A Sock Puppet’s Challenge

 

OK, so, all the hoo-hah and nonsense is dying down now over Michael Tobis, an ‘actual’ climate scientist, calling me a sock puppet on Twitter. He probably still thinks I don’t exist and he’s probably still searching for my ‘dirty dozen’ nefarious aliases on line. He still wants me to post a picture so I can prove I do exist, which does not preclude of course the possibility that I am still a sock puppet and do still have various aliases on line spreading misinformation with the deliberate intention of undermining climate science and the fight to save the planet from anthropogenic runaway global warming.

So, sock puppet or not, existing or not, I really don’t have much to gain from satisfying Tobis’ silly, supercilious demand that I post a recent photo in order to prove who I am. So, in my twilight zone moments of non-existence, I got to thinking – in a kind of vacant, ethereal, insubstantial way.

What matters to me, what only matters to me really, is the science and whether or not it justifies the policy response (that being an insanely non-effective unilateral disbandment of fossil fuel powered Western industry and infrastructure and the creation of a Grim Fairytale Green economy). To this end, I engaged with Ken Rice on the previous thread, in good faith, when he asked what [in]substantive bits of climate science were most problematic to us climate change sceptics. As I pointed out to Ken (and to Tobis on Twitter), one of my main gripes with climate science is the IPCC attribution statement thus:

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

So Ken and I got to discussing this and he said he’d written a post on the subject which showed how hard it was to construct a plausible physical scenario whereby natural forcings  accounted for more than half of the post 1950 increase in global temperature and I replied thus:

Ken, your simple attribution analysis makes some rather dubious assumptions, ignores systemic uncertainties re. natural atmospheric processes, plus it ignores the wider context of temperature variations throughout the instrumental period.

You state:

“It can’t be the Sun, or volcanoes, so it can only be the response to the internally-driven warming (0.45oC).”

Most of the warming post 1950 is in fact due to the rapid and near constant warming post 1980. The 30 years previous to that, global temperature went up and down considerably, changing very little overall in the process, even though emissions climbed steadily. So we have the 30 odd years following where most of your 0.6C warming takes place, which you declare is most likely due to the total increase in theoretical anthropogenic radiative forcing over the entire 60 year period. This bothers me slightly.

What bothers me more is that an increase in global temperature of almost exactly the same magnitude, and just as rapid (according to Hadcrut data) occurred 1910-1940, when anthropogenic radiative forcing was overall rather less and increased rather more slowly over the 30 year period. Much of THIS warming is very likely due to internal variability. But when we come to 1980-2010, because supposed radiative forcing due to CO2 is calculated to be much greater, it is somehow far more likely that the increase was due to man, not nature.

I will admit that the ‘spurt’ in global temperatures post 1980 is unlikely due to the sun. I do however consider it a distinct possibility that much of the secular trend in global warming post 1850 is due to solar forcing. You can shoehorn CO2 into that role, just as well as you can shoehorn it into post 1950 warming, as does the IPCC. But you can’t shoehorn CO2 into the 1940s warming. So the attribution of most or all of the warming post 1950 being anthropogenic looks very shaky to me, relying as it does on quite simple probability analysis, whilst ignoring structural uncertainties. We are, after all, talking only really about a 30 year period of rapid warming. It is conceivable that internal variability contributed > 50% to that warming (simply because, that must have been the case 1910-45), in which case sensitivity to CO2 must be very much less (over that period) than estimated by climate scientists (either that, or man-made aerosols have contributed a very significant cooling). I don’t see climate sensitivity suddenly increasing in the 21st century, so we then have to consider the possibility that a future man-made climate catastrophe looks highly unlikely.

Then Ken apparently lost interest, just when the conversation threatened to get interesting. Tobis lost interest almost immediately on Twitter when I mentioned attribution, preferring instead to question my very existence, which seemed to be much more interesting to him. You would think, would you not, that an ‘actual’ scientist would be more keen on addressing the actual science rather than the provenance of the person challenging them on the actual science.

So here’s the deal: Michael Tobis convinces me, on here, that the IPCC attribution statement is scientifically sound and it is beyond reasonable doubt that more than half of the warming post 1950 is indeed caused by emissions, and I will post a photo verifying my actual existence as a real person.

182 thoughts on “A Sock Puppet’s Challenge

  1. Hiya Jaime

    Tobis may not convince you (he has an annoying habit of being wrong even when he’s on the right side of an argument) but, although I don’t know the answer, I would not dispute that particular claim–that half or more of recent warming is anthropogenic in its causation.

    To start with, it’s a very modest claim. It doesn’t portend doom or even terrible terrible trouble (to borrow from The Music Man). It allows room for other human contributions besides CO2, which I think is important–black soot is real, it has an effect and is also something we can do something about.

    Two surveys of climate scientists conducted by climate scientists found that 66% of published climate scientists agree with that statement–those surveys get buried a bit because the percentage wasn’t 97%, but it means something to me.

    I hope you have a suitably photogenic contribution to post in case Tobis shows up with an A game.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Jaime,
    You seemed rather dismissive of my attempt to construct a physically plausible scenario under which more than 50% of the observed warming since 1950 was non-anthropogenic (here’s my post). Essentially it is based on a few basic things. For example:

    1. We’ve warmed by about 0.6C since 1950.

    2. The change in anthropogenic forcing since 1950 is about 1.7W/m^2.

    3. The current planetary energy imbalance is around 0.5W/m^2.

    4. The Planck response is about 3.2W/m^2/K.

    There are uncertainties associated with the above numbers, so we could include those if you really want to, but do you accept the above as roughly what the evidence indicates? If you do, then we could try to demonstrate why it’s very difficult for more than 50% of the observed warming since 1950 to be non-anthropogenic. If you don’t, maybe you could explain why.

    Like

  3. Tom, I know you don’t dispute the attribution statement. I don’t dispute it. I’m just not convinced by it and I’ve never seen a convincing argument for accepting it, Maybe now will be the time.

    Like

  4. Alternative title:

    Sock Throws Down Gauntlet

    Some idiot at Deltoid once accused me of being a sock, so I said, “at least I’m not a toe-rag.”

    Like

  5. Look, we sock puppets have had it up to here with sock – person attack.
    We sock puppets are starting a campaign. If LBGT’s can do it, why not us
    sockies. We’ll be demanding constraints on hate speech and parity, or more,
    for all SPGA’s. (Sock Puppets Gender Unspecified.) with all you non-sock
    hetero’s and non-heteros.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Pseudonyms are unfairly being maligned for the activities of sockies. Make sockies wear appropriate ideograms (Unteremoji) and forever confine them to cyber ghettos. Start with BeththeSerf, a cyber entity dripping with oil money if ever I’ve seen one.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Ken
    Your explanation still does not explain 1910-45 warming, which is what Jaime seems to be having as the main point of his argument. Why did that earlier warming occur, which is comparable magnitude to the post 1980 warming, when CO2 is the cause of one but not the other?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Why did that earlier warming occur, which is comparable magnitude to the post 1980 warming, when CO2 is the cause of one but not the other?

    It’s not really comparable in magnitude. The 1910-1940 warming is 0.2-0.3C. The post 1980 warming is more like 0.5C. Also between 1910 and 1940 the net change in external forcing (CO2, solar, …) was a few tenths of a W/m^2. A basic estimate of what sort of warming this should have produced is probably something like 0.1-0.2C, so maybe a bit smaller than was observed, but we don’t expect an exact correlation between external forcings and surface warming on decadal scales. The 1910-1940 warming doesn’t really particularly challenge our understanding of how CO2 acts to warm the planet.

    Like

  9. Well, I sent the link to Tobis on Twitter but he’s apparently complaining about me not having a Facebook Page which shows I’m human now. . . . . .

    Like

  10. BETHTHESERF wrote:
    “We’ll be demanding constraints on hate speech and parity, or more, for all SPGA’s. (Sock Puppets Gender Unspecified.)”

    Would that be Sock Puppets Gender Assigned or SPGUs?

    Liked by 1 person

  11. ATTP: “It’s not really comparable in magnitude.”

    Well physical climate is not my bag but that is not what I recalled from seeing these temps endlessly displayed at climate blogs. So a brief check shows for the two rise periods:
    BEST, extremely comparable, essentially the same by eye:
    http://berkeleyearth.org/land-and-ocean-data/
    HadCrut4, pretty comparable:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html
    GISS, not as comparable, but still about 0.45C by eye for the first period, not ‘0.2-0.3C’
    There is essentially no ‘pause’ structure visible in GISS, which makes even a long multi-year average look to be continuously rising in the second period, unlike the other sources. From memory, NCDC is about the same as HadCrut regarding the two rise periods.

    I have no idea about the relative merit or otherwise about these sources and various others that folks argue about constantly. But by sheer volume or even by picking the nearest alignment, right now I can’t see how that statement may be validated.

    Like

  12. Andy,
    I think you’ve included the 1940s (I stopped at 1940). However, even if you do include the 1940s (1910 – 1950) then I get trends of 0.11K/dec (GISS), 0.134K/dec (Berkeley), and 0.12K/dec. If you consider 1980-now, then I get 0.173K/dec (GISS), 0.188K/dec (Berkeley), and 0.175K/dec. So, the period 1980-now is warming faster (and has warmed more) than the period 1910-~1950. Also, if you consider the change in external forcings over that earlier period, it can explain most of the observed warming. Maybe not all of it, but we don’t really expect surface warming to be exactly correlated with external forcings.

    Like

  13. Andywest2012. I used to challenge undergraduates to identify which of the two temperature rising segments (cut from the complete curve and positioned alongside each other) formed during a time of rising CO2. You can guess the result Ken.*

    * the brightest did it by identifying the “pause” at the end of one of the curves.

    Like

  14. So a brief check shows for the two rise periods:
    BEST, extremely comparable, essentially the same by eye:

    Yes.

    ATTP arguing 1910-1950? That’s drawing a linear trend across and beyond a sinusoidal peak.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Warmies *never* *ever* compare like with like. Compare 1910-1940 to 1979 – 1998. These are periods which show a monotonous temperature rise. 1979, or 1980-to-present is meaningless because there are essentially two segments with different rates of rise within the period.

    If you try to explain this basic fact, they will never accept the logic and you would go round and round in circles. Time-wasters.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. ATTP: Stopping in 1940 doesn’t yield anything close to 0.3C on these series, let alone 0.2C. Eyeball says first period monotonic rise starts around 1909 and ends around 1944 on all (notwithstanding the smoothings are different, so a rough and ready comparison). Thus stopping at either 1940 or 1950 is not appropriate, though a minor difference. For sure there’s more warming / higher gradient on the second rise period than the first. E.g. on the latter metric, averaging your 3 rate comparisons gives about 48% increase. So the first period rate is 2/3 of the second period rate. This is of ‘comparable magnitude’. All the arguments about current / past GST based on the various time series products are just an endless tug of war on an icon of the calamitous climate narrative. None of the many proffered interpretations provide credible back-up of this Western authority narrative, which has for so long trumpeted a certainty of imminent (decades) climate catastrophe (and dominates the action). Or indeed any certainty of no -ve ACO2 impact. But if one is going to argue, the text should at least match the pictures.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. ATTP says @ 22 Aug 17 at 9:50 am

    It’s not really comparable in magnitude. The 1910-1940 warming is 0.2-0.3C. The post 1980 warming is more like 0.5C.

    Looks pretty comparable to me.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Back to Tobis, for a minute. Isn’t that the guy who claimed his intellectual prowess was demonstrated by the length of his bookcase.

    — Slop

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Jaime ends her piece

    So here’s the deal: Michael Tobis convinces me, on here, that the IPCC attribution statement is scientifically sound and it is beyond reasonable doubt that more than half of the warming post 1950 is indeed caused by emissions, and I will post a photo verifying my actual existence as a real person.

    But the IPCC’s statement is not scientifically sound. It is a based on Bayesian Estimates. The essence of the method is in my opinion from the following quote.

    “Here is my more general statement of that principle: The plausibility of your belief depends on the degree to which your belief–and only your belief–explains the evidence for it. The more alternative explanations there are for the evidence, the less plausible your belief is. That, to me, is the essence of Bayes’ theorem.

    If the community of believers does not refine the belief estimates in the face of new evidence, or reduce their belief due to lack of evidence, then it becomes meaningless. If Jaime is wanting the IPCC’s evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that over 50% of the warming is caused by emissions, even well-maintained Bayesian estimates could be dismissed as conjecture. However, key to the amount of warming that will eventually result from a given rise in greenhouse levels, is the climate sensitivity estimate. This extract from the 1979 Charney Report.

    This very broad estimate has remained largely unaltered through all five IPCC climate assessment reports. In a criminal court, if it was used as the key piece of evidence in a by the prosecution in a trial, with that track record, a good defense barrister would have it ruled inadmissable. If admitted the case would soon fall apart when the expert IPCC witnesses started waffling about reasons for the rate of temperature rise slowing down or stopping post 2000, despite the emissions increasing at a much greater rate. After all if natural unknown or random variation is used to explain the pause, it can equally be used to explain most of the late twentieth-century warming.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. But the IPCC’s statement is not scientifically sound. It is a based on Bayesian Estimates.

    No, the IPCC’s attribution statement is not Bayesian. It’s a frequentist hypothesis test. It’s testing the hypothesis that more than 50% of the observed warming since 1950 could be non-anthropogenic and rejecting that at the 95% level (i.e., it is extremely unlikely). See Chapter 10, page 878.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Tiny,

    “It’s ok, warmists are going to stop trying to explain CAGW”

    As well they should. You can’t ‘explain’ something that’s never occurred.

    One is reminded of my upcoming prequel to The Dark Future of the Climate Debate, where I ridicule the theory of climate skepticism (and the climate skepticists who so disproportionately espouse it):

    “Climate skepticism fails because it can’t explain any of the impacts scientists are fearing. If advocates of the theory want any credibility, they need to show that skepticism does a better job than science of accounting for the observed phenomena: like the fact that climate change is expected to be the greatest enemy of equality since sexual dimorphism. Don’t hold your breath though—skepticism can’t even tell us why there were 50 million climate refugees in 2010 according to the United Nations’ 2005 estimates, so it’s hardly about to explain the *future* any time soon.

    “And remember, the burden of evidence in science is NOT symmetrical. If a vanishing handful of legitimate scientists want to vocally promote denialism, they have to prove they’re right—it’s not up to believers (as opponents of the rejectionist theory are known) to prove disbelievalism wrong.”

    Liked by 3 people

  22. MBC,

    But the IPCC’s statement is not scientifically sound.

    What puzzles me is that so many skeptics continue to waste time reading anything published by the IPCC. Said politicoscientific panel *advertises* the scientific worthlessness of literally every letter they type by insisting, up front, that they *carry out no research.*

    Why anybody would expect anything of the slightest value to emerge from a non-research process that (additionally? therefore? a fortiori?) bears no resemblance to the (a?) scientific method is beyond me.

    Like

  23. Sorry. On further reflection, given the IPCC’s unveiled alarmist bias, I can see the utility in familiarizing oneself with its public positions, if only as a weapon to embarrass ostensibly IPCC-worshipping alarmists for out-alarmizing the IPCC with their own hysterical non-science. So if anyone is masochistic enough to read the SPMs and even (shudder) the “underlying science” of WG1 etc., I salute their sacrifice.

    Like

  24. Brad review or compilation studies are perhaps some of the most valuable and commonly cited of research papers. Not only do such efforts assemble material from many different sources, perhaps written in many different languages, but during the compilation new links are made, new ideas forged. Both sceptics and believers quote from the technical parts of the IPCC because these are the repositories of data as well as synthesis and opinion.
    It is blatantly untrue that no research is done. I say this as someone who has written review papers and as an observer of CRU as the deadlines for IPPC reports approached. In addition to this, often there is a mad scramble to get material published in journals so that it can be incorporated into the reports. In earlier reports essential material was not published in time and rules were broken. Surprise!

    Like

  25. Please, please, could you remove that picture of Mr Gore from your masthead. It frightens my grandchildren and makes me ill when I visit your excellent site.
    Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Ken
    You wrote “It’s not really comparable in magnitude. The 1910-1940 warming is 0.2-0.3C. “. Then you posted a graph with Had Cru and GIS Temp showing on them. They show the temperature rise as just over 0.4°C which is about the same as that for 1980- 2010. Are you getting confused again?

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Beth. We singers beneath bridges are unjustly maligned as well, and we challenge gruff bullies. Alas no oil money.

    Liked by 3 people

  28. Look folks, if I WAS a gender-challenged, Replicant sockie for Big Oil, say Exxon-Mobil, not only would I be, according to Ms bright spark anti-conspiracist Oreskes, a Denier, but I would also be an English language denier. For who but such an entity would have the temerity and the bare-faced knee-jerk anti-realism to deny that anthropogenic global warming is human-caused?

    “Available documents show a discrepancy between what ExxonMobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change privately and in academic circles and what it presented to the general public. The company’s peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal communications consistently tracked evolving climate science: broadly acknowledging that AGW is real, human-caused, serious, and solvable, while identifying reasonable uncertainties that most climate scientists readily acknowledged at that time. In contrast, ExxonMobil’s advertorials in the NYT overwhelmingly emphasized only the uncertainties, promoting a narrative inconsistent with the views of most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil’s own. This is characteristic of what Freudenberg et al term the Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method (SCAM)—a tactic for undermining public understanding of scientific knowledge [57, 58].

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f

    Liked by 3 people

  29. jaime all I can say is,
    ‘Wage, wage war against
    the lyng and the fright.’*

    A serf, er, sock puppet.

    *H/t kim -non-pareil @ ClimateEtc.

    Like

  30. Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night”
    By Dylan Thomas

    Do not go gentle into that good night,
    Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
    Because their words had forked no lightning they
    Do not go gentle into that good night.

    Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
    Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
    And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
    Do not go gentle into that good night.

    Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
    Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    And you, my father, there on the sad height,
    Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Like

  31. Dr Slop, wow am I intelligent then. My bookcase is massive and doesn’t fit in just one room.

    Brad, Al wasn’t cherry picking he was scissor lifting. Entirely different and you’d admit it if your weren’t a filthy denier.

    Wage, wage, when will this oil wage I’m promised come in sight?

    I can never work out why warmists prefer to believe in oil companies fruitlessly pretending to be bloggers and commenters, instead of ornery members of the public who have a problem with some or alls parts of the climate band wagon. I suppose some money makes its way to the odd site but not a fraction that gets to warmist scientists. I’ve always thought that corporate PR funding of non related areas was largely a waste of time. A bit like international aid. They’ll take the money and still despise you.

    Liked by 3 people

  32. Alan,

    It is blatantly untrue that no research is done [by the IPCC]

    Hmmm. Whom to believe, you or Chairman Rajendra “We conduct no research of our own” Pachauri, that paragon of probity and postcocious priapism?

    Like

  33. Alan,

    review papers are one thing—indeed, metaanalysis and even systematic review (provided ante-hoc principles are adhered to and sources triaged on the basis of significance and validity, NOT the political utility of their results) might well be said to be outgrowths or examples of the scientific method itself.*

    The tropico-political method is…. another thing.

    IPCC “summaries” might carry more (i.e. some) weight with me if they weren’t subject to line-by-line veto by political attachés.

    The only non-scientists (and non-statisticians) in the room should be serving coffee. For the duration, government activists, Vatican nuncii and scientifically-illiterate Bob Wards should be kept not just out of the process but preferably out of the entire tropical resort.
    ________
    *And ipso facto acts of research, FWIW.

    Like

  34. More appropriate would be “We collect no data of our own”. We get others to pay for it.

    Am I right in thinking that only the “summary for policy makers” gets the line by line treatment?

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Alan,

    In earlier reports essential material was not published in time and rules were broken. Surprise!

    What would surprise me is if the deadlines were relaxed for material that didn’t advance the message. Would I be right in suspecting “useful” material was granted more leeway than, say, inconvenient studies?

    Like

  36. Alan,

    “Am I right in thinking that only the “summary for policy makers” gets the line by line treatment?”

    AFAIK, yes—which would make sense. Why waste power corrupting reports nobody is going to read?

    Until I hear otherwise, I plan to stand by the historical record I researched summarized synthesized compiled:

    1988: IPCC created

    The Panel’s function is to periodically provide a big room—ideally in a hotel or resort—where Policy gets a unique chance to tell Science what to tell Policy to do, in a policy-neutral way.

    IPCC estimates of certainty, confidence and risk will be determined subjectively, using NASA’s 1986 wisdom-of-crowds system—the same technology that put our Challenger astronauts in space.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Brad, it’s part of the difference between warmists and sceptics that we’re in favour of ALL NGOs and hangers on being excluded but warmists only want industry kicked out.

    Like

  38. Alan,

    More appropriate would be “We collect no data of our own”.

    Fair enough. And you hardly need to be a 29-year-old female TERI employee to know that “Pachauri” and “appropriate” don’t belong in the same sentence.

    I also seem to remember him saying “the IPCC doesn’t cite grey literature.” More appropriate might be something like, “the IPCC does cite grey literature.”

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Tiny,

    Lest we forget, industry is the antonym of one of the Seven Deadly Sins—a word describing the intellectual failing of most climate dysangelists.

    Like

  40. Brad. Pachauri should have been a self inflicted disaster for the IPPC. The fact that it wasn’t is a great puzzlement.

    Like

  41. What do I have to do to get someone to check out CN’s tagline? Write a fresh post? Seriously? I could have sworn I updated the blog just the other year.

    Like

  42. Alan,

    you say the serial liar, eco-hysteric and skeptic-smeller pursuivant Rajendra Pachauri “should have been a self inflicted disaster for the IPPC.”

    Why?? He was a serial liar, eco-hysteric and skeptic-smeller pursuivant.

    I wasn’t remotely surprised that they waived the term limits to keep someone with those qualities at the helm as long as they could.

    Your “puzzlement” should be a signal to revise your theory of the world.

    Unless, of course, there’s some facetiousness I’m missing. In which case I remind everybody, AGAIN, of my difficulty understanding humor and ask you all, AGAIN, to please keep jokes away from the climate debate at all times. Global warming is no larfing matter.

    Like

  43. Pachauri. Now there was a puppet (whether or not of the sock variety) if ever there was one. The puppet masters (probably Russians working for Big Oil) hacked into his HANDS, dammit. Made them do all sorts of lewd things.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Pachauri – just what the climate debate needed – a lecherous railway engineer with a deep knowledge of glaciers (and a Nobel Laureate to boot).

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Jaime,

    Bear in mind that William Connolley, Naomi Oreskes and other great minds (by believalist standards anyway) believe, honest-to-god, that Patchy was a Bush stooge. In an episode of what The Stoat calls “idiot cunning”, Sanjay was supposedly “deliberately appointed by Bush to be an unsuccessful Chair.”

    It must have taken superhuman self-control for Connolley to resist blowing the lid on this multinational conspiracy practical joke until after Pachauri had been kicked out for being a plant deliberately appointed by Bush to be an unsuccessful Chair textual predator.

    And to think, it only took The World’s 2500 Most Intelligent Scientists thirteen years to work out what a rodent-themed blogger knew all along: that they were being undermined… from the top down!

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Jaime,

    by the way, great find on the “AGW…. is man-made, says science!!” quote (to misquote slightly).

    Only Naomi Oreskes—the bimbo who wasted a whole ‘scientific paper’ figuring out whether most scientists agreed with the scientific consensus or not—could fail to notice the inanity of such a revelation.

    Like

  47. My commiseratations Brad. To have to admit – “AGAIN, of my difficulty understanding humor* and ask you all, AGAIN, to please keep jokes away from the climate debate at all times. Global warming is no larfing matter.” The humour within sceptic blogs was best summed up by Dung in March 2016 over at Bishop Hill when reacting to several hilarious attempts to describe sigmoidal fractures Blue Peter style

    “I swear we get more laughs than the other lot ^.^

    Long may it continue.

    * or spelling it.

    Like

  48. Jaime “Now there was a puppet (whether or not of the sock variety).”

    Somebody clearly didn’t get the memo about washing socks before making puppets because he was distinctly stinky in the personality department.

    Liked by 1 person

  49. As I wrote – yawn! Round here bud, it would have to be “the lying of the left”. Are you a pinko by any chance?

    Liked by 1 person

  50. Shub, besides harassing colleagues by text and email, Pachauri was accused of physically molesting young female employees. So in addition to hacking his phone and computer, some Russian genius must have hacked into his motor neurones too. Scary.

    Liked by 1 person

  51. TinyCO2 for the win!

    “Shub, a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing?”

    No doubt Michael Gazzaniga is working towards a second Nobel by asking precisely that question.

    Like

  52. Jaime, Brad, don’t give Patchi ideas. Next he’ll claim that he’s the first case of mind hacking. The sort of thing that could only be financed by Big Oil. Thus proving that oil money has been spent trying to deceive the public over CO2.

    Like

  53. Pachauri is a reincarnated Rasputin, just compare the hirsuteness. It’s TERIfying.

    Like

  54. That’s both funny and weird Alan because I’d had the same thought. Although I wasn’t smart enough to come up with ‘TERIfying’.

    Like

  55. There is nothing new under the dome.

    “Sunny—not her real name—still remembers the thrill of getting a phone call from the so-called Rasputin of climate change, the charismatic and indefatigable economist who chaired the United Nations’ IPCC in his spare time.”

    Like

  56. Ah, but is he Rasputin like because he’s charismatic or because he’s hard to get rid of even when his spell wears off?

    Liked by 1 person

  57. I understand that Mystic Raj employed the source of the false predictions about survivability of Himalayan glaciers to be TERI’s glacier expert. That’s what I call dissing the science!

    Liked by 1 person

  58. Four days on, and Tobis still hasn’t even attempted to rise to the challenge. All we’ve had is an untrue claim from Wotts Left of Kenny.

    I’ve seen some odd behaviour by climate scientists but this is one of the most bizarre yet. I’ve just had a look at his Aug 14 post. He starts off badly by describing himself as clever. He then writes
    “We have to explain, patiently, and forthrightly, at every level of sophistication we can muster, targeted to every audience that expresses an interest.”
    Precisely what he has been asked to do here, and not even tried.

    He then says that Jaime has ‘ticked me off no end’ and ‘has me mad’. Perhaps that’s what set him off on his irrational outburst. There seems to be a bit of sexism in there too. He can’t seem to bear getting his butt kicked on twitter by ‘an attractive young woman who loves animals’.

    Liked by 3 people

  59. I had occasion to briefly visit the very different world that Tobis and his acolyte Ban inhabits. They have a diagram, which perhaps many of you know already but which was news to me, that supposedly shows what the popular media cover re climate change stories.

    – all the “right wing” sceptical “think tank” views (slight harm to benefit) and the most moderate of believer belief are shown only being seen in the media. The IPPC position is shown at the extreme edge of what gets reported. According to this diagram extreme catastrophist stories go unreported.

    My view is that extreme catastrophic stories are prominently represented, whereas minimal (or even beneficial views scarcely get a look in.

    Doesn’t Tobis listen to the BBC or read newspapers? Bet he’s a Guardian reader (like me) too.

    Like

  60. Alan Kendall: ‘My view is that extreme catastrophic stories are prominently represented, whereas minimal (or even beneficial views scarcely get a look in’

    Indeed. Because as even Lewandowsky acknowledges, for instance when talking about the spread of emotive misinformation in ‘Misinformation and Its Correction; Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing’ Sept 2012, emotional response is rewarded more than veracity: “But we have also noted that the likelihood that people will pass on information is based strongly on the likelihood of its eliciting an emotional response in the recipient, rather than its truth value (e.g., K. Peters et al., 2009)”. Hence the powerful emotional coupling of fear with hope (i.e. of solutions that may bring a salvation from apocalypse) in climate calamitous messaging, easily outbids veracity, as is typically the case when uncertainty is high and likewise social impact (or merely perceived social impact).

    This is due to long evolved social behavior, and is more important than one might think as it is a main driver of emergent social structure, such as in-group / out-group recognition, ‘moral’ compass and consensus policing. Religions are the classic case. The resultant structure operates in a way that tends to preserve the uncertainty that birthed and nourishes it, usually via the dominance of a false and socially enforced masking ‘certainty’, which strongly discourages people from exposing (or even investigating the possibilities of) the true uncertainties beneath, which in turn mean these are never understood, and so are never reduced either. This is probably why the possibility range on climate sensitivity as expressed by mainstream science appears not to have meaningfully reduced in thirty years. While the emotive effects are statistical across a population depending on the cultural value alignments of individuals, as Lewandowsky also reminds us, scientists are no less subject to these effects than others: “Nonetheless, being human, scientists’ operate with the same cognitive apparatus and limitations as every other person.” (Executive summary of ‘Seepage’ paper).

    The false certainty in this case is that of imminent (decades) climate catastrophe, as transmitted by virtually the entire Western authority matrix (until the Trump administration). Hence the dominance of the messaging you note. Veracity here would be an acknowledgement that science (even the orthodox, let alone anything lukewarm or skeptical), does not underpin a certainty of catastrophe, which would give appropriate air to a range of other possibilities, not to mention unshackling the actual scientific investigation from a huge dead weight of bias. Yet while the catastrophe messaging continues to proliferate, it is not easy to break into the vicious circle.

    Like

  61. There are sentences here that are extremely hard to disentangle :

    “Veracity here would be an acknowledgement that science (even the orthodox, let alone anything lukewarm or skeptical), does not underpin a certainty of catastrophe, which would give appropriate air to a range of other possibilities, not to mention unshackling the actual scientific investigation from a huge dead weight of bias.”

    So scientists believe that there might not be any catastrophe

    Like

  62. The interest thing for me is that, as I cruise gaily round sceptic sites, the dread figure of Stephen Mosher sometimes rears up to crush dissent in an amusingly non-intellectual way… Is it deliberate, post ironic or what? Maybe Ken can help us

    Like

  63. Man in a barrel: ‘So scientists believe that there might not be any catastrophe’

    Yes. While only an objective survey (v difficult!) would prove this, it is highly likely that even most orthodox climate scientists do not believe in a *certainty* of imminent (decades) catastrophe, i.e absent dramatic emissions reduction. For instance no such certainty is reflected in the IPCC AR5 technical papers. But neither do they typically speak out against the overwhelming authority narrative of certainty of climate catastrophe (which is often cast in lurid terms), despite this is promoted in their name. Their silence is a big factor in letting that narrative proliferate. But cultures create strong social and moral gradients against criticism, and climate culture is no exception. Even those who are more consciously aware of the contradiction and the need to speak out, are not likely to embrace the prospect of doing so. Because science is cellular, many scientists outside of core climate science yet in related disciplines do not have an intimate enough knowledge to question that core, hence they may be more biased towards high probability of disaster, and so on as one moves further out. Plus emotive bias leads to a lack of the right sort of questions. See:

    https://cliscep.com/2017/08/16/actual-climate-scientist-michael-tobis-thinks-i-dont-exist/#comment-15528

    It is a contradiction, a conflict of belief and experience, but all emergent cultural consensuses create these.

    Liked by 2 people

  64. Paul, thanks for your comments here and ‘In it for the Gold’. The whole ‘incident’ has been quite surreal from the word go really. Tobis continues to come out with some truly bizarre comments on Twitter. Who’d have thought just one tweet could result in such a monumental triggering? After unsuccessfully trying to get us all to believe that the 1910-40s warming was not comparable with 1977-98, Wotts Left of Kenny (lol) changed tactics and went for the health warning on Twitter which went something like ‘Caution: that thread contains commenters who ignored one person’s comment that Oreskes is a Bimbo’. Tobis apparently sucked it up.

    Liked by 1 person

  65. ‘Cherry picking’ is pointing to a period of rapid warming in the early 20th century which is very similar to the ‘anthropogenic’ global warming 1977-98? Does anybody know what Len’s going on about? Does Len know what Len’s going on about? Answers on the back of a postage stamp please.

    Like

  66. Len as a great connoisseur of cherry picking, perhaps you might wish to briefly test your cultured palette to the graph linking CO2 with temperature issued belatedly by Santer et al., 1996 to prop up the otherwise unsupported claims of the Second IPPC Assessment (“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate). Michaels and Knappenberger 1996, to my way of thinking, essentially demolished this a few months later as a case of giant cherry picking. Without any real or believable evidence, in “normal” science the whole pile of claptrap would have been shown the door and we could have concentrated on more pressing matters.

    The IPPC is cherry picking central.

    Like

  67. Jaime. The thought of Tobis sucking up anything of Oreskes has quite put me off my lunch. Try to be more careful, please.

    Liked by 1 person

  68. Another way skeptics like to “cherry pick” is by focusing on total sea ice in a deliberate strategy to detract [sic] from the fact that the North Pole is “melting… dramatically,” in the words of all but a tiny, disproportionately-vocal minority of ecosystem obituarists.

    Like

  69. A couple of comments.

    1. On decadal timescales, it is quite possible for internal variability to drive warming, or cooling (see, for example, Palmer and McNeall 2014). We would expect, however, this to average out on longer timescales. Therefore the existence of an earlier period that showed comparable warming to today does not necessarily challenge the fundamentals of AGW.

    2. If you consider the period from about 1910 to about 1940, the warming was about 2/3 that of a comparable period starting in around 1980. Bear in mind, however, that Karsten Haustein has suggested that there are potential data issues with the early 1940s temperature data.

    3. If you consider the period from about 1910 to about 1940, the net change in external forcing was probably a few tenths of a Watt per square metre (a combination of anthropogenic emissions and solar). This is about half that of a comparable period starting in about 1980. Hence, the warming was maybe 2/3 that of the more recent period and the change in external forcing was about half that of the more recent period. Therefore, you can explain most (but maybe not all) of that earlier warming as externally forced.

    4. In my view, calling a female academic (in fact anyone) a “bimbo” is rather unpleasant.

    Like

  70. A FEW (not couple of) responses
    1. “On decadal timescales, it is quite possible for internal variability to drive warming, or cooling (see, for example, Palmer and McNeall 2014). We would expect, however, this to average out on longer timescales. Therefore the existence of an earlier period that showed comparable warming to today does not necessarily challenge the fundamentals of AGW.”
    Oh but it does, there are only a few decades of warming when humans were putting out large volumes of CO2. If these now could be caused by internal variability, then you have no evidence for AGW, nothing, nada, zilch.

    2. “If you consider the period from about 1910 to about 1940, the warming was about 2/3 that of a comparable period starting in around 1980. Bear in mind, however, that Karsten Haustein has suggested that there are potential data issues with the early 1940s temperature data.”
    Many consider that there are potential data issues with ALL global temperatures.

    3. “If you consider the period from about 1910 to about 1940, the net change in external forcing was probably a few tenths of a Watt per square metre (a combination of anthropogenic emissions and solar). This is about half that of a comparable period starting in about 1980. Hence, the warming was maybe 2/3 that of the more recent period and the change in external forcing was about half that of the more recent period. Therefore, you can explain most (but maybe not all) of that earlier warming as externally forced”.
    How to confuse. Discuss comparable temperature rises, start to lose argument, shift to forcing, a tenuous concept at best, especially when cause and effect get mixed up.

    4. “In my view, calling a female academic (in fact anyone) a “bimbo” is rather unpleasant.”
    Agreed, but first hand experience?

    Like

  71. As I pointed out the other day, it only takes application of a little filter to see what a giant cherry you picked with 1910-40. If all that matters to you is the science, I’d expect you to be embarrassed by this.

    Like

  72. And Then There’s Pseudoscience,

    In my view, calling a female academic (in fact anyone) a “bimbo” is rather unpleasant.

    Er, yes Kenneth, it was meant to be. (By god, I think you’re getting the hang of this English thing!)

    By the way, in my less whiny, more interesting view, employing a bimbo as a female academic is rather unpleasant.

    Not to mention demoralizing (to the countless non-bimbonic educatrixes out there, who have to contend with the Condescension Ceiling every day thanks to anencephalic gorgons taking up prime Professorial real estate).

    Sorry, I mean gorga.

    In summation, this is why the “view” (or should I say The View) you emote has zero value.

    Like

  73. ATTP 22nd AUG: “It’s not really comparable in magnitude. The 1910-1940 warming is…”

    ATTP 26th AUG: “…the existence of an earlier period that showed comparable warming to today…”

    This correction is appreciated. It enables discussion of actual comparison scenarios / details.

    ATTP: “the existence of an earlier period that showed comparable warming to today does not necessarily challenge the fundamentals of AGW.”

    Indeed not necessarily. But considering the oft-expressed claim of high confidence from orthodox AGW theory (as opposed to say Luke-warmer AGW theory), in strong (indeed dominant) A warming for the second period, it needs a very clear and well expressed case backed by very robust data sources to justify that high confidence. A case that specifically goes to town on direct comparison of these two periods, detailing all the similarities and differences with well-bounded magnitudes of the various contributory factors. Especially considering that the IPCC considers ACO2 to be significant only after 1950, i.e. after the earlier comparable period already ended. So the skeptics are saying I guess that a case at such a high confidence level doesn’t exist. The claim after all is not that there ‘just might’ be dominant AGW, but that it is ‘extremely likely’, or whatever phrase IPCC use for their high confidence definition. So I guess pointing them at a detailed and highly robust comparison of these two periods, with an orthodox conclusion, would be the way to go.

    Liked by 1 person

  74. Andy,

    This correction is appreciated. It enables discussion of actual comparison scenarios / details.

    My view hasn’t changed much since I posted this comment. The earlier warming seems to be about 2/3 that of a comparable period starting around 1980. If you want to regard that as comparable, that’s fine with me.

    A warming for the second period, it needs a very clear and well expressed case backed by very robust data sources to justify that high confidence.

    This is only blog comments, but if you consider how much we have warmed, the changes in external forcings, the likely feedbacks, and that we still appear to have (based on suitably averaged ocean heat content) a positive planetary energy imbalance (i.e., we’re still accruing energy) then it is very difficult to explain that in any other way than as predominantly due to anthropogenic influences.

    Especially considering that the IPCC considers ACO2 to be significant only after 1950, i.e. after the earlier comparable period already ended.

    I don’t think that is quite true. I think that this is simply a period over which they can make a strong statement – there is sufficient information to do the analysis. Also, the prior warming was probably also quite strongly influenced by solar forcing, so we wouldn’t necessarily expect the anthropogenic influences to dominate during the earlier period. That doesn’t, however, mean that external influences weren’t a dominant influence.

    Liked by 1 person

  75. Wotts Left of Pseudoscience,

    I hope that when you bitch genderlessnonhumananimal…

    In my view, calling a female academic (in fact anyone) a “bimbo” is rather unpleasant.

    …you’re not disputing the idea of Oreskeses’s stunningness’ rivalling Medusa’s herself’s, are you?

    If you do a Ctrl-F on “Naomi” on this webpage, for instance, you’ll see multiple opinions all substantially agreeing with mine, and all pointing to the same overwhelming conclusion: that God threw away the mold when he made her.

    So if you’re refusing to accept that she’s an extraordinary-looking woman, then I’m afraid you rule yourself out of rational discussion (as well as calling into question your red-bloodedness as a male).

    Perhaps what you’re getting at, then, is simply that Oreskes’ off-the-normal-curve sex appeal should never have been introduced as a weapon in the imaginary science debate we’re not having in the first place, or something like that.

    You might have a point.

    Like

  76. Brad. First it’s Jaime putting me off my lunch, now it’s you with your oh so sexy Oreskian pictures putting me my tea. I’m beginning to imagine that cliscep is in league with my doctor to improve m diet. I dread dinner time.

    Like

  77. ATTP: “The earlier warming seems to be about 2/3 that of a comparable period starting around 1980. If you want to regard that as comparable, that’s fine with me.”

    Surely it would be scientifically irresponsible to regard it as anything else? The comparison must be made in detail, even if indeed you have personally seen it made very robustly in favor of the consensus position.

    “… the likely feedbacks…”
    “…still appear to have…”
    “…the prior warming was probably also quite strongly influenced by…”

    likely / appear / probably? While the authority narrative of a certainty of imminent catastrophe is not underwritten by even the orthodox science, one expects at least that the GST characteristics can be explained to the ‘extremely likely’ category, as claimed.

    “This is only blog comments…”

    Indeed. So point our intrepid skeptics here to a direct and robust scientific comparison of these two periods, which for better or worse they can pore over. If you don’t know of one, how do you know the direct comparison would come out with the direction and confidence you expect?

    Like

  78. Andy,

    While the authority narrative of a certainty of imminent catastrophe is not underwritten by even the orthodox science

    From what I’ve seen, it isn’t, so not quite sure what this has to do with this discussion. I certainly don’t think that catastrophe is certain or imminent.

    So point our intrepid skeptics here to a direct and robust scientific comparison of these two periods, which for better or worse they can pore over.

    If I get a chance, I will see what I can find. However, I would hope that these supposedly intrepid skeptics can use google just as easily as I can.

    If you don’t know of one, how do you know the direct comparison would come out with the direction and confidence you expect?

    I’ve no idea what direction and confidence you think I’m expecting.

    Like

  79. ATTP:”From what I’ve seen, it isn’t, so not quite sure what this has to do with this discussion. I certainly don’t think that catastrophe is certain or imminent.”

    Sorry, albeit not making it explicit, I was referring to this response for you of a few days ago:

    https://cliscep.com/2017/08/16/actual-climate-scientist-michael-tobis-thinks-i-dont-exist/#comment-15528

    “If I get a chance, I will see what I can find.”

    Thank you.

    “I’ve no idea what direction and confidence you think I’m expecting.”

    You expressed these expectations above, when you said that the earlier period should not be a particular challenge to AGW. Assuming that you haven’t evolved into a Luke-warmer and hence mean the orthodox flavor of AGW, that sets an expectation of a very high confidence of ‘A’ dominance in the second period.

    Like

  80. This simple energy balance approach to identifying the causes of surface warming I find is not very convincing. The ocean-atmosphere coupled system is very complex. Cause and effect do not necessarily operate instantaneously or directly. The system dynamics are governed and mediated via internal modes of variability (resonances, if you like) which, though ‘hard wired’ into the machine, nevertheless respond slightly differently according to the nature of any external forcing. Thus it is that you can’t just say well, TSI was varying by such and such amount during this period, therefore radiative forcing amounted to this, therefore temps should have risen by this amount. You have to look at the relative phases of the main internal modes of variability (AMO and PDO) to see what they were doing at the time. It is a fact that, during the 1910-1940s warming, AMO and PDO were rising in unison. It is also a fact that solar activity was increasing rapidly during that period. It is a fact that global temperatures shot up by 0.4C-0.5C and the Arctic warmed very rapidly, probably even more rapidly than it has done since 1979. It is a fact that CO2 radiative forcing could have only played a minor part in the early 20th century warming. So it looks like a combination of fortuitous ‘coincidence’ of positive phases of internal variability combined with external solar forcing explains most of the rapid warming at the time.

    What of the latter period – 1950 to present? it’s a mixed bag: cooling trend from 1945-1977, accelerated warming 1977-98, a ‘slowdown’ 1998-2013 and rapid warming 2014-16. IPCC says it’s extremely likely most of the net warming over that period was anthropogenic because they calculate a theoretical value for GHG radiative forcing and sum net internal variability to zero and assume that solar contribution was very minimal. Is this justified?

    Internal variability most definitely was not zero when global temperatures were most rapidly rising 1977-98. With regard to external forcing, it depends on what historical reconstruction of solar variability you are looking at. Is it any coincidence that SORCE reveals sv to be rapidly rising from 1900 to 1950, sharply falling during the 1960s/70s cooling, then picking up to a new high from 1980-2000, whereafter it declines considerably? Re. internal variability, is it any coincidence that the PDO switched to positive phase from 1976/77 (the Pacific Climate Shift) until the late 90s, oscillated between negative and positive phases up to about 2013/14, then went very strongly positive after that, in the years that have seen the Pacific ‘warm blob’ and the super El Nino 2014-16, which have contributed so much to the most recent ‘spurt’ in global warmth? Natural external and internal variability revealed to be in operation throughout the major period of late 20th century warming and oddly ‘coincident’ with the phased nature of that warming (and cooling, and slowing). Throughout the period, GHG forcing has risen inexorably and constantly, most definitely not in sync with the stuttering progress of warming. What to make of that?

    Like

  81. Also, AMO was increasing positive from 1977-2010, peaking in 1998 and tending to level out after that, exactly coincident with the fastest warming and the subsequent slowdown. Thus, as with the 1910-40s warming, PDO and AMO were in phase and increasing for the period 1977-98, during which the vast majority of the warming 1950-2010 occurred. But the IPCC say GHGs were responsible for almost all of this warming, certainly greater than 50%. However, both periods of rapid warming, early and late 20th century, are directly comparable, in terms of magnitude, rate and attributable natural causes. The only thing which separates them is that GHGs were rising rapidly throughout the later period.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFMosrsXUAANj5N.jpg:large

    Like

  82. I come from a financial background and am very used to reading climate alarmists disparaging economics…because climate science is so very different and strict and as rigorous as an illegal immigrant dominatrix etc, as we can tell from the interventions of people like Tobis, Oreskes, Lewandowsky and Ken.

    The fact that commentators on the alarmist side pretend that they are rabbits or stoats puzzles me but doesn’t worry me. Science and crackpots are attractors, like fracking and morons.

    So when Ken started talking about forcings being different between 1910-40 and 1980-2010, or whatever the years are, it intrigued me. Obviously he must be basing this on a dataset. A set of rigorously obtained measured results. Especially since he was talking in terms of watts per metre, and there are lots of metres where planet Earth is concerned.

    So what is this dataset, where is it measured and who maintains it?

    Google returns nothing, nada, niet.

    If I were as unkind and unmillennial as Brad, I would declare that Ken had dragged the numbers out of his didgeridoo, thereby invoking yet another sin of cultural appropriation.i
    I found this:

    http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/aviation/RF.html

    It seems that the forcing record is very short – maybe from the 1940s and yet our Ken – he is like Kenneth Horne, in so many ways- can opine definitely on the forcing record 30 years before it came into existence.

    maybe he is the Kenneth Williams of climate science – stop mucking about!

    Like

  83. 1910-1940, LOL again! Super cherry picking.
    But the science is what matters, eh Jaime?

    Like

  84. The worm’s turning:

    “Global and regional warming trends over the course of the twentieth century have been nonuniform, with decadal and longer periods of faster or slower warming, or even cooling. Here we show that state-of-the-art global models used to predict climate fail to adequately reproduce such multidecadal climate variations. In particular, the models underestimate the magnitude of the observed variability and misrepresent its spatial pattern. Therefore, our ability to interpret the observed climate change using these models is limited.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074016/full

    Like

  85. Jaime, if you’d explain why 1910-40 isn’t so obviously a cherry, I’d maybe believe that science is important to you. As it is, science or its language and terms appear just to be tools that can be picked up or discarded as your rhetorical task requires.

    Like

  86. Len, it is not a cherry pick to point out a piece of evidence that proposers of a theory have avoided or de-emphasized because it is difficult or impossible to explain using their theory. While some folks on both sides of the CC debate do indeed pick cherries, what’s happening here is not this, but a skeptic challenge / objection to the orthodox AGW side that they have cherry picked their way around this particular piece of evidence, which is an awkward piece for orthodox AGW. If that challenge is not justified, the AGW side will be able to provide a proper scientific comparison of the two periods showing that the ‘extremely likely’ conclusion of AGW is still true, i.e. as ATTP suggests, orthodox AGW theory is not really impacted by this comparison. OTOH if the AGW side can’t put up a scientific comparison of the two periods, which includes all the contributing factors for both periods that are sufficiently bounded (i.e. low enough error bars) to maintain the very high confidence claimed for their conclusion (which necessarily must support a different mix of factors for comparable rises within the two periods), then the challenge was indeed justified. Note that even if the challenge is justified, this does not necessarily mean that strong AGW isn’t happening, but it would mean that at the current state of knowledge there can’t after all be high confidence in that possibility.

    Liked by 1 person

  87. What would a naive look at an unlabeled chart of temperatures from 1880 to present actually result in?

    Similarly, what would a naive look at a chart from the MWP to present reveal? When would an intelligent, statistics-friendly person place the beginning of a definitive trend? When would they suspect a new factor had been introduced into the game? What strength would they assign to this new factor? What guesses would they make about the possible future trajectories of the signal?

    Would it not be ‘a slightly rising secular trend with an erratic sawtooth waveform lasting from decades eg 1910-1940) to centuries (MWP and LIA) superimposed upon it?’

    Like

  88. Tom. Wouldn’t our naive question whether the values on the chart actually mean anything reliable?

    Like

  89. That might be true, Andy, if the interval was the result of a statistical analysis of trends, but when it amounts to no more than picking juicy low and high points,… it is just cherry picking.

    Like

  90. Len, the early interval appears in all the various temp series. Unless one disbelieves these, then within the error bars, this interval actually occurred. It is comparable to the modern warming period, as can be seen from simple calculation of trend and size. This raises an obvious question. And no stats needed up to this point for that question to be valid. Explaining why a different mix of factors drove these two periods would I assume involve considerable stats regarding the various contributions, which a detailed comparison must supply. To not address the question, would be picking one’s way around the evidence.

    Like

  91. I find it quite amusing that advocates of AGW insist one must be trained in statistics in order to point out ‘significant’ trends in global temperature data, otherwise one is just ‘cherry picking’ the juicy bits (presumably with the scurrilous intention of trying to lessen the case for AGW). What I find absolutely hilarious is that this ‘cherry picking’ is deemed to be invalid even when there is hard physical, observable evidence that said significant trends have coincided with events ‘on the ground’ e.g. major Arctic warming culminating in the 1930s/40s, searingly hot summers in the 1930s in the US). The 1910s to 1940s rapid warming and the 1977-98 rapid warming and the slowdown 1998-2013 are real, physical happenings, whose signature is obvious (well, at least until climate scientists make it less obvious with their adjustments) in the various global mean temperature records, which are correlated with actual evidence of enhanced episodic warming and which – most inconveniently – are correlated with external and internal natural forcings. Your precious theory is questionable. Get over it.

    Having said all that, it’s not EVEN the case that advanced statistical analysis techniques do not also reveal (and more rigorously quantify) significant episodic/cyclic warming and cooling in the record, which is nevertheless visible to the untrained naked eye (see citation above for instance).

    Like

  92. Thanks ATTP for putting pointing me in the right direction. The relevant quote from AR5 WG1 Ch10, page 878, section “10.2.4 Single-Step and Multi-Step Attribution and the Role of the Null Hypothesis” is

    Attribution results are typically expressed in terms of conventional ‘frequentist’ confidence intervals or results of hypothesis tests: when it is reported that the response to anthropogenic GHG increase is very likely greater than half the total observed warming, it means that the null hypothesis that the GHG-induced warming is less than half the total can be rejected with the data available at the 10% significance level.

    It is a much more circumspect message than the “human influence on the climate system is clear” announcements of WG1 four years ago. In describing the process the report states of attribution studies, the section states

    Overall conclusions can only be as robust as the least certain link in the multi-step procedure.

    There are a number of candidates for “least certain linkin terms of empirical estimates. In general, if the estimates are made with reference to the other estimates, or biased by theory/beliefs, then the statistical test is invalidated. This includes the surface temperature data.
    Further, if the models have been optimised to fit the surface temperature data, then the >50% is an absolute maximum, whilst the real figure, based on perfect information, is likely to be less than that.
    Most of all are the possibilities of unknown unknowns. For, instance, the suggestion that non-human causes could explain pretty much all the post-1950 warming can be inferred from some paleoclimate studies.
    In the context of Jaime’s challenge, there is more than reasonable doubt in the IPCC attribution statement, even if a statistical confidence of 90% (GHG emissions) or 95% (all human causes) were acceptable as persuasive evidence.

    Like

  93. Hadcrut 3:

    You’re a lowdown, cherry-pickin’, sock-puppetin’, science denyin’ Big Oil back-hander receivin’ scoundrel if you so much as LOOK at this graph and point out the bleedin’ obvious.

    Same too with the GISP2 record if you dare to look at the whole thing and don’t just concentrate on the bit at the far right.

    Liked by 2 people

  94. Thanks Jaime for the climate4you graphs @ 28 Aug 17 at 9:54 am. They help substantiate my comments @ 28 Aug 17 at 9:22 am.
    The HADCRUT3 data set, when compared to the HADCRUT4 data set accords with data being adjusted to beliefs or theory.
    The Greenland ice core temperature data suggests there is nothing particularly unusual about recent warming.
    Neither point demonstrates that >50% of recent warming was not human caused, but it does undermine any confidence intervals. This is why the “proving beyond reasonable doubt” criteria of criminal justice system, is a desirable aim when assessing global warming claims. The onus is put on the experts to demonstrate their ideas, not to offer up bits of unsubstantiated evidence that is far from sufficient to demonstrate their case. Another aspect of this aspiration would be to undermine the politicised aspects, where all sorts of vague waffle are projected unchallenged and then any attempt to present another point of view is challenged. The long tradition of a trial by jury system shows that people are most convinced when both proponents and objectors to a proposal are given equality of access. A clear-cut criminal case is often clarified by comparisons with the ludicrous defence case. Conversely, miscarriages of justice are often where evidence is suppressed, or expert evidence is not challenged. One of the most influential in my thinking is the expert evidence of Roy Meadows in convicting Sally Clark (and Angela Canning) of murdering their own babies, when the deaths were most likely cot deaths, with unknown causes. Both tragic cases were overturned on appeal, and Roy Meadows was later struck off the British Medical Register.

    Liked by 1 person

  95. Agreed Manic. There still exists reasonable doubt that modern warming can be largely attributed to anthropogenic GHGs even though “the null hypothesis that the GHG-induced warming is less than half the total can be rejected with the data available at the 10% significance level”. Why? Because, among other things, the simple radiative forcing concept of estimating climate response is not infallible:

    “Radiative forcing is a simple measure for both quantifying and ranking the many different influences on climate change; it provides a limited measure of climate change as it does not attempt to represent the overall climate response. However, as climate sensitivity and other aspects of the climate response
    to external forcings remain inadequately quantified, it has the advantage of being more readily calculable and comparable than estimates of the climate response.”

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf [p133]

    Like

  96. Off topic, but this is an update from ground zero of Henry.
    The Houston region has experienced a devastating flooding event that has destroyed thousands of houses, tens of thousands of cars and vehicles, and is going to disrupt lives here for years to come.
    Our house was nearly flooded. Our garage took a couple inches. I personally helped collect medical supplies from a nearby home that was waist deep in Water- and that was after the water had dropped over one foot. I rode a small motor boat down beautiful tree lined streets I drive on daily.
    I helped retrieve a friend’s wife off of the roof where she had been stranded for several hours.
    The worst of the storm’s rains have passed and the waters have receded for many of us.
    We have friends staying over who have literally a couple of changes if clorhes and their small Scottish terrier to their name salvaged from their home.
    Now it’s time to make some coffee and breakfast.
    And if I hear any schmuck blame CO2 for this storm or it’s impact I will tell them to eff off.
    This storm is nitvremarkable in any way except it has hit an areacwoefully vulnerable by geography and negligent governments to floods.

    Like

  97. Hunter: Hope the recovery goes well (with appropriately directed resources), plus you and yours stay safe. Over at Judy’s, says more rain is likely.

    Like

  98. Context’s the thing to
    transcend the myopia
    of close-up point of view.

    GISP2. Looking at that little up-tick at the end and we
    don’t even know how much of it is anthropological and
    how much is natural!

    Like

  99. Jaime,
    I agree that “the radiative forcing concept is not infallible”. In fact they are only vague estimates. On page 135 of AR4 WG1 CH2 you will find FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. The Summary for Policymakers SPM2 puts in the RF Values to the side.

    When I checked these figures perspective a few years back I concluded.

    If these were financial figures, an external auditor might ask the following questions.

    1. Why do the columns not add up? The difference of 0.12 is the same as the figure for solar irradiance. I would guess that the error in the midpoint is due to someone having deducted this figure from the total, erroneously believing that they had previously included it.
    2. Given the breadth of uncertainty, is it more than a coincidence that the negative forcings almost exactly offset all the positive forcings with the exception of CO2? This conveniently reduces the language of the debate from discussing “anthropogenic greenhouse gases”, to “rising CO2”.
    3. Given the breadth of uncertainty, is it more than a coincidence that the range of negative forcings are exactly equal to 200% of the sum of the mid-points?
    4. Given the breadth of uncertainty, is it more than a coincidence that the range of positive forcings are almost exactly equal to 40% of the sum of the mid-points? Adjust any of the figures by .01, and the result becomes less exact.

    So when I suggest @ 28 Aug 17 at 9:22 am that empirical estimates might be unsound, it is not just that they might be a few percent out.

    Like

  100. Hunter.
    When your president with his home-made Davy Crockett hat passes by tomorrow, say how-de from me.
    Hope the sun comes out for you.
    (Supertroll)

    Like

  101. Manic,
    I’m guessing this IPCC diagram of attributable temperature changes arises from consideration of the radiative forcing concept. But of course you can’t calculate a theoretical value of radiative forcing for internal variability obviously, so they must estimate the contribution from PDO/AMO using different methods. However they do it, they get zero basically, with error bars either way. Notice also how the error bars for combined anthro forcing are very much less than the errors of the individual component anthro forcings. I’ve yet to see a convincing explanation for that.

    Like

  102. Andy, I have always had trouble believing that temperature rose 0.2C for the duration of the 2nd WW.

    Jaime, The GISP core ends in mid-19th century. You can see that by the CO2 level of 280. With current levels, CO2 would be above the top panel of the graph. And current temperature would be perhaps 1C higher than the little spike at the end of the temperature curve. But as it is only the science that matters to you, you will have known that already, so why paste such a misleading graphic?

    Like

  103. Len, the CO2 data comes from the Epica ice dome in Antarctica – nothing to do with GISP. I don’t know exactly when GISP2 data ends but actual annual temp data going back to 1880 is available for Nuuk in Greenland and that reveals a modest increase of about 1 degree 1880 to the max in 2016, with comparable warming in 1930s (before CO2). So I don’t think the current Greenland warming will prove to be ‘unusual’ in the context of the entire Holocene record.

    Like

  104. Len: ‘I have always had trouble believing that temperature rose 0.2C for the duration of the 2nd WW.’

    By eyeball, the decadal average looks quite lower than that over the actual war years. Whatever, any such issue is one that you have with the the suppliers of the various temperature series (the majority of whom express consensus support hence are not likely to have unconscious bias towards a skeptical position), and so not with the skeptics here who for the purpose of their challenge made above at least, are taking as read the general record of GST across the entire twentieth century, as similarly reported by the said suppliers.

    Like

  105. Jaime, if you add that 1 degree of warming on to that little peak at the end of your gisp graph, you get a peak beyond the Roman warm period. If you want to suggest that less than half of the 1 degree was anthropogenic, and we assume that sensitivity is a lowly 1.5C, the additional warming to come from doubling CO2 takes the curve off the top of your graph. That is clearly unprecedented in this interglacial, but doubtless nothing to worry about…

    Like

  106. Len, you can’t do that though, can you. Proxy temp data and instrumental temp data should not be spliced. Besides, if one wants to be pernickety about it, the start and end points of the running mean of that data are virtually the same – so no net warming at all!

    Like

  107. Ken has posted a comment on his blog. For the lesser mortals, not in tune with the higher realities of the basic physics and the climate models, I will prove some translations.

    I’ve been involved in a discussion on another blog (which I won’t highlight)

    I have been informing the ignorant. My opinions are all that matters, so I will not encourage you to contaminate yourselves by verifying my statements. By not referring to them, I have no obligation to allow comments from Jaime Jessop, Andy West etc.

    ….about there being a period of warming in the early 20th century that seems comparable to the warming we’ve experienced since about 1980. This is a somewhat standard “skeptic” talking point that is meant to suggest that a period of warming in the early 20th century, that is comparable to a similar period in the late 20th century, somehow challenges the fundamentals of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

    Saying the early C20th warming with the late C20th is wrong because I say so and those non-believers I refer to as “sceptics” (note spelling correction to English from American) say it is correct.

    Well, it doesn’t and you can read this Skeptical Science post that discusses this.

    What is more, I am right because Dana Nuttycello says so. You may click on the link and your eyes will see an equation, graphs and references, so will go no further. As you are a true believer, I have no fear that you will check the figures, nor find that Dana has assumed a doubling of CO2 produce a near instantaneous 2.94C of warming, without stating that assumption. That way when anyone lifts the equation and states the immediate response is an assumption, I can shoot them down with a load of waffle about transient responses and equilibrium responses.

    However, I think this is all largely beside the point. The fundamentals of AGW are very simply that we pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and causing the atmospheric concentrations to rise. This increased atmospheric CO2 reduces the outgoing longwavelength flux and pushes the system out of energy balance; we will be gaining more energy than we’re losing. This extra energy will be distributed throughout the climate system (atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere) and some of it will warm the surface, causing surface temperatures to rise. In fact – given the increase in atmospheric CO2 – the only way to regain energy balance is for surface temperatures to rise.

    There is a climate bogeyman lurking out there, that is revealed by my impressive climate waffle the fundamental truths inherent in the data. The fact that he has not revealed himself so far means that the bogeyman is storing his energies, to reveal himself more terrible form than in my very worst nightmares.

    Of course, one could regard the variability about the long-term trend as a consequence of internally-driven cycles. I’m also certainly not arguing against trying to understand how internally-driven cycles influence how the surface warms. I’m simply pointing out that while we still have a planetary energy imbalance (a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2due to our emissions) the surface will – on average – continue to warm, and all of this warming will – until we regain energy balance – essentially be anthropogenic. Arguing about the causes of short periods when we warmed faster/slower than expected does not somehow mean that the overall warming is not being driven by our emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That’s my view, at least.

    I will not allow any amount of logic, better specification of the models, or empirical data to distract for the fundamental truth of the climate bogeyman.

    Feel free to disagree in the comments.

    Feel free to disagree in the comments, subject to the blog rules that any real disagreement is a false statement, my opinion is all that matters and that on my blog (and anywhere else I comment) I always get the final word.

    Liked by 2 people

  108. Jaime @ 28 Aug 17 at 8:14 pm

    I hate to contradict you on the data, but some of the Svalbard figures are estimated. For instance,

    During the Second World War, and also during five winters in the period 1898-1911, no observations were made in Svalbard, so the only possibility for filling data gaps is by interpolation.

    The main temperature station at Isfjord Radio was destroyed in September 1941 and re-established at the same place in July 1946. During this period, the estimated figures went sharply down, whereas elsewhere (such as Reykjavik) they stayed roughly the same or higher to 1944. In other words, the wartime temperature peak may have been as high as recent temperatures.

    https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/030315_2326_realclimate4.jpg?w=600&zoom=2

    Like

  109. Jaime, you are hung by your own rhetorical petard. Or are you now saying that the warming since the 1850s was in fact anthropogenic, or that GISP is not in fact a reasonable proxy for world temperatures, or maybe that sensitivity is close to zero or negative.

    Like

  110. I’m not hung by any petard Len, and I love the way the conversation’s shifted from 1910-1940s warming to GISP2 because I casually threw in a GISP2 chart to illustrate a semi-humorous point about how AGW advocates insist we focus on modern trends only and just ignore the past, however inconvenient it may be. But, I will admit, it was probably not the best example to use as GISP2 ends in 1854, before the supposed anthropogenic era of climate change. You, without evidence, claim that an ice core record extended into a hypothetical future will reveal the modern warming to be ‘highly unusual’, even ‘catastrophic’ with regard to the rest of the Holocene. I say that’s BS.

    So, anyway, as we’re on to Greenland, let’s take a closer look at what the modern temperature record actually reveals about the ‘catastrophic anthropogenic’ warming (which, for our purpose, we shall presume to be post 1950) that has taken place thus far.

    Chylek, 2006:

    “Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995–2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate . . . . .
    The glacier acceleration observed during the 1996–2005 period has probably occurred previously. There should have been the same or more extensive acceleration during the 1920–1930 warming as well as during the Medieval Warm period in Greenland when Greenland temperatures were generally higher than today.”

    Oh dear, we’re back to that pesky 1930s/40s warming again which couldn’t be mainly anthropogenic and which stubbornly refuses to go away. Kobashi et al 2011 extended the GISP2 proxy record and reconstructed Greenland temperatures into the 21st Century using DECADAL instrumental averages – because that reflects the temporal resolution of the early part of the GISP2 record. This is what they found:

    Oh dear, this is not on message.

    Like

  111. Oh, and I’m sure it’s completely unremarkable that Greenland set a new Northern Hemisphere low temperature record in July this year and that normal anthropogenic warming service will be resumed shortly.

    Like

  112. Jaime please, please be more reasonable. “Warming” is only to be mentioned when it has been. At all other times resort to “unusual or extreme weather”. And I’m sure you will agree that UNPRECEDENTED cold in Greenland comes under that category. When will you ever learn that anything to do with weather or climate can be employed to demonstrate to the great unwashed (= journalists) the worthiness of the IPCC and its mandarins and the righteousness of their CO2 fixations.

    Liked by 2 people

  113. Jaime, the paper you reference hoists you further up your own petard. Current temperatures (which I presume they’ve just appended to the proxy record in a way you said they couldn’t, as they certainly didn’t get it from ice) are around 1 degree below max Holocene and if recent warming wasn’t anthropogenic and sensitivity isn’t something implausibly low temperature will rise at least 1 degree, thus exceeding the Holocene max.

    Like

  114. Len, you seem to be taking an unnatural interest in hoisting me upon my own petard.

    You were suggesting tacking on the data from Nuuk to the GISP2 proxy record. I said you can’t do that. The Nuuk instrumental record is annually resolved with a 5 year running mean. The GISP2 data is at best decadally resolved in the early part of the record. This is why “Kobashi et al 2011 extended the GISP2 proxy record and reconstructed Greenland temperatures into the 21st Century using DECADAL instrumental averages – because that reflects the temporal resolution of the early part of the GISP2 record.” Comparing like with like as far as temporal resolution of the data is concerned. You were not.

    Like

  115. Jaime, you said it very clearly: “Proxy temp data and instrumental temp data should not be spliced.” There was no qualification or ambiguity. Still, it’s good that you correct yourself. And note that whether you plot the 2016 value or the 2007-16 average on your GISP graph makes little difference. You still get a peak that is a short hop from the Holocene max (the more so if you reject anthropogenic causes for recent warming). Your paper say so, though I can see why you’d have trouble accepting that.

    Like

  116. The comedy gold continues over at Tobis’s place.

    Tobis finds a linked-in page to a different Jaime Jessop, well in fact a Jaime Revill-Jessop, who works at Tesco in Nottingham, and went to the University of Derby.

    And because this is different from the other Jaime Jessop, who went to UCL, he thinks this is a contradiction that supports his imposter conspiracy theory!!!

    ROTFLMAO.

    This whole episode is a great insight into the thinking, or lack of, of a climate scientist.

    [Why it took him 2 weeks to find a Linked-in page that comes on the second page of a “Jaime Jessop” google search is a mystery.]

    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