(I think you'd find next to nothing that you could agree with in Christopher's article BTW.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58597025249300515422016-07-24T07:19:29.182+10:002016-07-24T07:19:29.182+10:00Spot on, Raymond.Spot on, Raymond.metzomagichttp://metzomagic.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70891607596399350242016-07-24T07:17:15.733+10:002016-07-24T07:17:15.733+10:00"The part about pre-industrial does not come ..."The part about pre-industrial does not come from Reuters, but was already in the WMO press release"<br /><br />What the Reuters piece adds though is the claim that we are close to reaching the Paris lower-limit of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.<br /><br />Whilst I'd hate to agree with Monckton on anything, that does seem misleading if "close to" is only referring to the last 6 months. Bellmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04872924578152375407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18384810889130519552016-07-24T05:21:13.522+10:002016-07-24T05:21:13.522+10:00From the perspective of greenhouse gas induced cli...From the perspective of greenhouse gas induced climate forcing most any time up to 1900 can be approximated as "pre-industrial." Concentrations were around 280 ppm in the mid-late 1700s and were still only in the 290-295 range in the late 19th century. It wasn't until 1915 that CO2 reached 300 ppm and even in the WWII era concentrations were only 10% higher than their pre-industrial values.<br /><br />I think it's often underappreciated that the increase in CO2 is essentially a modern phenomenon. Fully half of the increase since pre-industrial times happened after 1983.Raymond Arritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648714314250278353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12302212422688507802016-07-24T01:31:48.043+10:002016-07-24T01:31:48.043+10:00>>...conclude that 2015 was likely the first...>>...conclude that 2015 was likely the first year in which global temperatures were more than 1 ◦C above pre-industrial levels.<br /><br />By my calculation that would make the estimate of the pre-industrial baseline for GISTemp somewhere between -0.26 ◦C (the 1881-1910 mean) and -0.14 ◦C below the 1951-1980 mean.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44499994402621177062016-07-24T01:22:03.247+10:002016-07-24T01:22:03.247+10:00I do not know whether this is already published: E...I do not know whether this is already published: <a href="http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-3081.pdf" rel="nofollow">Estimating pre-industrial global temperature</a>.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79160889430055230972016-07-24T01:09:32.436+10:002016-07-24T01:09:32.436+10:00Thanks Chris. I suspect whatever is settled upon a...Thanks Chris. I suspect whatever is settled upon as the "pre-industrial" baseline will be close to the average of the first 30 years of the instrumental record, or maybe just a tad higher in the case of GISTemp's first 30 years.<br /><br />That's going by this chart: <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2005/Fig5-07.jpg" rel="nofollow">Fig 5.7 (c) from the IPCC's AR5 report</a>.<br /><br />I also expect there'll be quite a bit of argy bargy between scientists before a number is settled upon :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55135509308448655972016-07-24T00:42:04.042+10:002016-07-24T00:42:04.042+10:00OK, so, from Victor's comment, it was Reuters ...OK, so, from Victor's comment, it was Reuters quoting the WMO quoting (misquoting, IMO) NASA. The underlying point remains: There's nothing wrong with the 1.3C number, but in my opinion it is not pre-industrial, so it doesn't really relate to (for example) the Paris agreement to limit the increase to 2C over pre-industrial temps.chrisdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10494573891618930891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47469083292877700162016-07-24T00:35:03.833+10:002016-07-24T00:35:03.833+10:00Here is one of the more measured discussions. I sa...<a href="https://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/79570960" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is one of the more measured discussions. I saw a couple that were far more incendiary, but I can't remember where they were.<br /><br />I have no problem with the comparison to 1880-1910. I just don't think it should have been characterized as "pre-industrial," especially since Reuters was essentially quoting NASA, and NASA didn't say that.chrisdnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14354915454549845012016-07-24T00:22:06.240+10:002016-07-24T00:22:06.240+10:00Thanks, Victor. That all makes sense. The "wa...Thanks, Victor. That all makes sense. The "warming faster than expected" got me. I find it easier to accept that was just the Reuters' reporters interpretation than something the WMO said.<br /><br />I thought I heard somewhere that there'd been or is currently an attempt to pin down what the "pre-industrial" benchmark is. Perhaps it will be done for the upcoming IPCC report - due in 2018.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/</a><br /><br />I don't imagine it will be easy since there aren't enough instrumental records going back, plus natural variability will mean that some sort of averaging will be needed.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17048829771697797022016-07-24T00:08:59.634+10:002016-07-24T00:08:59.634+10:00The press release of the WMO does not say anything...The <a href="http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-breaks-new-records-january-june-2016" rel="nofollow">press release of the WMO</a> does not say anything about "faster than expected". If that does not come from a press conference, that seems to be an interpretation of Reuters. <br /><br />That interpretation could be defended. There are many changes in the climate system, many are going faster than expected such as sea level rise and Arctic sea ice. The press release does not just talk about temperatures. <br /><br />It could also be that the journalist believed the propaganda of Monckton and Co. that there was such a thing as a "hiatus". Then seeing this imaginary period evaporate could be seen as faster than expected warming.<br /><br />The part about pre-industrial does not come from Reuters, but was already in the WMO press release: "<i>The average temperature in the first six months of 2016 was 1.3°C (2.4°F warmer than the pre-industrial era in the late 19th century, according to NASA.</i>"<br /><br />Scientifically I would say it is clear what they mean, a change relative to the beginning of the instrumental temperature estimate before 1900. This period was likely a little colder than the pre-industrial average because of some volcanoes. There was a first study that tried to quantify this difference; a few tenth of a degree Celsius becomes more important now that we will likely get quite close to the 2°C limit because we failed to act fast enough.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10357208333634422022016-07-24T00:05:26.292+10:002016-07-24T00:05:26.292+10:00The Industrial Revolution is generally considered ...The Industrial Revolution is generally considered to have extended from about 1760 to about 1840.chrisdnoreply@blogger.com