Climate Sensitivity

Global Warming Scaled Back, Say Two New Studies

Climate models may be running 2 to 4 times too hot

|

GlobalWarmingEarthtimes
earthtimes

Last year was the hottest year in the surface temperature record according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In contrast, 2015 was the third warmest year according to the satellite temperature record. Given record breaking heat in the first few months of 2016, NOAA is now projecting that there is a 99 percent chance that the current year will be the hottest on record—basically about 1.5 degrees Celsius above the 1891-1910 baseline. The 1.5 degree Celsius increase is significant because last December the nations of world agreed at Paris U.N. climate change conference to try to keep future average temperatures below that threshold.

A strong El Nino which greatly warms the Eastern Pacific Ocean is responsible for boosting average global temperatures in the past year. That phenomenon is now abating and may soon be replaced by a La Nina which will dramatically cool the waters of the Eastern Pacific and drag down the global average. Clearly natural variations in temperature can and do drive temperature trends in the short-run, but what about the long-run?

Two new studies look at the long-run projections of climate computer models and suggest that they are running too hot. One critical parameter is equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is conventionally defined as the amounf of warming that can be expected from doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide. In the current issue of the journal, Earth and Space Science, mathematician J. Ray Bates, from the Meteorology and Climate Centre at the University College Dublin, calculates climate sensitivity focusing specifically the meteorological dynamics in the tropics that are mostly ignored in climate models. Basically, the tropics are more effective at expelling extra heat into space than the models project. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change widened its range of climate sensitivity estimates to 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius in its latest report, dropping the lower bound from 2 degrees. The new study suggests that climate sensitivity could be much the lower, about 1 degree C for doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide. If this were true, then the climates models are proejcting future temperarture increases that are 2 to 4 times hotter than the actual likely trend. It is worth noting that the satellite data find that the global rate of temperature increase since 1979 has been +0.12 degree Celsius per decade which suggests that the lower estimates of climate sensitivity may be correct.

Another study published in Nature by the researchers at European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN finds that the world was much cloudier in the pre-industrial age than previously thought. The researchers suggest that a cloudier world was a cooler world. Computer climate models assume that man-made atmospheric pollutants like sulfur dioxide have increased modern cloudiness which has further shielded the planet from higher temperatures. If it turns out that early eras were somewhat cloudier than represented in the models that means that future warming has again been overestimated.

But always remember: The science is settled!

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

122 responses to “Global Warming Scaled Back, Say Two New Studies

  1. There are very few scientists that are full-blown global warming “deniers”, but there are plenty out there that are “lukewarmers” who simply don’t buy into the hyperbolic apocalyptic predictions. Environmentalists just thrive off of apocalyptic and worst-case scenario hype, which in the long term as greatly hurt their cause, seeing as none of these apocalyptic scenarios has ever actually happened.

    1. This is my take also. Unfortunately, the wacko environments scientist have made me deeply untrusting of their movement. With that being sad, I fell being a good steward of our environment is worth our while.

      1. It’s the mistake* progressives always make: going full retard on a given issue, politicizing it to the hilt, and making any realistic efforts impossible or greatly attenuated.

        *It’s only a mistake if you accept their nominal rationale, but in reality politics is their purpose.

        1. They’re just looking for ways and issues to attain their true goals: Uproot capitalism.

          1. Nonsense. Progressives don’t give a fat damn about Capitalism. If they decided that Capitalism worked for their goals, they would support it. The same can be said for cannibalism and pedophilia. Progressives are all about the desire to rule. They will commit any atrocity, and kiss any ass to attain what they consider their rightful place in the world.

    2. Don’t say “global warming.” It’s all about “climate change” now. Didn’t you get the memo?

      1. +1 FOIA request denial

      2. Fuck No!

        1. DAMMIT! I was hoping for an Asia fansite.

        2. Damn squirrelz…trying again…

          Not an Asia fan site?!

    3. The best thing for the environment is getting government out of the equation as much as possible. Same thing for science.

      The environmentalists have been wrong on nearly everything they’ve predicted. So I feel pretty comfortable we aren’t heading towards anything serious. The activism isn’t about science, but their political agenda.

      1. The environmentalists have been wrong on nearly everything they’ve predicted.

        Yet all of the legislation created in response to their predictions remains on the books and vigorously enforced.

        1. Legislation isn’t based on what’s right or wrong, it’s based on who’s in power.

          1. That made me think of this quote from one of my favorite movies.

            1. I can’t see youtube right now. The suspense is killing me!

              1. It’s
                ? Don’t want no more of the crying game
                Don’t want no more of the crying game ?

                1. How is that at all related to Some Guy’s comment on legislation being based on who’s in power? Is this some kind of old-people reference?

      2. The activism isn’t about science, but their political agenda securing the gravy train.

        Rackets aren’t gonna racketeer themselves.

      3. It’s not purely about the politics, don’t forget the fundraising!
        And let’s be honest –
        GIVE US MONEY NOW OR HUMANITY IS DOOMED!
        opens a lot more wallets than –
        The planet has been getting warmer for 20,000 years or so, and might be mildly warmer in a few decades.

        1. FTA basically about 1.5 degrees Celsius above the 1891-1910 baseline.

          Because the Earth is only 6000 yrs old, 0.3% of that time MATTERS! /fundamentalist.

          Meanwhile, where my house is was under 1 mile of ice 25000 yrs ago,,, which is .000000006% of the Earth’s history

      4. But..but… The trees in California!

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05…..ef=opinion

        (Sorry abt crude link – on iPad)

      5. Except funding all that research comes from the govt. If you don’t tow the govt line, the funding and your career ends. We have seen govt do this before with school lunch programs, the bathroom issue, the Common Core funding. If you don’t adopt the Federal govts beliefs, no funding for you.

        1. And if they don’t like your findings they won’t publish you. And without publishing there is no peer reviewing. And just like that your findings are discredited as not being peer reviewed. It’s a beautiful circle of reinforcement.

          And just for the record, when the science is settled you don’t go around yelling “the science is settled, dammit!”
          You know when a debate is over? When no one is debating any more.

    4. That’s where I am. Basically, I’m 99% that the climate changes measurably on scales of time shorter than, say, a hundred years, 60%-70% that human activity has affected the intensity and/or speed of those changes to some degree, 2% that those changes are catastrophic, .5% that they’re permanent, and 0% that virtually any climate policy would not do more harm than good.

      Personally, I’m more concerned with stuff like water quality, air quality, erosion, overfishing, etc., but apparently not believing that there’s a direct link between plastic shopping bags, global warming, and nutrient pollution in waterways makes me something like a gullible Adolf Hitler.

    5. Not buying into the sky is falling predictions can be an end of the scientist funding, and career.

    6. LATIMES will no longer cover climate deniers articles. School board in Oregon or Washington will remove all books that are counter the climate agenda. We have a full blown push to ignore the climate in the name of political correctness. In the old days denier would be tried and burned at the stake. No free speech for them.

  2. I still don’t understand how you can buy into any of the AGW bullshit, Bailey.

    1. I’m not Bailey and cannot speak for him, obviously. But I would imagine if you want credibility while writing on the subject of science, it’s best not to completely break from the flow. Throwing water on the hysteria may be more productive.

      1. But I would imagine if you want credibility while writing on the subject of science, it’s best not to completely break from the flow.

        The irony of offending people for their lifelong devotion to their objectively held beliefs.

      2. May be more fun to throw water on the hysterical, although some of them may dissolve. What a world…

    2. Look around. We’ve got power plants belching gasses into the air. Cars producing fumes. We’re digging up fossil fuels that have been underground for millions of years, and from them making shit-tons of greenhouse gasses. How can they not have an effect on the climate? It’s not natural! It’s pollution! It must be having an effect! How could it not? The burden of proof is on you to prove that it’s not having an effect, and no matter what you say I’m not going to believe you because if you disagree then you’re a shill for the fossil fuel industry! Denier! You want us all to die! You’re the one who should die! Die, denier motherfucker! Tolerant people don’t tolerate deniers! We hang them because we’re tolerant! Aaaaaaauuuuuuuugggghhhhh!

      1. I enjoyed how the entire first half of that was a completely average climate change believer argument. The crazy phased in very naturally.

        1. Sarc is a master at that.

          What’s really scary is I’ve seen plenty of FB posts devolve straight into that.

          1. Of course if we’d had FB 40 years ago, you could have seen the exact same post, except with ‘cooling’ exchanged for ‘warming’.

            To be honest, the climate is more of a public works issue than an environmentalist issue. Unfortunately, that wouldn’t allow stealing money at gunpoint to enrich the anti-Western left. It would enrich nasty evil (probably Republican) capitalists like contractors and engineers.

        2. I’ve heard pretty much that same thing, including the screeching attack spoken seriously.

    3. Just because the alarmists take the most pessimistic view possible, and exaggerate that, doesn’t mean it’s all false. Do you deny that CO2 and other gases levels have any correlation with temperatures, including particulates lowering temperatures?

      Near as I can tell, lukewarmists say there is probably more warming than cooling, but spending money now to alleviate an unknown and exaggerated problem in 100 years is a waste of resources.

      1. We owe it to our children to beggar their futures by enfeebling productivity and reducing their standard of living well into the future combat climate change now.

      2. Near as I can tell, lukewarmists say there is probably more warming than cooling, but spending money now to alleviate an unknown and exaggerated problem in 100 years is a waste of resources.

        ^ This.

        Especially given the trouble of figuring out what exactly to waste resources on. One of the things that gets my hackles raised is that the mentality seems to be that we just need to start spending gobs of money on something, right away. Not blowing that money means you don’t care, even if no one can actually say what good blowing the money is going to do.

        1. We need to keep funding green energy bankruptcies.

          1. Anybody else hear about the Ivanpah Solar plant catching fire last week?

            http://tinyurl.com/jcrbapr

            Looked like it was heading to be shut down even before the fire took out a huge chunk of its capacity.

            http://tinyurl.com/zakyhvc

            That’s $1.6 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy.

            Your tax dollars at work up in smoke.

            I should say your tax dollars to comply with California’s silly laws.

            From the WSJ article linked above:

            “PG&E signed the Ivanpah contracts as part of efforts to comply with a state law that requires utilities to provide 33% of their power from solar, wind or other renewable sources by 2020.”

        2. “Near as I can tell, lukewarmists say there is probably more warming than cooling, but spending money now to alleviate an unknown and exaggerated problem in 100 years is a waste of resources.”

          Yeah, to me it isn’t a question about the science, so much, as it’s a question about the cost/benefit analysis.

          How much will we need to sacrifice in GDP per capita before our sacrifices make any difference in the global temperature?

          Is it 20% of our incomes? 40%? 2%?

          Does anyone know?

          How long will we need to make that sacrifice in GDP per capita to solve the problem?

          Will the first down tick in temperature as a result of our sacrifice happen in ten years? 30 years? In our lifetimes? 200 years?

          Does anyone know?

          The worst possible outcome is when we make sacrifices but they’re insufficient–so we suffer the negative consequences of global warming anyway.

          The climate alarmists need to understand two things:

          1) Rational policy decisions cannot be made without the answers to the questions above.

          2) Whether people should be willing to sacrifice their standard of living to benefit the environment or other people is not a scientific question. It’s a question of ethics. It isn’t science.

          1. “Yeah, to me it isn’t a question about the science..”

            For me, it’s the scienTISTS & the grant money at stake.

          2. Exactly. On top of that, in order to mitigate the problem if the crazy lefty predictions are actually true, you are going to need massive public works spending. To fund massive public works spending, you are going to need a LOT of money, and that means capitalism.

      3. The problem with the CO2 levels is that in the geological record, their level lags temperature rise by an average of about 500 years, if I remember correctly.

      4. On longer time scales CO2 lags warming, so there is some correlation but its reversed.

        But really, correlation is just irrelevant if no causative null hypothesis is tested over and over again with the results falling in the warmer camp’s favor. That is not happening right now. They mostly rely on unvalidated models which have only been partially verified.

        Follow the money.

    4. The undisputed truth of the greenhouse effect means there’s a reasonable possibility that AGW is real. Of course, just what effect GHG emissions have on a global scale is largely unknown, and predictions of catastrophe are more than likely overblown. To borrow from the law of evidence, I don’t believe the alarmists have even met the preponderance of the evidence standard as to whether humans have predominantly caused any recent warming.

      Since the alarmists want to infringe on our liberties and prosperity, the evidentiary burden rests squarely on them, and it ought to be a heavy one.

      1. That co2 by itself has a 1 degree per doubling effect is fairly accepted as accurate by just about everyone with intimate knowledge of the situation.

        The sensitivity that the CAGWers claim can only occur if our climate is dominated by positive feedbacks. It’s an assumption of positive feedback that causes the hockey stick effect no matter what other data you input. It’s the runaway effect where each change multiplies the next change.

        However, any study of our climate indicates that it’s actually dominated by negative feedbacks overall. That’s the rubber band effect where the further you push away from the center, the harder it pulls back the other direction. No long term stable system can be dominated by positive feedbacks, they’re inherently mutually exclusive.

        That our climate is long term stable should make it obvious that it’s not dominated by positive feedbacks, but the CAGWers seem to willfully ignore this fact. All of the catastrophic models have positive feedback built in and if you remove that, climate sensitivity is low enough that we really have almost nothing to worry about from co2.

        1. This is true. Except the 1 degree for CO2 doubling is certainly too high.

          1. I heard one of those criminal, earth-hating, coal-funded deniers use that figure once, Monckton or Lomborg perhaps, but I suppose it could have been revised since then. They’re those crazy types that amend the theory when evidence contradicts it.

        2. 1 degree is also too high. But your main point is spot on. The earths climate is a buffered system. Water is the buffer. Gets cold and it precipitates, reducing the albedo, letting in more sunlight. Gets too hot and clouds are more numerous, increasing the albedo, cooling the earth.

          IPCC:
          “Rows and flows of angel hair
          And ice cream castles in the air
          And feather canyons everywhere
          I’ve looked at clouds that way

          But now they only block the sun
          They rain and snow on everyone
          So many things I would have done
          But clouds got in my way

          I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
          From up and down, and still somehow
          It’s cloud illusions I recall
          I really don’t know clouds at all”

        3. 1 degree is also too high. But your main point is spot on. The earths climate is a buffered system. Water is the buffer. Gets cold and it precipitates, reducing the albedo, letting in more sunlight. Gets too hot and clouds are more numerous, increasing the albedo, cooling the earth.

          IPCC:
          “Rows and flows of angel hair
          And ice cream castles in the air
          And feather canyons everywhere
          I’ve looked at clouds that way
          F
          But now they only block the sun
          They rain and snow on everyone
          So many things I would have done
          But clouds got in my way

          I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
          From up and down, and still somehow
          It’s cloud illusions I recall
          I really don’t know clouds at all”

    5. Because of the indisputable truth of the greenhouse gas effect, there’s a reasonable possibility that carbon emissions affect global climate. However, since warmists want to infringe on our liberties and prosperity, the evidentiary burden rests squarely on them, and it ought to be a heavy one. They haven’t met it.

      1. *whoops, ignore my last comment. I thought Reason failed to post my first one.

    6. Well, like I say below, it would be kind of hard to say that CO2 or water don’t, in and of themselves, display greenhouse properties. That’s been shown. The thing is climate is a really complex system with a huge number of variables for which greenhouse effects seem to comprise a relatively modest cause of variation.

    7. I don’t understand how you don’t.

      The science is pretty clear, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, any significant change in the atmosphere increasing the ratio of CO2 to other gasses is absolutely going to warm the planet some in the long run, there is just no way to argue against that fact. You might have short term feedback mechanism’s that obscure or delay that warming but it has to eventually happen. Given that industrialization has been pumping mass quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere for decades then it is inevitable that the earth will have to warm some, the question then becomes how much.

      The answer according to all actual science is not very much at all, if we do absolutely nothing at all we might eventually see 3 to 4 degrees of warming in a few hundred years. The chances that we will even care about 4 degrees of warming 350 years from now are pretty close to nil because we’ll either have gone through some other sort of apocalypse before then or be so far technologically advanced we’ll just be controlling the weather to be what we want it to be.

      So yeah global warming is real and something we should be putting some effort into studying just to make sure it won’t become a problem but it is not in any way shape or form a problem demanding urgent action to combat and certainly not the kinds of drastic actions warmists call for.

      1. any significant change in the atmosphere increasing the ratio of CO2 to other gasses is absolutely going to warm the planet some in the long run

        Lots of empty bullshit to hide the crucial detail; significant. You can raise the level of CO2 in an actual greenhouse considerably (several full percent) and have a negligible impact on it’s heat retention. Moreover, once you do, assuming atmospheric CO2 is the limiting reagent in a populated greenhouse, you have to continue dumping more in to maintain said higher levels.

        It’s a rather fundamental tenet of life that there are vastly different and complex ways of storing thermal and radiative energy from a wide array of sources in forms other than strictly heat.

      2. Doesn’t that assume that 1) Manmade CO2 is significant enough to affect the system, and 2) CO2 is a leading indicator rather than a trailing indicator of temperature rise?

    8. People have been burning lots of hydrocarbons since 1900. Byproduct of combustion is CO2. CO2 is greenhouse gas. All other things equal, people causing atmosphere to heat up. Atmospheric temperature has increased since around 1900. All other things equal, people burning hydrocarbons is responsible for some of this warming. How much? There are lots of simplistic models with differing results.

      Alternatively, socialism failed to delivered promised results to the proletariat. Socialist politicians, intellectuals, and their lackeys had to find a different group of suckers who did not care about general economic betterment. Environmentalists were a perfect fit: hatred of the economically successful was as integral to environmentalism as it is to socialism (e.g., Lenin: “We must hate – hatred is the basis of communism.”) The success of the world economy, which has literally lifted billions of people out of abject poverty, relies on energy. What better way to reverse this happy trend than to deny access to cheap, abundant energy? Because, as we all know, abject poverty is no long a bug of socialism, it’s a feature.

  3. The 1.5 degree Celsius increase is significant because last December the nations of world agreed at Paris U.N. climate change conference to try to keep future average temperatures below that threshold play God.

    FIFY!

    1. Can you pretend to be a pretend being? Is that like pretend inception?

      1. Of course you can. It’s called cosplay.

  4. I don’t know that many people argue that some gasses don’t trap in heat. It’s just that honest people who really do respect science, and not just the nice man in the white lab coat, recognize that climate is a massively multi-variate and massively parallel system and know enough to maintain a little bit intellectual modesty on the subject. The interesting thing I’ve seen is that some of the most dogmatic AGW alarmists tend to be humanities majors who took the “gut” science classes. The thing that makes genuine science truly remarkable is that, at its heart, its supposed to be about setting aside dogma in favor of honest empiricism and rational debate. Of course, that sort of thing doesn’t make headlines. Or demand a political agenda.

    This is great news. It means that a problem a lot of people were really concerned about might not be as big a deal as they were suggesting. Sadly, the reaction from most of them will probably be resentment.

  5. I don’t know that many people argue that some gasses don’t trap in heat. It’s just that honest people who really do respect science, and not just the nice man in the white lab coat, recognize that climate is a massively multi-variate and massively parallel system and know enough to maintain a little bit intellectual modesty on the subject. The interesting thing I’ve seen is that some of the most dogmatic AGW alarmists tend to be humanities majors who took the “gut” science classes. The thing that makes genuine science truly remarkable is that, at its heart, its supposed to be about setting aside dogma in favor of honest empiricism and rational debate. Of course, that sort of thing doesn’t make headlines. Or demand a political agenda.

  6. “This landing is going to get pretty interesting”

    “Define Interesting”

    “Oh god oh god we’re all going to die?”

  7. God, the typos. THE TYPOS!

    1. I love me some typos.

      1. Me to

  8. Clearly natural variations in temperature can and do drive temperature trends in the short-run, but what about the long-run?

    How long have we had satellite data? 40 years? And how old is the Earth? Long-run is a relative term.

    1. What are you, a Bene Gesserit?

    2. I suspect that natural variations in temperature also affect the long run.

    3. Some years ago I did some calculations, turns our using the current recorded temperatures as a baseline is equivalent to taking the vitals on a 76 year old man for 15 seconds and saying this is how he has been since birth and how he should stay forever.

  9. Given that the warmist cabal is slowly being taken down on both scientific and legal fronts (h/t to the excellent Tarran), I’d say that this is the beginning of the end for them. I suspect that many of the lukewarmists are actually far more skeptical than they appear, and it’s important to give them enough room to work following the principals of the rat-hole problem.

    1. True, but in the short run, the cabal is going to be extraordinarily dangerous. They are going to go to great lengths to insure the continuation of their gravy train, and government is going to push even farther to continue and increase its expansion of power (and money).

      Things are going to get worse before they get better.

  10. Am I the only one dealing with delayed-comment squirrels?

    1. No. Peace be upon them.

    2. Nope. Happened to me, too.

  11. (Experiencing heavy squirrel activity this morning, pardon me if this ends up posted twice.)

    Given that the warmist cabal is being beaten back on both the scientific and legal fronts (h/t to the excellent Tarran) this may well be the beginning of the end. I suspect that many of the lukewarmists are far more skeptical than is evidenced in their public statements; the lessons of the rat-hole problem inform us that it is important to give them room in which to operate.

    1. “(Experiencing heavy squirrel activity this morning, pardon me if this ends up posted twice.)”

      I’ll be amazed if one of my posts gets posted ONCE!

    2. this may well be the beginning of the end.

      I think this is actually getting into the meat of the end. When the satellite data didn’t outright confirm that everyone’s worst fears were an understatement, the debate re-oriented around ‘The Pause’, and fracking largely obviated most of the existing arguments, it became clear, IMO, that no peaks lied ahead.

      And, unless something Trump-level freakish happens, this is as good as it’s gonna get for the ‘return stroke’. I don’t see any scientifist witch hunts to string people up for doing political ‘science’ on the public dime or the toppling of any ivory towers otherwise. I think the RICO investigation has stretched even scientific legal minds past the point of fuck donation so there’s no momentum in the opposite direction.

        1. For what it is, that is a fantastic infographic.

        2. But,

          All global-warming mitigation policies should be forthwith abandoned and their heavy cost returned at once to taxpayers by way of cuts in energy taxes and charges.

          Industries such as coal mining and generation should be fully compensated for the needless loss and damage that ill-considered government policies inflicted on them.

          Subsidies for global warming research should be ended and IPCC dissolved.

          Not gonna happen.

      1. We should be so lucky, but I doubt it.

      2. “It is not the end. It is not the beginning of the the end. It is the end of the beginning”- John Varley.

  12. Two new studies look at the long-run projections of climate computer models and suggest that they are running too hot.

    **shocked face**

  13. News flash: Computers cannot predict the future.No film at 11.

  14. Lying cocksuckers try to walk back their predictions of doom?

    Every goddamned one of them deserve a serious ass whipping.

  15. IT’S SETTLED.

    Why more articles on this?

  16. So, Bates is all the rage this week in the denier blogosphere I see. Interesting to note that Bates attempted same a few years back and was taken to task by climate scientist Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M. As for this latest attempt, Dessler said this:

    “This version of the paper has been improved ? Bates does not, for example, just assume that extratropical feedbacks are zero. Nevertheless, the paper is still largely based on Lindzen’s work, which is not a good proxy for quality. Overall, the paper is based on dozens of assumptions, each one is probably 80% correct, but combining them leads to a result that is completely ridiculous. This paper will get zero traction in the scientific community and will have no impact on the community’s estimates of ECS.”

    So we will see.

    1. As far as whether or not the science is settled, I do note Ronald that you have said this

      “I concluded that the balance of the scientific evidence showed that man-made global warming could LIKELY (caps mine) pose a significant problem for humanity by the end of this century.”

      So safe to say it’s at least fairly settled in your mind, I think. Funny that by far most of your articles and studies that you post here suggest why your readers shouldn’t believe what you believe on climate change. Funny.

      1. But, isn’t the real issue that Ron Baily is a hypocrite for treating public agency documents and private documents like they’re not the same thing?

    2. Overall, the paper is based on dozens of assumptions, each one is probably 80% correct, but combining them leads to a result that is completely ridiculous.

      Ad hominems aside, it’s like he can’t stop making up factoids on baseless or even meaningless assumptions!

      1. This. He is literally doing it.

      2. Overall, that description could probably be applied to a lot of climate science papers.

      3. dozens of assumptions, each one is probably 80% correct,

        If I have a dozen assumptions, each of which is necessary to get to the claimed result, and each of which is 80% likely to be correct, then the likelihood that the claimed result actually obtains is somewhere south of 7%.

        1. Bingo

    3. “So, Bates is all the rage this week in the denier blogosphere I see. “

      Science is a consensus.

      The consensus changes when new data becomes available that contradicts what we thought we knew before.

      Recognizing that doesn’t make anyone a denier.

      Someone whose scientific opinion doesn’t change no matter what new data becomes available tomorrow might be a denier.

      But if Mr. Bailey’s opinion is continuously updated as new data becomes available, or he’s willing to write about data that calls his own scientific opinions into question, well, that doesn’t make him a denier at all.

      You believing that people shouldn’t write about viewpoints unless they confirm your own preexisting bias; on the other hand, if that doesn’t make you a denier, it certainly makes you somethin’.

      1. Read again. I quoted Bailey. He’s not a denier. He’s a believer. The study still made the rounds in the denier blogosphere and Bailey used it.

        What I said about Bailey is that nearly every study he quotes suggests you shouldn’t believe what he believes. He doesn’t do that about other issues… GMOs, vaccines, even Trump.

        Have a great Memorial Day!

        1. “Read again. I quoted Bailey. He’s not a denier. He’s a believer.”

          Read my post again.

          I know Bailey more or less believes that AGW is a problem.

          Your weird worldview that there are only two possible viewpoints–belief and denier–has no basis in science.

          Science is what the latest data tells us, with all its uncertainties. There is no scientific belief that is so scientific that it shouldn’t be discarded tomorrow if warranted by new data.

          Honest scientists qualify practically everything they say, they carefully consider data that appears to contradict their ideas, and you seem to be faulting Bailey for doing precisely that–as if he shouldn’t even consider evidence that counters his belief.

          What you’re describing isn’t science at all. It’s faith in an idea you believe has been blessed by a scientific priesthood. Well science isn’t about belief or disbelief. It isn’t science vs. deniers. The way the scientific method is set up, its conclusions are never without any degree of uncertainty. Again, if Bailey is considering scientific findings that seem to contradict his former positions, then he’s being authentically and honestly scientific.

          It’s the people who imagine that the science never changes despite new data coming in that are being dishonest. If Bailey’s opinions didn’t change when new data became available, THEN he would be open to charges of not being scientific.

        2. Do you imagine it works this way with other issues, too? If you’re pro-gun control, do you disregard any data that runs contrary to your position? If that’s what you do, then you’re being dishonest. Honest people take data that contradicts their position and account for it.

          Meanwhile, how does Bailey pointing to data that shows global warming may be taking a lot longer to happen than the standard model would account for in any way suggest that he doesn’t think global warming is real?

          1. Thanks, but I don’t need to read again

            “But if Mr. Bailey’s opinion is continuously updated as new data becomes available, or he’s willing to write about data that calls his own scientific opinions into question, well, that doesn’t make him a denier at all.”

            Never said he was.

            1. “So, Bates is all the rage this week in the denier blogosphere I see. “

              But according to you, Bailey is part of the “denier blogosphere”?

              1. Yikes. If I thought that, I wouldn’t have quoted him saying how he believes we just might be heading to a significant problem.

                I know you want to stay in this Abbott and Costello routine (“third base!”), but I don’t. Enjoy your weekend, Ken!

  17. SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS! CHEVY SUBURBANS KILL POLAR BEARS! KATRINA HAPPENED BECAUSE PEOPLE DIDN’T RECYCLE ENOUGH CANS!

    /typical CAGW enthusiast

  18. Steven McIntyre has a relevant post examining how models’ predictions compare to observations:

    In the present case, from the distribution in the right panel:
    *a model run will be warmer than an observed trend more than 99.5% of the time;
    *will be warmer than an observed trend by more than 0.1 deg C/decade approximately 88% of the time;
    *and will be warmer than an observed trend by more than 0.2 deg C/decade more than 41% of the time.

    These values demonstrate a very substantial warm bias in models,… which cannot be dismissed by mere arm-waving about “uncertainties” in Schmidt style. As an editorial comment about why the “uncertainties” have a relatively negligible impact on “bias”: it is important to recognize that the uncertainties work in both directions, a trivial point seemingly neglected in Schmidt’s “daft argument”. Schmidt’s “argument” relied almost entirely on the rhetorical impact of the upper tail of the observation distributions nicking the lower tail of the model distributions. But the wider upper tail is accompanied by a wider lower tail and, for these measurements, the discrepancy is even larger than the mean discrepancy.
    Unsurprisingly, using up-to-date data, the t-test used in Santer et al 2008 is …3.835, far outside usual confidence limits.

  19. Climate models running to hot? I would think that climate models are running to cold. 2016 could be the year that breaks the 1.5 degree C Paris Climate Accord which targeted 2100 and not 2016. Three straight years of record heat. Look outside. Do you see hot? I bet you do.
    The interesting thing about the physics of CO2 atmospheric concentration is that if mankind stopped emitting CO2 today the increase in global temperatures would continue for most of two decades. CO2 after all takes 80 years to break down in the atmosphere and every single year currently is adding to the reservoir of latent heat on this earth. And yes I am a scientist.

    So what are we really looking at in the future? The data is np-hard so it is impossible to truly say. Climate scientists are erring in their predictions on the low side. On the extreme low side of global warming, almost to the point of being unethical in my opinion. The people on this planet need to be prepared for 3 degrees C by 2050. It is that bad.

    1. Climate scientists are erring in their predictions on the low side.

      See, folks, that’s how you disregard the data showing that they are erring on the high side.

    2. Then do answer a few questions.
      1. Why, for the last approximately 550 million years there been absolutely no statistical correlation between CO2 and temperature.
      2. Why, over the last 400,000 years had CO2 level lagged temperature by about 800 years.
      3. How is it that from about 980 to 1450 Greenland had many farms with long growing season crops such as wheat and squash, and now with much better farming methods and technology one is hard pressed to get in one crop of radishes(growing season 28 days).
      4. Why has the Earth been both much hotter and much colder, not at the same time of course, than it is now.
      5. Just what is your field of science, and what is your degree.

      I make no claim to being any sort of scientist, but I am a very experienced technician with outstanding problem solving and analytical skills and an intelligence well above average.
      After looking at some peer reviewed palaeoclimatological articles those skills delivered an analysis that your claims are a large load of steaming BS.

    3. So weather is climate again? I bet it won’t be sometime around January. In fact, didn’t we have record cold this winter too?

  20. “Climate models may be running 2 to 4 times too hot”

    Nothing accidental about that, of course. Climate “scientists” have been cooking the data and biasing the models for a long time.

    Climate “science” is a pathological “science” that has nothing to do with extending human knowledge. It’s intended solely to provide invented, jargon-laden, pseudoscientific, “justifications” for leftist agendas.

  21. Of course, the move to the 1.5-to-4.5 range in the latest IPCC report is merely reversion to the number that appeared in older reports.

    IPCC 5th Report (2014): 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C.
    IPCC 4th Report (2007): 2.0 to 4.5 degrees C.
    IPCC 3rd Report (2001): 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C.
    IPCC 2nd Report (1995): 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C.
    IPCC 1st Report (1990): 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C.
    NAS report (1979): 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C.

    Which is to say, three and a half decades of climate research has produced no improvement in the accuracy or precision of the “consensus” from the initial wild-ass guess based on two primitive models and an arbitrarily-selected margin of error of 0.5 degrees C (subtracted form the model that said 2 degrees and added to the model that said 4 degrees).

  22. My Co-Worker’s step-sister made $13285 the previous week. She gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and apply the guide leaked on this web site.
    Browse this site….
    This is what I do,—————– http://www.earnmore9.com

  23. the global climate change (previously global warming) scenario is built on an incomplete and somewhat distorted record of past climate conditions, a set of assumptions, and a family of computer models that themselves contain assumptions about the system being modeled. None of the models has proven to be accurate and most are approaching the point at which the difference between calculation results and observed reality are outside the models’ limit of error. The computer users’ saying GIGO is usually translated as “garbage in, garbage out” but much too often means “garbage in, gospel out”. The actual state of affairs is we do not yet know enough about the incredibly complex energy transfer system that is our climate. And the assumption that it is better to error on the side of caution ignores that most basic engineering principle, the Law of Unintended Consequences. The major effort should focused on greater understanding before any attempt is made to predict results.

  24. Why not use the Carboniferous Period as the baseline?

  25. Global warming treat our world. Save the Earth

  26. Start working at home with GOOGLE!YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES.It’s by far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this 4 weeks past. I began this 7-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $97 per hour.

    I work through this link.——————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  27. Do you have a pay~pal account.. because if you do you can add an extra 650 week after week in your check just working on the internet 2 hours every day. go here to this site….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….
    ????????. http://www.MaxPost30.com

  28. Do you have a pay~pal account.. because if you do you can add an extra 650 week after week in your check just working on the internet 2 hours every day. go here to this site….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….
    ????????. http://www.MaxPost30.com

  29. Given the head start this year has over last, there is a more than 99 percent chance that 2016 will best 2015 as the hottest year on the books, according to Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which keeps the agencies temperature data

    What Gavin Smith did was extrapolate current temperature trends, assume a normal distribution, and effectively perform a significance test at the 99% level. What he did and what he says that means don’t mesh. While the difference may be technical, nobody who actually understands statistics ought to confuse a “99% chance” with “99% significance”.

  30. My Buddy’s Mother Makes $96/hr on the laptop. She has been out of work for six months but last month her paycheck was $15480 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    I work through this URL.
    Read more on this web site.—– http://www.earnmore9.com

  31. This application is really good and very easy to use because you can never get an app which streams way of the latest and even the oldest videos. showbox

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.