Every movement and way of thinking and acting that takes on enough gravity to be named will ultimately be analyzed based on ‘trends, change points & hypotheses’ but only after-the-fact by dispassionate chroniclers of the past. We can only guess about the future but my guess is that years from now AGW theory will be seen as the Chevy Volt of science.
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by incandecentbulb
↧
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Paul S
This model which turned out to have a lower sensitivity was developed around 1997 I think. If you read one of the Hansen 1997 papers he talks about using a new model with a lower sensitivity. Before that it was something like 4- 4.5ºC.
However the projections in the FAR were not very dependent on the spread of model sensitivites – the ‘best estimate’ was produced by comparing model experiments with observations and scaling to infer a climate sensitivity of 2.5ºC (2.1ºC if compared to current 2xCO2 RF formulation).
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma
Vaughan Pratt
Check back here in a decade to see who was right.
How about having a bet with me?
I say the current global mean temperature record for 1998 for hadcrut3 will not be exceeded in the next three years (2012, 2013 & 2014).
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by capt. dallas
billc, you are such a rebel 
I was thinking a comparison of II to III would be a good approach. You are still going to end up with a range of about 0.52 to 5.2 by latitude with a mean of about 1.48 C.
That’s just my estimate of course, I should leave the cipherin’ to the real mathematicians
↧
Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Andrew Skolnick
Get over yourself Cotton. No one wants to bother anymore talking to a delusional wall.
↧
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Paul S
Why don’t you say that the IPCC changed its prediction from 0.3C per decade to 0.2C per decade in 1995 [which it did] when it realised its estimation of climate sensitivity [among other things] was too high?
It would be completely incorrect to say that, so there’s a good reason 
The best estimate and range of climate sensitivities used in the SAR are exactly the same as in the FAR. The difference in the projections is due partly to lower emissions scenarios (less CO2, methane and CFCs in particular), and partly to the introduction of aerosols into the scenarios.
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by capt. dallas
Web said,”There only way that the earth can exchange energy with the external system is through radiative energy transfer.”
Very true. You are looking into the diffusion rate into the deep oceans, at what point does that rate decrease to 80 milliWatts/m^2?
A doubling of CO2 increases the conductivity of the atmosphere by approximately 80 mW. Small potatoes right?
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by hunter
The believers cannot stand having the tenets of their faith challenged. Chris, as we see, likes to call those who point out problems in his faith, ‘liar’.
For AGW believers to be so allegedly obsessed with communication, it is ironic how often they retreat to simply…denying….what other people say and declaring them untruthful.
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by hunter
Chris is now deploying the AGW wack-a-mole defense: When things are going the way believers want, the IPCC is the paragon of climate science and those who dispute that are denialist scum. When the IPCC gets in trouble, the same believers claim it never even makes a prediction, and those who claim otherwise are liars.
↧
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by hunter
GaryM,
Shhhhh! Pointing out the trivial incredibly dubious nature of what AGW is built on is not fair.
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by incandecentbulb
It is interesting he would quote Mug Wump – ‘AGW is nothing but a hoax,’ thread on Amazon because that thread in immortalized on Board Reader as more emblematic of censorship.
For Example, you see on Board Reader–e.g., “As Dr. Pielke, Senior has said, in a period when the oceans are cooling there is no global warming during that period. The oceans have been cooling according to the same methodology that the global warming alarmists would presume to use to elevate their conjecture of man-caused global waming from superstition to …”
But when you tab on the link to the Amazon thread you see the above post was deleted by Amazon based on complaints from the Amazon community.
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by billc
Capt and others – in all seriousness, what are the high-level physical phenomena by which the difference between hypothesis II and III would manifest itself?
Oceanic regime changes leading to large shifts in cloud cover might be a candidate??
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by capt. dallas
What is more fun is that starting in 1998 or 2000 is not longer cherry picking, it is comparative analysis woohoo! its got a fancy name and everything!
↧
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by billc
wtf.
that’s not very daring.
I say the current global mean temperature record for 1998 for UAH will not be exceeded before 2020.
why UAH? because HadCrut3 is not going to be updated. it’s moved to #4 or whatever. It may be adjusted upwards and get a closer match to GISS. Spencer has indicated a small downward adjustment for very recent temps in the new version of UAH to come soon.
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Joshua
A question for hypothesis IIIers,
External forcing (AGW, solar) will have more or less impact on trends depending on the regime, but how external forcing materializes in terms of surface temperature in the context of spatiotemporal chaos is not known.
How is that statement reconciled with the trend of significant warming over the entire 20th century?
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by thomaswfuller2
There are many trends found in nature and the works of man that have the characteristics described for temperature. They are sine waves of varying amplitudes with sawtooth irregularities.
Should the IPCC have used better description of the waveform their models create? Yes, but I’ll bet they didn’t really expect general readership to get involved.
If the frequency of the temperature trend is the long term forcings (mostly from things that happened to the ocean 800 years ago) and the sawtooth irregularities are what we can measure with satellites, ARGOs and the occasional thermometer at the airport, this waveform looks like a gazillion (pardon the technical description) others.
If you are convinced that you have separated the sawtooth irregularities from the actual signal, then you can set them aside when doing major calculations.
If on the other hand there is some uncertainty as to what forms part of the sawtooth variation and what is part of the underlying signal, you need to pay pretty close attention to all components of the information you receive.
Which I think is a good description of where we are at the moment.
↧
Comment on Consensus or not (?) by climatereason
Harold
Great to see you here. Recently I exended CET back to 1538 in this article.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
I also wrote an article in which I only half jokingly suggested that Dickens had a disproportionate impact on the Anglo Saxon view of the world through such stories as a Christmas Carol. . Consequently I agree that for a variety of reasons, CET, THe Met Office etc ‘we’ have had a considerable impact on the climate change debate, and not in a good way.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Consensus or not (?) by Joshua
One reason for the disproportionate power of English in the master narrative is the simple fact that the longest continuous record of temperature anywhere on Earth comes from England.
?
English is the language of much scientific discourse in most fields.
For example, medical researchers from non-English speaking countries very often publish in English. Is the reason for that the “simple fact” that the longest record of observations of human physiology come primarily from England?
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Fred Moolten
Steve Mosher – Ordinarily I wouldn’t add to the excessive column space already devoted to this not very important point, but since you addressed your comment to me, I’ll respond.
Chris Ho-Stuart is correct in criticizing Leake’s claim that the warming has been less than predicted. The various IPCC curves that have been cited are all drawn with the understanding that decade to decade variation from them is something to be expected – the curves are smooth simply because there’s no way of knowing which decades will vary from the projected mean and in which direction. Not to belabor the point, but predictions of 0.2/decade average out to mid century can’t be invalidated by data from the first decade of the century. Predictions of 0.2 per decade for a specified two decades (“the next two decades”) can be invalidated by data from 2007 to 2027, but not by anything that hasn’t gone beyond early 2012. The fact that projected curves were drawn starting in 2001 isn’t a test of “the next two decades”.
You are right that if 2012 is 10 degrees colder than 2001, the models will be in trouble.; And so will the rest of us. The same will be true if it’s 10 degrees hotter.
The most important point I wanted to make was in the first sentence. This is inconsequential stuff, as is obvious if one looks at the last 100 years rather than the last 10 to 15. Quibbling about it seems to me to be more about scoring points than understanding what is going on now, or will in the future. With that in mind, I’ll try to refrain from getting caught up in the arguing if these points continue to generate further comments, and to respond only if something new and important is added to the discussion.
↧
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Ged
A very sensible idea.
And all scientists must always be open to alternative hypotheses and explanations of the data, as this post illustrates. The more time goes on, the less confident we are in the main IPCC hypotheses.
Doing the data analysis you suggest would help further the science tremendously. Hopefully someone is doing it somewhere.
↧
