FYI 25 years of no warming is WAY THE F*CK (technical term) improbable according to climate models with CO2 increasing at the present rate. 15 years in fact is already below the lower edge of the 95% confidence bound. It happened before due to natural variation but should be exceedingly rare now is how the narrative goes. If it happens again that means CO2 warming is much less than expected.
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Jim D
Mosher just posted an anecdote on the WUWT “escalator” thread that shows how easy it is to fool skeptics with their own confirmation bias. I hope he can post it here. It is a doozy.
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by manacker
Bad Andrew
Seen over the past century and a half there is no question that our planet has warmed, so “Global Warming” (itself) is “real”.
But if the question is
What would it take for you to conclude that human GHG emissions are not the principal driver of our climate and that there is, thus, no real potential threat to humanity or our environment from man-made global warming?
(IOW what would it take in your mind to falsify the CAGW premise as outlined by IPCC in AR4?)
The answer (for anyone who truly hasn’t decided yet would be
If human emissions of CO2 and other GHGs continue unabated, with concentrations continuing to reach record levels over a period of another decade or two, at the same time that the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” continues to decline slightly.
Those who have already decided that AGW poses no real potential threat might pick a shorter time frame or say their viewpoint has already been proven by the current pause.
Those who have already decided that AGW does pose a real potential threat might pick a longer time frame or even try rationalizing away the lack of warming as a result of other unforeseen factors while maintaining the notion that human GHG emissions are still the principal driver of our future climate.
Max
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Herman Alexander Pope
1. Oversimplifying a complex problem, and drawing highly confident conclusions from the simplified analysis.
Over complicating simple problems and claiming you have complicated Models that give the right answer when your models have failed for decades.
Simple is looking at the data for the past ten thousand years and project this forward as most likely for the future.
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by manacker
Max_OK
A revenue neutral carbon tax is a non sequitur.
Max_CH
PS No money for women and song – just for tax.
↧
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Jim Cripwell
Yes Steven. Many years ago there was a wonderful scientific publication called Nature. When I was at college, I used to rush over to the library the day the new addition appeared, and read it religiously. Sadly, it has gone downhill in recent years. That quotation appeared in a prominent place on the front cover. I read it over 60 years ago, and can still quote it by heart.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by David Springer
You didn’t actually read all that did you?
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by manacker
Jim D
Two questions:
- Do you <em>really</em> believe what you just wrote?
- Would you believe it if your statement were turned around as follows?
<blockquote>I think a lot of the <strike>“skeptics”</strike> <strong>"believers"</strong> here have just a suspicion the IPCC report could be <strike>right</strike> <strong>wrong</strong> in its sensitivity range or century projections, but for the sake of a good argument, or just politically, they are not being intellectually honest here and instead put on display a certainty that the IPCC is <strike>wrong</strike> <strong>right</strong></blockquote>.
What say you?
Max
↧
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by willard (@nevaudit)
Here’s Pat Michaels galvanizing his troops:
> Make an argument that you can get killed on and you kill us all.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/4027562164
The story does not say if the kill was executed by an invisible hand.
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by BBD
sunshinehours1
You are cherry-picking and so guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
<a href="http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850.08/every:12" rel="nofollow">HadCRUT4, February anomalies 1850 - present.</a>
It's worth noting that GAT reconstructions pre ~1900 are not considered to be as robust as those post # 1900.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist
• Atmospheric Temperature Satellite Data, Problem C: Satellites measure radiative flux, which is strongly modulated by cloud cover on all times scales from hourly to decadal (and longer).
The temperature instruments use microwaves emitted from oxygen – which penetrate cloud easily. CGM are dynamic chaotical systems. Energy budgets that ignore CERES are patent nonsense. Paleo data shows that climate varies naturally and abruptly.
The lack of any serious and informed discussion from this AGW space cadet – and repetitive denier silliness – is typical of the type. Irrelevant and a waste of time.
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by David Springer
But then only his sycophants could read it. I suggest putting it on the mirror in his bathroom and the one nearest his office at Penn State where, judging by both physique and personality, he should see it a great many times every single day.
↧
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by David Springer
No my real name is Yorak Hunt.
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Jim D
Yes, based on physics and other evidence, I would stand by what I wrote in the below link. It is very easy to see why it is a science and evidence-based consensus view to the extent of being as obvious to me as the sun heating the earth.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/#comment-313749
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by tempterrain
I’m just wondering how Judith’s uncertainty argument which goes along with a ‘take-home’ message of no CO2 mitigation measures being necessary fits in with this entreaty for intellectual honesty?
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by manacker
BBD
Your HadCRUT4 chart shows even more if you add in the linear trends for 30-year periods.
The multidecadal cycles of warming and slight cooling become apparent, as does the overall trend from beginning to end.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
lolwot
You are obviously confused.
Hansen Scenario A emissions DID happen. In fact, CO2 emissions were slightly HIGHER than Hansen had forecast.
Hansen’s 1988 study stipulated:
Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth rate averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so that the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially.
Emission over the period 1980-1988 were (according to CDIAC data): 5.41 GtC/year
Twenty years later they were: 7.73 GtC/year
IOW, the actual CO2 emission growth rate increased from 1.5% in the 1970s and 1980s to 1.64% from 1988 to today, so the actual rate of increase was actually around 10% greater than that assumed by Hansen for Scenario A.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2008.ems
But warming was only half that forecast by Hansen.
Reason?
Real simple: Hansen’s model used a 2xCO2 ECS that was exaggerated by a factor of 2x.
Get your facts straight before you make silly claims, lolwot.
Max
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by pokerguy
Hey MAx (the intellectually honest Max),
I have a brother with a mental illness…delusional disorder. Tonally, his delusions and his defense of them do not seem very different from those of some of the alarmists on this blog. No matter how much evidence you give to my brother that he’s not being followed by the FBI and that he’s not a well known figure in the city in which he lives, he’s not to be swayed
In general of course, it’s deeply unfair to pathologize people simply on the basis of their beliefs. Still, at a certain point one has to wonder…
Max_OK,
Let’s try this one last time. Whether you want to concede that there’s been an actual pause in global warming over the last 16 years, will you at least concede that:
A. That the IPCC models have erred on the high side wrt to the predicted temperature rise over the last 16+ years.
Assuming that you will make this concession (because if you won’t then there really is likely something wrong with you), will you then concede that
B. the case for CAGW has likely in some small degree at least, been weakened thereby.
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by captdallas 0.8 or less
BBD, “- Explain how OHC can be increasing in all major basins at the same time.”
I already have, numerous times in fact, that is why I said you had a block, kinda like Jim Cripwell. That Spencer link is actually pretty good, you really should read it with an open mind. Repeat to your self while clicking your heels, the deep ocean currents are coupled. The Ocean heat uptake is 1/1000th of the the ocean current heat capacity or about the magnitude of the atmosphere. It that up take is 100% due to CO2, it will that nearly a 1000 years to produce 1.6 C of warming. It is not likely 100% due to CO2.
The rest of your questions are strawmen. If we can’t nail down the true sensitivity to CO2 with the instrumentation we have now, 50 million years ago is a red herring.
↧
