More Warming News!

[Paprika]

At least they admit that there was a hiatus in warming

Note how the core theory will not be exposed to falsification by data, in line with Imre Lakatos' observations:

All scientific research-programmes may be characterised by their ‘hard core‘. The negative heuristic of the programme forbids us to direct the modus tollens at this ‘hard core': it bids us to articulate or even invent with great ingenuity touchstone theories ‘auxiliary hypotheses’, which build up a protective belt around this core, and redirect the modus tollens on to these. It is this protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses which has to bear the brunt of tests and get adjusted and readjusted, or even completely replaced in the defence of the thus hardened core.

In this instance the core of AGW is protected from falsification by the auxiliary hypotheses such as 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' or the like.

[Leonhard]

Yeah, I should have said PREMATURELY venting cow farts to atmosphere. But if we did NOT relieve these cows of their gastrointestinal flatuational distress, we'd have the Animal Rights people down our throats. You just can't win!

Its not a fight worth fighting.

What we need is solar power and some wind turbines, lots of electrical cars, an electrical exchange so that people can sell electricity, and since at any given times there will be a huge number of electrical cars plugged in, 5% of their batteries can go to stabalising the national powergrid. Distributed, free market, superior to gas, long lasting, cheaper than coal in the long run... and I kinda wanna see gem blue fields silicon photovoltaics among the fields of gold.

[Leonhard]

No Len, I'm sorry these guys are saying that the main driver of the warming in those years was not man - that is in direct contradiction to what the warmists claimed. Well perhaps most of the warning over the last century wasn't driven by man either.

First of all seer, I don't like quote mining. And their scientific report said something different. I've read both news section done on them via interview, and their report abstract, so I'll highlight the appropriate thing here.

We find that the empirical EUN is wide enough so that the interdecadal variability in the rate of global warming over the 20th century does not necessarily require corresponding variability in the rate-of-increase of the forced signal. The empirical EUN also indicates that the reduced GMT warming over the past decade or so is still consistent with a middle emission scenario’s forced signal, but is likely inconsistent with the steepest emission scenario’s forced signal.

Which is what I've been saying here,the variability does not mean that the average temperature rise has changed, or halted. They're not saying that we have no evidence of global warming. They're saying that it might be inconsistent with the worst-case scenarios, but that its still consistent with the middle range scenarios.

“Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”

[Cow Poke]

You mean cow farts don't find their ways out of a cow one way or the other?

Yeah, I should have said PREMATURELY venting cow farts to atmosphere. But if we did NOT relieve these cows of their gastrointestinal flatuational distress, we'd have the Animal Rights people down our throats. You just can't win!

[seer]

The wiggles aren't THAT big. The average growth in temperature is low enough, and the wiggles big enough that you need to look over a sufficiently long period. Its like looking at the Dow Jones Index of the stock market during a time of market growth. Day to day? Random up and down. Week to week? Random up and down. Month to month? Random up and down, trending slightly upwards... though local seasons interplay. Year to year? Random up and down, but a trend emerging. Decade to decade? Clear trend.

Obviously wiggles are big enough to be the main driver of warming for 25 years, 1975-2000.

[Leonhard]

But aren't we CONTRIBUTING to global warming by venting cow farts into the atmosphere?

You mean cow farts don't find their ways out of a cow one way or the other?

And yes, by a percent or so, mostly its industrial and transport CO2. Even though cow gas outlet compared to our CO2 by weight is miniscule methane is orders of magnitude more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2... and cows kinda let out of a lot of it during a day. I remember calculating it down in Nat Sci at some point, it was actually not entirely negligible.

I mean come on Cow Poke you know cows let off a lot of gas. You have a job, poking a knife into them, to help them release built up gas otherwise they'll burst.

[seer]

Most is not all, what they're trying to get at is while the warming from 1975 to 2000 is very sharp, alarmingly sharp, it might not be the worst-case-model scenario which it seemed earlier to fit. These scientists are definitely not arguing that global warming is not happening. Just that its not going at the absolute highest rate ever predicted by the IPCC.

No Len, I'm sorry these guys are saying that the main driver of the warming in those years was not man - that is in direct contradiction to what the warmists claimed. Well perhaps most of the warning over the last century wasn't driven by man either. How would we know?

[Cow Poke]

Reminds me that you need to teach me that art of cow poking for when I visit the hermit monastery again. Could come in handy with their cows.

But aren't we CONTRIBUTING to global warming by venting cow farts into the atmosphere?

[Leonhard]

You lost me at p-value.

Hence fluke.

Why not over three centuries, or millennia?

The wiggles aren't THAT big. The average growth in temperature is low enough, and the wiggles big enough that you need to look over a sufficiently long period. Its like looking at the Dow Jones Index of the stock market during a time of market growth. Day to day? Random up and down. Week to week? Random up and down. Month to month? Random up and down, trending slightly upwards... though local seasons interplay. Year to year? Random up and down, but a trend emerging. Decade to decade? Clear trend.

I think we have "weather", and sometimes it's hot and sometimes it's cold.

There you go, now imagine weather being a couple degrees hotter in a hundred years on average, and you've got the idea.

I shall bow out due to my gross ignorance on this subject.

Reminds me that you need to teach me that art of cow poking for when I visit the hermit monastery again. Could come in handy with their cows.

[Cow Poke]

Seriously I'm not, but I did get a very course in statistics.

You lost me at p-value.

Basically the global average temperature has some uncertainties that mean you need to look at the trend over three decades.

Why not over three centuries, or millennia?

Thankfully we have excellent proxies going back thousands of years, though for some odd reason tree ring data diverges around the age of industrialization (this was the decline that was 'hidden' in the review... one temperature proxy out of 20+ goes down, means something is wrong with that proxy, and in a pretty concise report for politicians this was cut out. It was later found out what caused that proxy to deviate.).

I think we have "weather", and sometimes it's hot and sometimes it's cold.

I shall bow out due to my gross ignorance on this subject.

[Leonhard]

Yet none of them predicted this kind of hiatus - correct?

You can't predict local randomness, only long term global trends.

They also said that these natural "wiggles" could be the main driver for the warming from 1975 to 2000. That is damning since we were constantly told that the warming in those years was directly caused by man.

Most is not all, what they're trying to get at is while the warming from 1975 to 2000 is very sharp, alarmingly sharp, it might not be the worst-case-model scenario which it seemed earlier to fit. These scientists are definitely not arguing that global warming is not happening. Just that its not going at the absolute highest rate ever predicted by the IPCC.

[Leonhard]

I'll leave that to you. Unlike MOST of the folks who pretend to be experts on this, I readily admit I am not.

Seriously I'm not, but I did get a very course in statistics.

Basically the global average temperature has some uncertainties that mean you need to look at the trend over three decades. Thankfully we have excellent proxies going back thousands of years, though for some odd reason tree ring data diverges around the age of industrialization (this was the decline that was 'hidden' in the review... one temperature proxy out of 20+ goes down, means something is wrong with that proxy, and in a pretty concise report for politicians this was cut out. It was later found out what caused that proxy to deviate.).

[Cow Poke]

Fluke is also shorter to say than the p-value of whether the current semi-flatline of temperature indicates a lull in temperature is evidence of the global temperature having ceased its long term trend is low. Basically, its not big enough of a thing. Its semi-unlikely giving the the worst case scenario, but something like 1% unlikely isn't impossible, and beyond its well within the range of the other models.

I'll leave that to you. Unlike MOST of the folks who pretend to be experts on this, I readily admit I am not.

[seer]

The IPCC's worst-case-scenario might not be it. They have several.

Yet none of them predicted this kind of hiatus - correct? They also said that these natural "wiggles" could be the main driver for the warming from 1975 to 2000. That is damning since we were constantly told that the warming in those years was directly caused by man.

[Leonhard]

I love that word - "fluke". Anything I don't want to consider as a real factor I can toss into the "fluke" category.

(Interestingly enough, my favorite measuring instruments are Flukes! )

Fluke is also shorter to say than the p-value of whether the current semi-flatline of temperature indicates a lull in temperature is evidence of the global temperature having ceased its long term trend is low. Basically, its not big enough of a thing. Its semi-unlikely giving the the worst case scenario, but something like 1% unlikely isn't impossible, and beyond its well within the range of the other models.