Page 117 of 135 < 1 2 ... 115 116 117 118 119 ... 134 135 >
Topic Options
#1195948 - 27/05/2013 21:45 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
And CO2 did what Enrique?
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1195951 - 27/05/2013 21:54 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
BTW Enrique. It's not me that has to prove anything. It is you and your cohorts that is saying, "this will cause this and this will cause that and we're all doomed".

It is you and your cohorts that need to deliver the proof to back up your claims, NOT US.
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1195952 - 27/05/2013 21:58 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

Here is the Ocean Heat Content Uptake versus what the GHG Forcing is. Why is "so little" warming occuring versus the theory.





And then here is the updated surface temperatures to today (which were cut off in the solar charts above - notice the big down-turn not shown in the previous charts) ...

... compared to the "so little" warming in the oceans.





The pro-warming websites always screw around with the data so that one shouldn't take them seriously unless one wants their data distorted. But then, that is what some people "like".

Top
#1195953 - 27/05/2013 22:04 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Tom1234 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 08/04/2011
Posts: 1709
Loc: Port Stephens
The proof has been accepted by the mainstream though snafu, it's not up to me to do anything. I could do nothing and AGW will keep rolling on in the political debates and scientific institutions around the world.

If you want to change this then you are the one that needs the evidence to back up your argument. I'll just lounge around and laugh while you whirl into a frenzy over governments around the world not accepting your opinion.

It is pretty funny though watching you guys rage over carbon taxes and solar panels, such angry people.




Edited by Enrique (27/05/2013 22:08)

Top
#1195955 - 27/05/2013 22:10 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Tom1234 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 08/04/2011
Posts: 1709
Loc: Port Stephens
Come on Bill, we all know you post on WUWT and you "like" their graphs best.


Edited by Seabreeze (27/05/2013 23:03)
Edit Reason: personal jibe. Point can be made without resorting to character,

Top
#1195956 - 27/05/2013 22:12 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4478
Loc: Brisbane
Quote:
We've only just gotten to the stage where the system is no longer accumulating energy.


Is there something wrong with your comprehension Enrique? Read the sentence again. Even given the context of the entire conversation didn't help you to read it correctly. Did I say were already past the stage where the system is no longer accumulating energy? NO.

We are currently at solar max. Average TSI on an 11 year running mean is still well above what it was in the first half of the 20th century. Watch what happens as we move towards the next solar minimum. And then watch what happens when solar cycle 25 barely gets out of minimum.

In particular, pay attention as this coincides with a PDO parked in negative territory and an AMO about to drop like a stone. Then pray to god there is no major volcanic eruption whilst this occurs.

Talk to me in 10 years time and if OHC is still increasing then you will have proved me false. You said a while ago we would never agree on anything. Now I know why!
_________________________
This post and any other post by Locke is NOT an official forecast & should not be used as such. It's just my opinion & may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. For official information, refer to Australian Bureau of Meteorology products.

Top
#1195957 - 27/05/2013 22:16 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
LOL Enrique. Bill creates his own graphs using the data provided. WUWT has nothing to do with it.

How many graphs has Phil Jones (CRU) created using MS Excel Enrique?... wink


Edited by Seabreeze (27/05/2013 23:05)
Edit Reason: jibe
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1195958 - 27/05/2013 22:30 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
I might add Enrique, most of Bills graphs appear here before they appear @ WUWT.
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1195959 - 27/05/2013 22:50 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Going to need some supernatural help to keep AGW on the boil.

Thats the conclusions the Germans hard line warmers seem to have come too

From the NoTricksZone blog.

Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: “Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts” Warming Postponed “Hundreds Of Years”

Now that global temperatures have not risen in 15 years, a number of scientists find themselves having great difficulty coming to terms with that new reality.
The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M) in Hamburg is no exception. For years the institute insisted that the man-made climate catastrophe was real and happening now. Today it finds itself scrambling for a backdoor. “Otto et al” is that back door.

The MPI-M recently issued a press release with interesting revelations about the now famous “Otto et al” paper, to which its two directors contributed.

When we read the MPI-M press release, we quickly discover that this Otto et al paper is actually just the latest in speculative crystal-ballwork - the results have little value other than to provide a desperately needed face-saving opportunity for accepting a lower CO2 climate sensitivity.


The MPI starts its press release by telling readers not to be fooled by the warming pause (my emphasis):

Global warming continues to baffle climate scientists, but one thing is sure: Over the next decades the average mean temperature on Earth will increase, even if the increase in the years from 2001 – 2010 was much slower than the decade before. This is backed up by prognoses from an international team of scientists led by scientists at the University of Oxford, of which both directors Jochem Marotzke and Björn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology were a part. Using the current climate data, the scientists have newly calculated how much the air and Earth’s surface will have warmed up as soon as the CO2 concentration in the air doubles.”

And later in the press release (my emphasis):

Jochem Marotzke is part of a team of the world’s most renowned climate scientists who have taken the most recent development of the surface temperature into account in order to forecast how the Earth will heat up from the greenhouse effect, foremost from carbon dioxide (CO2). These prognoses confirm that the climate models correctly forecast global warming trend over multiple decades, that is until the middle or the end of the 21st century. There is no wise reason for calling off the alarm.”

This is pure quackery. At the MPI, prognoses confirm forecasts?

MPI-M postpones warming, will take hundreds of years

The MPI press release also says that we are going to have to wait a lot longer than we first thought for the real warming to hit:

Because the climate has a very high thermal inertia and the oceans warm up only very slowly, it’s going to take some time before the effects of the greenhouse gases completely take hold
A warming from the greenhouse effect will be amplified by numerous feedbacks, and weakened by a few processes. Only when this complicated interaction quiets down will the climate come to a stable condition.
This long-term reaction by the climate is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ESC) and is calculated by climate scientists.
It is the final temperature increase that comes from a doubling of CO2 concentration, and will probably occur first after a few hundred years.”


Remember that this press release was written by two scientists, Marotzke and Stevens, who participated directly on the Otto et al study.

So we are going to have to wait decades, maybe even centuries before the real warming hits. That’s what Otto et al says, they tell us. There aren’t any observations to check if that forecast is reliable, but the MPI-M says they have a new forecast, it agrees with the models, and so the theory is correct.

The press release adds:

Using these values, the scientists calculate with 90% certainty that the near-surface atmosphere will warm 0.9°C – 2.0°C with at doubling of CO2 content; most probable is a temperature increase of 1.3°C.”

They used the 90% certainty claim in the past, and wound up totally wrong. Now they are claiming it once again, based on computer prognoses, and not on observations. This is the SOP of charlatans, and not scientists.

There’s more in the press release, especially with respect uncertainty. Basically they are saying that the “90% certainty” is fraught with lots of uncertainty. More tomorrow.

[ end>>>]

Hmm! we are going to be roughly 1.3 C warmer sometime after the next few hundred years have passed. But this of course is Climate Science



________________________
And it seems it might be at least quite a time yet before those shivering Europeans see some decent warming.

Also from the NoTricksZone blog , this graph

The recent weather in Germany indicates everything but global warming and widespread drought, which climate experts have been telling us would be the case unless we stopped burning fossil fuels fast.



Germany’s mean temperature trend continues falling sharply (1998 – 2012). 2013 so far is well below normal. (Source: Josef Kowatsch, data from German Weather Service).

Today the online Augsburger Allgemeine reports that the statistics for the 2013 German meteorological spring (March-April-May) have been 95% tabulated and show that this year’s German spring is the “coldest in in decades“. The Chiemgau24 news site reports that it is the coldest spring in 40 years.

This past weekend, snow even fell in parts of Germany at elevations down to 600 meters.

No reasons are cited as to why the spring 2013 is so cold. The Arctic is covered with ice and so it can’t be an exposed Arctic sea disrupting atmospheric patterns.

Chiemgau24 writes (my emphasis):

March was too cold, April was a little warmer than normal, and May will likely wind up a little colder than normal. [...]

Five colder than normal winters in a row, the coldest March in decades (in the northeast in 130 years) and now the coldest spring in over 40 years…if that doesn’t lead some climate experts to run out of arguments…”

The Chiemgau24 quotes meteorologist Dominik Jung concerning models:

‘Here the long-term weather models from some international weather services had indicated a “warmer than average and sunny April and May”. But we got just the opposite. On Sunday morning it even snowed again down to 600 meters elevation,’ explained Meteorologist Dominik Jung of the weather portal www.wetter.net.

‘Currently the mean temperature for spring 2013 (calculated from March 1 to May 25) is at 6.1°C. That’s the coldest spring in decades. It’s been more than 40 years since it’s been that cold. In 1970 the average temperature for spring was only 6.0°C,’ explains weather expert Jung.”

This might be a good time for the German Weather Service to think about dropping it’s long outdated temperature chart logo at the header of its website www.dwd.de/.



______________
And Italy

Giro d’Italia – Stage 19 cancelled due to snow

Heavy snow forced Giro d’Italia organisers to call off Friday’s mountainous stage 19 from Ponte di Legno to Val Martello.




Edited by Seabreeze (27/05/2013 23:00)
Edit Reason: inflammatory remark

Top
#1195960 - 27/05/2013 22:54 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Quote:
How many graphs has Phil Jones (CRU) created using MS Excel Enrique?... smile


:ROFL:
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1195961 - 27/05/2013 22:56 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

People can double-check my graphs any time they want.

And they will never find that I have played around with the data (because I don't). Because I learned long, long ago that the data is the data and facts are facts and what is the point in trying to play around with facts. Fool yourself? What's the point in that.

Top
#1196001 - 28/05/2013 09:44 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14224
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable

(1) http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/2...e-rise-unt.html

Date May 27, 2013 CategoryClimate: Statistics CategoryClimate: Surface


This is a guest post by Doug Keenan.

It has been widely claimed that the increase in global temperatures since the late 1800s is too large to be reasonably attributed to natural random variation. Moreover, that claim is arguably the biggest reason for concern about global warming. The basis for the claim has recently been discussed in the UK Parliament. It turns out that the claim has no basis, and scientists at the Met Office have been trying to cover that up.

The Parliamentary Question that started this was put by Lord Donoughue on 8 November 2012. The Question is as follows.


To ask Her Majesty’s Government … whether they consider a rise in global temperature of 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880 to be significant. [HL3050]

The Answer claimed that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant”. This means that the temperature rise could not be reasonably attributed to natural random variation — i.e. global warming is real.

In statistics, significance can only be determined via a statistical model. As a simple example, suppose that we toss a coin 10 times and get heads each time. Here are two possible explanations.
◾Explanation 1: the coin is a trick coin, with a head on each side.
◾Explanation 2: the coin is a fair coin, and it came up heads every time just by chance.

(Other explanations are possible, of course.)

Intuitively, getting heads 10 out of 10 times is very implausible. If we have only those two explanations to consider, and have no other information, then we would conclude that Explanation 1 is far more likely than Explanation 2.

A statistician would call each explanation a “statistical model” (roughly). Using statistics, it could then be shown that Explanation 1 is about a thousand times more likely than Explanation 2; that is, statistical analysis allows us to quantify how much more likely one explanation (model) is than the other. In strict statistical terminology, the conclusion would be stated like this: “the relative likelihood of Model 2 with respect to Model 1 is 0.001”.

A proper Answer to the above Parliamentary Question must not only state Yes or No, it must also specify what statistical model was used to determine significance. The Answer does indeed specify a statistical model, at least to some extent. It states that they used a “linear trend” and that the “statistical model used allows for persistence in departures using an autoregressive process”.

If you are unfamiliar with trending autoregressive processes, that does not matter here. What is important is that HM Government recognized, in its Answer, that some statistical model must be specified. There is, however, still something missing: is their choice of statistical model reasonable? Might there be other, more likely, statistical models?

(There is also a minor ambiguity in the Answer, because there many types of autoregressive processes. The ambiguity is effectively resolved in a related Question, from 3 December 2012, which discussed “autoregressive (AR1) processes” [HL3706]; other Answers, discussed below, confirmed that the process was of the first order.)

I found out about the Question (HL3050) put by Lord Donoughue via the Bishop Hill post “Parliamentarians do statistical significance”. I then discussed the choice of statistical model with Lord Donoughue. I pointed out that there were other models that had a far greater likelihood than the trending autoregressive model used by the Answer. In other words, the basis for the Answer to the Question was untenable.

Moreover, I had published an op-ed piece discussing this, and related issues, in the Wall Street Journal, on 5 April 2011. The op-ed piece includes a technical supplement, which describes one other statistical model in particular: a driftless ARIMA(3,1,0) model (again, unfamiliarity with the model does not matter here). The supplement demonstrates that the likelihood of the driftless model is about 1000 times that of the trending autoregressive model. Thus the model used by HM Government should be rejected, in favor of the driftless model. With the driftless model, however, the rise in temperatures since 1880 is not significant. In other words, the correct Answer to the Question (HL3050) might be No.

Lord Donoughue then tabled a Parliamentary Question asking HM Government for their assessment of the likelihood of the trending autoregressive model relative to the driftless model. HM Government did not answer. Lord Donoughue asked a second time. They did not answer. He asked a third time. Again they did not answer. He then asked a fourth time.

A Parliamentary Question that has been tabled in the House of Lords is formally answered by HM Government as a whole. In practice, HM Government assigns the Question to a relevant ministry or department. In our case, the Questions have been assigned to the Department of Energy and Climate Change; the designated minister is the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Baroness Verma. Verma obtains answers from the Met Office. The person at the Met Office with final authority is the Chief Executive Officer, John Hirst. In practice, Hirst delegates authority to the Chief Scientist at the Met Office, Julia Slingo. Thus, it is actually Slingo who was refusing to answer the Parliamentary Questions, with Hirst and Verma backing her (perhaps without thinking).

I have had a few e-mail exchanges with Slingo in the past. Slingo has never really addressed the issues that I raised. Instead, she has replied largely with rhetoric and a display of gross ignorance about undergraduate-level statistics; for an example, see the Bishop Hill post “Climate correspondents”. Thus, I decided that trying to talk directly with Slingo about the Parliamentary Questions would be a waste of time. Hence, I tried talking with Hirst. My message to Hirst included the following.


Last week, Lord Donoughue tabled Parliamentary Question HL6132, about statistical models of global temperature data. HL6132 is essentially the same as HL5359, which the Met Office refused to answer. The Met Office Chief Scientist does not have the statistical skills required to answer the Question; there is, however, at least one scientist at the Met Office who does have the skills—Doug McNeall. I ask you to ensure that the Question is answered.

Doug McNeall is a statistician. He and I have had cordial e-mail discussions in the past. In particular, after my op-ed piece in WSJ appeared, on 12 August 2011, McNeall sent me an e-mail stating that the trending autoregressive model is “simply inadequate”. Indeed, that would be obvious to anyone who has studied statistical time series at the undergraduate level. Note that this implies that a statistician at the Met Office has stated that the Answer given to the original Parliamentary Question (HL3050) is unfounded.

Lord Donoughue’s fourth Question was, as before, refused an answer. Afterwards, I received the following message from Hirst.


I would like to assure you that the Met Office has not refused to answer any questions. The questions you refer to were answered by Baroness Verma, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

I note that in her response to HL5359 and HL6132, and a number of other questions from Lord Donoughue, Baroness Verma has offered for him to meet officials to discuss this and related matters in more detail.

Afterwards, Lord Donoughue asked the question a fifth time. And I sent the following message to Hirst.


I do not know whether your message is serious or just your way of telling me to get lost. In case of the former, some elaboration follows.

The question that Lord Donoughue has been asking requires the calculation of a single number. The calculation is purely arithmetical: there is no opinion or judgment involved (nor is background in climate needed). Furthermore, the calculation is easy enough that it could be done in minutes, by someone with the appropriate statistical skills. You could think of it as being similar to finding the total of a column of integers.

The number that Lord Donoughue is asking for is 0.001, according to my calculation. (Yes, it is that simple.) Lord Donoughue, though, would like the number calculated by an official body. He therefore tabled Parliamentary Questions asking HM Government for the number.

Lord Donoughue has now received Written Answers to four such Parliamentary Questions: HL4414, HL5031, HL5359, HL6132. None of those Answers give the number. Instead, the Answers make excuses as to why the number is not given. The main excuse seems to be that the number is not important. The importance of the number, however, is a separate issue: even if the number has no importance at all, the arithmetical calculation can still be done, and the number can still be given.

HM Government has been relying upon the Met Office, to supply them with the number; the Met Office has refused to do this. In other words, the Met Office has refused to answer the question—contrary to the claim in your message. What reason does the Met Office have for refusing to supply the number? The required time would be less than the amount of time that the Met Office has spent in refusing.

Parliamentary Questions have a history going back centuries. I do not have expertise in this area, but it is my understanding that HM Government is obliged to either provide an Answer to a Question or else give a valid reason for not providing an Answer. The refusal of the Met Office to supply the number would thus seem to be leading to a violation of a centuries-old parliamentary convention. Indeed, I have now talked with other members of the House of Lords and the Commons about this: there is real concern, and apparently also by parliamentary officials.

Lord Donoughue has now asked for the number a fifth time. The tabled Question is as follows (HL6620).

To ask Her Majesty’s Government … whether they will ensure that their assessment of [the number] is published in the Official Report; and, if not, why not.

The Answer is due by April 12th. My hope is that if the Met Office continues to refuse to supply the number, HM Government will get the number from elsewhere.

There was no immediate response to that. I did, however, receive an invitation from Doug McNeall to visit the Met Office and discuss the statistics of trends in global temperatures. I replied as follows.


Kind thanks for this. In principle, such a meeting would surely be valuable. The Met Office, however, is refusing to answer a simple arithmetical question, and moreover, is presenting dishonest reasons for doing so. Given that, I do not have confidence that discussion could be in good faith.

Hence, I respectfully decline. If the Met Office supplies the number, I would be happy to discuss this further.

A week later, the fifth Question (HL6620) was answered as follows.


As indicated in a previous Written Answer given … to the noble Lord on 14 January 2013 (Official Report, col. WA110), it is the role of the scientific community to assess and decide between various methods for studying global temperature time series. It is also for the scientific community to publish the findings of such work, in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Thus, in the opinion of the Met Office, Parliament has no right to ask scientific questions of government scientists.

A few days later, I received the following message from Hirst.


I’m sorry for the delay in replying; I have been away from the office.

I’m sorry if my previous e-mail gave you the impression I did not wish to discuss this matter further. That was not my intention. Indeed, if you are not satisfied with the answers that have been given to Lord Donoughue’s Parliamentary Questions, I would be more than happy for us to debate your concerns, as part of a detailed scientific discussion about the statistical modelling of global mean temperatures.

I understand Doug McNeall has offered to arrange a meeting with you and other Met Office scientists who work in this area. I feel this would be a sensible way forward and, although our views may differ in some respects, can assure you we would approach this meeting in good faith.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Hirst is clearly supporting the obstructionism. I decided that there was no point in replying.

Under the rules of Parliament, the person with responsibility for a Parliamentary Question is the government minister who delivers the Answer. In our case, that minister is Baroness Verma. According to the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords, §4.68 Ministerial Responsibility, “Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest” and “Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister”.

Lord Donoughue then sent a strongly-worded letter to Under Secretary Verma, citing the section on Ministerial Responsibility, and adding “I trust we will not reach that point since you are clearly not behind the wilful refusal to answer the Question”. Indeed, Verma seems to have been trusting that the Answers supplied to her by the Met Office were written in good faith.

Then Lord Donoughue asked the question a sixth time (HL62). The Answer, this time, included the relative likelihood. The full Answer (excluding footnotes) was as follows.


There are many ways to analyse time series, including the use of physical and statistical models. The relevance of any technique depends on the question asked about the data. The Met Office has compared the likelihood of the two specified models for fitting the three main independent global near-surface temperature time series (originating from UK Met Office and NASA and NOAA in the US), using a standard approach.

The statistical comparison of the model fits shows the likelihood of a linear trend model with first-order autoregressive noise in representing the evolution of global annual average surface temperature anomalies since 1900, ranges from 0.08 (Met Office data) to 0.32 (NOAA data), relative to the fit for a driftless third-order autoregressive integrated model. The likelihood is 0.001 if the start date is extended back for example to 1850 (Met Office data). These findings demonstrate that this parameter is very sensitive to the data period chosen and to the dataset chosen for a given time period, for such a statistical model.

A high value of relative likelihood does not necessarily mean that a model is useful or relevant. The climate is a highly complex physical system; to model it requires an understanding of physical and chemical processes in the atmosphere and oceans, natural variability and external forcings, i.e. with physically-based models. Work undertaken at the Met Office on the detection of climate change from temperature observations is based on formal detection and attribution methods, using physical climate models and not purely statistical models, as discussed in Chapter 9 of the Contribution of Working Group I to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, 2007.

The second paragraph gives the relative likelihood of the trending autoregressive model with respect to the driftless model. The relative likelihood is 0.08, if we analyze years 1900–2012 , and it is 0.001, if we analyze years 1850–2012 (using Met Office data). In either case, then, the trending autoregressive model is much less likely than the driftless model to be the better model of the data. Hence, the statistical model that was relied upon in the Answer to the original Question (HL3050) is untenable.

Most of the third paragraph is verbiage. In particular, the cited “physical climate models”, which the Met Office runs on its supercomputer, do indeed provide some evidence for global warming. Physical climate models and statistical models are both known as “models”, but they are different things. It is only the statistical models that are relevant to the Question. The physical climate models, though impressive in many ways, do not provide observational evidence for global warming.

The issue here is the claim that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant”, which was made by the Met Office in response to the original Question (HL3050). The basis for that claim has now been effectively acknowledged to be untenable. Possibly there is some other basis for the claim, but that seems extremely implausible: the claim does not seem to have any valid basis.

Plainly, then, the Met Office should now publicly withdraw the claim. That is, the Met Office should admit that the warming shown by the global-temperature record since 1880 (or indeed 1850) might be reasonably attributed to natural random variation. Additionally, the Met Office needs to reassess other claims that it has made about statistically significant climatic changes.

Lastly, it is not only the Met Office that has claimed that the increase in global temperatures is statistically significant: the IPCC has as well. Moreover, the IPCC used the same statistical model as the Met Office, in its most-recent Assessment Report (2007). The Assessment Report discusses the choice of model in Volume I, Appendix 3.A. The Appendix correctly acknowledges that, concerning statistical significance, “the results depend on the statistical model used”.

What justification does the Appendix give for choosing the trending autoregressive model? None. In other words, the model used by the IPCC is just adopted by proclamation. Science is supposed to be based on evidence and logic. The failure of the IPCC to present any evidence or logic to support its choice of model is a serious violation of basic scientific principles — indeed, it means that what the IPCC has done is not science.

To conclude, the primary basis for global-warming alarmism is unfounded. The Met Office has been making false claims about the significance of climatic changes to Parliament—as well as to the government, the media, and others — claims which have seriously affected both policies and opinions. When questioned about those claims in Parliament, the Met Office did everything feasible to avoid telling the truth.

_________________________
Oct 27mm
2018 Total 770mm






Top
#1196234 - 29/05/2013 16:57 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Well this looks like a deliberate attempt to sabotage the incoming Government with even more wasteful debt!!!

Green funding rush fires loans row as $800M push defies Tony Abbott

THE Clean Energy Finance Corporation is planning to write up to $800 million in green loans before the election, defying the Coalition's call for the agency not to sign contracts before September 14 because Tony Abbott has vowed to scrap it.

The CEFC has revealed it is in "active discussions" with 50 projects seeking $2 billion and that an additional 119 project proponents have presented proposals that are seeking finance worth $3.3bn. The figures are contained in an email from the CEFC to the opposition pleading its case not to be scrapped if the Coalition wins the election.

The CEFC was established as part of the Gillard government's Clean Energy Future package to provide finance to clean energy projects that might not otherwise be able to raise funds through the commercial banking system. It receives an allocation of $2bn a year for five years which has been locked into the government's budget through legislation.

The scale of discussions under way between the CEFC and clean energy project proponents puts it on a collision course with the Coalition, which in February wrote to the CEFC asking it not to write any loans between July 1 and the election.

Opposition finance spokesman Andrew Robb said the Coalition was "deeply troubled by the indecent haste to start risking many billions of dollars of borrowed money".

"There is simply no valid reason for agreements to be struck, contracts to be signed or for funds to be meted out this side of the election," Mr Robb said. "It is unconscionable. We have been crystal clear in our opposition to the CEFC and in our resolve to abolish it. We will do whatever we can to prevent $10bn of borrowed money from being wasted."


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national...f-1226652618213


Edited by Simmosturf (29/05/2013 16:57)

Top
#1196246 - 29/05/2013 18:26 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14224
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics

Australian scientists have narrowed the predicted range of global warming through groundbreaking new research.

(1) http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/scientists-narrow-global-warming-range


Scientists from the University of Melbourne and Victoria University have generated what they say are more reliable projections of global warming estimates at 2100.

The paper, led by Dr Roger Bodman from Victoria University with Professors David Karoly and Peter Rayner from the University of Melbourne and published in Nature Climate Change today, found that exceeding 6 degrees warming was now unlikely while exceeding 2 degrees is very likely for business-as-usual emissions.

This was achieved through a new method combining observations of carbon dioxide and global temperature variations with simple climate model simulations to project future global warming.

Dr Bodman said while continuing to narrow the range even further was possible, significant uncertainty in warming predictions would always remain due to the complexity of climate change drivers. “This study ultimately shows why waiting for certainty will fail as a strategy,” he said. “Some uncertainty will always remain, meaning that we need to manage the risks of warming with the knowledge we have.”

The study found 63% of uncertainty in projected warming was due to single sources – such as climate sensitivity, followed by future behaviour of the carbon cycle and the cooling effect of aerosols – while 37% of uncertainty came from the combination of these sources.

“This means that if any single uncertainty is reduced – even the most important, climate sensitivity – significant uncertainty will remain,” Dr Bodman said.

Professor Karoly said the study reinforced the importance of strong action on climate change.

"Our results reconfirm the need for urgent and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if the world is to avoid exceeding the global warming target of 2 degrees needed to minimise dangerous climate change," he said.

Dr Bodman is Postgraduate Research Fellow at Victoria University’s Centre for Strategic Economic Studies. Professor Karoly and Professor Rayner are from the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Sciences and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate
System Science.


_________________________
Oct 27mm
2018 Total 770mm






Top
#1196248 - 29/05/2013 18:29 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14224
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Now that should get up quite a few noses very quickly and before you all start jumping down my throat I just copied and pasted it, I didn't write it.

Yes I read it on WUWT and followed the links to Melbourne Uni.


Lift off.


Edited by Seabreeze (30/05/2013 14:58)
Edit Reason: unnecessary remark
_________________________
Oct 27mm
2018 Total 770mm






Top
#1196249 - 29/05/2013 18:34 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2639
So, the take home message from the paper is that warming will be more than 2C and probably not more than 6C by 2100.

Warming could then be anywhere from 2C up to 6C by 2100.

6C by 2100 would be catastrophic.

Even 4 or 5C would be catastrophic.

Heck, even 2C would not be very pleasant due to the more extreme weather that would result from that much warming.
_________________________

Top
#1196253 - 29/05/2013 18:45 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Brett Guy Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 05/10/2010
Posts: 5096
Loc: Bently Park, Cairns
I havn't noticed any more of this extreme weather you keep talking about.

Top
#1196261 - 29/05/2013 19:10 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Inhofe: Climate Change Advocates Do 'Disservice' to Tornado Victims

Those who tried to link last week's Oklahoma tornado to climate change "do a great disservice to those who have experienced this tragedy," Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe told Newsmax.

In an exclusive interview, the senior senator from the Sooner State took time from his family's Memorial Weekend picnic to voice anger with those who claim the tornado that devastated part of his state was somehow due to climate change.

As Inhofe put it, "The liberal media is trying to exploit a tragedy to advance and expand its own agenda. And, believe me, the victims all know this."

Urgent: Is Obama Telling the Truth on IRS, Benghazi Scandals?

Inhofe, a past chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, commented after a week in which there was considerable comment that global warming was a factor in the Oklahoma tornado.

Shortly after the tornado hit, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island delivered an impassioned speech on the Senate floor saying climate change should be given part of the blame.

"Is Climate Change to Blame for the Oklahoma Tornado?" blared the headline in Mother Jones that was sympathetic to that opinion.

Inhofe pointed out that Oklahoma has had a long history of deadly tornadoes.

"We were being hit by tornadoes long before anyone talked about climate change, and even before it was called 'global cooling,' before it became 'global warming,' and then 'climate change,'" Inhofe said. "The same thing that happened last week happened 14 years ago, 25 years ago, and 30 years ago."


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/inhofe-climate-change-oklahoma/2013/05/28/id/506587#ixzz2Uffc7Myn


Edited by Simmosturf (29/05/2013 19:11)

Top
#1196273 - 29/05/2013 20:04 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
I suspect that we may be seeing many more of these sorts of analysis [ below ] of the past global climate, particularly the cold climatic episodes, by the media in the not very distant future.
The word is getting around that the whole CAGW meme is collapsing and that the globe is starting to cool. And the media is starting to ask why,especially after all the howls of horror about CAGW by the alarmists which a few of the media are already starting to do,

They will soon start digging a whole lot deeper looking for answers as to why all those catastrophic predictions of rapidly rising temperatures and accelerating sea level increases and droughts,more cyclones,more tornados. Arctic ice disappearance, the total lack of all those unqualified and promised barbecue summers, the list is almost endless on what CAGW and global warming was supposed to do. all of which just hasn't happened.

As any animal owner or country person will tell you, once you break through the crust of a recently deposited pile of dung, all sorts of seriously unpleasant smells and bad odours can emerge once that crust is broken.
The whole CAGW science is like that pile of dung,

And when, as it is now just starting to happen, the crust on that global warming pile of science dung gets good and broken then the media blowies will start to settle in for a feast of extravagant proportions as they dig deeper and deeper into the depths of that alarmist climate warming science dung looking for the ever more juicer bits.
And they will assuredly find them.

The CAGW pushers just went right on and promoted all the garbage from climate models as if it was a fully verified scientific proven theory that was without doubt and was unchallengeable. A very hubris laden stance they presented to the public and the politicals without ever revealing the doubts and problems with so many, in fact in all of the climate models and data and theories as was so clearly revealed in the Climate Gate mails. And is increasingly being further revealed in a number of articles and science papers on the severe limitations and inability of the climate models to even match most of the characteristics of the present global climate let alone predict what the future climate might do or not do.

On such flimsy and very bad and often corrupted science was founded the whole of the CAGW meme that has brought so much pain, and loss and societal dissension and despair to so many.

So many of those climate warming scientists saw the promoting of the extremist CAGW theme as a means of enhancing their own personal elevation and standing,
Now they will have to account for the billions of dollars spent on their say so and the severe social disruption and harm and despair they created quite deliberately in our community to enhance their own standing.

The media might just identify them also and in exposing them, will have another really juicy item to chew on as the whole CAGW meme completely unravels as it most assuredly will if we see just another one or two very cold winters across the main centres of the global warming belief in Europe and the USA.

And worse if those global temperatures as per those HadCRU graphs in the Climate Science thread so clearly show, the steady decline in global temperatures over the last decade continues on into the future for another long sequence or decade of years.

For a brief version of the recent historical cold episodes, this article from Forbes is a good read and includes a look at where Russian scientists believe our global climate is heading.


To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

Quote:
Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.

Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D., negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin.

Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia.

Reflecting its global scope, evidence of the Little Ice Age appears in the Southern Hemisphere as well. Sediment cores from Lake Malawi in southern Africa show colder weather from 1570 to 1820. A 3,000 year temperature reconstruction based on varying rates of stalagmite growth in a cave in South Africa also indicates a colder period from 1500 to 1800. A 1997 study comparing West Antarctic ice cores with the results of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) indicate a global Little Ice Age affecting the two ice sheets in tandem.

The Siple Dome, an ice dome roughly 100 km long and 100 km wide, about 100 km east of the Siple Coast of Antartica, also reflects effects of the Little Ice Age synchronously with the GISP2 record, as do sediment cores from the Bransfield Basin of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D.

The Franz Josef glacier on the west side of the Southern Alps of New Zealand advanced sharply during the period of the Little Ice Age, actually invading a rain forest at its maximum extent in the early 1700s. The Mueller glacier on the east side of New Zealand’s Southern Alps expanded to its maximum extent at roughly the same time.

Ice cores from the Andeas mountains in South America show a colder period from 1600 to 1800. Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold periods from 1270 to 1380 and from 1520 to 1670. Spanish explorers noted the expansion of the San Rafael Glacier in Chile from 1675 to 1766, which continued into the 19th century.

The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century.

The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity.

The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,

“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”

That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.

But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,

“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”

That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.

The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013,

“German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years – and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory [saying this] is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a “Mini Ice Age.” Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’”

Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,

“Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.”

A news report from India (The Hindu April 22, 2013) stated, “March in Russia saw the harshest frosts in 50 years, with temperatures dropping to –25° Celsius in central parts of the country and –45° in the north. It was the coldest spring month in Moscow in half a century….Weathermen say spring is a full month behind schedule in Russia.” The news report summarized,

“Russia is famous for its biting frosts but this year, abnormally icy weather also hit much of Europe, the United States, China and India. Record snowfalls brought Kiev, capital of Ukraine, to a standstill for several days in late March, closed roads across many parts of Britain, buried thousands of sheep beneath six-metre deep snowdrifts in Northern Ireland, and left more than 1,000,000 homes without electricity in Poland. British authorities said March was the second coldest in its records dating back to 1910. China experienced the severest winter weather in 30 years and New Delhi in January recorded the lowest temperature in 44 years.”

Booker adds, “Last week it was reported that 3,318 places in the USA had recorded their lowest temperatures for this time of year since records began. Similar record cold was experienced by places in every province of Canada. So cold has the Russian winter been that Moscow had its deepest snowfall in 134 years of observations.”

Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and… none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January.

Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million. But if you asked the daffy NBC correspondent who hysterically reported on that what portion of the atmosphere 400 parts per million is, she transparently wouldn’t be able to tell you. One percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed. Maybe that is because the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, which would be well before any of the supposed climate catastrophes the warming hysterics have tried to use to shut down capitalist prosperity.

Yet, just last week, there was Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson telling us, by way of attempting to tutor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, “For the record, and for the umpteenth time, there is no ‘great amount of uncertainty’ about whether the planet is warming and why.” If you can read, and you have gotten this far in my column, you know why Robinson’s ignorance is just another Washington Post abuse of the First Amendment. Mr. Robinson, let me introduce you to the British Met Office, stalwart of Global Warming “science,” such as it is, which has already publicly confessed that we are already three quarters through 20 years of No Global Warming!

Booker could have been writing about Robinson when he concluded his Sunday Telegraph commentary by writing, “Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion?”

But there is a fundamental problem with the temperature records from this contentious period, when climate science crashed into political science. The land based records, which have been under the control of global warming alarmists at the British Met Office and the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, and at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., show much more warming during this period than the incorruptible satellite atmosphere temperature records. Those satellite records have been further confirmed by atmospheric weather balloons. But the land based records can be subject to tampering and falsification.

Top
#1196462 - 30/05/2013 20:15 Re: Interesting Articles about AGW [Re: Seabreeze]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
this is interesting.....

http://grumpydenier.wordpress.com/

Top
Page 117 of 135 < 1 2 ... 115 116 117 118 119 ... 134 135 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
8 registered (Steve O, liberator, Namarrkun, scott12, Renee09, Duane, menthurae, 1 invisible), 88 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
MatthewBr, Raweth, Russellmill
Forum Stats
29681 Members
32 Forums
23978 Topics
1500509 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image