The Blackboard

Pielke Snr reminds us in his latest post that there has been no stratospheric cooling since 1995 either. That might be the more significant point, since that is supposed to be the one true signature of anthropogenic global warming – well after they moved the goalposts away from the tropical hot-spot.

James-
You mean here: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpr.....t-al-2010/

Right?

The stratospheric cooling graph is much more remarkable than the surface temperatures. In the case of the surface temperatures, there clearly is warming since 1995– it’s just not statistically significant. The stratospheric temp has been remarkably flat since 1995. It’s puzzling.

JamesGardiner: Are they really no longer predicting amplified heating in the tropical troposphere relative to the surface?

As I understood it, every GCM predicts that amplification. How can they drop that claim now?

“Pielke Snr reminds us in his latest post that there has been no stratospheric cooling since 1995 either. That might be the more significant point, since that is supposed to be the one true signature of anthropogenic global warming.”
Pielke I is using RSS data, which is only the lower strat. The upper strat is where he should be looking. Odd that he doesn’t know this…..or does he know it?

JamesGardiner (Comment#33518), lucia (Comment#33520)

Actually, this is not that unexpected, in a way. If you consider that the dominant signal is not GHG stratospheric cooling but Ozone depletion:

http://i23.photobucket.com/alb.....tratoz.png

Recall that the growth of the Antarctic “hole” has slowed dramatically:

http://www.appinsys.com/Global.....age007.jpg

Boris (Comment#33523)-AFAIK there is no upper strat data. Which is unfortunate, actually.

This is a request for a background link for beginners, rather than an attempted thread-jack.

Under “Analysis beginning in 1995,” Lucia says

Using HadCrutNH&SH from Jan 1995-Dec 2009, I get a least squares trend of 0.105 C/decade… using the classic correction for red noise results in a standard error of 0.058 C/decade, and the ±95% uncertainty interval is [ -0.015 C/decade , 0.225C/decade ]

If SE of 0.058 C/decade covers the central 68% of a Gaussian distribution, 2*SE or 0.116 C/decade should cover the central 95%. Centering this range on 0.105 C/decade yields a ±95% interval of [ -0.011 C/decade , 0.221C/decade ]. This estimate is very close to the interval Lucia gives.

Am I crudely following the gist of this part of the argument, or is this way above my pay grade?

Amac–
Yes. But I use the multiplier for the intervals based on the reduced number of degrees of freedom rather than substituting “2″. This results in wider confidence intervals because the multiplier is greater than 2. Using 2 is a reasonable short cut sometimes– but it gives too narrow of confidence intervals if the number of deg. freedom is smallish and slightly too large as the number reaches infinity. (It can range from somewhere near 12 to a value as low as 1.96.)

Stratospheric temps have always been somewhat odd. They seem to be flat until a big volcano occurs, and then there is a step change down.

That said, I wonder how much tropospheric temps bleed through into the lower stratospheric record?

rather than report out the “statisically significant” a phrase which I hate and makes no sense to me from a logical standpoint ( ok I know you all where trained that 95% has some inherent ’specialness’ ) why not just report out by start date the portion of the PDF that lies above zero.

That is. starting from 1995 to today what’s the probablity that the trend is positive,

That would make a neato chart starting from 1850 to today compute the portion of the PDF that is above the zero line.. for 1850 to present, 51, 52, 53, 54,…blah, blah.

steven–
There are several reasons not to do it your way:
1) It doesn’t match the question and answer format in the Jones interview.

2) People will still want to know if the result is “statistically significant” because many people like yes/no answers.

3) This analysis cannot tell us the probability the trend is positive. All it tells us is the probability that we might get an excursion this large if the null hypothesis is true. For the “warming” question ask by the journalist, this is the probability that we would see this much warming if there was no warming. To get a probability the trend is positive, you need to do something Bayesian. This analysis is frequentist.

Also, I’m vaguely amused that “no cooling since 2002″ is the new meme-du-jour in some quarters. I recall arguing that folks would start cherry-picking that date once “a decade of cooling” became false as the start-date no longer encompassed the ‘98 ENSO event.

Running some quick numbers, it looks like HadCRUTv would need a 2010 anomaly of 0.56 C to get rid of any cooling trends to present in the record. Given that the hottest year to date was 0.53 C, we will probably be stuck with at least some selectively chosen short-term cooling trends for another year :-p

The IPCC Party line has always held that the lower troposphere should be warming up at a 30% higher rate than surface temperatures. Whatever happened to that argument based on best available data?

Meanwhile, it would at this stage probably interesting to run whatever “statistically significant” warming or cooling trends against “statistically significant” real world economic and political trends.

My guess is that we would find that whether or not there has been any “statistically significant” warming or cooling between whatever cherry-picked start and end points, the economic and political AGW/ACC trends are sharply down.

As would be the “great unwashed’s” trust in science as a basis for policy, and with that the single most important collateral damage of the entire fraud.

And that, when you add it up, is a dismal stat.

Zeke–
Are people really running around crowing about “no cooling since 2002?” We may hit 0.56 C this year. Who knows? Let me go see if the betting script timed out and we knwo what people bet yet!

When you say the models predict .25C per decade of warming, is that for the first decade or for all decades? I have been told at Tamino and other sites that the models accelerate towards warming, when I argued that a low level of warming suggests the extreme warming projections are unlikely.

Lucia,

Moncton/Icecap/some WUWT commenters seem to think so. And Jones’ response to that BBC question will feed the fire a bit.

What I don’t really get is why people are getting so excited over the numbers Jones gave; its not like they couldn’t have fired up excel and ran their own regression with the data. Jones didn’t tell us anything number-wise that we already didn’t know; the only really interesting part of the interview was the degree of uncertainty he expressed about the MWP. Not that other scientists haven’t said the same thing, but a few have, shall we say, exaggerated the certainty that it was only a regional event beyond what the evidence can clearly show.

MikeN–
That’s the rate from Jan 1995-Dec. 2009.

As a general rule, the multi-model means predict accelerating warming during the first 50 years of the 21st century. However, if you want to compare the observed trend from 1995-now to what the the multi-model mean predicted for that trend, it seems reasonable to me to compute based on matching start and end dates.

For start dates very soon after the eruption of Pinatubo, the trends are higher than for other choices. This is because Pinatubo depressed temperatures. Of course this recovering after Pinatubo doesn’t persist– it’s just a blip. But the earth experienced the same blip. If we compare the time periods like-to-like, the multi-model mean warming is higher than observed for the earth.

Zeke Hausfather (Comment#33533)-Why jump to 2002 when you can go back to 1997?

http://devoidofnulls.wordpress.....-just-yet/

Zeke–
I think the only surprises are Jones didn’t reframe the question.

To some extent, the approach to spinning AGW to sound worse that it is happens by people refusing to answer that particular question. So, for example, on might have answered, well, what you really want to know is if warming is real. Short time periods aren’t good (don’t mention reasons). So, instead, let’s look at trend since 1990– that trend is statistically significant.

That’s the sort of thing many of us are used to.

MikeN,

The confusion seems to often arise because of different metrics for comparison. Many graphs stress that the observed temps fall well within the model envelope (e.g. the range of projections across all model runs). Lucia mostly focuses on comparing the mean model outcome to observations. She isn’t arguing that all models are wrong, but rather that the mean result across all models in the AR4 might be too high. How Lucia’s argument over the current mean model mismatch relates to warming projections over the next century is still very much an open question; it well could be that current models do not effectively incorporate short-to-medium-term variability (be it due to stratospheric WV or AMO/PDO).

There is also the issue of the baseline chosen for model/observation comparison, which affects the visual match in the latter period.

Re: Boris (Feb 15 11:39),

“The upper stratosphere is still cooling” seems to the the scripted response whenever this question is raised. Do you have any data that actually supports that assertion? The weighting function for the LS microwave data covers from 10 to 30 km altitude, according to RSS. According to A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Grant Petty, Figure 10.8, radiative cooling by CO2 becomes important above 15 km and most of the heating from ozone is also in this range. However, according to this paper, stratospheric ozone concentration hasn’t varied much over the time period of interest.

Zeke– I should add a comment on this specifically:

Jones didn’t tell us anything number-wise that we already didn’t know;

It’s true we already know it. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who have been insisting we only think we know it because we don’t know what we are doing and if we were certified climatologists, we would have some great insight that would change the nature of applying least squares to data and estimating uncertainty intervals.

Re: MikeN (Feb 15 12:30),

The accelerating rate of temperature increase also comes from the assumption in the Emission Scenario used to drive the models that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will continue to increase at an accelerating rate.

Zeke–

How Lucia’s argument over the current mean model mismatch relates to warming projections over the next century is still very much an open question; it well could be that current models do not effectively incorporate short-to-medium-term variability (be it due to stratospheric WV or AMO/PDO).

Actually, my test (and Santers) are pretty insensitive to any failure on the models to capture the weather noise. The “weather noise” is estimated from the observations.

The model “weather” and the spread over the models is captured in term that estimates the difference we would expect in the multi-model means as a result of estimating from a finite number of models and runs. That sort if “is what it is” for the ensemble of models that we have. One feature of this estiamte of the standard error is that if we had an infinite number of models in the ensemble, it’s contribution to the pooled standard error in the t-test would be zero. So, the weather in the models– and even the spread across the models would no contribute. (All this is saying is if we pulled 1,000,000 models for one ensemble, and then repeated it, we expect the multiple mean for both samples would be very, very similar, and hardly affected by weather noise in the models.)

It’s the tests in Easterling and Wehrner and Knight et al that are very sensitivity to both whether the models get the “weather noise” right and/or whether the model mean spread is large.

But anyway– they test something different from what I test.

With my question, the big issue are of this sort: Is the collection of models dominated by models with excess sensitivity? Incorrect heat uptake in the ocean? Is the problem due to not including the 11 year solar cycle after 2000? STuff like that. But weather in the models isn’t a big factor.

Zeke-

There is also the issue of the baseline chosen for model/observation comparison, which affects the visual match in the latter period.

This is true if we compare temperature rather than trends. For comparison of trends, choice of baseline makes a very small difference.

Jones hasnt said anything that he can’t walk away from later, except perhaps some things not in the Q&A WRT why he didnt release data.

steven mosher–
True. Plus, in the fullness of time, unless the current underlying trend really is negative (something I sincerely doubt), the trend since 1995 will become statistically significant. Since El Nino is still present, this could happen by March. It might happen later… but no statistically significant warming since 1995 when there is statistically significant warming since 1990? Not a such an amazing thing to admit.

“In the case of the surface temperatures, there clearly is warming since 1995– it’s just not statistically significant. The stratospheric temp has been remarkably flat since 1995. It’s puzzling” It’s consistent, perhaps, with the suspicion that the “warming” is in large part a product of the data adjustments and of UHI, rather than a product of atmospheric physics.

Mind you, if questioned more closely, Jones might have added that it seemed to him the ‘fail to reject cooling’ since 2002 really meant there is no cooling while the fail to reject since 1995 arises from the short time span. This notion could be justified because trends since 1950 are both positive and both statistically significant.

Had he said so, I would agree with him.

I enjoyed the post but this is an odd point.

My position on these matters is that the cooling or warming measured is exactly what’s measured, to the precision of the instruments. If you were working with instrument noise rather than ‘weather noise’ you would be working with something unrelated to the actual signal and perhaps I could agree.

However, this ‘weather noise’ is the actual signal, the cooling did exist and the warming did exist so when you say ‘fail to reject cooling meant no cooling’ it isn’t accurate in my opinion. Fail to reject cooling in this instance means failed to reject that observed cooling is statistically unusual with respect to weather noise, not that it there ‘was no cooling’. I suspect you already agree with that and were in the middle of typing a long blog post, but it should be made clear.

It’s a central argument at Real Climate and Tamino and they like to say in subtle or in Tamino’s case not too subtle tones that the cooling doesn’t exist.

Lucia,

Fair enough. I meant medium-term cyclical factors (e.g. solar, various DOs, WV, etc.) not being modeled effectively rather than short-term weather per se.

Andrew,

touche. But 1997 is a precarious year on which to hoist your petard, so to speak, given that its likely to vanish in a month or two :-p

Jeff–
Your way of saying it is better. Yes.

Obviously, we can even observe that it’s warmer or cooler now than it was an hour ago. We don’t need statistics to say that.

The question is whether or not the changes we see is some manifestation of some sort of trend, consistent with some sort of model or what not.

I suspect the negative trend since 2002 will eventually reverse itself because it’s not sufficiently unusual to suggest that the longer term positive trends have ended. If there was neither warming nor cooling, it weather is sufficiently variable we would have seen negative excursions for these lengths of time.

agreed lucia. I just like neato charts.

Zeke Hausfather (Comment#33558)-Maybe, maybe not, who can say really? I just wait and see.

I admit that I, too, think that the current year is probably going to finally see a return towards the more “normal” warm pattern. The El Nino is finally kicking it it appears. But let’s count that chicken after it hatches, agreed?

My stats text book ( http://www.amazon.com/Statisti.....0412049015 ) says that NH temperature trend for 1854-1989 is not significant. This means that 1990-1994 warming has to be really really significant

“The upper stratosphere is still cooling” seems to the the scripted response whenever this question is raised. Do you have any data that actually supports that assertion?

I don’t know if it is still cooling or not. However, the upper strat is going to be more noisy because, if I recall correctly, solar variation has a much stronger effect there (something like 1 deg C peak to trough of the solar cycle*). But then the trend is a bit larger too.

In any case, Pielke’s use of RSS doesn’t support his conclusion very well.

*And of course seasonal variations are going to be very large.

My point was that the .25C is rather high if you have an accelerated warming projection. Lucia says the first 50 years show accelerated warming. I was being told it is the last 50 years where that warming really takes off. If the first 15 years has a .25C per decade of warming, then that is not very much acceleration.

Here’s Tamino in the thread You Bet!

But are they equally likely for both models, one with 2.4C and one with 6.4C?

[Response: Most of the divergence between the two models is late in the century. Therefore there's little difference this decade, and a 10yr pause this decade is about equally likely for both. For later decades, as the divergence becomes greater the likelihood of a 10yr pause becomes significantly less for the model with greater warming.]

Zeke-

I wonder how much tropospheric temps bleed through into the lower stratospheric record?

Answer: Effectively none. The weighting function for the lower stratosphere show zero contribution from the lower troposphere as shown in this plot. The lower stratosphere weighting function is much more narrow than the TLT and TMT.

Speaking of which, I have a post that looks at stratospheric temperature trends, among other things that might be of interest.

I don’t think this comment made it through so I’ll post it again.

Zeke-

I wonder how much tropospheric temps bleed through into the lower stratospheric record?

Answer: Effectively none. The weighting function for the lower stratosphere show zero contribution from the lower troposphere as shown in this plot. The lower stratosphere weighting function is much more narrow than the TLT and TMT.

Speaking of which, I have a post that looks at stratospheric temperature trends, among other things that might be of interest.

UC–
What noise process does that use?

Also, you have to bear in mind that little warming is expected at the beginning. So, that causes problems with using very, very long trends. But yes, that could be an issue if you make your null hypothesis test the linear trend over the time period.

Check out Pielke Sr.’s latest on the ‘Stratophere Cooling’ meme:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpr.....t-al-2010/

Re: Chad (Feb 15 15:08),

I was just going to ask the question whether anyone had actually looked at what the models predict for TLS (~100hPa). Suspicion confirmed, most models do predict cooling greater than observed. Boris?

As far as narrow for the TLS weighting function, it only looks that way on a linear pressure chart. Put it vs. altitude or a log pressure chart and it gets a lot wider.

DeWitt,

http://treesfortheforest.files.....-comp1.png looks to me like most models predict -less- TLS cooling than observed. Or am I reading it incorrectly?

From my read of it, Dr Jones simply calculated the trends based on the yearly averages here:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/ha.....+sh/annual

Then he used the t-test, showing that the significance for the slope since 1995 is greater than 90 per cent. The significance for the slope since 2002 is between 80 to 90. No autocorrelation was included; no enso corrections.

Hi David–
Maybe he did use annual averaged data and a t-test with no correction for autocorrelation– but I don’t see where he says so. I wouldn’t be too surprised if using annual averages give more or less the same results as other methods. I get pretty much those same answers– if I use red noise, but not if I use ARMA(1,1). Maybe he did use the even simpler method.

BTW– I don’t think there is anything wrong with him not supplying details like that in an bbc interview. At a blog we could ask; a journal article would be required to say. I don’t think there is much of a rule for bbc interviews.

Zeke,
That’s just the multi-model mean and the spread. It would be better to look at the model trends specifically. See in this plot that the mean model TLS trends cluster around the RSS trend. There are some models that have stronger cooling and a few that have much less cooling and many are very close to the observed RSS trend.

lucia,

If you use the annual averages, you get exactly the slopes that he says he got – +.12 and -.12. Further, the t-tests confirm that the first slope is at a greater than 90 per cent significance level. Based on the evidence (these matches with his statements), I think that this is what he did.

Zeke,

There is no trend in the actual data or the multi-model mean. There are only offset by a difference in the step change after the dust from Pinatubo cleared up.

The graphs suggest that the claim that the models predicted cooling is false becauses the models *don’t* predict cooling which is supposed to be the GHG signature.

Yes. If you got his exact number for the trend, that’s probably what he did! The small autocorrelation for annual average temperatures is probably real though. So, if he neglected those, his uncertainty intervals are a bit too small– not that it matters greatly to the answer but that’s what he did.

DeWitt Payne,
You’re right. There is some contamination in the TLS data. I completely forgot that that is one of the data quality issues concerning that channel.

Phil Jones:
“We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.”

From the Imhofe questions to Mann:

Imhofe:

“5. Your work has been characterized as ³global² in several venues, including the National Assessment. Is that a fair characterization, or are those sources confused by your use of Northern and Southern Hemisphere proxies in your Northern Hemisphere reconstruction. Can you explain why the National Assessment did not include error bars on your temperature reconstruction?”

Mann:

“The proxy records on which our work is based represent conditions over much of the Northern Hemisphere and a small fraction of the Southern Hemisphere. While in any given year there can be some difference in the anomalies in the two hemispheres, the instrumental record indicates that over periods of a few decades or more, the anomalies in the two hemispheres are quite similar because of the thermodynamic and dynamic coupling between them. Thus, the major features of the temperature record, and in particular the unusual 20th century warming, are similar in the two hemispheres and thus global features.”

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ws.....nswers.pdf

I think that it is obvious that Mann and Jones will say anything to support their position.

Boris
Are you telling us that it is not actually possible to find a discernible anthropogenic global warming signature in the stratosphere either? Were we misled then by the IPCC?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossr.....0421.shtml

Upper stratospheric data – only the abstract, I am afraid. A significant cooling trend since 1979, but flat since 1995.

Zeke:
“I recall arguing that folks would start cherry-picking that date once “a decade of cooling” became false as the start-date no longer encompassed the ‘98 ENSO event. ”

It looks to me like 98 represents a distinct shift in the trend. I’m using it, and I’m saying that there has been no warming since 98. 12 years worth. The chart for the 12 year trend is here:

http://reallyrealclimate.blogs.....ature.html

I address the idea that it is an unimportant period and a cherry picked period in my reponse to the Easterling, Whener paper here.

http://reallyrealclimate.blogs.....r-agw.html

Basically, if you chart the 12 year trend line from 98 to 09, you get a trend line that looks very much like an ENSO corrected trend line. If you start in 99 or 00, your trend line will be more positive than the ENSO corrected trend line.

And I tell you why you don’t want to use GISS here.

http://reallyrealclimate.blogs.....gence.html

Off thread but I had a really basic question…. why is it that 2 miles down on the continents the temperature is 100 F + (eg a South African mine) while 2 miles down in the ocean the temp is close to freezing? I’m having a hard time getting an answer to this by googling. My guess would be that it is because water is susceptible to convection and advection, but it seems the phenomenon may be saying something more…. perhaps it indicates how much more slowly heat conducts than convects. It also makes me wonder if the true average temp of the earth’s surface wouldn’t closer to the average temperature of the ocean which i think is something like 4 degrees C.

Hank– Mostly I don’t know why the core is hot. But here’s an article explaining it and it sound fairly plausible. http://www.scientificamerican......9EC588F2D7

Thanks David Gould. So it was the entire stratosphere after all! Now if we take Lockwood’s 1985 cutoff for the solar correlation and combine it with the 1995 start of the no-warming, no cooling period then we have a mere 10 year ramp in heating without any obvious other explanation so we therefore attribute it to CO2. Is that fair?

JamesGardiner,

Cooling is predicted for the stratosphere. When cooling is observed, it seems to me to be reasonable to think that the prediction is being fulfilled (assuming that the amount of cooling matches the prediction, of course).

As to how you interpret flatness since 1995, I suspect that that depends on what you bring to the table in the first place. I, for example, interpret it as most likely being due to natural variation overcoming the trend for a relatively short period.

David Gould,
You could interpret it that way but you should not be surprised to find that others interpret to mean the models got it wrong and whatever is happening to climate it can’t be blamed entirely on CO2.

Raven,

I am not surprised. I did say: ‘As to how you interpret flatness since 1995, I suspect that that depends on what you bring to the table in the first place.’

And as to blaming things ‘entirely’ on CO2, I think that that is not what people are claiming. Substantially or mostly, sure.

David Gould (Comment#33605)-”And as to blaming things ‘entirely’ on CO2, I think that that is not what people are claiming. Substantially or mostly, sure.”

Good point. Don’t forget Methane, N2O, some Halocarbons, Tropospheric Ozone, and a few other allegedly tiny influences.

(That’s surface temps we are talking about, right?)

But almost entirely on all those things? Oh definitely. That’s the way things are supposed to work. Whether they actually do, well…

“Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

From the IPCC summary for policy makers.

David Gould,

The ‘mostly’ vs. ‘entirely’ distinction is lost when alarmists demand policy changes.

I would be surprised if more than half of the recent warming is caused by CO2.

Raven,

Just to play devil’s advocate, if recent warming was not caused by CO2 *but* that warming was likely to continue, it could be argued that far more draconian measures to cut CO2 are required than if CO2 is ‘entirely’ responsible.

As to mostly versus entirely, I have found that those who are not convinced that AGW is a serious problem often use the ‘entirely’ line as a strawman argument to try and discredit those on my side, and that is likely why I am sensitive to it.

The problem with the stratospheric temperature seems to be that the effects of volcanic eruptions last longer than current theory predicts. We know that convection in the stratosphere can be neglected compared to radiative heat transfer. Of course, that also implies that mixing is slow because it has to be done by diffusion. But then again, with the low density of the stratosphere, diffusion may not be all that slow. Someone who cares might want to check that. Anyway. The residual plot of a linear regression of the UAH global LS data looks like this. If you assume that the linear trend is actually correct, then a volcanic eruption first heats and then cools the stratosphere. The recovery from the heating is rapid because it’s from particulates which fall out rapidly. But the cooling must be from the injection of something that takes longer to equilibrate. CO2 perhaps? Of course if that’s true than mixing between the stratosphere and the troposphere must be slower than thought.

David Gould (Comment#33607)-The IPCC statement is somewhat bizarre. They could have just as easily said entirely based on just as little evidence. After all, the statement derives from the fact that models without CO2 et al. forcing don’t have warming after 1950. AT ALL.

So it is just weird that they say “mostly” when the “proof” shows “entirely”.

David Gould,

I will support action on CO2 as soon as advocates start proposing policies that make technical and economic sense.

Policies involving specific emission targets plucked out of the air but have no chance of being met are nothing but pandering to idiots.

Policies that involve the trading of bogus emission credits are simply an excuse to enrich middlemen.

Policies that subsidize the production of energy which will never be economic without the subsidies are a waste.

Policies that ensure future electric shortages by blocking the development coal/gas fired plants are a receipe for disaster.

So you do not think that they should take into account that there might be things happening that we do not yet know about in the climate system and that causation is often difficult to demonstrate?

David

… it could be argued that far more draconian measures to cut CO2 are required than if CO2 is ‘entirely’ responsible.

And the opposite could also be argued. The question is which argument makes sense.

But it is true that at least some AGW advocates admit that at least some of the warming may be due to something other than CO2.

Raven,

If you think that less than half of recent warming was caused by CO2, I suspect that your motivation for action is a lot less than mine in the first place.

Obviously, I think that your third point depends on the cost of allowing certain levels of warming, as energy production that is currently economic will not be if it is that kind of energy production that is responsible for economic damage. (In other words, subsidising another energy source will be cheaper than keeping with the current energy source).

Regarding emissions trading, I understand that concern. But politically there are very few ways to build in the real price of current energy sources into the economy, thus permitting the market to respond accordingly. Placing a simple tax on carbon is not doable in a political sense. (Obviously, if you are arguing that no price should be placed on carbon at all, then that is a different discussion.)

I disagree that we will have guaranteed electrical shortages if we do not build more coal plants. There are many energy efficiency options that can be pursued regardless of the energy sources that we choose to use.

I agree on the unobtainable target thing. We need realistic targets (both politically, practically and economically). I believe that the US targets are easily obtainable, as are the Australian ones.

1. There cannot be “global warming” that is not statistically significant. The best that can be said is that there is no warming or cooling. Statistics are there to stop the mistake of coming to a wrong conclusion by eyeballing graphs.

2. Previously, Jones (who headed the CRU) and the rest of the staff there were the golden-haired boys of the warmists and the IPCC. Now, when Jones says there has been no global warming since 1995 (as if that meant anything anyway to justify spending a few $gazillions) he is not the golden-haired boy and must be mistaken.
3. If, in his opinion, there was no global warming, how does he now defend the hockey-stick and the front cover of the WMO report?

4. Jones, the CRU, Mann, the IPCC and most politicians have a lot to answer for.

lucia,

If CO2 is only partially responsible then in order to prevent a certain amount of warming we would need to cut it more.

As an example, if Factor X was predicted to cause 1 degree of warming in the next 40 years and CO2 was predicted to cause 1 degree of warming over the same period then (assuming we have no control over Factor X) in order to limit warming to 1 degree we would have to have net zero emissions over that period.

If CO2 was predicted to cause 2 degrees of warming, with no other factors around, then we would only need to cut it by 50 per cent to limit warming to 1 degree.

As I said, it is a devil’s advocate position. But mathematically and logically it works fine.

John Murphy,

That statement that ‘there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995′ does not equate to ‘there has been no global warming’. There *has* been statistically significant global warming since 1992, for example, with the slope at .19 degrees per decade.

Re: David Gould (Feb 15 21:10),
You switched to “predicted” rather than past warming being explained by something other than CO2.

Suppose 50% of already observed warming was caused by your factor X which might be natural variation, cosmic rays or leprechauns. If the +1C was due to natural variation or cosmic rays, we should just sit tight– that natural variation will likely revert to the mean going forward, and we can expect a -1C drop over some period of time. If the +1 C was caused by leprechauns, we should hunt down leprechauns and eradicate them. Either solution would result in the -1C , countering the 1C from CO2 and resulting in 0C rise in the near future.

In contrast, if the whole 2C we saw in the past was is due to CO2, we’d better cut the CO2 to avoid the 2C rise from more CO2 added to the atmosphere.

In contrast, if all warming in the record was caused by CO2– or worse, if 200% of past warming was caused by CO2 with natural factors masking it, then we really, really need to control CO2.

You’re may be a devils advocate position– but it’s also seems like a mixed up devil’s advocate.

lucia,

I did explicitly make the point that we had no control over Factor X – if leprechauns were unkillable and we could not find their gold, then the only lever we would have is CO2.

I also explicitly said “*but* that warming was likely to continue” – in other words, it was not natural variation that would likely revert to the mean.

The maths is relatively simple, I think – I could be wrong.

Goal: limit warming to 1 degree
Factor X = 1 degree of warming.
CO2 = 1 degree of warming.

Zero control over Factor X.
This means we must cut CO2 completely.

Goal: limit warming to 1 degree
Factor X = 0 degree of warming
CO2 = 2 degree of warming

Zero control over Factor X.

We only need to cut CO2 in half.

As to changing from predicted to past, the predictions would be based on the past. If Factor X has caused half of the warming in the past, and Factor X is going to continue to cause warming, then the prediction is that it will continue to cause half of future warming.

So I am unsure where this devil has stumbled into the hell of confusion.

And obviously if you change the assumptions you change the result – for example, if CO2 is responsible for 200 per cent of warming then you need to cut harder. But if CO2 is responsible for 200 per cent of warming and Factor X is also responsible for 200 per cent of warming, to prevent any particular level of warming you need to cut CO2 harder than otherwise.

I hope that I have made my assumptions clear. If not, some of them are:

1.) Factor X will continue increasing into the future.
2.) We have no control over Factor X.
3.) We are aiming to prevent a certain level of warming.
4.) C02 is our only lever.

David Gould,
.
The US and Australia will not be able to cut emissions significantly from current levels as long as their populations increase because the technology required simply does not exist. The best they can hope for is a reduction in carbon intensity. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change this.
.
The only thing that could possibly make a dent in emissions is nuclear power but I see no signs of that option being explored seriously in either place.
.
Emissions trading is a completely ineffective tool for reducing emissions because all players will find that pressuring (or purchasing) politicians to give them a special break is cheaper than actually reducing emissions.
.
Most people don’t realize it yet but the cost of developing solar/wind and other renewables will increase with the cost of fossil fuels. They will never be cheaper than the fossil fuel alternatives.
.
The first reason these facilities require a huge physical infrastructure that requires a lot of material to be moved around and fossil fuels are the only way to do that.
.
The second reason is these facilities need backup from natural gas or coal. Some studies have even shown that you burn more natural gas providing backup for wind than if you simply shut down the wind mills and run the gas plants all of the time. The reason is a gas plant running at a constant output is more efficient then one that has to match a variable load from wind.

Raven,

I agree that we need to deploy nuclear. However, it is no silver bullet, either.

I guess that I should state my position: I am a carbon pessimist. I do not think that the world will reduce carbon emissions much by 2050, for a combination of political, technical and economic reasons. However, I think that by 2100 carbon emissions will effectively be zero.

This will be too late to prevent a lot of suffering, unfortunately.

However, even though I am a carbon pessimist I am still working for a middling optimist position.

I explain this because I do not want you to think that I am blind to all the problems that CO2 reduction faces.

The word out there is that Buffett’s purchase of Burlington National is an implicit bet that rail transport will see heavy demand in the future to transport coal.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/com.....line000722

David Gould,
.
If you recognize the hopelessness of achieving and real reductions CO2 then you should be in favour of spending money on adaption first.
.
Which makes more sense: spending a trillion dollars in a futile effort to store CO2 underground or spending a trillion dollars building dikes and dams?
.
I am 100% certain that no matter what the reason for climate change the dikes and damns will prevent more suffering than burying the CO2 ever will.

The comments on this thread demonstrate the folly of “science is settled”. There was warming, there wasn’t, some by CO2, all by CO2. Statistically significant, not statistically significant.

On another point, there is a good reason why policy makers shifted from reducing CO2 emissions by “x” to now “keeping temps to 2degC rise”. This will become apparent when the AR5 is released.
Controlling CO2 emissions wasn’t enough for these people, they want to control ALL emissions due to human activity. There are nearly 100 of them listed in the AR4 and subsequent publications by the IPCC.
Not a single modern day activity will escape these controls.
Only my humble opinion but time will tell.

Raven,

I believe that while we will not reduce CO2 emissions much by 2050, we can prevent CO2 emissions *increasing*, which is extremely important, too. And I think that we cannot do that without spending money on deploying less CO2 intensive energy production technologies, on increasing energy efficiency and on research.

Having said that, I support adaption, too. I have just put a submission in to our local government that addresses the adaption issue alone.

(And one of its points was a support for dams.)

It should also be pointed out that for many nations adaption is not an option, either because they do not have the money or because the problems they face are overwhelming.

And animals, while benefiting from some of our adaption measures, will not be able to benefit from all of them. Their – and I am generalising here, as some animals will love a warming world – best option is that we do our best to prevent as much warming as possible.

Re: lucia (Feb 15 21:21),

In contrast, if the whole 2C we saw in the past was is due to CO2, we’d better cut the CO2 to avoid the 2C rise from more CO2 added to the atmosphere.

In contrast, if all warming in the record was caused by CO2– or worse, if 200% of past warming was caused by CO2 with natural factors masking it, then we really, really need to control CO2.

No offense but all this reminds me of Harry Hoo of get smart fame.
Seeing a lit cigarette in an ashtray at the murder scene, Smart says “ahh! Mr Hoo, one murderer who is a smoker”. Hoo says ” second possibility Mr Smart, two murderers, one smoker, one non-smoker”.

David Gould,
.
I have no issue in investing money in alternative energy sources in order to try to find economic alternatives provided there are no arbitrary mandates for X percent of power from Y sources by Z date.
.
Our emissions will increase as long as population increases. If you think that keeping emissions stable is important then call for a ban on all immigration. It will get results faster than anything else.

Raven,

How would you build into current energy production the cost of the damage that it is causing and will cause in the future? Until you do that, I cannot see how you can make a fair comparison of how economic particular energy sources are.

David Gould,
.
I don’t have a reference handy but the IPCC’s own models assume that by the time climate change becomes of problem the poorest african country will be a rich as americans today. This means it is rediculous to say that the poor will not be able to pay for adaption.
.
If the model assumptions are wrong and the africans are still dirt poor 50 years from now then the CO2 is likely to be a non-issue because they won’t be emitting all the CO2 that the models assumed they would emit.

Re immigration and population increases, they are certainly things to think hard about. I have not come to a position as yet, being conflicted by a number of desires, unfortunately.

David Gould,
.
The future costs are purely hypothetical and cannot be factored into the price of energy production. More importantly, if you did try to make up imaginary numbers and add them to price of energy you would find that the cost of building renewable energy projects would increase as well because these projects depend on access cheap fossil fuels.

Raven,

I understand that you likely disagree, but climate change is already a problem, and African nations are not as rich as present day Americans.

As to adaption, even if that were the case, they would have to suddenly spend what we have been spending over a long period. So they would still be at a huge disadvantage.

In other words, if we were to set aside 1 per cent of our century average GDP to cover adaption this century, then they would still be in a very, very bad position by comparison.

Raven,

If you cannot factor in these hypothetical costs then you cannot have a fair comparison of how economic a particular energy source is, which is the basis of your argument about not subsidising or mandating deployment of alternative energy sources.

Further, while the cost of building these plants would be higher, the costs of running them would not be affected (or not much).

And if you did include the hypothetical costs and found that solar was still more expensive than coal, then that would be an argument to deploy coal. There is no reason not to run the figures.

re me at 33642: In other words, we would be spending it over 100 years; they would not have 100 years over which to amortize the costs.

David Gould,
.
There is no evidence that climate change is actually the cause of any problems any where in the world. In places where there are apparent problems there are many other, usually more plausible, explainations for the problems.

e.g. if the number of people living an a watershed increases then the amount of water available to each person drops even if the climate stays the same.

e.g. if the people living in a forested area chop down the forests they will change the climate in that region.

I would also suggest that adaption is based on hypothetical risk. But so are other things – insurance is the most commonly used example here. Many investments are also based on hypotheticals – rewards and risks.

David Gould,
.
The trouble with hypothetical costs is they are completely arbitrary. If someone wanted to ensure coal was viable the could make up numbers that would ensure that would happen. Others would obviously disagree but there is no data that would show whose numbers are more accurate just like there is no data that can show who’s stock market projections are more accurate.
.
That is why I think it is waste of time to discuss such things. Let’s invest in the alternatives and deploy those that can compete in a free market with fossil fuels when they are found. I expect fossil fuels will increase in price over time which will help with the price gap for some alternatives.

Raven,

There is evidence (not the same as proof, of course). I point you to here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/sto.....812825.htm

and here:

“One of the biggest concerns for ACTEW is that the current drought might represent a ‘step change’ in climate. That is, while concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase gradually over time, climate change itself may not be gradual but rather occur in steps.
That would mean that the current low inflows are not part of normal climate variability but an apparent permanent change in climate.

While it is not definite that the current South-Eastern Australian dry period is caused by climate change, model results may significantly overestimate system performance if climate change is not incorporated in modelling assumptions.”

http://www.actew.com.au/public.....ssment.pdf

The second one is much weaker than the first, and the first is most definitely not conclusive. But they are indicators.

The director of ACTEW also had this to say in a submission to government:

“It would be prudent in a risk management framework for Government to identify policies and implement programs based on the assumption that 2030 climate change may have already occurred in the Canberra region.”

So resource providers here are taking things very seriously.

David,
.
Insurance companies use past experience to estimate future costs. There is no past experience with climate change therefore it is impossible to estimate future costs.

Raven,

I disagree. I do not see how we can move forward without a carbon price of some kind. Ignoring the real costs is not a free market at all; it is a skewed market. Effectively, coal is being subsidised. How much it is being subsidised is of course a matter for debate. But I am unclear why that debate should not occur.

It looks to me like 98 represents a distinct shift in the trend. I’m using it, and I’m saying that there has been no warming since 98. 12 years worth. The chart for the 12 year trend is here:

http://reallyrealclimate.blogs…..ature.html

I address the idea that it is an unimportant period and a cherry picked period in my reponse to the Easterling, Whener paper here.

http://reallyrealclimate.blogs…..r-agw.html

Basically, if you chart the 12 year trend line from 98 to 09, you get a trend line that looks very much like an ENSO corrected trend line. If you start in 99 or 00, your trend line will be more positive than the ENSO corrected trend line.

And I tell you why you don’t want to use GISS here.

It’s been said a million times here, and Jones said it again but no one seems to have noticed it, you won’t get anything significant from such a short period of time.

David,

http://www3.interscience.wiley.....p;SRETRY=0

“These trends have now continued for some decades after their initial observation. It is possible, however, that the twentieth century trends simply reflect a return to conditions of the late nineteenth century, rather than a trend that could be unambiguously attributed to an enhanced greenhouse effect.”

Raven,

And insurance companies move into new areas all the time. How did they make judgments about how often economically significant data loss occurred in companies when computers were only just starting to be deployed in large numbers? You can make judgments about new areas outside of previous experience by examining other analagous cases and by making estimates based on what appears to be under threat – “50 cm sea level rise would reach X, and is 50 per cent likely, so …”.

Raven,

I agree: it is not conclusive. But it is evidence, and you did say ‘no evidence’. As to how plausible by comparison the ‘it is possible, however, that the twentieth century trends simply reflect a return to conditions of the late nineteenth century’ notion is, well, as the piece says, ‘it is possible’.

(I cannot read the full article, as there is some cookie thing it is wanting)

David,
.
I do not oppose sales taxes as a form of raising revenue for government. I would not oppose a modest carbon tax for the same reason. I don’t see the need to make up numbers to some how justify the tax when the government can just pick a number like it does with sales taxes.
.
But the real issue is a carbon price is ineffective in a world where goods flow freely around the world. Perhaps a good example are the much maligned Canadian Oil Sands. Many environmentalists seem to think that having Canada impose CO2 regulations would force them to clean up or shutdown but the most likely market response is the operators will simply dig up the sand, ship to coast on trains like coal and let China emit the CO2 required to refine the stuff.

Re: David Gould (Feb 15 22:18),

“…..but climate change is already a problem, and African nations are not as rich as present day Americans.

As to adaption, even if that were the case, they would have to suddenly spend what we have been spending over a long period. So they would still be at a huge disadvantage.

In other words, if we were to set aside 1 per cent of our century average GDP to cover adaption this century, then they would still be in a very, very bad position by comparison”.

Quotes from Fiona Kobusingye…

“Life in Africa is often nasty, impoverished and short. AIDS kills 2.2 million Africans every year according to WHO (World Health Organization) reports. Lung infections cause 1.4 million deaths, malaria 1 million more, intestinal diseases 700,000. Diseases that could be prevented with simple vaccines kill an additional 600,000 annually, while war, malnutrition and life in filthy slums send countless more parents and children to early graves.
And yet, day after day, Africans are told the biggest threat we face is – global warming.
However, the real problem isn’t questionable or fake science, hysterical claims and worthless computer models that predict global warming disasters. It’s that they’re being used to justify telling Africans that we shouldn’t build coal or natural gas electrical power plants. It’s the almost total absence of electricity keeping us from creating jobs and becoming modern societies. It’s that these policies KILL.
The average African life span is lower than it was in the United States and Europe 100 years ago. But Africans are being told we shouldn’t develop, or have electricity or cars because, now that those countries are rich beyond anything Africans can imagine, they’re worried about global warming.
Al Gore and UN climate boss Yvo de Boer tell us the world needs to go on an energy diet.
Well, I have news for them. Africans are already on an energy diet.We’re starving!
Not having electricity means millions of Africans don’t have refrigerators to preserve food and medicine. Outside of wealthy parts of our big cities, people don’t have lights, computers, modern hospitals and schools, air conditioning – or offices, factories and shops to make things and create good jobs.
Not having electricity also means disease and death. It means millions die from lung infections, because they have to cook and heat with open fires; from intestinal diseases caused by spoiled food and unsafe drinking water; from malaria, TB, cholera, measles and other diseases that we could prevent or treat if we had proper medical facilities.
Hypothetical global warming a hundred years from now is worse than this?
We don’t need more aid – especially the kind that goes mostly to corrupt officials who put the money in private bank accounts, hold global warming propaganda conferences and keep their own people poor. We don’t need rich countries promising climate change assistance if we promise not to develop.
We need to stop acting like ignorant savages, who thought solar eclipses meant the gods were angry with them, and asked witch doctors to bring the sun back.
We need to stop listening to global warming witch doctors, who get rich telling us to keep living “indigenous,” impoverished lives”.

I get tears in my eyes every time i read this. Shame

Raven,

Goods may flow freely around the world. But transporting stuff does impose a cost. It would depend on how cheaply it could be transported and then refined compared to the cost of deploying other energy technologies. And it would also depend on what the particular regulations were.

As to a carbon price, I think it would not be as made up of a number as you seem to think. The problem with a simple tax, imo, is that it is not politically doable. There is much more support for an ETS of some kind – some of that support no doubt from the middlemen that you mentioned earlier.

Insurance companies move into new markets by guessing and adjusting their rates accordingly based on experience. They hedge their bets by only underwritting a small number policies until they get the data to allow them to better quantify risks.
.
Such iterative learning is not possible for harms that might occurr 50-100 years from now.

horible things happen when you release code to people who dont know climate science

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....028418.ece

Baa Humbug,

I have no problem with Africa rising to our level. The rise of Africa is not going to contribute much to our CO2 emissions this century. And if we help them deploy the best of our current technologies – our most efficient coal and gas stations, for example – then we can reduce that impact even further while at the same time boosting their economies.

And I seriously doubt that there are too many people getting rich out of telling Africans to remain impoverished …

David Gould — of course ACTEW are taking this seriously, they will make a lot of money out of this but even they are saying (to quote you) “While it is not definite that the current South-Eastern Australian dry period is caused by climate change” — a bit of a move from “the science is settled”. And how’s the storms been in Canberra (yes I know weather not climate but then if you won’t accept the last 12 year temp record of not warming becuase the period is too small then the current drought is too short too).

Raven,

The harms are not going to happen suddenly 50 to 100 years from now. Many of these harms are going to be gradual. There will certainly be some unpredictable ’step changes’, but these can be hedged against. Further, as our knowledge grows, our predictions will get better, so there will be iterative learning.

See you round.

David,

Oil will be a essential commodity until we run out because there are no alternatives that can power ships or planes. We also need it to create the majority of plastics which are essential to our lives. Shipping the oils sands to the coast will add to the cost but the price of oil will be eventually high enough to cover it if a CO2 regulations are too tough in Canada.
.
That said, Canada will likely never agree to any such punative tax because the oil sands bring in too much wealth. I also suspect the Americans will not be dumb enough to stop buying Canadian oil when the only alternative is to buy even more oil from the Saudis.

How will ACTEW make a lot of money by encouraging people to use less water and educating people on how to do that?

Um, no-one has ever claimed that the science is settled re the Canberra drought.

As to the current drought being too short, yes, it is. That is why at present they do not know whether this is climate change or not. But there is evidence to suggest that it is. We will not know for a while.

The storm was great, although it prevented me from working on the run for my cats.

mosh,

Is this the link you meant:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....028362.ece

David,
.
Step changes or tipping points are rather irrelevant for any discussion because they are, by definition, unpredicatable. They are best put in the same category of risk like alien invasion or meteor strike (i.e. threats that might happen but we can do little about).

David Gould,

Current climate models have no skill at regional forecasting. That’s no, zero, zip, nada. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or lying. That also means that talking about tipping points or step changes at the local level specifically caused by global climate change or global warming is also speculation at best. But the structure of the warming is what’s really important. An increase in the night time minimum temperature and overall temperature at high latitude is going to have far less effect than an increase in the daily maximum temperature, yet either could produce the same increase in average temperature.

David — ACTEW are a wholly gov owned corp that recieves gov grants to educate people on water saving, now this may be a noble activity, but the bigger the drought scare the more money they get and the more important they seem so I tend to be a little wary of their claims.

Dikes and Dams and changes in zoning laws are cheaper, more effective and fairer. Just saying. I’m done subsidizing people who live in malibu.

Or florida for that matter.

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml

Let’s see. If you change building code to not allow building in any space where a 3 Meter increase in sea level would impact the settlement, what does it cost?

This is potential damage you can prevent simply by changing laws. Wanna buy in those areas, global warming insurance.
Now these are actions yu can take locally. no global treaties no taxing people who live on high ground. Put the cost on the people who insist on living in an area prone to disaster. Of course some people will pay extra to live in these areas. Fine. No rebuilding after hurricanes. Sorry. No rebuilding after floods. sorry. risky choice = high cost.

It always astounds me that people think its somehow humane to allow people to live in these areas and then pipe in federal disaster funds to bail them out. Charge people the full insurance cost to live in danagerous places and they will make more rational choices.

Gould/Raven/Gardiner

This is nonsense.

1. If the atmosphere warms, so what?
2. Nothing on this whole page comes anywhere near making a case for spending $trillions.
3. Even if it’s 3C or whatever, why would I even pay $1 to avoid a temperature rise that I experience every time I drive from my home at Coolum (on the beach) to Gympie (a bit inland)?

Steve Mosher

Good book.

3 m sea level = (roughly) 50% of the Greenland icecap. That is, 1,200,000 cubic kilometres of ice. Roughly, that will take about 20,000 years if at all. The cap hasn’t melted for at least 800,000 years.

I reckon the IPCC wants to scare ppeople so good beachside real estate becomes really cheap. Then they’ll buy up and laugh all teh way to the bank. Gore hasjust off Fishernman’s Wharf already. Is that because he is impatient, a dill, or knows he’s been lying.

“these particular results are entirely consistent with the notion that warming is real..”

So Lake Eyrie being icebound for the first time since 1995 (etc) is “consistent” with warming. Come on Lucia. You’re “having a laugh”.

As is the warmest January and (so far) February on satellite record according to UAH. Weather != climate.

[edit] though checking today, it does look like its starting to dip a bit below the 20 year highs.

Zeke, also see magicjava’s comments on that. UAH has gotten a free ride to now, he’s got a valid point on that.

Carrick,

Sure, but I suspect regardless of any issues discovered UAH/RSS Jan temps will still reflect general global warmth. We’ll see if surface records show similar numbers when they come out in a week or so.

I must note the slight irony at the catalyst of the ending of UAH’s “free ride” :-p

Zeke:

I must note the slight irony at the catalyst of the ending of UAH’s “free ride” :-p

I agree there’s a certain irony there… but anytime you get one method that looks like an outlier (high or low), it invites immediate scrutiny (and skepticism).

WOW!

Remember when boris would give me shit about UAH code?

Looks like magicjava is on the case, thanks to a suggestion from
Lucia.

http://magicjava.blogspot.com/.....-code.html

Well, lets keep the fire to Christy’s feet. When and If UAH becomes public, then RSS is next. And which do I prefer?

The open one of course.

Oh, is magicjava a warmer, lukewarmer or contrarian?

I dont care. Looks like he’s a code poster.

Thx John.

ya raven.. wtf did i link to.

David Gould wrote:

it could be argued that far more draconian measures to cut CO2 are required than if CO2 is ‘entirely’ responsible.

Not very persuasively.

“How I made the Met Office admit its climate-change data was wrong”

The headline is BS. He didn’t ‘make’ them do anything, he found an error, they acknowledged it, it made no difference to the claims for AGW.

magicjava has also contacted Christy to get the UAH code. So, s/he is focused on this– which is good.

By definition, no measurement system is perfect. I’m sure UAH and RSS are not.

bugs– You have a strange notion of the breadth of meaning that can be conveyed by “I made X happen”. It can range from giving the impetus that got the ball rolling to forcing a reluctant party to do something they don’t want to do.

That also means that talking about tipping points or step changes at the local level specifically caused by global climate change or global warming is also speculation at best.
But the structure of the warming is what’s really important. An increase in the night time minimum temperature and overall temperature at high latitude is going to have far less effect than an increase in the daily maximum temperature, yet either could produce the same increase in average temperature.
.
deWitt you did it again
Why do you confuse people with facts when the only really important problem is how much some misguided governments should tax carbon (and incidentally ruminant’s farts) ?

“horible things happen when you release code to people who dont know climate science”

This is true

UAH got a “free ride”? It has been one of the most heavily scrutinized datasets in the history of science!

It’s even been in the Climategate emails that the scientists have been trying to prove that it is wrong. In fact, I’m convinced that most “climate scientists” have a religious conviction that UAH must be wrong. Based on zero evidence.

Oh, and good for Christy. I certainly share mosh’s belief that all data should be made available–and easily available. RSS, Lonnie Thompson, everybody.

I think the AGW Believers are just waiting to be invited out of their prisons. C’mon out! The doors are open and the sun is shining out here. We free thinkers don’t bite (hard), despite what some people have been telling you. You are most welcome to join us.

♫ Little darling, I feel that ice is slowly melting
Little darling, it seems like years since it’s been clear
Here comes the sun
Here comes the sun
and I say it’s all right
It’s all right ♫

do do do de…

Andrew

“Based on zero evidence.”

Dude, it WAS wrong.

Boris (Comment#33708)-Past error is not evidence of present error. Most of them still think it is wrong now. And they have no evidence for this.

re: errors

Kind of like these errors:

https://esg.llnl.gov:8443/about/errata.do

??

Zeke Hausfather (Comment#33679)
February 16th, 2010 at 12:06 am

“As is the warmest January and (so far) February on satellite record according to UAH. Weather != climate.”

Apparently the warming all comes from SST’s, obviously not the Land Temps. That would be silly. I wonder what “tricks” they have been up to with the SST’s?

David Gould:
“From the IPCC summary for policy makers.”

I’m underwhelmed.

“As to how you interpret flatness since 1995, I suspect that that depends on what you bring to the table in the first place. I, for example, interpret it as most likely being due to natural variation overcoming the trend for a relatively short period.”

I interpret that you are talking nonsense. Claiming that it is natural variation is simply hand waving and saying, “we have no idea what it is”. If it is natural variation and if we understand natural variation, then we should be able to identify the natural variation that is responsible for the flat trend. But since we cannot identify it we clearly don’t understand it. And that means that we can’t model it.

David Gould:
“I do not see how we can move forward without a carbon price of some kind.”

The same way that we have been moving forward all of this time without a carbon price. The notion that there is someone who we can pay for adding carbon is making the assumption that someone owns the atmosphere and must be paid for it. That is absurd. Even if you create an abstraction like, “the people own it”, then you are saying the same thing as governments own it. Giving ownership of the atmosphere to any government entity is a setback for mankind. Personally, I look at my carbon contribution as a gift to the atmosphere. CO2 is enhancing the growth of the biosphere.

“Just to play devil’s advocate, if recent warming was not caused by CO2 *but* that warming was likely to continue, it could be argued that far more draconian measures to cut CO2 are required than if CO2 is ‘entirely’ responsible.”

As the historical record shows, all “likely to continue” periods eventually had their end.

“And as to blaming things ‘entirely’ on CO2, I think that that is not what people are claiming. Substantially or mostly, sure.”

Even “substantially and mostly”, are wishful guessing. As long as we don’t know what moves the climate system we can’t simply say, “oh we know that this has an effect and that has an effect, and we eliminated those, so it has to be AGW.” I would have thought that the Solomon et al paper on stratosperic moisture would have pointed that out to you fairly clearly. Do you really believe that Solomon’s paper is the last such revelation that we will get?

MarkR:
“Apparently the warming all comes from SST’s, obviously not the Land Temps. That would be silly. I wonder what “tricks” they have been up to with the SST’s?”

I don’t think that Spencer and Christy are likely to do anything to make the satellites read higher over the seas, and they are also reporting high temperatures above the seas.

I think that the land based temperatures are more important, however. The SST’s can vary from the trend for several years at a time due to currents and water exchange from different depths. But the land based temperatures are likely to reflect radiative forcing more quickly. In this case, the land based temperatures are flat or down, even though air being warmed by the seas is traveling over the land. This would seem to indicate that radiative forcing is not nearly as high as predicted.

David Gould,

“Carbon Price”.

Carbon already prices itself. In many places in the world it is pricing itself out of the market.

Gillette, Wyoming is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Coal costs between 1 and 3 cents per kilometer to move.
The Chinese coal mines have already hit ‘peak coal’, the EU coal mines have already hit peak coal, the Central Appalachian coal mines in the US have already hit ‘peak coal’.

There is a reason that international steam coal prices increased 28% in the last year. The ‘convenient’ coal is pretty much all burned up.

DavidGould
“As to how you interpret flatness since 1995, I suspect that that depends on what you bring to the table in the first place. I, for example, interpret it as most likely being due to natural variation overcoming the trend for a relatively short period.”

That requires some mental gymnastics though. Isn’t it more justifiable to just use Occam’s razor and say nothing appears to be causing either cooling or warming for this period? At the very least we can surely state that the idea there is a unique AGW signature up there is hopelessly wrong.

As for natural variation, which just happens to exactly cancel the warming, are you aware that Trenberth in the CRU emails said the following: “Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? “. I think we’d all agree with that.

There is another possibility though – that H2O is acting like a thermostat as Miskowski suggested. Before you scoff at that idea be aware that Richard Alley is suggesting that CO2 acts like a thermostat during the ice ages cycles: So the argument is neither new or different, just the chemical!

lucia (Comment#33570)

ARIMA(0,d,0) . It would be interesting to try it with more recent data; more oil money and I’ll do it. log(co2) might be better explanatory variable than time in the case of long trends.

Andrew_FL (Comment#33705) February 16th, 2010 at 8:19 am

UAH got a “free ride”? It has been one of the most heavily scrutinized datasets in the history of science!

It’s even been in the Climategate emails that the scientists have been trying to prove that it is wrong. In fact, I’m convinced that most “climate scientists” have a religious conviction that UAH must be wrong. Based on zero evidence.

Christy and Spencer admit it has had errors. http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=415

Bugs.

yes, spencer and christy actuall sat down with RSS ( competitors of sorts ) and shared information to sort out and fix the error.
That’s how things work. They didn’t say ” we have 25 years invested in this go away” they fixed the problem. When Mann fixes Tiljander let me know.

bugs (Comment#33758)-Go back to grade school. You clearly don’t know the difference between past and present tense. It had errors doesn’t mean it still does.

I don’t contend that it didn’t have errors, that’s why I said “It has been one of the most heavily scrutinized datasets in the history of science!” Because it was scrutinized. When data are scrutinized, errors get found and corrected. Errors only get found when data are scrutinized.

I also said “I’m convinced that most “climate scientists” have a religious conviction that UAH must be wrong.” Not “have been” but “be”. Present tense.

Seriously, this is like, first grade or something.

There are of course relavant mails on the differences between land temps and sea temps.

There is a paper in the wings. The debate will probably heat up in due course

Tilo

“I interpret that you are talking nonsense. Claiming that it is natural variation is simply hand waving and saying, “we have no idea what it is”. If it is natural variation and if we understand natural variation, then we should be able to identify the natural variation that is responsible for the flat trend. But since we cannot identify it we clearly don’t understand it. And that means that we can’t model it.”

Thank you. Is there anything UNNATURAL in the climate. I just laugh when I see this word “natural” variation. There is variation.
Some of it explained, some of it unexplained.

Ref: dearieme (Comment 33551)

Dearieme had a good point, but I didn’t see anyone elaborate on it.

Isn’t one of Phil Jones’ problems that he can’t demonstrate how he “adjusted” the raw data?

“Jones said he might submit a correction to Nature. But he nonetheless attacked bloggers and other critics for “hijacking the peer-review process… Why don’t they do their own [temperature] reconstructions? If they want to criticise, they should write their own papers,” he said.”

http://hotair.com/archives/201.....cizing-us/

Why Professor Jones? Because the papers already published in “climate science” suck? Because alleged “climate scientists” can’t do their freakin’ jobs with any competence? Because bloggers who look at climate science in their SPARE TIME turn out to be smarter than you? lol

Andrew

Re: steven mosher (Feb 16 15:38),
“When Mann fixes Tiljander let me know.”
Mann fixed Tiljander in the SI of the 2008 paper. He did an analysis without it. If the calibration of the proxy doesn’t work, that’s all you can do.

Nick Stokes (Comment#33771) Stokes, you lead me to believe that the higher echelons of AGWthink are occupied by Morons.
See ClimateAudit

To which Mann replied:

“The claim that ‘‘upside down’ data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.”

I think that even Mann sympathizers should not accept this response. The claim that “upside down” data was used may be “bizarre”, but it’s also true. You can see that the data was used upside down by comparing Mann’s own graph with the orientation of the original article, as we did last year. In the case of the Tiljander proxies, Tiljander asserted that “a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds” – the only problem is that their sign was opposite to the one used by Mann.

Mann says that multivariate regression methods don’t care about the orientation of the proxy. But that doesn’t solve the problem for Mann as big problems remain. There are two methods – CPS and EIV. CPS methods directly care about the orientation and the upside down data are directly used in the CPS recons. In the regression methods, the data is also used upside down. The meatgrinder picks up a spurious correlation between agricultural ditches and the proxy and assigns the wrong orientation to the series in the EIV reconstruction as well. All one needs to do is follow the series through.

Mann says “potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use”. These are not “potential” influences; they are clearly identified as actual influences by Tiljander. The SI alludes to problems, but falls well short of providing anything like a rational explanation of why this data was used given the problems. The SI also failed to disclose that the proxies were used upside down.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/0.....-in-japan/

Nick Stokes:

Mann fixed Tiljander in the SI of the 2008 paper. He did an analysis without it. If the calibration of the proxy doesn’t work, that’s all you can do.

Maybe you could do the calibration correctly?

Personally I dont see why christy fixed the error. In the end it doesnt matter to “the science”

MarkR says:
.
“Nick Stokes (Comment#33771) Stokes, you lead me to believe that the higher echelons of AGWthink are occupied by Morons.”
.
This is a source of endless frustration for me. I can understand the science enough to know that Mann is either a buffoon or a liar yet all of these allegedly smart people line up to defend the guy. I simply cannot trust the scientific judgement of people like that.

Nick Stokes Comment 33771

Steven Mosher
“When Mann fixes Tiljander let me know.”

Nick Stokes
“Mann fixed Tiljander in the SI of the 2008 paper. He did an analysis without it. If the calibration of the proxy doesn’t work, that’s all you can do”

Nick do you seriously believe that he fixed this, that this is all he can do and that this is the action of an honest, reputable scientist?

From Steve McIntyre’s response to a comment of yours in the Climate Audit thread last Oct: -

http://climateaudit.org/2009/1.....ent-361644

“Nick, again, you seem to be wilfully obtuse to what is going on here. Mann’s notation in the SI does not quarantine the problem, as I stated in the post. Having noted the problem with the Tiljander sediments, why did he use them at all? What’s so pressing about having a contaminated series? Mann’s sensitivity study without the Tiljander sediments was not a no=dendro sensitivity study without the Tiljander sediments. For that study, he included Graybill bristlecones.

The Tiljander sediments are used in the recon that supposedly shows that they don’t need tree ring proxies – the recon that Gavin Schmidt cites so proudly.

You’re not watching the pea”.

Re: Carrick (Feb 17 01:02),
There’s no reason to suppose that Mann did it incorrectly. The problem is, as Mann himself and others have noted, that human intervention has caused behaviour in the calibration period to be not properly related to the earlier times. There is no remedy for that – the proxy should be discarded.

Re: Geoff Larsen (Feb 17 03:12)
“Nick do you seriously believe that he fixed this, that this is all he can do and that this is the action of an honest, reputable scientist?”
Yes. What do you think he can do? If the proxy is not good, you leave it out.
I have said recently that I think he shouldn’t have included the analysis with and without. To do the analysis with, explain the issue, and then do the analysis without is perfectly honest, but it is messy. Better to just leave it out completely.

What Mann can do is what Kaufman et al did; agree that he had made a mistake and issue a corrigendum. The fact that he hasn’t reflects badly on him & the relevant journal, PNAS.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/1.....rrigendum/

OT: British residents and citizens, please sign the petition, to ask Gordon Brown to stop calling skeptics as “deniers” –
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Deniers/

Re: Geoff Larsen (Feb 17 04:12)
But what would he put in a corrigendum? An analysis not using Tiljander?

steven mosher (Comment#33776) February 17th, 2010 at 1:08 am

” Personally I dont see why christy fixed the error. In the end it doesnt matter to “the science” ”

Most excellent, steven

How about, ” It was a minor typo.” ? Like 2035 and 2350.

This “past errors always means present errors” is just plain stupid. If that was the case, all software would be useless.

Andrew_FL (Comment#33761) February 16th, 2010 at 3:40 pm

bugs (Comment#33758)-Go back to grade school. You clearly don’t know the difference between past and present tense. It had errors doesn’t mean it still does.

I don’t contend that it didn’t have errors, that’s why I said “It has been one of the most heavily scrutinized datasets in the history of science!” Because it was scrutinized. When data are scrutinized, errors get found and corrected. Errors only get found when data are scrutinized.

All science has errors. More will arise. For some reason, this is seen as being abhorrent and worthy of calls for imprisonment.

Dan Hughes (Comment#33785) February 17th, 2010 at 6:04 am

steven mosher (Comment#33776) February 17th, 2010 at 1:08 am

This “past errors always means present errors” is just plain stupid. If that was the case, all software would be useless.

All sufficiently complex software has errors, and is usually useful. Just look at Windows.

“steven mosher (Comment#33760) February 16th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
When Mann fixes Tiljander let me know.”

As far as I know, Mia Tiljander is a female finnish scientist. Is this the way to talk about ladies? Next thing we will hear is that Tiljander fixes Mann?

“All science has errors. More will arise. For some reason, this is seen as being abhorrent and worthy of calls for imprisonment.”

bugs,

It’s not the errors that are the problem. It’s the lying, cheating and stealing of The Team and people like Al Gore… and the apparent approval of such behavior by people like you.

Andrew

bugs (Comment#33786)-Don’t change the subject. I never called for imprisonment. I complained that you are so thick you can’t conjugate.

Based on your logic, since you were wrong then, you must be wrong now. Until you learn to tell the difference between tenses, talking about people deserving “imprisonment” is counterproductive. You need to learn one thing at a time and basic grammar is where we are starting.

Re: Nick Stokes:

Conversations with you and with Lazar (at OIIFTG) have helped me distill the case for urging Mike Mann and his coauthors to acknowledge and correct the most glaring errors in Mann et al. (PNAS, 2008).

Since the exposition is lengthy, I’ve written that argument as a post, The Null Hypothesis.

nice AMac

Tijander is a woman. She’s up there in my pantheon:

Dr. Curry, Lucia, Lady Tilly.

the frickin boys need to put on thier big boy pants

Steve Mosher:
“Thank you. Is there anything UNNATURAL in the climate.”

Of course they are talking about things like solar cycles, ENSO cycles, and volcanoes. If we have a man made trend, then I have no problem with the idea that such a trend could be overcome for some period of time by these natural elements of variation. If that was the case, then we would expect to return to that man made trend eventually. And that is the AGW argument against the current 12 year flat trend.

The fallacy of this argument is that they want to say that they don’t need to know enough about the climate system to identify the variation that is responsible while at the same time claiming that they know enough about natural variation to state that nothing but AGW can be responsible for the previous warming. The two arguments contradict each other.

The current flat trend is so very very important because it means that either climate sensitivity is much lower than advertised by the IPCC, or that there are elements of natural variation that are much stronger than what we are able to account for. Or possibly both. In any case, the argument that “the science is settled” is completely blown out of the water. Anyone who still thinks that it is settled is out of touch with reality.

All of the other side debates are important and interesting, but this one single point castrates the AGW claims all by itself.

Also, one can extend the statistical significance of the 12 year flat trend by correcting the data for ENSO. Make the correction, and you still get a twelve year flat trend, but one with less variability, and therefore greater statistical significance.

Tilo Reber,
“but this one single point castrates the AGW claims all by itself”.
.
Didn’t know AGW claims were so endowed as to allow castration.

Anyone check out Tamino’s analysis? Apparently someone who has gained no height, has in fact gained in height.

Clearly Nick Stokes is not wired up correctly.

Re: MikeN (Feb 17 21:48),
Actually…. Tamino has a point. Of course, his example is somewhat exaggerated. If this is supposed to be the analog of the question to Jones, the equivalent question by a reporter would be ““Can you prove — with statistical significance — that your child has been growing since last Tuesdayyear?”

Given the amount of noise in the system, a kids growth over less than 6 days is not analogous to detecting warming over 15 years!

The answer to “Can you prove — with statistical significance — that your child has been growing since last Tuesdayyear?” could be “no” if the kid didn’t grow enough over the year, and this parent’s measureing tools introduce enough uncertainty, the parent might not be able to report statistically significant growth– even if he kid did grown.

At that point, you could turn to “what does this mean?” Well, no statistically significant growth in a year would be a short enough time to be unconcerned the kid had stopped growing; it’s also long enough that you can’t be absolutely sure he has not stopped growing. Kids can stop growing for health reasons; some do. (In fact, it happened to a friends younger brother when I was in high school. The doctor prescribed growth hormones!)

Dr’s do monitor growth for this reason. But yes, the lack of statistical significance over too short a period should not be taken to mean there is no growth– and in the case of warming, no warming.

Yea, I noticed the one week part of the analogy. Here we have a 15 year time frame, so really the equivalent should be about 2 years.
As for the measurement error, that goes to Jeff Id’s complaint. The analogy woud be to the error in the thermometers. It is a bad analogy all around as you can’t shrink in height, though some people at Tamino claimed you could shrink by several cm due to gravity.
My point is that regardless of the time frame, it is still the case that you did not grow in height since last Tuesday. The equivalent is claiming that you grew in the past year, when you have the exact same height, because your average height for the year was higher than for the year before.