Climate Sensitivity

Observed Rate of Global Warming Half of What the Models Predict


Image 191:dreamstime

That's what an interesting new article in Nature Climate Change points out. The article, "Overestimated warming over the past 20 years," by members in good standing of the "climate community" compares model simulations from 37 of the climate models being used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to project future temperatures with the actual global temperature increase over the past two decades. The study (since it's behind a paywall I am linking to the version published online at the AGW skeptical website the Hockeyschtick) reports:

Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval)1. This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models. These models generally simulate natural variability — including that associated with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and explosive volcanic eruptions — as well as estimate the combined response of climate to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, aerosol abundance (of sulphate, black carbon and organic carbon, for example), ozone concentrations (tropospheric and stratospheric), land use (for example, deforestation) and solar variability. By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty… (emphasis added). …

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade. It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming. (emphasis added).

The article concludes:

Ultimately the causes of this inconsistency will only be understood after careful comparison of simulated internal climate variability and climate model forcings with observations from the past two decades, and by waiting to see how global temperature responds over the coming decades.

It seems to me what the researchers are saying in so many words is that the current batch of climate models have not been validated using actual temperature trends. One possibility for the mismatch between actual temperature trends and the model projections is that the modelers have set climate sensitivity (response of the climate to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide) too high. As I have reported before, more recent research has significantly lowered estimates for climate sensitivity which suggests that future warming will also be lower.

In June, I reported data from University of Alabama in Birmingham climatologist John Christy in which he compared the 73 CMIP5 climate models with actual temperature trends from 1978 to 2025. See graphic below:

CMIP5 models versus temperatures
John Christy

The graphic above depicts the global lower troposphere temperature projections from 73 CMIP5 models from 1979 to 2025 compared to an average of the satellite data from UAH and RSS (blue boxes) and weather balloons (green circles) for the global lower troposphere temperatures since 1979 until now. Note nearly all the model runs project much warmer temperatures than the globe has recently experienced. The thick black line is the average projection of the 73 models.

Next month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is set to release its update on the physical science of climate change. It will be interesting to see how (or if) its authors try to explain the growing gap between the model projections and the actual climate.

NEXT: White House Doesn't Give Lawmakers Timetable For Syria Response

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But, but…

    1. But it ist’t behind a paywall- contrast and compare what it actually says withte comments that follow from folks who by and large have not read it:…..ATE-201309

      1. Both of those links take me to a paywall.

  2. So none of the models can accurately predict the results. Can we stop believing this horse shit now?

    1. But the theory is so beyooootiful!!!! It must be true!

      1. Well it is true, to some extent.

        Generally speaking more CO2 = warmer temperatures and there really isn’t ANY question about the scientific validity of that proposition.

        What is not established is how much warmer based on any given concentration of CO2 and the clear implication of this data is that the Warmist crowd is (either intentionally or accidentally) inflating the estimates of Carbon’s impact to give the impression that AGW is a problem we need to deal with when the reality is that it is such a minor impact that we are likely to stop burning Fossil Fuels thanks to natural technological advancement long before we warm the planet enough to really be a problem.

        1. “Generally speaking more CO2 = warmer temperatures and there really isn’t ANY question about the scientific validity of that proposition.”

          Except that the climate is a massively complex system, with all kinds of countereffects, feedback loops, etc. It’s not a glass bottle.

          1. It’s not a glass bottle.


          2. Rasilio is just saying that, ceteris paribus, increased CO2 results in increased temperatures.

            Not that that’s a bad thing, as humanity now has more arable farmland than we did before the warming trend and before concentrations of CO2 shot up after WW2.

            1. Not that that’s a bad thing, as humanity now has less gamboling space than we did before the warming trend and before concentrations of CO2 shot up after WW2.

              1. It’s a heck of a lot easier to gambol through corn than permafrost, I’d think, though I am not widely known as a gamboling man.

          3. Yes but that would only account for short term variability.

            Take a stable climate with Temperature T1 and a CO2 concentration of X

            Increase the CO2 concentration by Y while holding all other inputs constant and give time for the climate to reach a new equilibrium temperature T2

            In all cases T2 will be higher than T1

            1. In all cases T2 will be higher than T1

              You sure about that?

            2. “Increase the CO2 concentration by Y while holding all other inputs constant ”

              But that’s not happening.

            3. This is incorrect as far as some of that data out there. CO2 has been positioned as a lagging indicator as opposed to a leading one. At least outside of the bottle approach.

              More heat means more decomp of biomass means more co2…etc. Plus more heat means more arable land for us humans which means more humans and more co2.

              Just saying your premise is anything but sound.

            4. Unless at X the concentration levels have already reached a saturation point where no more heat will be given off.

            5. But we don’t live in a stable climate where only CO2 increases, right?

              1. Correct.

                CO2 will cause the climate to be warmer, but the reality is that it is a VERY minor factor, so if we increase the CO2 concentration to 3000 PPM (about 8x what it is today) we’re only looking at around 5 Degrees Celsius in increased global average temperatures, not the 10+ degrees the IPCC has tried to claim.

                Thing is for all of the industrial activity we have done to date we still haven’t come close to doubling the atmospheric concentration and realistically to get to 3000 PPM you’re talking about continuing to burn fossil fuels at accelerating rates for the next 150+ years. Problem is that finding new sources of fossil fuels at that rate is unlikely and therefore the cost of them will go up to the point that other technologies will take over and by the time we get to 150 years from now it is likely we won’t be burning CO2 any more.

                Realistically if we take absolutely no action on Climate Change it is unlikely that human forces would drive the atmospheric CO2 concentration above 1000 PPM which would result in around 3 degrees of warming

              2. That too is also correct. If the variables X, Y and Z are accounted for in all the above models, but they have different behavioral properties (feedbacks) dependent on conditional changes then ‘if all other things being equal’ is not a state you can even derive as normative.

                say: x = 1, y = 1, z = 1
                is conditioned by if x + 1 then y – 1, z + 1, you could never set one variable as a separate factor in any meaningful way.

        2. Except history indicates a growth in CO2 following increases in temperatures, not vice versa IIRC.

          1. That just means that historically CO2 was not a driving factor in climate change, it does not rule out the possibility that it could be one if there were some mechanism to cause the CO2 concentration to rise prior to the climate change

        3. Also not established : what is the optimal temperature. And how to weigh costs of deviation from that temperature against costs of changing it.

          1. Indeed, they like to point to one of the mass extinctions that appears to have been caused at least in part to climate change (Permian) as evidence of the catastrophe. Where the global average temperature went up by more than 8 degrees C in a short period.

            3 things however that are flaws in that, First while the climate did warm at that time it is not at all clear that it was a cause for the extinction. Second even if it was organism’s then were much less evolutionarily advanced meaning they were less suited to adapt to changes in climate. 3rd the climate started from a higher baseline than it is at today, going from 40 to 50 deg C is not the same thing as going from 25 to 35 deg C.

    2. Cultists gonna cult, John.

  3. Observed Rate of Global Warming Half of What the Models Predict

    When they aren’t complaining about how hard it is to stand front of a fan all day.

  4. The simulations of a complex and chaotic system are shit? You don’t say.

    1. Don’t have to be shit.

      1. As you note below, there is a gnat’s chance that they can accurately simulate the planet’s climate.

    2. The simulations would be very interesting and probably useful in understanding how climate systems work (even if useless for making predictions) if there wasn’t a good chance of their being used as an excuse to implement expensive, repressive and ultimately ineffective public policies.

  5. I’ll bet if you run the study back 50 years, you get a full-time scale and decadal warming trend not significantly diffent from zero. Which has always been my problem with the “do something” part of climate change.

    1. One big problem is that the data archives are compromised.

      Essentially, the records were shittily curated. Original records were lost. People modified the master database without keeping a record of the changes they made etc.

      Hell, Steven McIntyre is on the CAGW cult’s shitlist for no crime other than very persistently and doggedly asking them to publish and/or properly archive their data.

      One of Antony Watt’s great contributions is his Surface Stations project, the sort of unglamorous, boring grunt work needed to be able to know the quality of your data. Interestingly his assistance is only grudgingly being accepted by the NWS/NOAA crowd, and the people doing the work are largely volunteers.

      1. Mann and company “accidentally” deleted the original records and only have their reconstructions. So no one can check their work. Convenient that.

        1. I believe they said they deleted the source data because it was too expensive to maintain copies (which is bullshit of course).

          1. That alone is a screaming, blaring siren that says “you are a fucking liar”. Nothing else need be said.

            1. Yup. I used to make daily tape back ups (reel to reel) on the computers we used for simulators. I fully understand the labor and material costs of keeping data safe in the 80s and 90s when most of this data was originally sourced.

              The only question is whether their actions were gross incompetence or intentional malfeasance (I’ll accept “yes” as an answer).

            2. Yup. I used to make daily tape back ups (reel to reel) on the computers we used for simulators. I fully understand the labor and material costs of keeping data safe in the 80s and 90s when most of this data was originally sourced.

              The only question is whether their actions were gross incompetence or intentional malfeasance (I’ll accept “yes” as an answer).

              1. The thing is it is not even their data so they were not backing it up.

                What they lost was the list of the data they used.

                Also: it was not Mann who lost the list but the CRU in England.

                Jones lost it.

            3. I delete raw data all the time after verifying that the compressed form gives identical results. Keeping 100’s of TB of data around actually does get pretty expensive. So that alone doesn’t prove he is a liar.

              1. But that was pretty important raw data.

              2. Hospitals keep all the x-ray and MRI images and etc. All. Its the price of being in that business.

              3. Maybe 20 years ago, but then 20 years ago the climate data sets they were using were measured in the 100’s of MB, not TB.

                Today a couple of Petabytes with backup drives for all of it would only cost a few thousand dollars.

              4. after verifying that the compressed form gives identical results

                They did not save compressed data sets. They saved altered data sets without any record of what was altered, when it was altered, or why it was altered.

        2. Actually, it’s worse than that.

          IT should be understood that Mann and the guys like him aren’t setting out to be evil, their bad behavior is mostly due to their promotion way above their competence and their struggles with things beyond their ability.

          For example, Mann’s use of PCA was deeply flawed. He didn’t work with any good stats guys and made a bunch of novice mistakes. IT would have been one thing if doing the stats right had kept the hockey stick intact. However, a proper analysis would have basically shown useless noise that didn’t say much.

          So he tried to hide away the data. Unfortunately, he didn’t ask anybody knowledgable about how computer systems work to hide the data from prying eyes while sharing it with his friends. So he fucked up and he posted stuff on an insecure FTP server… in a directory labeled CENSORED. One which was set to allow google to crawl it and index it.

          I strongly encourage everyone to read a copy of the Hockey Stick Illusion by AW Montford (a libertarian who is world famous in England), which documents the whole sordid tale.

          1. I thought that while Mann’s HS was junk, later analysis found a similar temp profile?

            1. That’s junk too. They just learned to conceal the fact better.

          2. world famous in England

            How many worlds are there in this country?


          3. Careerism is one of the biggest problems here. It should be multidisciplinary teams working on these issues. There should be stat people and computer people and math people and climate people. But the climate people love the gravy train. They don’t want to let any other people from other fields in on it. So they try to do things that are way beyond their competence.

            1. Careerism has nothing to do with it. The problem is funding it with public money. and allowing them to continue funding based on obtaining certain politically advantageous results.

              Objectivity has been removed from the equation, and that never works out well.

              1. Careerism is part of it. There is plenty of green money that would have funded them absent public money.

            2. They don’t want to let any other people from other fields in on it

              I think they are scared by the idea. “Those guys actually know stuff! Hard stuff! Like math and shit, man! We can’t compete with that!”

              1. The best part of the climate gate emails was some bastard working for Mann trying to create a database and not knowing the code to do it. They were fucking hopeless.

          4. Montford (a libertarian who is world famous in England)

            Is it possible be a libertarian and be a Lord at the same time?

            1. Is it possible to be world famous, but only in England?

              1. Better than being World Famous in Poland

            2. Andrew Montford the author of the book which tarran references is diffent from Christopher Monckton (Viscount Brenchley) who is also a famous limey climate skeptic.

          5. “World famous in England”. Monford also blogs about AGW and UK politics at

      2. Agreed. Even with all of the accidents and incompetence breaking the way of the Chicken Little crowd, the evidence is terribly vague.

  6. So this is good news, right? RIGHT?

    There will be massive parties in the streets, now that we’re not all going to die horrible and slow, hot deaths, RIGHT?

  7. Ron, can you post a link to the climate model lines that scales? Or the original article maybe? We can’t read those bottom two or three models that appear to be quite predictive, and I, for one, am interested to know which ones they are.

  8. Fucking Kochs and their weather-control rays.

  9. This isn’t the first study to show this right?

    Anyway, I don’t pretend to understand all the complexities of climate science. I do know, however, that if your model doesn’t conform to actual data, it’s shit and the science is not settled.

  10. If the IPCC are using the likes of Naomi Campbell and Claudia Schiffer to predict global temperatures over a 20 year span, then they ought to expect inaccuracies.

    1. Meh, I thought it was a good, if lowbrow, joke. You guys are an insufferable bunch of pricks.

      1. You guys are an insufferable bunch of pricks.

        You’re just finding this out?

        1. I’ve been gone for a while.

          1. I thought you were done with the procreating thing.

      2. You just keep thinkin’, sloopy. That’s what you’re good at.

      3. If I wasn’t an abject retard, I’d probably have gotten the joke and given you a laugh.

        1. But only out of pity.

          Damn no edit button…

  11. Mind reading exercise at environmentalist gathering:

    “Even if AGW is overstated, we still have to treat it as a huge crisis, because only that will give us the legal tools we need to fight species diversity loss!”

    “Even if species diversity loss is overstated, we still have to treat it as a huge crisis, because only that will give us the legal tools we need to fight AGW!”

    And so forth.

    1. Thomas Friendman said exactly that a few years ago. If AGW is a lie, it is a noble one that needs to be believed because it will get us to do so many great things we wouldn’t have done otherwise.

      They don’t even make that a secret.

      1. Look. Human activity must be doing bad things to the environment because there’s no way that it couldn’t. We’re a cancer on the planet. So even if AGW isn’t real, burning all these fossil fuels must be doing something bad because it must. Besides, Big Oil’s disgusting profits are disgusting. So even if AGW isn’t real, this human activity must be stopped because it must and Big Oil’s disgusting profits must be stopped because they’re disgusting. See?

        1. Everything humans do is, by definition, not natural, so how can anything a human does be good? And most of the things humans do are done simply to create more humans, who will, invariably do more unnatural things. It’s exponentially ungood at all time scales.

        2. And one of the worst things about all the focus on global warming is that there still is real pollution that actually does hurt people, yet most of the attention and money spent on environmental issues focuses on global warming.
          Even if all the worst predictions were true, all the money that people want to spend on it would be much better used to clean up actual toxic stuff.

          1. It’s not about the environment. It’s about controlling people.

    2. So, doesn’t this development make the Global Apocolyptics the Deniers?

  12. Last desperate theory I heard was that the climate naturally cycles up and down, but AGW is still real. So the natural wave-like variations in global temperature are turned more into a stair step thanks to global warming. We’re on what would be a natural downward trend, but it’s the level part of a step because of global warming. But when the natural upward trend kicks in, it will be a jump like the step on a stair.

    Imminent cataclysm! We’re all gonna die! Scientists need more funding! Politicians need more power!

    1. Want to see a head explode? Ask one of these warmers to explain volcanic activity as it relates to the temps and to jibe that with their AGW bullshit.

      1. The latest research reveals that over a long enough time scale, sustained warmer temperatures may lead to increased frequency of volcanic activity.

        1. You…you think that surface temperatures effect core temperatures?


          Nando, you’re the worst sockpuppet ever.

          1. Dude, fracking causes major earthquakes…some hippie in Venice, CA told me so at an anti-fracking booth.*

            *The studies actually purport that fracking increases seismic sensitivity, not that it increase the chance of triggering an earthquake. Nuance is a lost art with environmentalists.

          2. The idea is that as the continents rebound after the removal of icesheets, new fissures open up (etc).

            It could well be true.

            1. Right, because ice is strong enough to hold back tectonic movement. Sorry, but that’s absurd.

              1. I think the idea is that removing the weight of a mile thick sheet of ice could affect tectonic movement.

                1. I just don’t see it. There has to be something more solid and less likely to be effected by pressure than ice holding it back. Pressing the ice (if two plates were moving toward each other) is going to heat and eventually melt part of it so the movement can continue. Either that or the plates will push the ice up and out of the way, as the lower ice will melt off and more heat escape upward, causing a chain-reaction of melting.

                  That theory is just not viable.

                  1. I wasn’t agreeing with the theory. I was simply clarifying.

                    1. I know. I was just saying that the theory is idiotic on its face. I’ll go even further and say anyone that believes that theory is a fucking retard who should be forced to take a 5th grade science class and STFU on all things scientific for the rest of their life.

                  2. The mass of the ice doesn’t change, it just moves to the ocean in liquid form.

                    Now, if the theory is that Greenland as a special and unique plate that it and it alone affects, that’s one thing, but otherwise, bullshit.

                  3. Actually, the bounceback effect is real and measured.

                    IIRC the effect is on the order of a cm per century, and has been confirmed by studying high quality surveys from past centuries.

                    And, that removal of load will have an impact on the dynamics of plate movement. I don’t know how measurable, but it will be there.

                    It won’t be a feedback system, though. Sometimes we get huge eruptions that cover wide areas. Sometimes we don’t. I expect that the rebound will only effect the timing of stuff that was going to happen anyway, and that probably only by a short timescale (months – centuries)

                2. It can’t.

                  1. Post-glacial rebound exists, but if it’s still occurring 10,000 years after the ice sheets went away, I think we’re safe from global-warming induced hypervolcanism.

              2. Right, because ice is strong enough to hold back tectonic movement. Sorry, but that’s absurd.

                Not necessarily. Ice sheets can be many kilometers thick, which can be of the same order of magnitude as crust thickness in some areas. Crust is certainly denser than ice, but it seems reasonable that a change in crust pressure of a few percent could cause a change in seismic or volcanic activity.

              3. Continental rebound is a completely different phenomenon from tectonic plate activity. For example, the Great Lakes area is well within the stable, north American craton, but is still rebounding from the 2 miles of ice that stood atop it for a few thousand years. Melting ice reduces downward stress, and rebound certainly results in some minor seismic activity. This activity is nothing like the severity of tectonic plate movements. One is akin to your mattress relaxing after you get out of bed, the other is akin to a car crash.

                So saying seismic activity can result from global warming is technically correct (the best kind of correct!). However, the people saying this are also hoping you will assume that means a magnitude 9.6 earthquake could strike anywhere at any time, which is absurd. It’s another scare tactic.

                1. I copy-pasted sloppily. I was talking about the idea that melting 2 miles of ice might impact volcanic activity, not that it would impact plate movement. My bad.

              4. Right, because ice is strong enough to hold back tectonic movement

                Strength has nothing to do with it. Weight does. And continental ice sheets most certainly do weigh enough to change how continental plates move. Rebound after ice sheets melt is a well documented thing that is still happening from the last ice age.

        2. Wait, so what happens in the air has a tangible impact on what happens in the core of the planet?

          That’s fucking retarded.

          1. I think he’s saying that reduced ice pressure in an area that already has volcanic activity may have an effect on that volcanic activity. It makes sense. You already have an area with a thin crust. If you melt a mile thick ice sheet, that is going to significantly reduce the total weight of the crust in that area.

          2. While the researchers are unsure what effects the current phase of warming, accelerated by human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, might have on volcanic activity, it is unlikely that that activity will increase in any noticeable sense for at least a millennium, said Kutterolf.

          3. It’s probably just tangentially related, but the layer of the earth responsible for volcanic activity is much closer to the atmosphere than to the core.

          4. Sorry, Sloopy, but you are being retarded in this case. Large ice sheets do have a significant effect on surface and crust geology. That is a well known and understood thing. And that is the proposed link between climate and volcanic and seismic activity. I have no doubt that some enviro-retard will misinterpret this theory and blow it all out of proportion, but the basic idea seems plausible, at least.

        3. That’s some serious retard right there.

        4. But what does the BEST research reveal?

      2. Look. Are you claiming to be as smart as these scientists? Because they’re really smart. Because they’re really smart they know better than you because they’re really smart. Did I mention that the scientists are really smart? Because they’re really smart.

    2. I saw one the other day. “La Nina has been damping the warming so AGW!”

      Not, you know, the natural damping of every other stable system.

      1. There’s enough contortionism in the warmist camp to open a new Cirque de Soliel in Vegas.

      2. One unexamined question is: if La Nina is damping it, what’s El Nino doing to warming? 😉

        1. t: Actually the Nature Climate Change article did consider that issue:

          For example, the forced trends in models are modulated up and down by simulated sequences of ENSO events, which are not expected to coincide with the observed sequence of such events. For this reason the moderating influence on global warming that arises from the decay of the 1998 El Ni?o event does not occur in the models at that time. Thus we employ here an established technique to estimate the impact of ENSO on global mean temperature, and to incorporate the effects of dynamically induced atmospheric variability and major explosive volcanic eruptions5, 6. Although these three natural variations account for some differences between simulated and observed global warming, these differences do not substantively change our conclusion that observed and simulated global warming are not in agreement over the past two decades(Fig. 3). Another source of internal climate variability that may contribute to the inconsistency is the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation7 (AMO). However, this is difficult to assess as the observed and simulated variations in global temperature that are associated with the AMO seem to be dominated by a large and concurrent signal of presumed anthropogenic origin (Supplementary Fig. S1). It is worth noting that in any case the AMO has not driven cooling over the past 20 years.

    3. Even if that were true, it should be predicted in the models if they were taking into account all material factors correctly.

    4. Is it not possible that we should be on a cooling trend today?

      1. They’re saying that we are on a natural cooling trend today. But we’re not cooling because of AGW. When the natural cooling cycle ends and the natural warming cycle begins, it’s going to be sudden and catastrophic. What was a wave is now a stair.

        1. sooo…winter is NOT coming?

          Someone tell Caitlyn.

    5. Yeah, they’ve been on this one for a decade, at least. But all it means is that the modelers failed to properly model the “natural cycle”. Either way, the data doesn’t inspire confidence in the models.

  13. On an unrelated note, I’m about to give a deposition and I just found out there are 7 parties being represented that will be questioning me.


    1. “Show us on the doll where Warty touched you.”

      1. “I have nothing but contempt for this court.”

        1. “*That’s* the man who urine raped me! I’d know him anywhere.”

      2. Sir, you’re not allowed to tear open…sir, it’s not a puppet!

    2. take the 5th! Or only speak through your nose.

  14. It will be interesting to see how (or if) its authors try to explain the growing gap between the model projections and the actual climate.

    The explanation will be that previously unknown variables were causing their projections to be off, but now those variables are accounted for and their new projections of imminent catastrophe are correct.

    The unofficial explanation will be that their models are crap, and modeling the climate for an entire planet is incredibly difficult, perhaps impossible given that we’re still learning about how the planet works.

  15. When I started my career, I wrote code to simulate aircraft in flight to test computers that fly aircraft. It was an extremely complex that pales in comparison to modelling the earth’s atmosphere.

    Note that the best and brightest coders don’t go to work as interns in university labs. They go develop video games or stock-market analysis programs or they fall into the trap of engineering.

    I have zero faith that any computer model produced by these guys will ever closely represent what is happening in the real world.

    1. At my company, we do predictive modeling using statistics and a veritable shit-ton of data points. It works rather well; we can predict whether someone is likely to respond to a direct mail with some degree of accuracy. And that is using hundreds of completely distinct data points.

      These people have basically one data point: temperature. One. Our statistician would laugh; she couldn’t do anything with one data point.

      1. …”she couldn’t do anything with one data point.”

        Gee, I dunno. With one datum, I can ‘prove’ anything! You want a exponential curve? Why, here ya go!

      2. . Our statistician would laugh;

        You want a bitter laugh: one of Steven McIntyre’s statistical takedowns of a Mann paper couldn’t make it into any journal. The climate journals said it really belonged in a statistical journal because it was all stats and not really about climate. The statistical journals all said it was too pedestrian to be worth publishing, kind of like submitting a paper using Newtonian Dynamics to analyze the motion of a baseball to Daedalus.

        These guys are fucking up undergraduate level stats. Calling their efforts pathetic is exaggerating how good they are.

        1. But that’s my point. Only incredibly uneducated fools could fall for this shit. It’s mind-boggling. Are there really that many abject idiots out there?

    2. Wattsupwiththat had a great survey of the highlights from The Harry Readme file, released by FOIA in Climategate 1.0:

      17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative! Key
      output from the debug statements:
      forrtl: error (75): floating point exception IOT trap (core dumped) the data value is unbfeasibly large, but why does the
      sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!

      getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a
      cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.

      .. the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case?

      1. Anyone who works with large data sets (like myself) will choke on anything described in that readme file. My data is already shitty, but I deal with it. And it’s one hundred times (or more) better than anything the climate scum were working with.

        Only real morons can look at their “work” and not immediately dismiss it.

        1. Shut the fuck up, you uneducated fool. You want me to show you how easy text parsing is?

          1. It was address parsing. You’re almost as stupid as Tulpa. And when I say almost, I mean “no one can be even remotely as stupid as Tulpa”.

            1. How glib of you. When I was completely wrong, it just proved how correct I was. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to only comment at night and on weekends because I am just too busy being a super-smart professor who is the smartest, and not at all because I’m a gigantic coward or anything ridiculous like that.

              1. You missed it the other day when he argued that plumbers (and other trades) only recently started getting paid well.

                He gave the following reasons:

                1. The “man of the house” up until recently did all the plumbing.

                2. Anyone with 2 arms can be a tradesman.

                3. The economy is shitty and all the young people are in college.

                Seems legit.

                1. Those are the reasons he gave?

                  I can think of one much better reason (and I’m not sure how recent it is): professional licensing for trades like plumbing and electrical. The apprenticeship and testing requirements do a good job of limiting entry into those markets.

                  1. I think he needs to first provide evidence that tradesmen are getting paid relatively more than they did in the past.

                    That’s the problem with idiots, you often end up arguing against their shitty premises to an argument that isn’t based in reality. “ALL COWS ARE NOT PURPLE!!”

                  2. The premise is stupid. He gave plumbers as an example of a class of employment not well compensated? There has never been a time frame you could reference in comparison to median income that that has been the case. Anyone know the date that fuckhead landed on this planet?

        2. By the way, if you’re getting negative numbers calculating a sum of squares, it’s almost certain that you’re getting an overflow and need to find a more capable variable type to store the calculation.

          This is the sort of error that a guy who completed Comsci 210 should be able to ID in a jiffy.

          1. You…you can’t get negative numbers calculating a sum of squares. It’s not possible, unless you are dealing with unreal numbers.

            1. Two possibilities: one, they’re dumb enough to subtract instead of adding, two, they’re careless enough to use a signed datatype and not check for overflows. Remember that for an 8-bit int, 127+1 = -128.

              1. Why would you ever use a signed data type if you are programming squares in unmanaged code that could overflow without a warning? You’d have to be fucking retarded. Oh wait…

              2. they’re careless enough to use a signed datatype and not check for overflows

                DING! DING! DING! DING!

                1. They’re getting the results they want to get, so why would they bother double-checking how they got them?

            2. You…you can’t get negative numbers calculating a sum of squares. It’s not possible, unless you are dealing with unreal numbers.

              Its surprising (at least it was to me 20-25 years ago) how often complex numbers come up in real science/engineering.

      2. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case?

        Gee i wonder.

        It is amusing how these highlight show not only how stupid the climatologists are but also how stupid the programer they hired is.

  16. It seems to me what the researchers are saying in so many words is that the current batch of climate models have not been validated falsified using actual temperature trends.


  17. When it comes to climate change, we have to stop pretending government is the problem, and realize it is the tool we need to tackle the problem.

    1. Government is a tool alright. Unfortunately it is a hammer that views everything in the world as a nail.

      1. No, this is incorrect. Government views itself as a hammer and everything in the world as a skull to smash.

        1. Quick legal question before my depo…can I refuse to answer questions if I wish? It’s a civil matter and I’m not a principal.

          1. I’m no litigation expert, but, generally speaking, you have to answer all questions, unless by so doing you would violate some right or privilege. That said, your counsel can object and keep some answers out of the record of the trial.

            In most cases, it’s best that you have counsel.

      2. Oddly enoigh, Nando is also a tool.

    2. You got a problem there, Nando. Not once is any positive mentioned from this change.
      So if fails the sniff test from the start; one-sided-accounting is fraud.

    3. Vague bullshit is vague.

  18. the current batch of climate models have not been validated using actual temperature trends.

    No shit.

    1. Well, they have to massage the data before they release the “actual” temp data.

  19. So, the agreement isn’t too awful up until 1995? What happens after 1995 (either to the climate, or the models) that causes the big divergence?

    1. I’ll tell you what happened after 95 that caused the divergence: they actually kept hard copies of their data from then on, opening them up to real scrutiny. Everything going back from there falls under the “we threw the data away, but trust us when we tell you what happened” umbrella.

  20. can I refuse to answer questions if I wish?

    “I’m sorry, I couldn’t say with any certainty.”

    “I don’t recall,” is also quite popular, I believe. Until they bring out the comfy chair, anyway.

    1. Sooooooo, I can’t come with “I refuse to answer that question” for no reason? That sucks.

      1. You have to answer the questions, but you don’t ever guess at an answer, and “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall” are perfectly legit.

        1. “Fuck if I know” is generally considered disrespectful, however. And don’t mention Armstrong.

          1. Banjos and I were watching part of “Stand By Me” last night and Keifer and crew were playing mailbox baseball. That took me back…

            1. Are you familiar with the crime of “treason?”

  21. Observed Rate of Global Warming Unexpectedly Half of What the Models Predict


  22. I am not authorized to dispense legal advice, but I suspect saying “I don’t remember’ is safer than, “That’s for me to know and you to find out.”

    1. Any decent lawyer will use “I don’t remember” against you later.

      1. Only if it serves to impeach some other testimony, or there’s evidence that you’re lying. He’s not a party, anyway.

        Best thing to do is to tell the truth. If there’s anything nasty you have to deal with, that’s what your attorney is there to help you with.

  23. Worrying about global warming is stupid. It’s like worrying about making too much money.

    Instead, I would focus on what to do when Mother Nature decides it’s time to downsize.

  24. Secretary of State John “Colin Powell” Kerry is now giving his Syria war speech.

    1. No, I’d rather listen to squawking sea-gulls, but I’m sure it’s along the lines of:
      ‘We have a royal decree here…’

      1. He is done with his speech and he did not even allow one question from the press.

  25. I don’t even remember what I had for lunch yesterday.

    1. Four fried chickens and a Coke.

  26. only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty

    All but those few can now be discarded. Science!

  27. So how much of the science is still settled?

  28. This is as good place as any for the “fuck the pandas” article

    1. THANK YOU! I’ve been saying this about panda’s for years. They are evolutionary losers.

      1. Elephants are also pieces of shit. Before I saw an elephant in person I was expecting it to be like something out of Lord of the Rings…3 stories tall, giant fucking tusks, total badass. I was several disappointed.

        If you want an animal to adore, how about something that punches above its weight class like rhinos? Or something that is basically evolutionarily perfect like crocodiles, turtles, and sharks? Pandas can GTFO.

        1. How dare you. Elephants are awesome.

          1. Elephants sound awesome, but they are dirty liars.

    2. I wanted the whole world to hit bottom.

      Pounding that kid, I really wanted to put a bullet between the eyes every endangered panda that wouldn’t screw to save its species and every whale or dolphin that gave up and ran itself aground.

      Don’t think of this as extinction. Think of this as downsizing.

    3. But I do have kind of a problem with this:

      This in a country where roughly 160 million people still live in extreme poverty. And all to protect about 1,600 dim herbivores that are debasing the word “bear,” which otherwise applies to noble beasts that manage to find plenty to eat in the wild.

      And those 160 million humans that are in extreme poverty are debasing the word human, which otherwise applies to noble first world humans that manage to find plenty to eat at the local supermarket.

      I don’t buy into some utilitarian concept that’s put animal life and humans on some sort of balancing scale. Whether it’s vegan equalism or Rush Limbaugh saying that a single human life is more important than every animal on the planet.

  29. Friedman the Younger likes to point out that, since warming does not affect all latitudes equally (colder climes receiving the lion’s share of the heat while equatorial latitudes tend not to, or so says the physicist), the effect of the last century’s warming period has been to increase the amount of arable farmland in northern locales.

    Which could be a bad thing, if one prefers permafrost to fields of durum wheat, and the Internet convinces me that there are plenty such people out there.

    1. Russia should really be loving global warming. If the AGW folks are right, they will have a massive stretch of farmland the length of Asia along with vast stretches of beautiful coastline.

      1. Summer resorts on the Arctic ocean would be pretty cool.

  30. Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993?2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ? 0.06 ?C per decade

    and yet over the past 17 years there has been no cooling or warming. It has been flat.

    So taking both these fact then the warming all happened in the first 3 to 4 years.

    Also if it cools over the next 3 to 4 years or stays the same does that mean Ron will reassess his “human’s cause global warming” statements?

    One would think he should reassess them now….hell he should have reassessed them 7 years ago when there had not been any global warming for 10 years.

    I wonder how many years it will take of no warming for Ron to revisit his claims.

  31. Will REASON be publishing an article questioning the round earth theory next?

    1. That’s gotta qualify for a “DRINK”, right? It is almost Friday evening, after all.

      1. It’s been so long since we have had drinks. What the hell?

      2. you know, since registration I have not been able to get drunk reading this blog…I am dissapoint.

    2. If it turns out the the theory is based on political expediency rather than actual facts, I would certainly hope they would.

    3. The Earth is a good bit off of “round”, if by round you mean spherical.

      1. Discworld, on the other hand, is both round and flat.

      2. I heard that oblate spheroids were about as big as your mom.

      3. The flattening due to spin at the equator is only about 0.3% of the radius, and the effects of mountains gives you about the roughness of a thin coat of paint on a large sphere.

        1. That is 24 miles discrepancy chief. A lot in my NSHO.

    4. Because the science is settled even though the data is crap?

  32. Or something that is basically evolutionarily perfect like crocodiles, turtles, and sharks? Pandas can GTFO.


  33. Looking at the graph, there does not appear to be a single model that UNDERSTATES the temperature increase.

    You want a sign of bias? There ya go.

    1. No kidding. What a coincidence that the errors are all on one side.

      1. What a coincidence that the errors are all on one side.

        It’s like talking to my mother.

  34. The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty… (emphasis added). …

    Translation: The models don’t work, and the data has such a high possibility of error that the noise is greater than the signal.

  35. Bailey coming around on alt-text and requiring models to make accurate predictions? Nice.

  36. It’s becoming apparent that the warming will not be something to worry about. Awesome.

    However, I have read elsewhere that ocean acidification may be an even bigger problem from co2 levels increasing. Anybody know about this?

    1. It’s probably horseshit.

      The chemistry of the Earth’s oceans is as poorly understood as the climate.

      At this point these guys are frantically looking for something else to panic about.

      1. Yeah but frogs… And weather in these here parts, ain’t like it used to be.

        Conclusion: massive, top-down restructuring of the economy into a just, democratic model.

      2. It’s definitely horseshit.

    2. I’m just speculating here, but I think that loads of CO2 and SO2 comes out of volcanic vents on the ocean floor. Seems to me that would contribute a lot more to acidity in the oceans than atmospheric CO2 could. I could be wrong.

      1. There was also a study which showed HUGE amounts of frozen underwater methane landslides which would release like a decade’s worth of greenhouse gases in one instant.

  37. Wouldn’t this be more accurate:

    the current batch of climate models have not been invalidated using by actual temperature trends.

  38. They’ve been pointing out problems with the models since the 90s. We’re getting up near 25 years of finding major issues with the IPCC climate models.

    More research needed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.