Peer reviewed by people of like ideals is not peer reviewed. Look how well the IPCC peer reviews have gone. A very discredited organisation who passes of uni student papers as peer reviewed climate science? Please.
Recent article in news explains the 15 year hiatus in warming due to the trapping of warm water under the Arctic and Antarctic waters.
We were told as kids that we were heading for an ice age. We're told as adults we're heading for global warming. We're told 10 plus years ago sea levels would swallow all low lying island nations on Tuvalu, Maldives and others. All still there and thriving.
Climate change is real. No if buts or maybes. they climate is on the move. West. Our seasons are shifting. Is that Global warming or just a natural event.
No warming for 15 years. Is the consensus
Let me take you through your various issues with my posts in nice small steps!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
Well, I have looked at that graph again and fail to see the "step" you see.
See attached - I've highlighted it for you.
SOMETHING happened to create a "step-change" in the Amberley data in about 1980, as plotted here. I don't claim the expertise to know what that "something" was, but I D0 know that plotting a linear trend-line through a data-set which contains an unexplained step-change is just "bad science".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
The summer average has dropped 21.4%.
The winter average has dropped less than 4% - that's not much change in my book.
The measurements are area under sea ice, not the total quantity (volume / mass) of ice. In winter, the Arctic Ocean still freezes over, although the southern-most latitude of freezing is tending to retreat, which is where the reduction of area under ice is observed. However, the winter ice is also thinning significantly, and less and less winter ice survives each summer to form the base of the next year's ice pack. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...20090707r.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
You unambiguously state that millions of square kilometers of Arctic sea ice disappeared in winter.
By your own figures
15.7million - 15.1 million = 0.6 million
So where are the winter "millions"?
Puh-lease!!!!
Now you are really resorting to the "cherry-picking" and selective quoting that is so often a trait of the climate-change deniers!
I was responding to an earlier query by tigerdes (as is very clear from my response!) - the UNITS on the graph that I attached to my previous post are "millions of square kilometres". The winter average has dropped from 15.7 million square kilometres to 15.1 million square kilometres, and the reason why this is still significant is because the total mass / volume of winter ice has dropped by a much bigger amount, because while the winter AREA hasn't dropped by much, the winter thickness has dropped significantly. (As explained above.)
If I was marking a junior school science assignment, you just scored a D-!
The headline screams: Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%
(Al Gore - not exactly the world's leading climatologist!)
But when you check the data - yes, summer 2013 had more ice than summer 2012 - but the trend is still clearly DOWNWARDS!
(And before anyone asks: The units on the vertical axis are "millions of square kilometres" - the volume / mass loss trend is MUCH stronger, in both summer and winter, because the thickness is decreasing significantly in both summer and winter.)
Well, your sources:
Goddard (seriously, he's too cranky even for WUWT), and you believe him? Where is your skepticism? Do you believe everything on the Internet?
That's a very scientific analysis, you don't like his information because he is cranky
Peer reviewed by people of like ideals is not peer reviewed.
Huh? Peer review a foundation of modern scientific discovery and has worked well since the 18th century.
Quote:
Look how well the IPCC peer reviews have gone. A very discredited organisation
The IPCC does not conduct peer review itself.
It summarises the existing scientific knowledge. Despite many many thousands of pages, few (if any) significant errors have been found in Working Group 1 (wg I) which deals with the physical science of global warming.
The other working groups deal with less certain research areas such as regional and local impacts of global warming (wg II). Because peer reviewed science is thin on the ground when it comes to some areas, other wgs specifically allow for submissions by NGOs and other organisations that have demonstrated expertise in a particular area.
The IPCC is probably one of the most misrepresented organisations in the world and the subject of repeated and often dishonest attacks.
Of course sceptics can't explain the reduced rate of temperature increases (there is no actual hiatus - satellites measure the Earth's radiation budget and show the earth is still accumulating energy) nor can they explain anything else - their only motivation is to sow the seeds of doubt in order to rationalise their desire to do nothing.
Of course sceptics can't explain the reduced rate of temperature increases (there is no actual hiatus - satellites measure the Earth's radiation budget and show the earth is still accumulating energy) nor can they explain anything else - their only motivation is to sow the seeds of doubt in order to rationalise their desire to do nothing.
Where is the "Like" button on this forum? This post deserves a hundred up-votes!
Huh? Peer review a foundation of modern scientific discovery and has worked well since the 18th century.
The IPCC does not conduct peer review itself.
It summarises the existing scientific knowledge. Despite many many thousands of pages, few (if any) significant errors have been found in Working Group 1 (wg I) which deals with the physical science of global warming.
The other working groups deal with less certain research areas such as regional and local impacts of global warming (wg II). Because peer reviewed science is thin on the ground when it comes to some areas, other wgs specifically allow for submissions by NGOs and other organisations that have demonstrated expertise in a particular area.
The IPCC is probably one of the most misrepresented organisations in the world and the subject of repeated and often dishonest attacks.
Of course sceptics can't explain the reduced rate of temperature increases (there is no actual hiatus - satellites measure the Earth's radiation budget and show the earth is still accumulating energy) nor can they explain anything else - their only motivation is to sow the seeds of doubt in order to rationalise their desire to do nothing.
all good if you trust those doing the review. They have been caught fiddling numbers. Publishing NON peer reviewed as and student papers as scientific evidence.
If all those doing the review are of the same ideal how is that unbiased?
There has been no warming in 15 years. "scientists" now trying to explain why instead of accepting the fact. I guess for some it's just hard after wasting so many years chasing unicorns.
IPCC notorious for fiddling numbers when the data does not match their ideals. Good old hockey stick graph.
Still waiting on Tuvalu and Maldives to take a dive.
by all means lets clean up our air. Doesn't take a tax to do that. We stopped putting CFC's into the atmosphere with legislation.
Huh? Peer review a foundation of modern scientific discovery and has worked well since the 18th century.
Of course sceptics can't explain the reduced rate of temperature increases (there is no actual hiatus - satellites measure the Earth's radiation budget and show the earth is still accumulating energy) nor can they explain anything else - their only motivation is to sow the seeds of doubt in order to rationalise their desire to do nothing.
Isn't the same as saying we can't explain the lack of warming the last 15 years. We have no idea why it's not warming even though every single computer model says it should be warming. Maybe the science isn't settled after all. How can it be? If it was the models would tell us exactly what they climate should be doing.
all good if you trust those doing the review. They have been caught fiddling numbers.
No they haven't. They have been often accused but such accusations have been proven time and time again to be false.
Quote:
If all those doing the review are of the same ideal how is that unbiased?
What ideal? A commitment to scientific integrity and facts?
Quote:
There has been no warming in 15 years
Sorry but that is just plain wrong - sceptics have asserted it loud and often but it's simply just a sound-byte and not a statement of fact.
Quote:
IPCC notorious for fiddling numbers when the data does not match their ideals. Good old hockey stick graph.
Once again the IPCC just summarizes the science - doesn't create any numbers.
As for the hockey-stick it has been verified independently a dozen times using a whole range of different proxy reconstructions. http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Whilst it's true that the original MBH 98 paper did have a minor statistical error with it's application of Principal Component Analysis, this error was fixed and had little overall effect on the results.
What WAS dishonest was the sceptics claiming that this minor error invalidates the whole hockey-stick (and therefore the whole field of climate-science ).
Hi Rom,
You keep trying to change the subject. You attack me for my criticism of the dud Arctic Ice free by 2013 predictions made 2006, by showing me graphs which show that there is plenty of ice still there
May I suggest that as the ice is still there, around 5 million square kilometers in summer and 15 million square kilometers in winter, and as your graphs confirm that the ice is still there, either you had an extremely faulty memory of the predictions, or you are defending the indefensible dud predictions made by climate scientists which your own graphs prove were wrong.
And you have the audacity to claim I don't have a clue what I am talking about?
Regards,
Renato
Yes Renato, there is still some ice in the Arctic but your fixation is on it not having disappeared by 2013 and you TOTALLY ignore the fact that it IS disappearing. In fact, you look at one data point and say its increasing. Whats the difference between 2013 and 2020? Bugger all but it sure will make a difference down the track.
Last time I checked, it was pretty damn difficult to specify an exact date for most earth systems to behave in a certain way, but you can be damn sure they will. As I previously stated, the trend is the most informative information here and you completely, and deliberately, ignore it because it doesn't fit your world view. Head in the sand, or else where!
Don't rely on the headlines in the popular press, or claims by "interest groups" - always go to the source documents, and check what was ACTUALLY said - and by whom!
Whenever you see an alarmist headline in the popular press, or on the evening news, or on a blog site, or on any of a myriad of other sources, that says something like "Scientists say ..." or "Experts predict ...", that it is almost invariably NOT an accurate reflection of what was actually said!
If the science which is being reported is any good, it should have already been peer-reviewed, and if it is making predictions, there should be some statement of confidence ranges expressed. Journalists are interested in a scary headline, and are rarely very good at checking whether the work is peer-reviewed, or why peer-reviewed work is inherently more valuable than non-peer-reviewed work, and they often don't understand confidence intervals, ranges, standard deviations and so on.
An authoritative paper which reports that a model suggests that summer polar ice could disappear within 40 years (plus or minus twenty, say), but goes on to point out there is a list of unverified variables which need validation and further study and refinement, will be reported as "Scientists say ice will be gone within twenty years". (Journalists like to quote the lower-bound time-range, and the upper-bound outcome, because it is a lot scarier than quoting the ranges, or the more meaningful mean values.)
Within a few years, the worst-case scenario will often be found to have not happened, and the next thing you know, the inaccurate early reporting will be quoted as "proof" that the models are worthless, and scientists don't know what is actually going on.
(And if you actually talk to the scientists involved, they will freely admit what they don't know, but it is a good bet that they know a damn-sight more than the journalists ever did!)
Don't rely on the headlines in the popular press, or claims by "interest groups" - always go to the source documents, and check what was actually said - and by whom!
Whenever you see an alarmist headline in the popular press, or on the evening news, or on a blog site, or on any of a myriad of other sources, that says something like "scientists say ..." or "experts predict ...", that it is almost invariably not an accurate reflection of what was actually said!
If the science which is being reported is any good, it should have already been peer-reviewed, and if it is making predictions, there should be some statement of confidence ranges expressed. Journalists are interested in a scary headline, and are rarely very good at checking whether the work is peer-reviewed, or why peer-reviewed work is inherently more valuable than non-peer-reviewed work, and they often don't understand confidence intervals, ranges, standard deviations and so on.
An authoritative paper which reports that a model suggests that summer polar ice could disappear within 40 years (plus or minus twenty, say), but goes on to point out there is a list of unverified variables which need validation and further study and refinement, will be reported as "scientists say ice will be gone within twenty years". (journalists like to quote the lower-bound time-range, and the upper-bound outcome, because it is a lot scarier than quoting the ranges, or the more meaningful mean values.)
within a few years, the worst-case scenario will often be found to have not happened, and the next thing you know, the inaccurate early reporting will be quoted as "proof" that the models are worthless, and scientists don't know what is actually going on.
(and if you actually talk to the scientists involved, they will freely admit what they don't know, but it is a good bet that they know a damn-sight more than the journalists ever did!)
That's a very scientific analysis, you don't like his information because he is cranky
Go look up Goddards opinions on the atmospheric properties of Venus, or his views on the freezing properties (specifically the triple point) of water that were nuttier than squirrel poo, and more than enough evidence that this is not a knowledgeable person in climate, cryosphere or atmospheric physics! And as a climate scientist, they are waaaay more than enough for me to utterly disregard anything he says.
Isn't the same as saying we can't explain the lack of warming the last 15 years.
No, because the supposed "lack of warming" is statistically insignificant and only restricted to surface temperatures. Over 90% of the heat goes into the oceans (we always knew that), and they continue to warm, as evidenced by Levitus et al.
There is an observed radiative imbalance at the top of atmosphere, more energy arriving than leaving. So unless you believe in fairies, the Earth system has to be warming!
As an aside, an exercise. Go take a surface temperature record. Plot 1971 to 2000. Compute a trendline and extend it forward past 2013. Then add the 2001 to 2013 data (not used in computing the trend). Report back if you think there is a statistically significant change in the temperature trend! Does the 1971-2000 trend fit the 2001-2013 data? This is an exercise where you're not allowed to cherry pick the biggest El Nino on record as a start point...
But it's dishonest or deluded to make long-term predictions using a fixed rate that we know is rapidly changing.
But Carter claimed "cooling" which your graph doesn't even show.
Of course other data sets (which exist despite the fact your are fixated only on this one) show something different
You do realise that you have just entered the lunatic fringe with that graph you have posted, don't you?
You aren't just countering me - you are in fact countering me and the whole IPCC!
The graph doesn't have an Hiatus! The very Hiatus explained in the 5th Assessment Report.
So now we have dozens of theories, many in peer-reviewed papers trying to explain the Pause/Hiatus, and you attach a graph - without references - that shows no Pause/Hiatus.
Thank you for your polite reply.
It does appear there are a few theories on this matter so I am not surprised you have noted them.
I seem to detect a hint of scepticism as to their reasonableness and indeed the peer review process
Unfortunately one must publish ones own theory and have it reviewed to supplant a theory. Until then one can't pass the level of sceptic and the sceptics hold the lower ground Still I do enjoy the discussions I witness here knowing at this level it is belief against belief with no prospect of victory for either side
Thanks. There is is actually another theory which is not much liked by many climate scientists, but which is alluded to in the 5th Assessment Report, where it expanded the range of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) down to 1.5C for each doubling of atmospheric CO2.
That theory is that Climate sensitivity has been overestimated (i.e. ECS figures of 3C or more) and that the missing heat just flew back into space from whence it came.
Cheers,
Renato
The BEST project was even sponsored by the Charles Koch foundation and denialist blogger Anthony Watts claimed at the time:
"the BEST result will be closer to the ground truth that anything we've seen".
Of course as soon as Muller found that the IPCC was indeed correct Watts rapidly changed his tune as like all deniers he's not interested in real scientific evidence.
The BEST analysis is important because exactly the same claims about the US surface temperature record that have been debunked over and over are now being made against the Australian surface temperature record despite it being created via the same methodology that has been used elsewhere and proven to be robust.
Surely you have to be kidding about Richard Muller being a skeptic.
"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants." - Richard Muller, 2008
"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." - Richard Muller, 2008
"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003"
But you went and found the only article to support the nonsense claim that he is a climate skeptic.
The word - disingenuity comes to mind.
Regards,
Renato
*citation needed
Perhaps you are thinking of a different Richard Muller than this one, who around 2011 was spewing just about every climate myth under the Sun? And being extremely offensive about various climate scientists too.
Preferring the opinion of a random non-expert over professional Met Offices and independent data analyses does your 'skepticism' no favours. Marohasey is totally wrong.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings but the IPCC doesn't agree with you about much. Can you show me where the IPCC actually supports your views, rather than cherry-picking snippets out of context, such as claiming the existence of a global warming (ocean, atmosphere, cryosphere) "pause" while ignoring repeated references to both continued ocean heat content rise (>90% of GW) and short-term heat exchange oscillations like ENSO (why IPCC warning against using short-term surface temperature trends).
And there was me thinking you all though the ice was supposed to be gone in 2013 Even assuming you meant 2016:
Well, your sources:
Goddard (seriously, he's too cranky even for WUWT), and you believe him? Where is your skepticism? Do you believe everything on the Internet?
A BBC news article (great science source, that...) about Maslowski's 2016 +/-3 prediction I referenced earlier. The earliest published prediction of a sensible scientist, but much earlier than most cryosphere specialists expect. On what planet is a 2016 +/-3 prediction falsified by 2014?. If in 2020, Maslowski is shown to be wrong, does that invalidate the rest of the cryosphere science community forecasting closer to mid-century?
And on what planet is Al Gore a cryosphere scientist?
I asked you for a scientific source which suggested that climate scientists in general were forecasting ice-free conditions by 2014. IPCC would do! Not a news article about the bottom error bar of the single most pessimistic projection... Where is your skepticism of the junk you're reading? I'm trying to help you here!
May I suggest again that despite your repetition that the BEST report written years ago, somehow validates the recent BOM homogenisation and proves "Marohasey is totally wrong", makes zero sense. The BOM homogenisation was not the subject of the BEST report.
Misquotation - You are evading and slandering again. You said I frequently misquoted the IPCC, and neither at the time, nor now can you cite a single example of where I copied and pasted from the IPCC 5th Asessment report incorrectly. Anyone can make a mistake - as you have - but if you do not correct it, then the factually incorrect statement you made becomes a deliberate false statement.
And now you say I quoted them out of context, which you did say at the time, and I pointed out was a nonsense. What I copied and pasted was clear and unambiguous as to the IPCC's position on the current state of such things as droughts, floods, hurricanes and other extreme weather events. It matters not if the IPCC think they will get worse, there is nothing out of context in pointing out that despite popular alarmism about those events supposedly actually occuring now and in the past 20 or so years due to global warming, there is no evidence of such.
Amazingly, you reject Goddard's page as a source, because you don't believe Goddard. Did you actually look at the page?
Goddard didn't say anything - he provides a dozen or so links to articles where the dud predictions were made.
Dismissing anything Al Gore says, because he isn't a scientist, is specious. You know full well he gets fed by alarmist climate scientists. And as the IPCC's chief sprukier to get international agreements at those bienniel meetings, is it not incumbent on the IPCC to say that they do not agree his predictions?
Regards,
Renato
Peer reviewed by people of like ideals is not peer reviewed. Look how well the IPCC peer reviews have gone. A very discredited organisation who passes of uni student papers as peer reviewed climate science? Please.
Recent article in news explains the 15 year hiatus in warming due to the trapping of warm water under the Arctic and Antarctic waters.
We were told as kids that we were heading for an ice age. We're told as adults we're heading for global warming. We're told 10 plus years ago sea levels would swallow all low lying island nations on Tuvalu, Maldives and others. All still there and thriving.
Climate change is real. No if buts or maybes. they climate is on the move. West. Our seasons are shifting. Is that Global warming or just a natural event.
No warming for 15 years. Is the consensus
Thanks Peter,
As for being told about the Ice Age, way back in 1977 or 78 , as part of an undergraduate course at Monash University called "Applied Ecolgy and Conservation" I was taught about the coming Ice Age, and that Global warming from CO2 couldn't stop it.
I think the consensus is now 16 years, though the satellite data set figure is even longer .
Regards,
Renato
Let me take you through your various issues with my posts in nice small steps!
See attached - I've highlighted it for you.
SOMETHING happened to create a "step-change" in the Amberley data in about 1980, as plotted here. I don't claim the expertise to know what that "something" was, but I D0 know that plotting a linear trend-line through a data-set which contains an unexplained step-change is just "bad science".
The measurements are area under sea ice, not the total quantity (volume / mass) of ice. In winter, the Arctic Ocean still freezes over, although the southern-most latitude of freezing is tending to retreat, which is where the reduction of area under ice is observed. However, the winter ice is also thinning significantly, and less and less winter ice survives each summer to form the base of the next year's ice pack. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...20090707r.html
Puh-lease!!!!
Now you are really resorting to the "cherry-picking" and selective quoting that is so often a trait of the climate-change deniers!
I was responding to an earlier query by tigerdes (as is very clear from my response!) - the UNITS on the graph that I attached to my previous post are "millions of square kilometres". The winter average has dropped from 15.7 million square kilometres to 15.1 million square kilometres, and the reason why this is still significant is because the total mass / volume of winter ice has dropped by a much bigger amount, because while the winter AREA hasn't dropped by much, the winter thickness has dropped significantly. (As explained above.)
If I was marking a junior school science assignment, you just scored a D-!
Hi Julian,
I think you are talking nonsense again. A thousand or so daily readings taken between 1980 and 1983 show the minimum temperature going down and then going back up, and the readings aren't outside typical average range, and I doubt they are outside 2 sigma or 3 sigma confidence intervals. Perhaps the "Something" that happened here was that it actually got colder. The notion that people didn't have good thermometers in accredited weather stations prior to 1980 is a nonsense.
Lets see, you tell someone that winter ice has dropped by millions of square kilometers. I point out that the case by your own figures is only 0.6million.
You actually agree that such is the case, but instead of saying that you were plainly and unambiguously incorrect, you
a. Accuse me of cherry picking - which is a irrelevant and a nonsense, and
b. Accuse me of being a climate change denier - which has zilch to do with your poor arithmetic, and
c. Then claim to actually be correct, and
d Disparagingly conclude that you would give me a D- if you were marking a junior assignment.
My conclusion is that you are extremely sensitive to criticism when some one points out that you got the simple arithmetic wrong, that most any child can do in Year 2 or Year 3.
Regards,
Renato
).
This is an exercise where you're not allowed to cherry pick the biggest El Nino on record as a start point...
Even assuming you meant 2016:
