Mosh
I think the reasonable correlation between BEST and CET is interesting. It gives us some idea of what was happening in (possibly) the wider world back to 1660.
Having read some more of Phil Jones’ work and that from other researchers I think my reconstruction to 1538 is pretty indicative as well. Previously I was surprised at the apparent warmth in the 1640′s and early 1500′s but now I’m confident it was correct.
tonyb
Mike Jonas,
Much as I don’t want to get into an argument about climate sensitivity, I have to say that putting your faith in an unpublished paper which is contradicted not only by virtually every other study on the subject (apart from one which has not stood up to serious scrutiny) but also by everything we know about climate changes in the past seems to me to be a bit… optimistic.
Web
“The Princess Bride comes to mind”
Yeah. So does the “fairy godmother” (with her “magic wand”).
Gotta love those fairy tales.
Max
Beth
It is with great exceitement that I can report that probably the greatest scientific experiement of our age regarding the climate has now commenced.
Our tomato plants were put in yesterday and I shall give you updates on the progress of the four closely monitored and varied experiments-each plant is of a different variety and in a different locatiion on the giant rolling acres of our sea side estate. Can tomatoes grow in the new reality of temperatures in the UK whose anomaly has now reached that of the 1730′s, 1640′s and 1530′s?
Scientific note; The UK must be due for what we in the climate business scientifically call ‘any sort of decent summer for pity’s sake.’
Watch this space.
tonyb
Andrew Adams
That’s correct.
I was talking about the estimates of seven new studies on ECS, which are (at least partly) observation-based, which all indicate that 2xCO2 ECS is around half of the model predictions cited by IPCC in AR4 rather than “Appel’s piece”.
Max
Peter Lang
You ask why modelers have not picked the center of the Earth for locating the “missing heat”.
How about outer space? (as in, “hasta la vista, baby!”)
Max
tony b
Your tomato experiment has a fall-back option (just like the deep blue sea as a hiding place for all that missing heat when warming stopped).
Import them from Italy and pray for the MWP to return to England.
Max
Really when someone doesn’t be aware of then its up to other viewers that they will assist, so here it occurs.
TONY
This will be such an important study. Us serfs
so prey ter cold weather, pestilence n’ famine
do fear the drops in food production of ice ages -
lest we fergit – I beleeve the serf charcoal burners
are raisin’ funds fer this experiment in cold whether
food pro- duck – shun We will be in tuch,
Serf Under-ground.
More on the Pause
There is a misprint in the title; it should read ‘More on the Paws’ since it contains a level of excuses for poor science at the level of a schoolchild claiming ‘a dog ate my homework’ – they do not even know which dog!
The IPCC “Nobel” climate scientists ignored the established method of enquiry of real science as stated by Richard Feynman:
http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/richard-feynman-on-the-scientific-method/
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. It‘s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment (observation) it is wrong.”
As Richard Feynman stated it is necessary to establish questions that cover all the known possible outcomes as well as allowing for the unknowns and to be rigorous in experimental design and statistics. Instead they set out a hypothesis for which they had already decided the conclusion – increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause CAGW – but when this was falsified (no hotspot, no increased water vapour in the upper troposphere, wrong model projections of temperature, too high climate sensitivity, etc. etc) they double down and claim that it would have been true if only they had included all the known factors in their models:
“Santer says he sees several explanations of why climate model projections of surface warming may be differing from actual observations in the past decade or so.”
“It’s certainly the case that we got some of the forcings wrong,” he says of the factors that specify the influence of any particular component of the atmosphere. “It’s likely we underestimated the true volcanic aerosol forcing, and may have underestimated the cooling effect of stratospheric ozone depletion.”
To which he and the Team can add that they ignored ocean cycles, cloud effects, the hydrological cycle, the carbon cycle, solar activity other than TSI etc.
Well this is just hubris. It is a pity that they did not study the accepted scientific method before coming up with “results” that support the IPCC CAGW hypothesis with undue confidence, especially when one considers the costs to the taxpayer and in human lives in the under-developed World as a consequence of politicians believing what the IPCC states.
To quote some more pertinent sayings of Richard Feynman that the Team should take to heart:
‘The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. ‘
‘It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn’t get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man.’
‘I think that when we know that we actually do live in uncertainty, then we ought to admit it; it is of great value to realize that we do not know the answers to different questions. This attitude of mind – this attitude of uncertainty – is vital to the scientist, and it is this attitude of mind which the student must first acquire. It becomes a habit of thought. Once acquired, one cannot retreat from it any more.’
“When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. We fault many of our predecessors for assiduously collecting and presenting all the facts that confirm their theories while failing to seek facts that contradict them. For science to work properly, it is vital to stress one’s model to its fullest capacity (Feynman, 1974).
“It’s not dishonest; but the thing I’m talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it’s a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. . . [A]lthough you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. . . The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.”
Right on!
ECS (Equlibrium climate sensitivity) goes from equlibrium to equilibrium.
TCR (Transient climate response) goes from equlibrium to time of CO2 doubling.
The difference ist the additional warming commitment and takes 500 years and more.
There was no equilibrium in 1960
.
Looking at the TAR (“The Scientific Basis”), what Girma calculated is quite near to ECS, and about double TCR.
+1
The unique properties of water in all its phases controls the climate. Non-condensing greenhouses gases do little to nothing except in the absence of water in liquid and gas phases. Wherever and whenever it’s very dry then non-condensing greenhouse gases can play a major role.
The review process of the Börnbom paper referred to by Mike Jones was interrupt for the following reason:
It is clear that the research presented here contains fundamental flaws and thus I fully agree with the author’s latest comment that it is highly unlikely that an acceptable revision could be completed within the normal timeframe of major revision for this journal (typically a month or two). I will therefore close the review process for this manuscript. Any fresh submission to ESD will need to address the major concerns of the referees.Otherwise it will likely be immediately rejected by the editor, and thus never make it to the open access discsussion phase of the peer review process.
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/C202/2013/esdd-4-C202-2013.pdf
Other than the obvious physical attribute difference, how does one distinguish the “scientists” of Trenberth’s ilk from the Money Honey’s on CNBC, explaining the latest undulation in some behavior associated with the market.
peter azlac
+1 on the paws and Feynman who also said re
freedom, which is a pre -occ -u-payshun of we serfs …
“No government has the right to decide on the truth
of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way
the character of the questions investigated. Neither
may a government determine the aesthetic value of
artistic creation, ) nor limit the forms of literacy or
artistic expession. Nor should it pronounce on the
validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophic
doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to
maintain the freedom to let those citizens contribute
to the further adventure and the development of the
human race.”
And that goes fer whispery coteries like the IPCC and
the UN as well.
Beth – the – cow – girl – on – a – wild – horse !
Actually the ocean is not directly warmed by greenhouse gases. The physical response of water to downwelling longwave infrared makes it impossible. All that happens is evaporation increases and the water cycle works faster at transporting energy away from the surface. Any net change in ocean heat content from greenhouse warming comes indirectly from the continents. Land is warmed by the greenhouse effect and this results in warmer rivers which eventually run off into the ocean and indirectly warm it by that mechanism. But it’s drastically less warming than there would be if it were physically possible for longwave infrared to alter the temperature of a liquid body of water.
Absurd. There is no chance of teasing out cause from staring at the surface temperature record.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=31
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/tropicalcloud.png.html?sort=3&o=37
Webby
No struggle on my part.
I’ve just gone through seven independent recent studies (most of which are at least partly observation-based), which conclude on average that the 2xCO2 ECS is around half of the model predictions cited in AR4 by IPCC.
These (not Girma’s estimate) lead me to believe that IPCC (and Hansen et al.) overestimated 2xCO2ECS by around 2X. [Hansen's failed 1988 projection, which were based on the same exaggerated ECS estimate, show the same 2X exaggeration compared to the actual warming.]
So much for that.
Now to Girma.
He estimated 1.3C for 2xCO2 based on temperature trend from 1960 to today.
He was criticized (by Mosh and you, I believe) that this was only the “transient climate response” of 2xCO2, which did not include the warming still “hidden in the pipeline” waiting to reach “equilibrium”.
I added in the IPCC estimate of 0.6C “in the pipeline” (which was presumably estimated by IPCC using the higher ECS estimate of 3.2C), and assumed that 80% of this warming in the pipeline occurred after Girma’s 1960 cutoff point = 0.48C.
Adding this to Girma’s TCR I got around 1.8C (coincidentally around the same number as all those seven recent independent studies).
Hope this has cleared up your apparent confusion.
Max
DocMartyn
As I have stated, an update of the data, over a longer timescale gives 1.71 degrees for a doubling of CO2.
Thanks for clearing this up.
Max
