The hockey stick consists of useless, exaggerated climate forecasts.
95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
Hockey Stick Finally Located
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Obviously the data must be “adjusted” to fit the model. The sun is a denier.
“The Science Is Settled Based On Overwhelming Evidence ” is as vacuous a campaign slogan as was “Hope and Change We Can Believe In.”
What about ‘Climate change is real … and it’s happening now’?
There is a 97% consensus that 97% of the climate models each shit.
There is a 97% consensus, without the sensus
Reblogged this on CACA.
If anyone is interested in how these temperature trends are actually done, the following link is a must read. It is a little more complicated that what Steve would have you believe.
scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.pdf
Unfortunately, the scalpel is a blunt instrument.
Either you or I have missed the point of this post about global climate models and their failure to accurately predict trends. You give us a link to the BEST study, an attempt to create “A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011”. I fail to see what relevance that has to a discussion pointing out the near universal inability of climate scientists to forecast climate. Seriously, am I missing some point which you are trying to make? Yes, we all realize (sceptics more than warmists) the difficulty of estimating past trends. Are you implying that that somehow makes failed models less bad? Help me out with what point you are making.
Jason Calley, you do the usual mischaracterization of modeling. Models are simply applied physics made dynamic. They are mathematical formulas created from historical data that plug in “what ifs” to try and see trends. All models are wrong, but they are useful. All branches of science use them but only climate science models get attached by you “skeptics”. Models are just tools. As the physics of climate science gets better understood, the models get better. You all obsess over older out dated models and ignore the flood of the new. The amount of climate science out there comes at us like a fire hose, models see this information like a giant fur ball to be unraveled to find the truth hidden in the massive amount of information. Climate experts are simply trying their best to make sense of it all. You “skeptics” should show a little humility and skepticism of your own “skepticism.”
There isn’t an atmospheric modeler in the world who believes that they can forecast more than few days in the future, because it is a chaotic system. You have no idea what you are talking about.
No one is claiming to “predict” anything. Are you saying models have no place in science?
models don’t predict????
Michael Mann predicts we are all doomed!!!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0756639956
Your mate Matthew Ngland failed with his predictions too! But he probably forgot to take his anti depressants.
“There is no pause. We’re doomed!
There is a pause! We’re doomed!”
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-global-warming-pause-the-dangers-of-politicising-science/14658#.UvvrUKYay0c
Andy Oz, all you see me discussing is the science. I see you all pontificating on the science and I think your scientific fraud premise is wrong. True, I think we should all learn to live with a smaller footprint and I think we Americans are essential to lead the world toward a more sustainable future, but I am hardly morose about it. If we end up deciding to do nothing about it, I’m like John Boehner yesterday, “zip pe de do da, zip pe a”.
It does not matter how they are done. The climate is a chaotic system and therefore can not be modeled long term. The best that we can hope for is recognizing cycles like the Milankovitch cycles and Bond – D/O events.
The IPCC actually said in the Science Report in TAR:
Gail Combs, A model is a simple tool that when improved data becomes available, it can be plugged in to improve the ability of the model to do its job better. A model is only as good as the science behind it. It may seem that wild “predictions” are being made with models, but most working, publishing, peer reviewed climate experts are more humble about what models say. There is nothing wrong in creating a model to help us try and see around the curve a bit. All branches of science use models. Folks on this site seem to be saying climate science should not use models.
The “truthiness” of the climatologist-clowns about what I expected, given that their profession can’t predict weather/climate a month in advance with any degree of accuracy. Their predictions of permanent drought in the southwestern US is an epic example…
The best part of all this is that the credibility of the climatologist-clowns is approaching that of the credibility of a professional alchemist. Claims of climate models predicting future climate reality are now just about as credible as the formula to convert lead into gold.
I see a future where climatologist statements are taken as seriously as promises made by the Liar-in-chief.
I can see that your mind is as closed as a steel trap.
Someone has his panties in a knot over the lack of warming 😉
Steve, you should do a little moderating and see if you can get the quality of the dialogue back on science. Anthony Watts does a good job with that not mention most of the other climate science sites. Your credibility is on the lower end of the scale because of the lack of standards.
Hey matayaya, I perused your link.
No-where in “A New Estimate of the Average
Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011” does it even mention, let alone show, the latest ‘settled climate science’ phenomenon of land surface temperature/heat going into the deep, deep, cold oceans at the rate of four Hiroshima bombs a second, only to re-appear at a later date(s). 250+ years of data, the best computer models, not a mention.
Back to the drawing board for Prof Muller et al OR Prof Trenberth et al.
If you can’t explain ‘the pause’, you can’t explain the cause.
Well now, it seems you are positing your opinion “I can see that your mind is as closed as a steel trap.” as fact.
Upon what facts do you base this opinion of yours?
Oh wait!!! Let me guess, you ran my remarks through a “sophisticated climate model” and the results were “mind is as closed as a steel trap”…….
I am actually shocked that the results of that modeling run weren’t: “mind is as closed as a rusted steel trap”……..
Why don’t you just read the link I sent and comment on the substance of that.
It would appear that the study you linked, “A New Estimate of the Average
Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011″, is grossly mis-named.
In spite of all the statistical flim-flam, the estimate they are making appears to be an estimate of the magnitude of the urban heat island effect across all measurement stations. And the authors are then attempting to spread the urban heat island effect to the entire land surface via the “Krigging” (remember boys and girls, the K is silent) and their “Berkley Average” data manipulation.
Thus, that study should have been named “A New Estimate of the Urban Heat Island Effect as Averaged over the Earth Surface Land Temperatures Spanning 1753 to 2011″.
A few notes:
They do a lot of hand-waving to explain-away the recent increases in diurnal temperature ranges. “From 1950 to 2010, because of the recent rise, the net change we observe is -0.04 ± 0.01°C/decade. We are not aware of any global climate models that predicted the reversal of slope that we observe.” Thus something that is opposite of their theory is observed, not explained, and quickly forgotten.
I was greatly amused by this statement “We also tried fitting to other empirical functions (exponential, parabolic, population growth), but none of these fit the data nearly as well as the log(CO2) function.“.
And this paragraph says it all: “In the simple linear combination, the anthropogenic factor, log(CO2), has a weight equivalent to an effective response of 3.1 ± 0.3°C at doubled CO2 (95% confidence). However, this parametrization is based on an extremely simple linear combination, using only CO2 and no other anthropogenic factors and considering only land temperature changes. As such, we don’t believe it can be used as an explicit constraint on climate sensitivity other than to acknowledge that the rate of warming we observe is broadly consistent with the IPCC estimates of 2-4.5°C warming (for land plus oceans) at doubled CO2. The purpose of the anthropogenic term is merely to show that our extended temperature reconstruction is consistent with an anthropogenic explanation, and not to try and detangle the details for those changes. However, more detailed studies of how our land surface temperature history compares to the various forcing and expected responses should ultimately help constrain parameters critical to the understanding of climate change.” —- Simple translation of that paragraph reads: “Averaging urban heat island temperature increases across the entire land surface results in an estimate that is broadly consistent with the IPCC estimates. Now we need more grant money to study this further as we have no flipping clue how to accurately model, much less predict how the climate will “change” in the future.”
Matayaya, OK, I’ll bite. The link at scitechnol is discussing a completely different question.
The question there is historic trends and their difficulties. The question here is the current trend, as measured by instrumentation that does not require those kinds of adjustments and handwaving. The satellite measurements today are not being questioned or adjusted by anybody I know of.
What has the one question got to do with the other? What makes you think the measured trend today is at all questionable?
Roberto, as I understand it, all of the temperature trends we see graphed out everywhere by the major science organizations blend, homogenize, splice and distill everything together. The historical and current satellite data is somehow reconciled. No individual data is assumed to be perfect in its stand alone format. Only when everything is considered in context with everything else, can reasonable assumptions be made about long term temperature trends. Steve wants to call that fraud, to me, it’s just the way usable, albeit messy, science gets done. How else could it be.
Roberto, as I understand it, the satellite data is questioned as hard as the historical data. Many things have to line up just right or others can’t recreate conclusions. There are two satellite data sets, one tends to estimate temperature low and the other higher. At least they are consistent. Reconciling the two is improving the understanding of how to get better measurements. Satellites supplement the other methods but do not preclude them.
Canadians find hockey stick!!! Putin had it all the time.
http://m.sochi2014.com/en/photo-gallery-sochi-2014-day-4-ice-hockey-women-s-prelim-round-group-a?photoid=0000003125
In 2006, ABC Science said Warming caused by Pacific Trade Winds.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/05/04/1630825.htm
In 2014 ABC Science says Lack of Warming caused by Pacific Trade Winds
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/10/3941061.htm
I mean wow! The Australian ABC either has the attention span of a goldfish or they are intentionally peddling propaganda from Alarmists. Busted!!!
From Andrew Bolt’s blog
Shazam, I guess it is a glass half empty vs half full. You and Steve see fraud so they can get grant money, I see serious scientists doing their best with what they have to get the science right. If your premise is always to take a prosecutoral approach and look for words and phrases to discredit out of context, there will always be something to feast on. What I saw in that study from my first post was an effort to be completely transparent in methods and thought so that others could attempt to recreate what they had done. Steve is always plucking things out and yelling fraud. I see human beings doing their best to do the job right. They do their work in a fashion that invites peer review, and constructive criticism that makes the product better is always welcome. Good science thru peer review is an evolving thing that can get better and better. Railing against the effort with nothing constructive waste everyone’s time.
I do not object to studying the climate. However that “estimate” you linked was anything but good science. It’s almost a case study in how to separate ignorant political hacks from the tax money they control.
What I find criminally offensive is presenting theory as “fact” and thus scaring ignorant political hacks into making policy changes that will have a very real and negative effect on the economy. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/heatherginsberg/2014/02/11/epas-new-clean-coal-rule-would-increase-power-prices-by-70-to-80-percent-n1793353
What you label as a “prosecutoral approach” cuts both ways. The climatologist-clowns see themselves as “saviors of the world” and thus do not confine themselves to real science. Instead they take the “ends-justify-the-means” approach and take any shortcut that will generate the result they desire. Read that report you cited closely. It appears that the goal of that “study” was to validate the IPCC estimates. And any statistical jiggery-pokery required to reach that goal was considered acceptable to the so-called climatologists who produced that “report”.
Thanks to the climatologist-clowns and ignorant political hacks, I can look forward to at least a doubling of my electric bill.
shazaam, that report was not an “estimate”, it was a step by step detail of how a particular temperature record was put together. The purpose was to show in the most transparent, detailed way possible how the conclusions were reached. The magnitude of all that transparent detail of method shows that Steve’s premise of fraud is simplistic to say the least. It is a very complicated puzzle and they tell you how to put it together. If you see specific mistakes in methods or details and want to provide peer review, they welcome that with open arms. State specifically how you would do it better. Steve’s premise that historical data is pristine and never to be taken with a grain of salt, is wrong. All data is to be taken with a grain of salt and making sense of it all is not an easy thing to do. But if you choose to just lazily sit back and call the whole thing a fraud, then you are useless.
Apparently I mis-read the title. Was there an alternate title listed somewhere declaring that report as “facts for the believers” ?? The words I saw displayed in the position of a report title were: “A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011″
Is there perhaps a new version of the English language that I missed?
And yes, the so-called climatologists who authored that new “Climatology Gospel That Must Be Accepted as Settled Facts Because It Was Published” report appear to have been open about the methods they used to fit the data to their conclusions.
Though I do find it most curious that the so-called climatologists openly neglected to make any adjustments for the well-known urban heat island effects that so many measurement stations suffer.
Could it be that averaging elevated measurement station temperatures (due to urban heat island effects) over the land areas produces data that fits their conclusions? Is that what you call real science? If so, then I shall be proud to be “useless” to the climatology crowd / warming believers.
It appears that the “warming believers” really need all the useful idiots they can get as their “settled facts” unravel in the face an ever-longer “pause” in their global warming/climate change scam.
Shazaam, I guess it got lost in translation but my point in posting the report was to show that the way climate experts discover and present their estimates of climate trends is a bit more complicated than the fraud premise of this website. One of the many issues the report covered in detail was the urban heat island effect in which you put great importance and presumed was not covered in the report. You obviously did not read the report. One can get a very good understanding of the urban heat island effect by reading that part of the report. You also repeat the tired old trope that the data was manipulated to to fit a desired conclusion. Four other major institutions did their own independent analysis of the same historical climate data and came to similar conclusions. So much scientific talent all coordinated to commit fraud. Silly to say the least.
Not when all the “Scientific Talent” is dipping their sustainability from the same trough. No one in this entire conversation has, with the exception of ,”… will cause my utility bill to double”, even mentioned the motivation of the money behind this Phenomenon called global warming. It has become a creature unto itself, both scientifically and financially. It is no wonder that skeptics view the science behind this as nothing short of the professor on Gilligan’s Island, with Gilligan moving the measuring stick, and the Professor claiming the Island is sinking. Or whatever the dramatic problem of the episode was inventing for the week. Scientists have been anything but scientific in their approaches to this seeing the money trough, notoriety, and reputations grow faster than Al Gore’s electric bill for his 20,000 sq.ft. mansion. At this point, too many have been caught red handed fixing the numbers for anyone of an once of intelligence to not be skeptical, on the other hand, no matter what accord is reached as in Kyoto, countries like China that are just coming into their own industrial/capitalistic revolutions, are not going to abide by them. That is just the way things are. We don’t have to be warming enthusiasts to want to live better while not polluting needlessly. The flip side of that coin, is that we will not be told that we are at fault, we need to pay, we need to sacrifice, while our “Carbon Footprint” is steadily shrinking or stabilized to one-third of what other countries on the globe are doing. To that we have politely said “No”. What we have received instead of understanding is volumes of unnecessary regulations that are hitting our pockets and business in ways that are anything but fair. Before anyone is accused of being closed minded in this game, and that is exactly what it has become, the scientific community has some serious damage control to do to its own credibility base. As well as dealing with those within the ranks that dispute the data and the conclusions drawn from the data.
“Models are simply applied physics made dynamic. They are mathematical formulas created from historical data that plug in “what ifs” to try and see trends.”
Those two descriptions are mutually exclusive — and climate models are neither. “Simple applied physics”? That is one of the biggest problems. The beauty and effectiveness of physics is that it can (in many cases) simplify an event to such a degree that it is possible to apply basic laws of nature. Climate is not simple enough to calculate from first principles. There are far too many inputs — and most of them are far too poorly known. Additionally, it is a non-linear system with feedback, i.e., it is chaotic. On the other hand, if the CGMs are mathematical formulas created from historical data, a.k.a. “wiggle matching”, then they are not properly “models”. Useful? Very possibly, but only insofar as they are accurate — and the present attempts are almost universally, demonstrably wrong and hugely overestimate warming. They mislead rather than inform. Why? Because they are based on poor data, altered data (no, not merely “adjusted”) and bad physics.
You say, “You “skeptics” should show a little humility and skepticism of your own “skepticism.”” Do you have any idea of how long and hard we sceptics have been trying to convey the fact that “climate science” is NOT settled? Do you have any idea how often we have been insulted as “flat Earthers” because “the debate is over!”?
This last remark was in response to Matayaya. My apologies for failing to position it below his original remarks.
Jason Calley, Why do climate models get singled out for nit picking while all the other models of the different branches of science get used and no one complains. You say the model estimates estimated too high of a temperature. I have seen many models with conclusions high, low and in the middle. The conclusion depended on what data got plugged in at the beginning. Seems to me that a model is simply a mathematical formula made dynamic. Why do you judge it to be an illegitimate tool for climate science. You simply trust raw data. How do you make sense of that fire hose of raw data? When hind sight data turned out to be right, the model projections were right. The problem with models is not the models per se, but the data that gets plugged in. You all keep saying how models predicted temperatures too high. I think you are referring to the one that overestimated CO2. But the middle range models that got the CO2 right were dead on and we are about .7c warmer as the middle range models showed.
You say the science is not settled. Are you one that says AGW is not happening? Do you say it’s cooling, or simply say its the sun. I amazes me how you all can say it’s this, it’s that, it’s everything except AGW. We certainly don’t know everything, but we know a lot, and there is far more consensus on that you all want to admit.
matayaya says:
February 14, 2014 at 9:51 pm
“Jason Calley, Why do climate models get singled out for nit picking while all the other models of the different branches of science get used and no one complains.”
Because climate models are simplified, iterative, statistical models of a fractal, nonlinear, chaotic system, run for a hundred years of modeled time, and the people who run them pretend that they have predictive skill beyond a few days.
That’s why, in a nutshell. And the dolts who built them didn’t even check whether results would change when they run it on a different hardware. Somebody checked. Results do change. (different precision, rounding etc)
Totally incompetent idiots who wrote them.
Jeez, I wish you guys would apply even just a tiny fraction of scrutiny to the claims a wide range of high profile individuals who challenge man-made climate change.
Why not apply the same level of scrutiny to WUWT. Or to ClimateAudit. Or Pielke, Curry, Tol, Monckton, Ball, Carter, Humlum, JoNova, or any of a very very long list of people who torture the facts.
All the while, others on the “skeptic” side get away with intellectual murder.
As Paul Harvey might say, here is the rest of the story. Time is short or I wouldn’t just rely on a link. But it makes the case far better than I could. I know Steve says this source is illegitimate, but judge the information for yourself without his filter. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Arctic Ice Volume has increased according to NSIDC.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/latest-data-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html
If you read the article in your post, it does say that Arctic sea increased 50 percent; but that was from 2012 to 2013. That is hardly the recovery you skeptics presume. 2012 was the low point, so coming up from that is hardly unexpected. The 30 year steady downward trend is what you should pay attention to. But you won’t do that, Steve has you all believing the temperature records have been corrupted.
As you seem to be unfamiliar with modeling, another word of clarification.
A model is imperfect. It has a small, residual error in each time step.
These errors accumulate and amplify with each time step.
That’s why your model completely goes off track after a certain, often rather small, number of timesteps.
Climate scientists do not even attempt to set the model in the beginning with the state of the atmosphere they observe in real life, knowing that any attempt at emulating the real system is futile.
So instead they run the same model a hundred times, with RANDOM initial settings.
Then they average the output.
Then they pretend the junk they computed has meaning.
They call this “projection” to avoid the term “prediction”.
Because in the scientific method, “prediction” is what a theory PREDICTS; and if it fails to come to pass, the theory must be REJECTED.
That’s why they always tried to step out of the scientific method, attempting to call their science a post-normal science.
Post-normal science is a concept by an english Marxist Jerome Ravetz.
It tries to relax the rules for the charlatans that create and run climate models.
It’s largely no longer talked about because, well, it’s a load of bunk.
Serious Climate Change question:
Why do we tolerate matayaya?
Serious Climate Change answer:
Because she so perfectly demonstrates the religion of CAGW.
For a couple of reasons:
First the IPCC admitted in TAR
In other words it has been KNOWN for over a decade that the climate is a chaotic system that CAN NOT BE MODELED. (It appears to be bi-stable with the present configuration of continents and the only ‘Tipping Point’ is into the next glaciation. graph )
Second the AVERAGE the results of different models and you can not do that.
Third the models are proved wrong by Mother Nature. Well 96% of them and the two left show no cause for alarm.
Finally the main reason is these absolutely useless models are being used as an excuse to drive our civilization back to the level of the 1700s. It is pretty darn obvious it is a war on the middle class and nothing to do with climate or the environment.
I am NOT interested in living in a 15 ft X15 ft prison cell called a ‘Sustainable Micro-mini Apartment’ to bicycle to work so some fat ass mega-millionaire can get his jollys controlling every facet of my life while he lives in multiple mansions and rides in jets and limos to conferences where he and other fat asses discuss what other head games they are going to play with the herd of sheeple.
If you want to be a serf to the Banksters and Mega-corporations just keep your head stuck in the sand while they screw you over. I am sure they really appreciate it until they decide you are expendable.
+10
I must protest your last paragraph. Banksters and Mega-corporations do not screw me over. Governments, on the other hand, do. The Banksters and the Mega-corporations you mention are wholly owned subsidiaries of governments. Banksters can’t make me deposit money with them. Governments can. Mega-corporations can’t make me work for or buy from them. Governments can.
Actually you have it backwards. Banksters and Mega-corporations OWN the governments.
Top Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin’s confession in April 2009 right after the Bank Bailouts: “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.”
We all get screwed because bankers printing fiat money devalues our savings our wages and inflates prices. Regulations, mostly set-up to protect the turf of the Mega-corporation cartels and not to protect customers, means we pay high prices for shoddy products. (No real competition)
It doesn’t matter what you buy or who you buy from the devil skims his due off the top.
I still disagree. the Banksters ‘print’ fiat money because the governments tell them that they and we the people, must accept it as payment (just as much as when the king told the silver/gold smith to dilute the coinage). Sure, the banksters get their cut, but still, they can’t tell the governments to go shove it. Those that do have had their banks taken from them. That happened to Regions Bank. Do what I tell you or else, so they did.
Same with the mega-corporations. They cannot force me to work for or buy from them. They don’t have that kind of power. Only governments can make me do that and the mega-corporations are told by governments what they can and cannot do to make products, who to hire, how much to pay them, etc.Otherwise, the mega-corps would simply tell governments to shove it while paying the workers what they’re willing to work for and selling the products at prices people are willing to pay.
Why fall for Marxist premises? Banks and businesses are not our problem. Overbearing, tyrannical governments are our problem.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.