Top Climate Porn: All-Women Photo

tqeywr34


The Bates/Karl affair is having all kinds of ramifications, with the usual suspects falling over themselves to defend Karl, sometimes with the interesting argument that his correction is so trivial as to be hardly worth talking about.

Stefan Rahmstorf at RealClimate asks:

Could the difference of a few hundredths of a degree have duped world leaders into signing on to the Paris Climate Agreement?”

While at the Guardian Dana Nuccitelli dismisses the Karl paper thus:

…the corrections themselves were quite small and inconsequential in the grand scheme of long-term human-caused global warming.”

So those “inconsequential” “few hundredths of a degree” were all there was in the paper that was trumpeted as disproving the Pause proclaimed by sceptics? Oh dear.

Nuccitelli’s article also reveals in passing the disturbing fact that the Daily Mail has been blacklisted by Wikipaedia as a reliable reference. David Rose at the Mail is one of the very few serious journalists regularly writing on climate change from a sceptical point of view in Britain. For his work to be effectively banned from Wikipaedia is a serious matter.

Nuccitelli also links to the Rahmstorf article at RealClimate, which takes us through the whole sordid alarmist playbook, from the white powder in an envelope addressed to Michael Mann, to the conspiracy theory that the Russian secret service was the source of the Climategate emails. It backs up its claims with links to a number of well-known reliable sources, namely Realclimate, another article by Rahmstorf, SkepticalScience, Wikipaedia on the ”eight thorough investigations” into Climategate (as edited by RealClimate’s William Connolley) and the consensus metastudy of the 97% consensus by Cook of Skeptical Science, Nuccitelli of the Guardian and our own favourite commenter Ken Rice. Then Nuccitelli backs up his accusations of fake news with a link to a Guardian article (by Graham Readfearn with the headline ”More terrifying than Trump? The booming conspiracy culture of climate science denial” which itself links to an article (by Graham Readfearn again) about fake news which reports on the fact that the most popular article on climate change over the past six months was wrong.

I thought I’d check, so I went to Readfearn’s source Buzzsumo and tapped “climate change”. I forgot to click the time period required, so it gave me results for the past week, not the past six months, but they’re still pretty interesting. Rose’s article in the Mail on Sunday came in third, just behind “Welcome to Hell on Earth in Australia”.

The top article was from theHill: “Swedish climate minister appears to mock Trump administration with all-women photo”

In the photo, Lövin stares straight at the camera and is surrounded by seven women as she signs a law that set a goal of phasing out fossil fuels by 2045… A spokesman for Lövin did not say whether it was a direct response to the Trump photo.

You can interpret it as you want,” a spokesperson told BuzzFeed.“It’s more that Sweden is a feminist government and this is a very important law that we just decided on. We need climate leadership in the world today. And to make the Paris agreement happen we need climate leadership. I would ask everyone to make their own interpretation.”

Articles with very similar headlines about the all-women photo were placed fifth sixth seventh and tenth in popularity.

Call me a sceptic, but I somehow doubt that the world is really that interested in Sweden’s desire to phase out fossil fuels, even if it’s a desire expressed by a band of seven feminists, and binding on all future Swedish governments (what, even ones containing men? Or sceptics?) Could it be something in the headline, possibly the words “Trump” and “all-women photo” that led to the popularity of these articles?

The method used by Readfearn at the Guardian to determine that the climate debate is being dominated by fake news is precisely the same as that used in scientific articles (by Cook, Nuccitelli et al.) to determine the existence of the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming, and by Lewandowsky, Cook et al. to establish the conspiratorial nature of climate scepticism: i.e. doing a word search of stuff found on the internet. I’ve just used the same method to determine that people are more interested in Trump and/or all-women photos than they are in phasing out fossil fuels. Am I right? We’ll see how many hits this article gets.

A newspaper which gets a graph wrong is making an honest mistake. A journalist who interprets the words of a source in a way which the source later challenges may have got something wrong – or not. He may have created a useful stir, causing top experts who previously considered a scientific paper hugely important to change their minds and dismiss its contents as inconsequential.

To get back to the apparently inconsequential subject of this article: – a scientist, or a defender of science, who claims that you can draw scientific conclusions from an internet word search is taking science in a dangerous direction. That must have consequences.

57 thoughts on “Top Climate Porn: All-Women Photo

  1. There must be something wrong about a science whose practitioners make so many errors that all turn out to be inconsequential. I think I am groping towards a word that begins with the letter “f”

    Like

  2. Ha ha! Richard Betts says: 10 Feb 17 at 5:07 pm

    ” I think we all know that it’s the long-term trend that counts.”

    The long term statistical nonsense ‘global average temperature’ counts only for those promoting the scam! There exists incessant kvetching about atmospheric CO2 levels that encourages the inherent human trait of scamming others for fame or profit! You are supposedly learned! Can you give us a technical definition of thermometric, thermodynamic, or radiometric “temperature”?:

    Like

  3. Got interrupted before I finished the comment…. If such a non-story is the top climate change item, doesn’t that imply that the topic has lost its sizzle? What is wrong about people that they would rather ogle Swedish politicians than Dana Nuccitelli?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. man in a barrel says: 10 Feb 17 at 9:05 pm

    “Got interrupted before I finished the comment…. If such a non-story is the top climate change item, doesn’t that imply that the topic has lost its sizzle? What is wrong about people that they would rather ogle Swedish politicians than Dana Nuccitelli?”

    There does exist lovely Swedish politicians! that smile and invite offers like “Hi pretty lady, want to go somewhere and mess around?”

    Like

  5. I’d have to agree that the Mail and Rose are unreliable sources. But then broadsheet papers like the Telegraph have people like Booker and Dellers so they are equally unreliable. Stoat recently wrote that one learns little from a newspaper reference apart from the priors of the referrer. For Wiki, I’d say that a newspaper reference might be acceptable if the text is written by someone who knows the subject in detail – which obviously rules out those mentioned here.

    Like

  6. “Nuccitelli’s article also reveals in passing the disturbing fact that the Daily Mail has been blacklisted by Wikipaedia”

    Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that in Jan 2016 Jimmy Wales joined the Guardian board as a non-executive director…

    Like

  7. “Nuccitelli’s article also reveals in passing the disturbing fact that the Daily Mail has been blacklisted by Wikipaedia”

    perhaps this has something to do with the fact that in Jan 2016 Jimmy Wales joined the Guardian board as a non-executive director…

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Just how many people are reading this thread because of the word “porn”, and become “intrigued” by the group of naked women (awaiting the return of their sun god?)?
    I can imagine the cries of disappointment and frustration when the article on Swedish women was accessed. It certainly does very little for me. Its mimicry of Trump, however, did raise a smile.

    Like

  9. I used to be excited by ‘weather porn’ but ‘climate porn’ does nothing for me and has killed my former secret vice.

    The picture of naked women, I assumed was an art installation or some boring protest, both of which have been overdone and are now cliché.

    Like

  10. Geoff, as you say

    While at the Guardian Dana Nuccitelli dismisses the Karl paper thus:

    …the corrections themselves were quite small and inconsequential in the grand scheme of long-term Stunning new data indicates Ehuman-caused global warming.

    This is similar to the tactics used at the end of last year when attacking the same David Rose stated

    Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures suggesting rise may not be down to man-made emissions

    Like the El Nino, the Karl et al. gives the appearance that the global warming has never stopped. Like with the El Nino, the deflection is away from the divergence between theory and data, to the long-term trend linear trend. In both cases if you look at the linear trend from a point of 1970 or before, then the impact of the natural El Nino, or the reworking of the dataset, makes a trivial difference. But then look at the rise in CO2 levels

    Around the turn of the century the rate of warming from CO2 alone should have accelerated. If a doubling of CO2 gives 3C of warming, then actual warming rates were behind that from CO2 alone in the last quarter so there should have been some catch-up. Instead, warming stopped if you use the HADCRUT4 data set.
    But in the context of climate messaging, the denialists of the climate faith are contradicted. This is not by the real world but the shallow opinions of the faithful.

    Like

  11. Rather than listen to the opinions, lets be Real Climate Scientists and use the Skeptical Science Temperature Trend Calculator. The current warming phase started in around 1975, stopped around the turn of the century and apparently restarted in 2015 with the El Nino. What effect does Karl (2015) have compared to HADCRUT4?

    Harcrut4 From 1975 to 2014 0.172 ±0.036 °C/decade
    Karl (2015) From 1975 to 2014 0.164 ±0.037 °C/decade

    Harcrut4 From 1975 to 2002 0.186 ±0.063 °C/decade
    Karl (2015) From 1975 to 2002 0.169 ±0.067 °C/decade 

    Harcrut4 From 2002 to 2014 -0.014 ±0.166 °C/decade
    Karl (2015) From 2002 to 2014 0.042 ±0.187 °C/decade

    Seems that Karl (2015) manages less overall warming, and also manages to shift some of the late twentieth century warming to this century. But it still means that 2002 to 2014 warming was at one quarter of the 1975 to 2002 rate, when theory says it should have been higher. Clearly the data adjusters are still far less creative than the accountants of the late 1980s. Could I recommend the Accounting for Growth 1992 to learn how to properly cook the books?

    As the blurb says

    (T)his book shows up the methods developed by accountants during the 1980s in order to be able to report continuous growth in earnings per share (ie profit). But accounts drawn up in this way often give an entirely false picture of a company’s health, and in fact many of the firms which employed these methods subsequently went bust.

    Like

  12. Manic Bean Counter, your Fig.2 is confusing. wouldn’t it make more sense to plot the cumulative CO2 Temp change instead of the yearly figure? And against that, plot the actual temp change. That way you’d be showing what might be expected (ignoring heat capacity issues) against what actually happened. It would be interesting to see.
    Regards

    Like

  13. Who is the big sweaty bloke in the crumpled suit on the left of the photo?

    He’s looking down and to his left.

    According to some body-language experts that means he’s lying but I don’t believe in such determinist crap, honest. I just want to know who he is. (Though I wouldn’t mind knowing what he’s lying about. That’d be helpful, too.)

    Like

  14. Vinny. Why are all the Ministers clasping their hands in front of them (except for one holding papers)? I half remember it indicating a response to threat. Perhaps they were not too happy about being in Iran.

    Like

  15. “Alan Kendall says:
    14 Feb 17 at 8:03 am

    Vinny. Why are all the Ministers clasping their hands in front of them (except for one holding papers)?”

    Maybe because they’re Swedes & they usually do naked photo ops 🙂

    Like

  16. Weirdly, at least three of the Swedes kept their hands clasped in front of them when they were paraded past President Rouhani. If they hadn’t all been smiling you’d think they were handcuffed prisoners being marched to their doom.

    Another smiling Swede held her right forearm and hand across her chest. This is the salute used by Iranian neo-Nazis but she perhaps didn’t know that. She might simply have been shielding Rouhani from the impure thoughts that must inevitably follow when a man sees the womanly bulges in a lady’s indoor overcoat.

    Like

  17. Odd choice of words there Vinny:
    “….when they were paraded past President Rouhani.”
    Why add the word “were”? It changes the entire meaning.

    Like

  18. PS (& OT): I have just skimmedread a review paper about climate change’s current impacts on ecosystem services. The authors noticed some interesting things about evaluations that rely solely on expert opinions (they are perhaps overly gloomy) but another interesting finding was presented without comment: about 40% of the relevant papers reckoned that increased precipitation is having a negative impact on freshwater availability. (About 30% thought the impact is positive.)

    I can think of ways in which increased precipitation can have a temporary negative impact (eg muddy waters) but as an average?

    Here’s the paper:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13457/abstract

    In case you can’t be arsed to read it, here’s some of the stuff about experts:

    ===
    We also found that relying solely on expert elicitation to determine the impact of climate change on ecosystem services may overestimate the negative impacts of climate change. Studies that used expert elicitation gave more frequent negative results than studies employing empirical or quantitative modeling methods, and this effect was statistically significant. This difference could be due to motivational or accessibility bias among experts. Specifically, the knowledge that the impacts of climate change are generally negative may exert a disproportionate influence on the experts’ judgment, even in cases where the actual impact of climate change may be positive or mixed.
    ===

    Like

  19. AK, I added ‘were’ at the last minute. But here’s the relevant photo:

    It seems about right. ‘This season, women will mostly be wearing indoor overcoats…’

    Liked by 1 person

  20. VINNY BURGOO
    “Were paraded past” does look about right. In fact exactly right. Mind you, in Britain they’d have to curtsey, so we can hardly criticise.

    The big sweaty bloke is the world’s only Swedish/Persian translator. He only works three days a year so he can’t afford to get his suit pressed.

    I did wonder whether to intervene when Foxgoose (is that Mr or Ms?) lowered the tone, then I thought: No; the Swedes are asking for it. Trump’s photos says: “These are my people. They’re the best.” (Whether they are the best or not the American electors will get to decide.) The Swedish photo says: ‘These are some members of the Swedish government. They’re women.” And the Swedish voter has no say on that.

    Your off-topic comment I’m going to turn into an article, even though there are no Swedish ladies in it.

    Like

  21. Geoff Chambers
    Another interesting comment:
    “I did wonder whether to intervene when Foxgoose (is that Mr or Ms?) lowered the tone, then I thought: No; the Swedes are asking for it.”

    Why were “they asking for it”? Clearly the visit was a diplomatic one, and the Swedish ministers were being officially greeted. They were honouring the local mores by being fully dressed and with head scarves (even the British Queen had her head covered during a state visit to Saudi Arabia). They were only being courteous, so I fail to see why they deserve your opprobrium or Foxgoose’s comment.

    Seems in line with the sort of comments Diane Abbot received, typical of what now seems acceptable to be dished out to female politicians. Hillary Clinton, Diane Abbot and now female Swedish ministers.

    Like

  22. ALAN KENDALL
    Apologies for not being clear. I was referring to the original photo where they lined up in an imitation of Trump’s line up, which they didn’t deny was a critical swipe at Trump, presumably accusing him of mysogyny for not having any women in his team. It’s not difficult to find photos of all-male groups of politicians. Singling out Trump’s team would be fair game for a journalist. Coming from a head of government it was a bit – unusual. I agree entirely about the importance of courtesy to heads of state and so see nothing to criticise about the headscarves, though the overcoats weren’t up to much. Don’t they have an Oxfam shop in Stockholm?

    Like

  23. Geoff Chambers.
    Agreed.
    It gets very cold in Iran’s capital so full-length coats might have been necessary. One of our PhD students studied a nearby salt lake and could only sample some sites in winter when the surface froze.

    Like

  24. AK, the coats had nothing to do with the weather. They were mandatory. The problem isn’t that the Swedes honoured local custom, which is usually the well-mannered thing to do. It’s that they boasted publicly about their feminist credentials shortly before going to a country where women have to conceal their shape and even their hair with coats, scarves, chadors etc. *by law* and that they (cheerfully, according to the photos) complied with that law when they got there.

    If they didn’t want to be laughed at then they should have (a) ditched the public feminist self-congratulation or (b) not gone to Iran.

    ‘We champion women!’ they said
    Then flattened their feminist cred
    By sticking to laws
    That label them whores
    If they don’t wear a bum-hiding coat plus trousers or a full-length skirt and a headscarf that covers every hair on the head (except the eyebrows, obviously)

    Nope.

    How about:

    ‘We champion women!’ they cried
    Then let down the feminist side
    With roosari-roopoosh
    Hiding tits, hair and tush
    For a law that they just can’t abide

    (‘Abide’ is horrible, but you get the picture.)

    Liked by 1 person

  25. William 12 Feb 17 at 3:09 pm
    Sorry for not replying to you comment earlier.
    When it comes to looking at an issue, I prefer to work through the argument rather than put a vague graph that sort of fits. The figure 2 graph that I showed demonstrates that the impact of CO2 on average temperatures should be increasing from around 1950 through to the current day. In particular, around the turn of the century warming should have accelerated, not stopped (HADCRUT4 or the satellite data sets) or dramatically slowed (GISTEMP or Karl).
    To fit to a graph would mean putting a value on climate sensitivity is somewhat vague, giving an even fuzzier picture than Geoff’s at the top of the article. Much better to demonstrate with linear trends, as I did at the end of last year. From the same post as Fig 2, I derived Fig 5.

    William, I give full references to enable you to derive a graph for yourself. If you were to use the HADCRUT4 data set, assuming all the warming since 1950 was due to GHGs, then you will find that climate sensitivity comes out at around 1.3 to 1.5. Use the Karl et al data and strain hard enough, you might squeeze out a CS of almost 2. But with both sets of calculations there is still the problem of the last few years (even if you include the natural El Nino up to six months ago) in that modeled warming rates reduced when, using basic theory, warming rates should have accelerated.

    Like

  26. I made a chart of the ‘expected’ temperature change vs actual HADCRUT4 (i.e. not including the poles) and it came out like this:

    Seeing as this ignore the heat capacity of Earth and all other influences on temperature, it seems pretty good to me.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. William
    I must apologize for getting you wrong. When suggested plotting the cumulative CO2 against temperature I thought it would merely merge the temperature anomalies against the CO2 warming, making it appear that both were consistent. But by using 1960 as zero, this exaggerates the fact that warming from the data sets is less than actual CO2 warming. With other greenhouse gases supposedly influencing warming, the CO2 impact should be a lot less. It should be noted at lambda=0.8 gives a warming of about 2.94C from a doubling. I use lambda=.809 to get the full 3C.

    Notice how the El Nino warming of 2015 and 2016 significantly reduces the warming gap.
    However, what is not very clear is the acceleration in the supposed warming impact from CO2 implied in the curve.
    I have roughly fitted and extended two linear warming trends from CO2 at CS=2.94 – that from 2000-2014 and from 1960 to 1974

    Not only does warming from CO2 exceed the temperature anomaly “actual” warming, when it should be the other way round due to other GHGs, but warming after 2000 should have accelerated compared to 1975-1999, when (using Karl et al 2015) warming rates almost halved.

    Like

  28. William says: 18 Feb 17 at 1:33 pm

    “I made a chart of the ‘expected’ temperature change vs actual HADCRUT4 (i.e. not including the poles) and it came out like this: Seeing as this ignore the heat capacity of Earth and all other influences on temperature, it seems pretty good to me.”

    Would you please calculate the latent heat capacity (in Joules) or flux, of the average of 4 mm airborne water condensate continuously converted via insolation to atmospheric WV in the morning, then converting back to airborne water condensate in the nighttime with all that sensible heat being radiated to space via EMR, with little or no temperature change?. Have you a number for that W/m² that never appears in any of K. Trenberth’s silly ‘energy budget’ cartoons? Will someone please inform Kevin T. that EMR flux (W/m²) is never a form of ‘energy’? You seem brainwashed into demanding some average temperature; can you give any possible physical meaning to such fantasy? What is it that you want?

    Like

  29. …and Then There’s Physics says: 18 Feb 17 at 8:04 pm

    “Blast, formula was meant to be; 3 x 5.35 ln (CO2_final/CO2_initial)”

    Ken,
    Have you any ‘evidence’ for any temperature change due to increasing atmospheric CO2 content?
    Can you present any ‘viable’ formula for such a claim? Does such formula come from a known deliberate misuse of some LBLRTF\LBLRTM?

    Liked by 1 person

  30. …and Then There’s Physics says: 18 Feb 17 at 8:41 pm

    (Will, “Have you any ‘evidence’ for any temperature change due to increasing atmospheric CO2 content?”)

    “None that you would probably ever accept”

    I have no desire to accept anything that Ken Rice, (Personal Chair), may spout.! The ‘Chair’ can only claim nonsense; with never any possible physical evidence; acceptable to any other! Poor students!!

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Prof ATTP
    You are correct. I assume that there is an immediate response in global average temperatures from rises in CO2 levels. As the rate of rise in CO2 levels has been accelerating since at least 1950 it follows that the rate of rise in average temperatures should have been accelerating. If CS=3 then from 1950 to 2015 the accumulated effect should have been about 1.11C of warming stored up.
    I fully realize that there are other greenhouse gases that should have chipped in to make a bit more warming, so the accumulated warming is nearer 1.5C. Actual warming is about half that.
    Of course there is going to be some sort of lags, but to a lesser mortal, it is a pretty weird sort of lag when at around the turn of the century CO2 levels accelerate from accelerating CO2 emissions and global warming stops.
    So we first get dozens of excuses and then the climatologists follow the lead of Kevin Trenberth in putting belief over evidence. To Micheal Mann on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 and copied to most of the leading academics in the “team” (including Thomas R. Karl).

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/updated-list-of-64-excuses-for-18-26.html

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

    So Dr Karl accommodated Prof Trenberth by finding plenty of reasons to eradicate the pause, by bringing “reality” into line with beliefs. The data that Dr Karl works from has been adjusted a number of time before, by people who hold similar beliefs to Prof Kevin.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Manic,

    I assume that there is an immediate response in global average temperatures from rises in CO2 levels.

    Why would you assume that? There are two relevant metrics, the transient response, and the equilibrium response. The system cannot retain equilibrium instanteously because of the heat capacity of the oceans; we would expect it to take centuries to actually retain equilibrium. The reason your calculation produces results that don’t even come close to what is observed is because it has completely unrealistic assumptions. If you wanted to do a fairer comparison, you’d use the transient response, which is about 2K per doubling of CO2. I don’t, however, expect that you want to do a fairer comparison because that might challenge your underlying view that climate science has to be flawed.

    Just to be clear, though, even the transient response isn’t correct on short timescales, because we would expect internal variabiility to dominate on decadal timescales, but it is at least a more appropriate comparison.

    Like

  33. WILL JANOSCHKA @ 19 Feb 17 at 12:49 am
    You need to realize that us lesser mortals have a lower perception of reality, as we are blinkered by our beliefs. It is useless for those who are in receipt of the revealed truth from climate models to convey that higher reality.

    Like

  34. manicbeancounter says: 19 Feb 17 at 1:17 am

    “WILL JANOSCHKA @ 19 Feb 17 at 12:49 am You need to realize that us lesser mortals have a lower perception of reality, as we are blinkered by our beliefs. It is useless for those who are in receipt of the revealed truth from climate models to convey that higher reality.”

    Kevin,
    What you mean by “us/mortals”, white man?? Reality is mostly hallucination and insanity; with vast streaks of enjoyable fantasy! Much has been painfully learned of this “physical part” of such reality! OTOH, the complete summation of all that has been so painfully learned of the ‘physical’ by us/mortals, remains indistinguishable from ZERO. ‘Tis very likely to stay that way!

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Prof ATTP

    Based up the transient response of CS=2 there will still produce accelerated warming post 2000, not for warming to stop. Post 2000 there should be, ceteris paribus, a combination of the transient response of CS=2 (or is that CS = 1.4 per Thomas Fuller at 19 Feb 17 at 1:51 am?) and movement towards long-term equilibrium from previous increases in CO2 and other GHGs. Or maybe global temperatures have had a toddler tantrum and refuse to budge, but will explode later on? Or maybe your resort to the natural variations is just a deflection from the fact that your beliefs are wrong? After all, if some unspecified natural variation counteracted the alleged human-caused warming post 2000, maybe it was natural variation, not the lesser human-caused GHG effect (when compared with the post 2000 impact) that resulted in the 1975-1998 warming? Or maybe natural variation is still far more dominant than the rise in GHG levels?

    A warning can be gleaned from Richard Feynman in his 1964 lecture on the Scientific Method.

    You cannot prove a vague theory wrong. If the guess that you make is poorly expressed and the method you have for computing the consequences is a little vague then ….. you see that the theory is good as it can’t be proved wrong. If the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental result can be made to look like an expected consequence.

    I would suggest you go well beyond making the theory vague. You distract and make false claims, based on the illusion that your bigoted opinions are based on the fizzicks. Of course, you are able to show to the others who are initiated in the higher realities revealed by physics (on your blog, where you can control the graphics better) how, in applying the/a scientific method, you can empirically separate natural variation from the GHG warming. You can convince some others by inviting them to compare and contrast your science-based views that relate to empirical reality, with my simple logic that denies those realities. Compare it to a court of law, where the prosecution allows the accused full reign to speak their fantasies as a way of convincing the lay jury that they are a right nutter.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Tom,

    2K per doubling for TCR? You’re making stuff up. You’ve written on your own blog that it’s much less–as low as 1.4.

    I wondered if someone would do that. Manic is using 3K for the ECS. If the ECS is 3K (as he is assuming) then he should probably use a TCR of around 2K. I was simply presenting the TCR value he should use, given the ECS value he has already assumed. However, in both cases he should probably use a range. So, the ECS would likely be between 1.5K and 4.5K, and the TCR would likely be between 1K and 2.5K.

    I also haven’t written that “it’s much less”; I’ve written that it could be much less, possibly as low as 1.4K.

    Manic,

    Based up the transient response of CS=2 there will still produce accelerated warming post 2000, not for warming to stop.

    Do you at least accept that using 3K as a transient response was too high?

    Also, there isn’t a one-to-one correlation between temperature and CO2 on all scales. Internal/natural variability clearly plays a role, in particular on shorter timescales (decade or so). I know there are internet memes that such things are ignored by climate scientists and that they predict smooth, monotonically increasing CO2-driven warming, but that is simply not true. I’ll assume that you can do better than simply promote disingenuous internet memes? My assumption will probably turn out to be wrong, though.

    Like

  37. Am I right in thinking that “natural variability” is just a shorthand way of saying “all those things about climate that we don’t understand and can’t model”? Does natural variability play a role in any other science? Just curious

    Like

  38. Man in a barrel.
    Does the cosmos exhibit natural variability? Because an awful lot of it (c.95%?) “we don’t understand”. I understand, however, that it’s being modelled like crazy.

    Like

  39. Geoff Chambers
    “To get back to the apparently inconsequential subject of this article: – a scientist, or a defender of science, who claims that you can draw scientific conclusions from an internet word search is taking science in a dangerous direction.”

    Not sure I totally agree, some very interesting work on the subject of public interest in scientific subjects probably couldn’t be done in any other way (assuming you want better coverage than a local survey or a poll). A PhD student of a former colleague, for instance, drew out some very relevant results by examining the variation in newspaper coverage on climate stories over time. She also used scientific methodology and reasoning to reach her conclusions. I was impressed enough to try to get an undergraduate to replicate her procedure for their dissertation using “peak oil” as the subject. No takers however.

    Like

  40. Alan, it reminds me of the famous Treasury model of the UK economy where they used to pump water around an array of pipes and see what happened. Hydraulic Keynesianism, it was dubbed. Eventually they gave up on it as the results never came close to what actually happened when policy was changed. However, we are yet to reach this realisation with GCMs

    Like

  41. Ah yes the “Financephalograph”, New Zealand’s gift to macroeconomics and beloved of Pratchet. I don’t believe it was a failure, far from it, but it was quickly succeeded by electronic computers. I went to see the original at Leeds a few years ago.

    Like

  42. Manic, you give me the impression that you are unaware of the concept of heat capacity. In other words, you think that an increase in CO2 must lead immediately to an increase in global temperature that matches your calculations, and that failure to do so invalidates something or other.

    You also seem rather too keen on short term trends with arbitrary dates; spreadsheets make such things so easy. But unless you add some error bars, your trends are meaningless (e.g. your ‘trends’ since 2002). And once you add the error bars it will be quite obvious that the supposed trends mean nothing.

    Like

  43. Raff,

    “Manic, you give me the impression that you are unaware of the concept of heat capacity. In other words, you think that an increase in CO2 must lead immediately to an increase in global temperature that matches your calculations, and that failure to do so invalidates something or other.”

    I imagine that the heat capacity of planet earth, dominated as it is by the vast expanses of the open oceans, is fairly constant over time and that what most affects the effective change in mean global surface temperature per unit increase in CO2 ppm over decadal timescales is very likely internal variability.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. “Manic, you give me the impression that you are unaware of the concept of heat capacity.”

    And you, Naff, give everyone the impression that you’re just a provocative, irtritating little troll with zero to contribute to any grown-up discussion and no understanding at all of the subject at issue that desperately needs to grow up and get a life.

    Just saying…

    Liked by 1 person

  45. William says: 19 Feb 17 at 7:31 pm
    Raff,
    Please stop with your fake ‘statistics’. I am tired of reviving W. M. Briggs from your induced fits of ROFLMAO! Can you never express any kindness to anyone?

    Liked by 1 person

  46. ALAN KENDALL (19 Feb 17 at 1:02 pm)
    On word searches:
    I haven’t been back to check, but I think Cook’s word search for the 97% paper was “climate change” or “global climate change”, but not “global warming”. For all we know, believers may use one term and sceptics use the other. The “Recursive Fury” paper which proved we’re all paranoid was based on the word search “Stephan Lewandowsky” which eliminated Cook’s own SkepticalScience site, where everyone calls him Steve, plus all the references to “Lewandowsky,” “Lewandowski” or just plain “Lew.” You do what you can with the tools that you have. Who is the more influential climate scientist, Phil Jones or Zeke Hausfather? How would you find out?

    Even now some poor lad in Africa christened “Global Warming” is growing up and in ten years’ time will be a famous footballer, throwing the entire sociology of climate belief into disarray.

    Like

  47. Geoff
    Pity I won’t be around to see Climate Change score, but I feel so sorry for the hundreds of “Donald Trumps”.

    Like

  48. “Can you never express any kindness to anyone?”

    It’s a troll, hence a bully that can get away with it because it can never be held to account for its unpleasantness.

    It’s not the only one that infests this blog, eother.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s