Science Not Settled

[John Cuthber]

Let's just have another quick look at para 1

"1. Weather/climate is a cycle of cycles of cycles of cycles..... To infer AGW after only a few years of warming on our 4.5 Billion year old planet is like infering a bull market based on a one second up-tick in the DOW. The glacial ice/deep ocean record has been/can be sliced and diced by whoever wants to prove their point. Cherry picking data is not science. Data minipulation by E. Anglia in the U.K. a good example."

 

You don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate.

It hasn't just been "a few years"

Inferring a change based on the data might be tricky, but we are actually explaining a change (in temperature) based on a known effect of another measured variable- the CO2 concentration in the air.

It has, it can, and you are doing so.

Indeed not- perhaps you should stop doing it.

Since they didn't actually manipulate the data you have no base on which to make that comment.

 

OK, you are right.

We only needed to look at the first paragraph.

Edited September 21, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

 

If I repeat "I have a pet Stegosaurus" over and over it unfortunately won't make it so.

 

But this analogy adds an element that even the general public would see through, though I'm sure that enough repetitions would convince a few simply because they want to believe it's true ("Arete keeps his big old garage locked, have you noticed?"). And that's why campaigns like "The science is not settled" and "Teach the controversy" work so well. Many people want to believe it's true.

 

If you were to repeat, "Iraq has WMDs" over and over, it won't make it so but you can trick an uninformed public long enough to support you and your agenda. I think I can provide some citations if you need them.

[Wxman]

Maybe you didn't read my last post carefully. I said the temp has been fairly flat the last 15 yrs....but the global temperatures were modeled/predicted/peer-reviewed to continue to rise just has the CO2 has continued to increase over the last 15 years....but hasn't. Let's see what the IPCC has to say.

[iNow]

I said the temp has been fairly flat the last 15 yrs....but the global temperatures were modeled/predicted/peer-reviewed to continue to rise just has the CO2 has continued to increase over the last 15 years....but hasn't.

This is factually incorrect.

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

Maybe you didn't read my last post carefully. I said the temp has been fairly flat the last 15 yrs....but the global temperatures were modeled/predicted/peer-reviewed to continue to rise just has the CO2 has continued to increase over the last 15 years....but hasn't. Let's see what the IPCC has to say.

 

Air temperature, but not ocean temperature. Most of the heat goes into the ocean (there's a lot more of it). Cherry picking data does not go unnoticed when you're not preaching to the choir.

[Wxman]

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM300.pdf

[overtone]

Fascinated as I am by climate science "research" findings consisting of unexplained literature reviews by a father and son team of boichemist home-schooling advocate creationists plus this guy

 

In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1,000,000 from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.^[30] - - - - - Charles G. Koch Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute

 

published in 2007 in a journal allegedly devoted to topics of interest to physicians and surgeons,

 

I'm afraid that I quit reading when I hit a description of carbon dioxide as a "minor greenhouse gas".

[swansont]

What kind of climate science peer review is possible with the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons?

[Wxman]

No comment on the 132 references?

[swansont]

No comment on the 132 references?

 

OK, here's a comment: who cares how many references there are? Especially from an author about whom people have complained misinterpret their work

"thirteen of the scientists cited in the paper published rebuttals stating that Soon and Baliunas had misinterpreted their work." (in reference to their 2003 paper)

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon

[Phi for All]

What kind of climate science peer review is possible with the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons?

 

Have surgical costs gone up with the temperatures because they need more nurses to wipe their brows?

[Delbert]

I don't normally like commenting on climate change - or whatever one calls it. But as for the goal of being settled, science will probably never be settled regarding climate prediction.

 

As I've said previously (not here), because it's so complicated with so many variables, my view is we can only make a judgement - not unlike beyond reasonable doubt as in a court case. But if we wait for the so called proof that seems to be the goal, it'll doubtless be too late to worry about.

 

There's the other aspect of should science actually be able to provide proof, would or could we do anything anyway? Like, ask yourself: if, as of today, science clearly said a catastrophe will happen in 20 years time if we continue as we are now what would we do? And don't forget, doing something doubtless means turning things off to the point of very big problems! I suggest the political ramifications would result in us simply prevaricating for 20 years! In other words nothing.

 

It seems to me that assuming AGC is true, and whether or not science provides an answer, chances are we won't change. We don't normally change or do things until events show us which path to take.

[Walter]

Debating carbon dioxide plots, “peer reviewed” literature and academic qualifications reminds me of Dawkins and Hitchens debating proponents of intelligent design (thousands of hours spent discussing how the supernatural world made no natural sense). Since funding for studying the Book of Genesis is private, I never understood how they could spend so much time discussing and writing about that 2000 year old text. As with climatologists, I do not expect creationists to see the light of science anytime soon.

 

Now, if intelligent design was receiving billions of taxpayer dollars, think of how much fun it would be to argue physics, chemistry, geology and evolution with all those creation scientists sitting in universities and government. Think of all the complexity plots, the peer reviewed papers published in the theology intelligent design journals, the PhDs in creation science, all supported by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the public education system, PBS, NPR, National Geographic, Scientific American and the United States Congress.

 

Fun indeed.

[swansont]

 

Now, if intelligent design was receiving billions of taxpayer dollars, think of how much fun it would be to argue physics, chemistry, geology and evolution with all those creation scientists sitting in universities and government. Think of all the complexity plots, the peer reviewed papers published in the theology intelligent design journals, the PhDs in creation science, all supported by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the public education system, PBS, NPR, National Geographic, Scientific American and the United States Congress.

 

Fun indeed.

 

That presupposes that the subject is actually science and just isn't getting funded, which is decidedly not the case.

[Wxman]

So the IPCC is now 95% condfident of man-made AGW, even though global temp observations have not cooperated with their stellar models (see chart in link) over the last 15 years. Well, I'm now 95% sure the science is not settled. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/

[iNow]

Here we go... yet again... with denialist nonsense claims whack-a-mole.

http://www.livescience.com/40019-global-warming-evidence-2007-report-compared-to-2013-infographic.html

[John Cuthber]

So the IPCC is now 95% condfident of man-made AGW, even though global temp observations have not cooperated with their stellar models (see chart in link) over the last 15 years. Well, I'm now 95% sure the science is not settled. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/

Interesting graph.

They have plotted the temperature anomaly, rather than the temperature.

What the graph shows is that the temperature has risen in every year since 1993.

The model is slightly overestimating how fast it's getting hotter- but hotter is still what it is getting.

 

So, why would they use that particular choice of variable to illustrate their article?

Perhaps because it distorts what people see.

If the temperature were rising slowly by say 1 degree every ten years, that graph would look flat.

People would look at it and they might think that the temperature was flat ie there was no warming.

 

Why did they go to the trouble of producing a misleading graph by taking the first derivative of the data?

I don't know- I haven't asked them.

But I wonder if it was because they wanted a graph that misleads people.

 

If you are going to show a plot of rate of change of temperature, shouldn't you say that in the headline?

[swansont]

 

Why did they go to the trouble of producing a misleading graph by taking the first derivative of the data?

 

 

AFAICT that's not a derivative. The temperature anomaly is simply the offset from a chosen starting point. In this case, the temperature above the average value from 1961-1990.

 

What they did do was choose figure 1-4 instead of 1-5; the one they show is more confusing, because it includes the predictions that did not take into account the Pinatubo eruption, so all of the shading that lacks the dip in ~1993 need to be ignored. They're all higher than the data, so it makes it look like the actually numbers are way too low.

 

If you look at fig 1-5, (p.1-40) where they strip away the extraneous models, you get a different picture.

 

I don't understand how they arrive at a 0.2-0.9 ºC range for CO₂ changing from 355 - 396 ppm. ln(396/355) is 0.11. You get 0.693 for a doubling, so the coefficient is 1.44 * sensitivity. i.e. for a sensitivity of 4.5 ºC, that change should give you 1.44 * 4.5 * .11 = 0.71ºC, and I thought that's the high end of the range. To get 0.9 ºC you'd need a climate sensitivity of 5.7 ºC for a doubling of CO₂

 

_{Also, the value of 396 is wrong; if you look at fig 1-6, the last data point is about 390 ppm. ln(390/355) is 0.094. The 2010 data point (to make it match the temperature range) is, of course, lower.}

[overtone]

So the IPCC is now 95% condfident of man-made AGW, even though global temp observations have not cooperated with their stellar models (see chart in link) over the last 15 years. Well, I'm now 95% sure the science is not settled. http://opinion.finan...-getting-mushy/

I took a look - here's what I found within a couple of paragraphs:

 

The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero.

The graph there, right next to that assertion, shows no such things.

 

In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.

The models somewhat overpredicted the overall temperature change of the atmosphere, one specific warming effect, by an amount within the error range of most of them if Pinatubo is included - not the same thing.

 

 

- - - Based on all climate models used by the IPCC, this region of the atmosphere (specifically the tropical mid-troposphere) should exhibit the most rapid greenhouse warming anywhere. {but it isn't}

This is a long familiar issue that has been under dicsussion since before the publication date of this treatment, in 2005. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/050980tk#page-6 According to that often cited and reputable article, the most likely explanation of apparent model failure here - both adequate and evidence supported - is combined residual errors in the various observational datasets used.

 

But the larger issue is not that - the larger issue is that even complete invalidation of all of the climate change models under routine use and evaluation and improvement for decades now would not change the facts of global warming. The models help predict, help explain, but do not govern, what's happening. It won't stop because some models were wrong about some of the details of it.

Edited October 1, 2013 by overtone

[Wxman]

) Steve McIntyre: IPCC - Fixing The Facts
Climate Audit, 30 September 2013


Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared.

Here is Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft, showing post-AR4 observations outside the envelope of projections from the earlier IPCC assessment reports (see previous discussion here).

Figure 1. Second Order Draft Figure 1.4. Yellow arrows show digitization of cited Figure 10.26 of AR4.

Now here is the replacement graphic in the Approved Draft: this time, observed values are no longer outside the projection envelopes from the earlier reports. IPCC described it as follows:
Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short time scale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments.

Figure 2. Approved Version Figure 1.4

So how’d the observations move from outside the envelope to insider the envelope? It will take a little time to reconstruct the movements of the pea.

In the next figure, I’ve shown a blow-up of the new Figure 1.4 to a comparable timescale (1990-2015) as the Second Draft version. The scale of the Second Draft showed the discrepancy between models and observations much more clearly. I do not believe that IPCC’s decision to use a more obscure scale was accidental.

Figure 3. Detail of Figure 1.4 with annotation. Yellow dots- HadCRUT4 annual (including YTD 2013.)

First and most obviously, the envelope of AR4 projections is completely different in the new graphic. The Second Draft had described the source of the envelopes as follows:

The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). ,,,

The [AR4] data used was obtained from Figure 10.26 in Chapter 10 of AR4 (provided by Malte Meinshausen). Annual means are used. The upper bound is given by the A1T scenario, the lower bound by the A1B scenario.

The envelope in the Second Draft figure can indeed be derived from AR4 Figure 10.26. In the next figure, I’ve shown the original panel of Figure 10.26 with observations overplotted, clearly showing the discrepancy. I’ve also shown the 2005, 2010 and 2015 envelope with red arrows (which I’ve transposed to other diagrams for reference). That observations fall outside the projection envelope of the AR4 figure is obvious.

Figure 4. AR4 Figure 10.26

The new IPCC graphic no longer cites an AR4 figure. Instead of the envelope presented in AR4, they now show a spaghetti graph of CMIP3 runs, of which they state:

For the AR4 results are presented as single model runs of the CMIP3 ensemble for the historical period from 1950 to 2000 (light grey lines) and for three scenarios (A2, A1B and B1) from 2001 to 2035. The bars at the right hand side of the graph show the full range given for 2035 for each assessment report. For the three SRES scenarios the bars show the CMIP3 ensemble mean and the likely range given by -40% to +60% of the mean as assessed in Meehl et al. (2007). The publication years of the assessment reports are shown. See Appendix 1. A for details on the data and calculations used to create this figure…

The temperature projections of the AR4 are presented for three SRES scenarios: B1, A1B and A2.

Annual mean anomalies relative to 1961–1990 of the individual CMIP3 ensemble simulations (as used in AR4 SPM Figure SPM5) are shown. One outlier has been eliminated based on the advice of the model developers because of the model drift that leads to an unrealistic temperature evolution. As assessed by Meehl et al. (2007), the likely-range for the temperature change is given by the ensemble mean temperature change +60% and –40% of the ensemble mean temperature change. Note that in the AR4 the uncertainty range was explicitly estimated for the end of the 21st century results. Here, it is shown for 2035. The time dependence of this range has been assessed in Knutti et al. (2008). The relative uncertainty is approximately constant over time in all estimates from different sources, except for the very early decades when natural variability is being considered (see Figure 3 in Knutti et al., 2008).

For the envelopes from the first three assessments, although they cite the same sources as the predecessor Second Draft Figure 1.4, the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations, so that the observations are now within the earlier projection envelopes. You can see this relatively clearly with the Second Assessment Report envelope: compare the two versions. At present, I have no idea how they purport to justify this.

None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.

CNSNews.com) – Global temperatures collected in five official databasesconfirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH).

Christy's findings are contrary to predictions made by 73 computer models cited in the United Nation’s latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (5AR).

Christy told CNSNews that he analyzed all 73 models used in the 5AR and not one accurately predicted that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996. (See Temperatures v Predictions 1976-2013.pdf)

“I compared the models with observations in the key area – the tropics – where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases,” Christy explained. “I wanted to compare the real world temperatures with the models in a place where the impact would be very clear.” (See Tropical Mid-Troposphere Graph.pdf)

Using datasets of actual temperatures recorded by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia (Hadley-CRU), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, Christy found that “all show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.”

“All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world,” Christy pointed out. “The closest was a Russian model that predicted a one-degree increase."

“October 1st marks the 17th year of no global warming significantly different than zero,” agreed Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. “And those 17 years correspond to the largest period of CO2 emissions by far over any other 17-year period in history.”

The 5AR's "Summary for Policymakers," released last week, acknowledged that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years…is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951,” before concluding that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” (See IPCC 5th Assessment Report.pdf)

“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid 20th century,” the IPCC report noted, adding that “continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.”

However, the same report also acknowledged that there are “differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.”

“It’s a very embarrassing result for the climate models used in the IPCC report,” Christy told CNSNews. “Our own UAH measurement of a 0.1 degree Celsius increase per decade in the upper atmosphere was actually the warmest of all the datasets.”

Reaching the 17-year mark with no significant warming is a milestone because a climate change research team at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory defined it as the minimum length of time necessary to “separate human-caused global warming from the ‘noise’ of purely natural climate fluctuations,” according to a 2011 press release.

Michaels pointed out that 18 separate experiments published since Jan. 1, 2011 show that the IPCC’s climate models are off by 46 percent when it comes to temperature CO2 sensitivity. “The pressure to warm the atmosphere by CO2 has somehow been cancelled out completely by natural forces,” he said. “Surface temperature is simply not as sensitive to changes in CO2 as was assumed by the climate modeling community.”

“Nature bats last,” Michaels added. “And Nature came up in the 9th inning 17 years ago.”

Seventeen years without a temperature increase is also at odds with a report by the United Kingdom’s Met Office that said “global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013." (See Met Office July 2013.PDF)

“The Met Office simply didn’t go back 17 years,” Christy said to explain the two-year discrepancy.

When CNSNews asked Christy how the IPCC could claim “95 percent certainty” that human activity is causing global warming when it failed to predict that global temperatures would remain flat over the past 17 years, he replied: “I am baffled that the confidence increases when the performance of your models is conclusively failing. I cannot understand that methodology.”

When asked how useful the just-released IPCC report will be in predicting future global temperatures, he said: “Not very. When 73 out of 73 [climate models] miss the point and predict temperatures that are significantly above the real world, they cannot be used as scientific tools, and definitely not for public policy decision-making.”

In 2012, Christy testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, telling senators that “the recent anomalous weather can’t be blamed on carbon dioxide.”

"We've had 17 years of no global warming, yet we have an energy policy right now that continues to harm American communities and will lead to much higher electricity prices all based on the 'fact' that the world is warming," Daniel Kish, vice-president of the Institute for Energy Research, told CNSNews.com.

"Yet they cannot explain why all their projections are wrong. They're putting coal miners out of work all based on a 17-year history that doesn't exist."

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17#sthash.T7NOhyMX.rzgs2unu.dpuf

[overtone]

I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article

McKitrick's one of the guys who made that incompetent assessment of Mann's hockey stick we watched the wingnuts trip over a few years ago. He apparently thought that one needed no actual scientific experience in the field to handle the data sets, but could instead just treat them as pure numbers with this or that mathematical property. It's the kind of simple and basic error only a motivated math guy could make - for the same reason it takes a professional mechanic to accidently forget to put the lug nuts back on after changing a tire - but embarrassing nontheless. The odd aspect is that he never retracted or amended his analysis - one suspects financial incentives: the oil boys have huge piles of cash to throw around.

 

 

 

"We've had 17 years of no global warming,

That's kind of silly. We've had 17 years of massive glacial and pack ice melting, dramatically warmer air temperatures, steadily increasing ocean temps, increased evaporation rates, a rising trend line in every relevant graph of the data, and if I might put in an anecdotal bit 18 consecutive years of January rain in central Minnesota - a couple times recently even at night .

 

Apparently he's resting the entire assertion on this graph: http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/Tropical%20Mid-Troposphere%20Graph_0.pdf A few points:

 

He doesn't draw a trend line for his satellite and balloon data, to compare with the model trend - for the obvious reason that if he did, we could see a definite upward slope from 1979 right through 1996 and to the present day, which would contradict his claims. Picking 1996 to start his trend is a clear example of one of the techniques discussed in that valuable little book "How to Lie With Statistics".

 

His satellite and balloon data set is geographically and aeronautically limited - his assertion that it can be extrapolated to the entire global atmosphere even, let alone the oceans and everything else involved, is without obvious support.

 

Others have questioned the reliability of that data set, with reason - instruments changed, etc. He does not address this matter.

 

The most obvious influence on his graph, especially given the location and so forth of the data collection, was Mt Pinatubo's eruption - right where his data diverges most sharply from the models, which were not corrected for the volcano until much later. He does not address this matter as far as I've read.

 

So this is not very persuasive on its merits, which are few and dubious.

 

But there's another side to it: suppose there were no warming to point to - ocean, air, melting ice, groundwater temps, evaporation, nothing. We'd have a real mystery on our hands. The CO2 and water vapor and so forth have all come in as scheduled, and that greenhouse trapped energy has to go somewhere.

Edited October 1, 2013 by overtone

[Wxman]

Indeed we do have a mystery. Why has the global temperature rise remained nearly flat over the last 15-17 years, yet CO2 has continued to increase..."October 1st marks the 17th year of no global warming significantly different than zero,” agreed Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. “And those 17 years correspond to the largest period of CO2 emissions by far over any other 17-year period in history.” Moreover, over 70 models are wrong, even the ensembles. A complete understanding of how CO2 impacts the global climate is obviously lacking (science not settled). The IPCC response....don't directly address the "pause" and raise their confidence to 95%. Now that's a mystery and, well, embarrassing.

[iNow]

Why has the global temperature rise remained nearly flat over the last 15-17 years, yet CO2 has continued to increase.

The premise of your question is completely false. You're basing your question on a long debunked and plainly false myth, and yet people like you continue to push it like mindless zombies.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-rose-hides-rise-global-warming.html

The overall warming of the Earth over the past 15 years was larger than over the previous 15 years. Global warming has not stopped; it's not even slowed down.

Click the link above for a more thorough rebuttal of this ridiculous argument you've just put forth.

Summary: Focusing merely on land surface temps instead of all temps, plus cherry picking start and end dates for your graph, suggests you would rather lie to protect your worldview than adapt your thinking based on the actual evidence available.

[Phi for All]

You're basing your question on a long debunked and plainly false myth, and yet people like you continue to push it like mindless zombies.

 

Be careful, that's a slur against the mindless zombie community. AFAIK, they have NEVER done anything like this.

 

This is more of a creationist strategy.

[Wxman]

INow. Wow, over the previous 15 years. The warming (air/ocean) at this rate/level has never occured before over the lets say 1 million years. Hey, everybody has a chart to prove their point. Agree with Phill for all. There are Zombies...on both sides of the issue.