Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Carrick

March 8, 2015, 7:22 am

≫ Next: Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by David in TX

≪ Previous: Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by kim

$

0

0

Jan P Perlwitz:

I feel much more comfortable with “slowdown”. I would add “statistically not significant” as long as statistical significance of such a slowdown hasn’t been established.

Yeah I agree—and the statistical significance question is a tough one to crack. I’m going to jump on the soap box for a minute, sorry.

The problem is you can’t simply pick an interval (e.g., 1998-2014) then use statistics that are designed for an arbitrary (as opposed to selected) interval to compute the statistic significance.

Secondly our ability to measure temperature is much better than our ability to infer the secular trend uncorrupted by short-period unforced variability.

Because the short-period variability contains autocorrelation this leads to the practical reality that you can generate a wide range of features that we can recognize visually in the data, but the feature can amount to little more than a particular phase relationship among the various components of the unforced variability.

Thus, we can all clearly see a slowdown in trend for say 1998-2014 and the slowdown is real. And yes this trend does translate into a change in other physical variables—remember even this is due to unforced variability, unforced variability is not a measurement artifact, so the laws of physics negotiate how that slowdown in trend occurs. If it’s due to natural variability, energy has to be conserved etc.

But what we can’t easily infer is how frequently this sort of slowdown for this period occurs.

To this point, I haven’t seen anything that convinces me we’ve really reached true significance, where the result can’t be explained in terms of natural variability.

Certainly there is nothing here to suggest to me that there is a problem with the overarching theory of AGW. Possibly it suggests a somewhat smaller number for CO2 climate sensitivity, but a larger number for natural variability.

Even then, because natural variability is even harder to model than CO2 climate sensitivity, this isn’t good news, because less predictability means more uncontrolled risk not less.

---

Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by David in TX

March 8, 2015, 7:24 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Carrick

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Carrick

$

0

0

Judging by the size of that double chin Eli appears to be quite adept in untangling spaghetti provided the destination is Eli’s pie hole.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Carrick

March 8, 2015, 7:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change by classicalhero7

≪ Previous: Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by David in TX

$

0

0

Joshua, not being a drama queen, just pointing out why you get ignored.

==> “Over short enough periods we know the system actually cools (e.g. annual cycle), even as we add CO2. So not only is it not inferential that the system warms, it’s actually wrong.”

Your answer after a discussion of cherry-picking and robustness? Interesting.

This has nothing to with cherry picking. Cherry picking involves interval selection based on characteristics of the data.

What I am saying is, or short enough periods, regardless of the interval selected, natural variability will overwhelm the relatively modest forcing from CO2. It’s a question of time scales, and so yes, it is a robust result too.

Comment on NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change by classicalhero7

March 8, 2015, 7:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by davideisenstadt

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Carrick

$

0

0

I do like the irony of how Judith couldn’t attend due to her plane not being able to take off due snow and was cancelled. It sure does seem that cold snowing conditions is worse for people due to the hazards it causes and yet the alarmists are against a warmer world where more people live in a tropical climate than a tundra climate, which makes a mockery of the alarmist view of catastrophic global warming when warming is better for everyone overall.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by davideisenstadt

March 8, 2015, 7:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change by classicalhero7

$

0

0

Jan you could of course simply take a stab at answering the questions. That would be a first step.
A second step would be to learn enough about the tool you use in your research, i.e. applied statistics to realize that the concept of an ensemble mean is bankrupt, and is supported by not a single bit of accepted statistical analytic techniques.
The models aren’t independent of each other; the individual models’ results are the product of different numbers of model runs, and there is no documentation made readily available to the public to allow one to determine just which model runs are included in individual model outputs.
That you and ATTP would spend time discussing ensemble means is only proof that you need additional training in statistical analysis.
As for someone in your position…I thought you weren’t employed by NASA (even though your online CV states that you are).
What I expect from someone in your position is considered thought about the utility and validity of the models that you, as a small cog in a large machine are responsible for producing.
BTW, Critical Thinking, by Paulsen is a book I recommend to undergraduates who wish to learn how to argue. Perhaps you should read it.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

March 8, 2015, 7:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by davideisenstadt

$

0

0

We always get the ..but 1910-1940… argument, and they don’t say that the sun had a well known dip in 1910, while at the beginning of the current rise in 1980 it was as active as ever, and now by 2010 it was in another dip. It is a completely different 30 years from the perspective of what the sun was doing.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim

March 8, 2015, 7:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$

0

0

Your 10:22 is very clear, Carrick. In my opinion, it argues for adaptability, and also brings in the possibility of cooling in the category of increased uncontrolled risks.
================

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

March 8, 2015, 7:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim

$

0

0

mwgrant, “However, these days that is above my paygrade! :O)”

Pity, these after the fact prediction/error bands and adjustable anomaly baselines would make a great comedy. Have you ever looked at the Marcott masterpiece?

---

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim

March 8, 2015, 7:52 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by R. Gates

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$

0

0

And so far as temperature goes, which way would you prefer that the uncontrolled risks ultimately end us?
=============

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by R. Gates

March 8, 2015, 7:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim

$

0

0

” then we can conclude that 15-years is not long enough of a period to use the relatively weak metric of surface air temperature as a proxy for rate of global heating.”
____

Bingo!

But the noisy surface air temperature metric that is subject to the natural variability of ocean to atmosphere latent and heat exchange gives faux-skeptics all the cover they need to continue with their pseudoscience.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Joshua

March 8, 2015, 7:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Ron C.

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by R. Gates

$

0

0

Jan –

(or Anders?) FWIW, as much as it is difficult to find within david’s hodgepodge of identity-aggression and identity-defense, I would like to see a (very dumbed down) response on the question about the validity of considering the mean of largely independent models.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Ron C.

March 8, 2015, 7:58 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Joshua

$

0

0

There’s an insightful comment by Nullis in Verba on this issue:
” It seems that climate modelers are dealing with a quandary: How can we improve on the unsatisfactory results from climate modeling?”
Excellent question! . . .
Well first, we need to keep working on basic mechanisms. Clouds are the big one, followed by ocean circulation and heat transfer, followed by biology (especially ocean biology, for the carbon cycle), followed by aerosols. Second, we need to collect better data. We need that to identify the physics, to provide the measured parameters and inputs, and to perform tests. We need to document the performance/accuracy of the current models and data – both what they get right and most especially what they get wrong, so we know exactly what goes wrong and understand as clearly as possible the problems we still need to solve. We need to explore a broader range of options and ideas – at the moment, all the models look much the same, and are mostly related to one another. Making them modular and mutually compatible so we can swap the best bits around would seem like a good idea. Validation and testing needs to be taken out of the hands of developers and done independently and externally. Rival research groups would be one possibility, if they hadn’t already demonstrated their inclinations towards pal review, so I’d suggest specialist scrutineers with a lot of sceptics on the staff. Their aim is to document the shortcomings, not to rubbish the models, so you need a mix from both sides of the debate. And you need to formalise the testing, auditing, and validation process so that governments cannot use them for any purpose they’ve not been demonstrated to be able to perform. If you don’t have a certificate for your models testifying to their ability to predict sea ice or hurricane strength a century in advance, then you can’t sell or use them for that purpose. That will then motivate and fund the development of demonstrably better models.

There’s tons to do, and no shortage of ideas for what could usefully be done. I don’t think that’s what’s getting in the way.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2471448?lastPage=true

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim

March 8, 2015, 7:58 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by R. Gates

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Ron C.

$

0

0

However, you concede the point with accepting Carrick’s ‘not consistent’ at 3:42.
===========

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by R. Gates

March 8, 2015, 7:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim

$

0

0

This is an excellent point Steven and understanding the flattening of the rise in global surface temperatures is a valid scientific question which many scientists have been pursuing. It is the conflation of this flatten in the rise into the suggesting that CO2 increases are not “warming the planet” that the trouble begins. For of course, the planet’s biggest energy reservoir, the ocean, has seen no such flattening. Precision of terms and understanding of dynamics is what all honest scientists should strive for.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim

March 8, 2015, 8:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by c1ue

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by R. Gates

$

0

0

er, Carrick’s 3:49.
=============

---

Comment on Week in review by c1ue

March 8, 2015, 8:04 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by c1ue

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by kim

$

0

0

So you say you’re paid, and paid handsomely.
Great! So now we all know you’re a liar as well as a blog-troll.

Comment on Week in review by c1ue

March 8, 2015, 8:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by c1ue

$

0

0

Despite your very diligent cherry picking – these facts are actually totally irrelevant because the issue at hand is real world behavior vs. modeled behavior. If CO2 sensitivity is truly that high – we should have seen far higher temperature increases than the actual 0.7 even in the 130 years leading up to today. CO2 was in the 270 ppm level in 1880, and it is around 400 ppm now. Whether using linear, logarithmic, or whatever – the implied sensitivity (with the IPCC assumption of CO2 being the almost all the cause) is well under 1.2 degrees.
This in turn clearly implies that the alarmist crap making the rounds is seriously flawed.
The ongoing hiatus doesn’t help either.

Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Jim D

March 8, 2015, 8:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by c1ue

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by c1ue

$

0

0

Why blame the models for 15 years when they do OK for 60 years including that 15. This should be a red flag for skeptics that 15-year trends are not representative enough of the model behavior to draw any conclusions from. This is an AR5 graph that gets too little attention.

Comment on Week in review by c1ue

March 8, 2015, 8:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by c1ue

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Jim D

$

0

0

Wiki was showing that the best German solar PV plants were averaging 13% capacity factor. That’s only less than 1/4th of a moderately stressed coal or natural gas plant, and nearly 7 times less than a nuclear plant.
And therein is the scam: the promoters push very hard to equate installed generation capacity vs. coal/natural gas/nuclear knowing full well that actual delivered power – even disregarding the lack of consistency for base load – is a fraction.
The sad part is that solar PV can do better. At present prices, even the best case technologically improved solar PV won’t quite reach actual parity, but it would be a lot closer, which in turn would make it truly economical for a lot more use cases.
As it is, we’re spending up our relatively cheap power now to install crap technology from which we won’t recoup materials, energy, or spending for literally decades.

Comment on Week in review by c1ue

March 8, 2015, 8:22 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by steven

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by c1ue

$

0

0

Nuclear can definitely contribute, but the green NGOs have entirely succeeded in driving up the cost so high that it is hardly worth the effort anymore. This has occurred both via political lobbying and via outright lawyer-based obstructionism – it is no coincidence that a law firm is one of the largest green NGOs these days (NRDC).