tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post3545450498979806926..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: IPCC doubles down: 95% sure on AGW while unable to explain why there has been no warming over past 16 yearsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-18835320305124235082013-09-03T09:05:40.548-07:002013-09-03T09:05:40.548-07:00http://www.trendingcentral.com/the-upcoming-ipcc-r...http://www.trendingcentral.com/the-upcoming-ipcc-report-mann-made-cluelessness/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-23270028791276224502013-08-27T20:32:18.981-07:002013-08-27T20:32:18.981-07:00I looked at the first link and the associated pape...I looked at the first link and the associated paper by Gray.<br /><br />On the webpage, I saw no physics based model nor a model that can predict the future. I only saw an effort at correlation that uses 3 data sets (not 1, btw, since CO2 is just 1) and requires hindsight to calculate so cannot be applied to the future. Hindsight is 20/20.<br /><br />CO2 has gone up basically in one direction. This adds a steady contribution to the natural variability. We can see this effect to be very slight in the 1700s, small in the 1800s, and noticeable in the 1900s. The climate models can be applied way back in time to match prehistoric temp ranges, and they do a decent job bounding temps 95% of the time from 1970s forward (where we have very precise temps).<br /><br />As concerns correlation, the changes in any given year for CO2 have a weak effect on temp during a small time interval. Air temp variability (oscillation) is largely dominated by the oceans and can be seen in the PDO, etc. These more closely match the ups and downs of the air temp (natural variability) so will have a much higher correlation than will the yearly steady rising CO2.<br /><br />However, when it comes to guessing steady state or the future, CO2 defines the region around which natural variability will oscillate, and this can be calculated without worrying about the ups and downs of natural variability. We need focus on the energy added to the system and this is largely defined by a near constant sun irradiance and steadily rising CO2. Lots of math has been done to support this.<br /><br />Gray dismissed climate science results going back decades and provided his own assertion without any of the extensive mathematics that is required or referencing papers that would do so on his behalf. He simply believes: lots of H2O in the lower layers is not that important because slightly dropping H2O in the upper layers is more important and so CO2 will have small effect. He never calculated anything to substantiate the belief nor attempted to disprove those who have done the calculations using different techniques. He makes assumptions about current models and judges them based on current measurements (like slightly dropping h2o in upper troposphere) without realizing that the models are primarily focused on future "average state" and not as much on short-term transients. And to perhaps avoid having to show much math, he simply argues that climate models can't be all that accurate because of numerical integration (quantized computation) errors that add up on each iteration. Of course, he did no analysis of this hunch. In particular, keeping in mind the "average state" goals, he seems to have missed the same point being missed here that while the average of the models can be off on the precise weaving and bobbing of the temp (ie, it is impossible at this time to predict the weather more than some days out), climate science primarily concerns itself with long term impact changes, eg, such as that temps will be oscillating several degrees higher in 100 years.<br /><br />We are a ways off from predicting precisely on local areas with precision, but we can make strong statements about average temps. Anyone disagreeing has to come up with a physical model that makes predictions on the future and then mathematically show how it beats the current models in some way. Merely correlating data points after the fact is itself useless to making meaningful statements about 2100.Jose_Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-11190934754601554352013-08-26T17:24:13.235-07:002013-08-26T17:24:13.235-07:00Dr Judith Curry:
JC comment: there is an implici...Dr Judith Curry:<br /><br />JC comment: there is an implicit expectation that the IPCC’s confidence level will increase with each assessment report. Hence the ‘leaked’ 95% confidence level for attribution from the forthcoming AR5 report, in spite of reduced accuracy of the climate models relative to the last 15+ years of observations and apparent lowering of the climate sensitivity bound to 1.5C.<br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/26/i-know-im-right/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-9899773655053201272013-08-23T11:06:09.262-07:002013-08-23T11:06:09.262-07:00"Anyway, I hope one day to see a credible ske..."Anyway, I hope one day to see a credible skeptics formula/program that comes anywhere in the ball part of the job current models do in predicting historic temperatures."<br /><br />Uh, here's several that outperform the IPCC models and achieve far better correlation than CO2 to temperature:<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/simple-climate-model-outperforms-ipcc.html<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-paper-shows-how-natural-ocean.html<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-paper-finds-remarkable-correlation.html<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/06/paper-finds-50-of-warming-over-past-30.html<br /><br />and many others. <br /><br />CO2 does not cointegrate with temperature and therefore is not the cause of temperature<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/11/new-paper-finds-data-do-not-support.html<br /><br />Temperature leads CO2 on all timescales, short, medium, and long<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=humlumMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-27580196642832692692013-08-23T10:50:46.369-07:002013-08-23T10:50:46.369-07:00Are you people pretending that the warming from CO...Are you people pretending that the warming from CO2 (some in the pipeline because of the length of time it takes to warm most of the oceans since they do not receive direct sunlight energy) would today be strong enough to overcome natural variation mostly due to the high-energy capacity oceans mixing? Of course temps go up and down, but look at the multi-decade and centennial patters in the 1700s 1800s and then 1900-1950 and 1950-2000 and see how those shifts upward match the CO2 levels in the air (eg, see keelingcurve.ucsd.edu and the BEST temperature climate graphs).<br /><br />The current models (especially the ocean mix components) might be off some, but it is *expected* that temps will leave the 95% confidence range 5% of the time even if the models are perfect (and we know they are not perfect), so why are people shocked when this prediction is met? It's supposed to be met! We are supposed to see decade-long or more negligible gains and drops every so many years. That is predicted by the models. See the up-down escalator at skepticalscience. We are not getting rid of natural selection. The IPCC values are average of many computer runs, so half the time temps will be above and half the time below average. Walking these models back decades shows that pattern.<br /><br />BTW, there is no global WMP at any year/decade people can precisely pick. The wide range of proxy values for any year you pick shows why the averages lie near zero.. leading to the hockey stick effect and explaining why red noise behaves similarly to these up and down temps from the past 1000 years (excluding the last century). Oh, and CO2 can both lead and lag temperature rises. I don't know why someone pretended otherwise. Never before mankind have fossil fuels likely been burned in significant amounts, of course, so the leads would not be seen too much. Anyway, I hope one day to see a credible skeptics formula/program that comes anywhere in the ball part of the job current models do in predicting historic temperatures. I know Spencer tried his hand at it and came up with an exponential formula (!) which predicted trillions of degree difference when the formula was walked back just 1000 years, never mind 100 million years. That is sloppy science, but keep believing!!!Jose_Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-47351657939887754132013-08-21T19:18:59.442-07:002013-08-21T19:18:59.442-07:00UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC &...UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report<br /><br />http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-80398167569715515832013-08-21T08:33:11.560-07:002013-08-21T08:33:11.560-07:00http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-239...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2398753/Why-HAS-global-warming-slowed-Scientists-admit-dont-know-why.html#ixzz2cbnplsZiMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-54733453910622815162013-08-20T19:17:10.745-07:002013-08-20T19:17:10.745-07:00Now as I enter the twilight of my life, it amazes ...Now as I enter the twilight of my life, it amazes me how there have always been those that cry that man has destroyed the environment, it was, is now, and always will be "too late" to stop the havoc that evil (i.e. capitalist) people cause the planet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-9768249665021084782013-08-20T15:45:39.874-07:002013-08-20T15:45:39.874-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebod...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-63694815431708572252013-08-20T11:28:01.024-07:002013-08-20T11:28:01.024-07:00http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/20/leaked-d...http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/20/leaked-draft-climate-report-struggles-with-drop-in-warming/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-10220945006841502662013-08-19T08:27:05.498-07:002013-08-19T08:27:05.498-07:00http://sppiblog.org/news/report-indicates-ipcc-ign...http://sppiblog.org/news/report-indicates-ipcc-ignore-facts-and-failed-predictions-to-claim-better-resultsMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-4522184979561209382013-08-17T19:15:25.605-07:002013-08-17T19:15:25.605-07:00I love how a "decline in the heat from the su...I love how a "decline in the heat from the sun" can supposedly explain lack of warming, but the Warmists state that an increase in heat from the sun doesn't explain warming.William Teachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11447753680268439618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-82705541125929220872013-08-17T14:44:34.566-07:002013-08-17T14:44:34.566-07:00Thanks, I agree with your justifiably harsh critiq...Thanks, I agree with your justifiably harsh critiqueMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-58137092802821350792013-08-17T09:53:09.765-07:002013-08-17T09:53:09.765-07:00What is funny is their short term predictions - fo...What is funny is their short term predictions - for example, the "five year plan" turned out to be completely false for predicting warming. So now they switch to the "hundred year plan" so that no one involved will be alive to explain the ridicule when it too falls flat.pyeattehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03991541088269003174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-39953237992139073662013-08-17T05:38:51.499-07:002013-08-17T05:38:51.499-07:00It's really incredible. Some extra comments of...It's really incredible. Some extra comments of mine about the proposition and the confidence level, and especially about the comparison of the treatment of confidence levels in the IPCC vs in particle physics:<br /><br /><a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/08/95-percent-confidence-in-hep-vs-ipcc.html?m=1" rel="nofollow">The Reference Frame: 95% in IPCC vs HEP</a>Luboš Motlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50957329187340916512013-08-16T22:59:57.360-07:002013-08-16T22:59:57.360-07:00"Scientists believe causes could include...&q..."Scientists believe causes could include..."<br /><br />Wait a minute.<br />Wasn't anthropogenic CO2 the MAIN driver of 'global warming' aka 'climate change'? <br />I have been branded a heretic whenever I pointed towards natural causes...... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-19426200306600627462013-08-16T17:38:11.288-07:002013-08-16T17:38:11.288-07:00Thanks Dan that reminds me I need to repost your w...Thanks Dan that reminds me I need to repost your work<br /><br />Best regardsMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-80138801230758956482013-08-16T11:33:08.562-07:002013-08-16T11:33:08.562-07:00I'm 100% sure the IPCC is lying
https://steve...I'm 100% sure the IPCC is lying<br /><br />https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/im-100-sure-that-the-ipcc-is-lying/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.com