Only Connect

You may have heard of the cumulative temperature increases plateauing between 1998 and 2013. “But Da Paws” was all the rage around 2012 in the Contrarian Matrix – recall for instance when David Rose became Judy’s megaphone. Then it subsided:

2016 was the second year in a row where global temperaturewas more than 1°C above pre-industrial levels*

[…]

2014, 2015 and 2016 all saw record global temperatures. 2017 is on track to be one of the top three warmest years on record.

You’d think Da Paws dead, but no  – Javier currently argues at Tony’s that the planet is no longer warming. At Judy’s, BobD tried to reason with him (and a bit more) using statistics. I submit it is both overkill and not enough for ClimateBall – we need to connect this kind of analysis with the little things we do in every day life.

only-connect (2018_06_20 02_13_21 UTC)

Say you cook an egg. You fire the pan at medium, as you don’t want to lose time. Then, because you know how to cook an eggs, you reduce the heat. (Cookbooks usually talk about lowering heat.) Would you say that your pan isn’t warming? Not really.

Or say I bought some stock that gave me a 1% dividend last quarter. The market fluctuates and now it only gives me a 0.25% dividend this quarter. Does it mean I’m losing capital? No way.

Finally, suppose we all drive electric vehicles and want to save battery life. One way is to preserve our velocity. So we make our rides as smooth as possible. On deserted intersections, we might indulge in rolled stops:

Could we then truly say that our vehicle stops? Try to argue your case to the policeman who just caught you. Good luck with that.

For Javier’s argument to hit home, it seems to me that he would need to imply that eggs are not cooking at low heat, that low profits empty our portfolios, or that slowing down makes us drive us backwards. Something is amiss, yet the concept of cooling looks fine. It served scientists well so far. One way to see Javier’s trick is to ask – “Da Paws” is Da Paws of what?  Once we clarify what exactly is cooling, the trick loses most of its bite.

Javier suggests that the warming increase of the surface temperatures has been “cooling down” since 2016 and this undermines AGW. Coincidentally, he defines warming as a “positive rate of temperature change over time,” an acceleration. Not exactly the same as a long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system, isn’t it?

This concept of cooling down also deserves due diligence.  To cool down is a series of exercises after an intense physical activity, like hockey:

Athletes don’t immediately stop while cooling down – they keep moving at a lower rate to “recirculate fatigue byproducts” as this muscular trainer words it in the above tutorial.

This short conceptual analysis should convince you that Da Paws can be countered using simpler means than statistical hypothesis testing. In any case, transposing dry stuff into real life terms looks like a good way to connect with those who find statistical inference hard. After all, science is not a substitute for common sense, but an extension of it.

You, fellow ClimateBall player, can surely find more a intuitive way to illustrate the wrongness of Javier’s take. Practice makes perfect. I’ve omitted a most startling error.

 

Advertisements

About Willard

neverendingaudit.tumblr.com
This entry was posted in ClimateBall, Contrarian Matrix, Judith Curry, Philosophy for Bloggers, Watts Up With That, We Are Science and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

110 Responses to Only Connect

  1. verytallguy says:

    Analogy: we are climbing a mountain. All mountain routes involve a bit of down along the way.

    Now, someone is filtering is by our GPS trace, and wants to know of we’re coming down the mountain, as there’s a storm approaching.

    They detect we’ve descended 5 metres. Are we coming down the mountain?

  2. A couple of more detailed comments. Firstly, Javier seems to completely ignore that the radiative response to increasing atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic. Javier suggests that we should see accelerated warming if CO2 increases rapidly. This is not necessarily the case, since the radiative response to a change in atmospheric CO2 is not linear, but logarithmic. This means that the radiative response (or, the amount of warming) is the same for every doubling of atmospheric CO2. If you correct for this, then our overall warming is entirely consistent with what we’d expect.

    Secondly, Javier seems to consider annual warming rates. This, however, has a very large uncertainty. If you go to the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator, and consider a reasonable time interval, you’ll find that the rate of warming over the last 20 years, is essentially the same as it’s been over the last 50 years. You can select start dates to change this slightly, but there is no real indication that warming has stopped, or slowed.

  3. verytallguy says:

    A point on facts.

    Javier’s “analysis” is a rather poor attempt to use an unsurprising fact to make a rhetorical, rather than scientific point.

    Scientifically, short term changes in the earth’s temperature are not surprising and are irrelevant to assessing whether the temperature is on a long term upward trend or not. Javier knows this, but would like to stir the pot with the factually correct, but irrelevant point that recent short term fluctuation means the measured temperature anomaly of the earth is lower now than it was a couple of years ago. Rhetorically and factually then, the earth *is* cooling, a fact trivially true every time the value is other than a new record. How effective this is can be seen by the existence of the OP here.

  4. ghalfrunt says:

    …and Then There’s Physics says: February 17, 2019 at 12:59 pm
    … Firstly, Javier seems to completely ignore that the radiative response to increasing atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic…. This means that the radiative response (or, the amount of warming) is the same for every doubling of atmospheric CO2.
    ———————————–
    A question or 2
    Log response refers to the CO2 in the lower atmosphere where it blocks radiation – is this true?
    But some/most/a bit (?) of the GHG effect is due to the raising of the level (to cooler locations) at which IR can be (ie it is not intercepted and conductively transferred to other molecules) radiated directly to space from GHG molecules. Is this true? Is this also a logarithmic effect? is it a volumetric effect? Is it a thermal effect on the molecules “bouncing” them higher?

    Do I understand nothing?

  5. Willard says:

    Javier disputes the dividend analogy:

    It is not the stock dividend but the stock price. If the stock had an initial price of $10, you bought at $100 and it is now priced at $90, The stock has a net gain of $90/share, while you have a net loss of $10/share. The price of the stock fell since you bought. Nobody says that the price drop is not real or statistically non-significant.

    Climate change is going to continue giving dividends to those involved in maintaining the anthropogenic farce regardless of what temperature does.

    https://judithcurry.com/2019/02/07/climate-hypochondria-and-tribalism-vs-winning/#comment-889420

    There’s something about anomalies Javier seems to forget.

    ***

    Ragnaar for the win:

    If I were frying an egg and found the pan was warmer than the egg, I’d point out the at some future time that would not longer true as the pan would cool while warming the egg. Egg vengeance I think Dana and I would call it. The pan would change from not warming the egg so much to warming it to the point of incineration. If the egg was too done or not enough done at any time, it’s obvious the pan is at fault. I’ve heard it said, we hide God in things we can’t explain. Once we explain his current location, he moves to another one. So God is in the frying pan and the oceans, until he’s not. We hide God in time. If I don’t like the long term, I find God in the short term, and the other way around as well. A record annual temperature is God. Until God takes a break and it’s only the 4th warmest year. When sea ice falls in the North, God has moved to the Southern sea ice. Or the high deserts of Antarctica. Or the deep oceans, or into a snow storm. I admit both sides are guilty of such things.

    https://judithcurry.com/2019/02/07/climate-hypochondria-and-tribalism-vs-winning/#comment-889424

  6. Joshua says:

    Biggest problem, IMO, is that this discussion takes place independent of consideration of OHC.

    Generally, the implication is that “the pause” is in “global warming.”

    From my clearly limited understanding, talking about anything other than a short term reduction in a longer term increase in SATs (which is only a small fraction the relevant metrics) is ceding home court advantage.

  7. Willard says:

    I like that analogy, Very Tall. It emphasizes the observer perspective, an aspect missing from mine. Empirical sciences do not offer a first-person view.

    ***

    Good point, Joshua. Javier’s claim is about the planet. This should implicate all the indicators we have, including Ocean Heat Content (OHC).

  8. Joshua says:

    Agree that VTG’s analogy works well. But from the perspective of the hiker, we’ve all experienced a short decent on a trail up a mountain. To extend the analogy a bit, we’ve also all experienced a kind of emotional roller coatre effect of enjoying that relatively short decent on the way up a mountain, even as we know it promises even greater pain further along the trail.

  9. Joshua says:

    My point being, the ccreunt relief of the short term decent is viseral. The expected increase in pain further along the trail (as a direct result of the short term decent) is abstract.

    Its another sense that the analogy works quite well.

  10. Steven Mosher says:

    “Ragnaar for the win:”

    rather nice.

  11. Willard says:

    You might also like BartV’s analogy:

    Here’s a graph of my body weight over the past 32 years:

    As you can see from this graph, I’ve been on quite a few diets. But often, as soon as I had lost a few pounds, they came back when I lost my appetite in carrots and hunted down the chocolate aisle again. In the nineties, I did quite a bit of sports, which prevented my weight from increasing too much. I’ve stopped since; it just makes me tired.

    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/a-rooty-solution-to-my-weight-gain-problem/

  12. ghalfrunt,

    But some/most/a bit (?) of the GHG effect is due to the raising of the level (to cooler locations) at which IR can be (ie it is not intercepted and conductively transferred to other molecules) radiated directly to space from GHG molecules. Is this true? Is this also a logarithmic effect? is it a volumetric effect? Is it a thermal effect on the molecules “bouncing” them higher?

    If you simply change the atmospheric concentration from C_0 to C_1, the change in radiative forcing is
    \Delta F = 5.35 \ln \left( \frac{C_1}{C_0} \right).
    What this means is essentially that the outgoing flux has changed by \Delta F. In order to return to equilibrium, the system then warms (or cools, if CO2 decreases). A consequence of this is that some of the energy is then radiated to space from slightly higher in the atmosphere, but this isn’t really incorporated in the logarithmic response, since that is really just the radiative response to a change in atmospheric CO2.

  13. verytallguy says:

    ghalfrunt,

    It’s maybe worth saying that the logarithmic equation is purely a curve fit over a range*, it’s *not* an actual fundamental physical relationship.

    The numbers it’s fitted to come from a line by line radiative heat transfer calculation.

    Trying to ascribe particular physical causes to it isn’t likely to result in deeper understanding.

    *you can expect it to no longer apply at very low CO2 concentrations, for instance.

  14. verytallguy says:

    ghalfrunt,

    If you’re interested on the physical basis of the calculations, there’s a very good series on radiative heat transfer by “Science of Doom” here:

    https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/23/understanding-atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect-part-one/

  15. Joshua says:

    Stakeholder dialog on carbon neutrality:

    https://castbox.fm/vb/129807611

    Hopeful developments w/r/t clinate change and meat:

    http://freakonomics.com/podcast/meat/

  16. Ignorant Guy says:

    It’s not of major importance but despite that I would like to point one thing out and it’s about language, not about climate:
    The phrase “We define “warming” as a positive rate of temperature change over time”
    does not imply any accelaration of temperature, only an increase. If we have a positive rate of temperature change then the temperature at a later time is higher than at an ealier time.
    If the rate of change is zero then we have constant temperature. If the rate of change is
    negative then we have decreasing temperature.
    Contrast it with “We define “warming” as a positive rate of change of temperature change over time.”
    That implies an acceleration.

  17. Willard says:

    This beats analogies (via Jonathan Gilligan):

  18. izen says:

    The climate change doubtful do tend to sound like reluctant dieters.
    The luckwarmers are aware they have gained weight every year for the last decade and are now clinically obese.
    But claim that it is mainly (50%?) natural weight gain and dieting will not have any significant effect because their weight is not very sensitive to calorie intake.

    There are however a group that insist that they were this weight years ago, or close to it. That the last few years of increasing weight have little or nothing to do with over consumption of carbohydrates, because weight is controlled by far more than just the carbo knob. It is probably chaotic and has something to do with turbulence… ‘clinically obese’ is just alarmist talk by the medical profession and is not an accurate measure of catastrophic health risks and impacts. Going on a diet would be expensive and no help at all.

    And anyway they were two pounds lighter the last time they weighed themselves so are clearly now losing weight.

  19. bobdroege says:

    Thanks for the comment.

    It’s a lose lose game for me.

    I can’t win any arguments but it’s fun to try.

  20. Willard says:

    > I can’t win any arguments but it’s fun to try.

    I don’t think anyone can win against contrarians, Bob:

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/can-contrarians-lose/

    You’re doing fine, as far as I can see. Try not to lose patience too much. It reveals to contrarians what buttons they need to push.

  21. Willard says:

    > The phrase “We define “warming” as a positive rate of temperature change over time” does not imply any accelaration of temperature, only an increase.

    Thanks.

    My problem with that interpretation was that temperature change is measured using anomalies, which are themselves differences between the observed temperature and a reference value, i.e. the departure from a long-term average. The rate of temperature change over time seems to imply the velocity of a velocity or something along those lines.

    Granted, connecting acceleration and warming isn’t ideal, and analogies always break down at some point. But this is a feature more than a bug – what matters most is how we negotiate the breaking points after we encounter them. At the very least we need to keep our frame of reference fixed and explicit.

    Javier is doing an OK job so far at Judy’s. He’s displaying an overconfidence that could turn against him, as he is still stuck with the observation that all the anomalies we’re discussing are positive. In my experience, most contrarians are immune to this kind of details.

    How one can argue that the Earth is no longer warming while juggling with positive temperature anomalies remains to me a great ClimateBall mystery.

  22. Harry Twinotter says:

    That article at Tony’s is not even close to being coherent. An IPCC “hypothesis” indeed… This is an article written by someone who knows they are lying.

  23. JCH says:

    There is no such OHC. So hitting another ship with a torpedo was a 100% game of chance. Well, it sort of was, but. And sea level hasn’t risen in 3 years. He’s the new GIRMA.

  24. Willard says:

    > An IPCC “hypothesis” indeed…

    That’s another interesting aspect of the note:

    According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.

    The rate of CO2 change (the atmospheric increase in CO2 every year) has been increasing almost linearly since 1959 and is currently ~2.4 ppm/year.

    If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing .

    AT’s earlier comment tackled that argument. I myself will note the “increase (accelerate),” the “decrease (decelerate)” and the “cooling (negative rate).” There’s an ambiguity to resolve. One way is to ask – is the almost linear increase an acceleration?

    Tracing back the so-called “hypothesis” would be nice too.

  25. Willard says:

    Seems that Tony’s comment thread got interesting, e.g. :

    This article makes two fundamental errors. If you look at fig. 3, each point represents the difference in monthly temperature between years. I have reproduced this plot myself. So each point represents an estimate of the first derivative of temperature wrt. time. The slope of a linear trendline would show the second derivative. I have done this, and the slope is positive. This means that the rate of warming is increasing. The red line represents a second order trendline, so the curvature represents the third derivative. The curvature is negative, but this means that the thrid derivative is negative (the rate of change of the rate of change of the rate of change of temperature is negative, or something like that). So the article does not understand the derivatives and what the red line represents.

    Second, the statistical significance of the trendlines is very small, R^2 of almost zero, so any conclusions about the rate of change of global warming as represented by fig. 3 have very little statistical significance.

    In summary, […]

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/the-planet-is-no-longer-warming/#comment-2621983

    I’ve edited some typos. To read the summary, click on the link. Here’s figure 3:

  26. ghalfrunt says:

    Thanks for the info.
    but
    ..and Then There’s Physics says: February 17, 2019 at 5:19 pm
    . In order to return to equilibrium, the system then warms (or cools, if CO2 decreases). A consequence of this is that some of the energy is then radiated to space from slightly higher in the atmosphere,
    —————-
    I can understand the energy balance but why does a warmer planet radiate from higher in the atmosphere? I thought the limit was where the mfp of the photons was long enough for them to escape without significant further absorption by GHGs. Thus more co2 = higher concentrations and shorter mfps requiring higher and therefore cooler emissions.
    e.g from https://scienceofdoom.com/2014/06/26/the-greenhouse-effect-explained-in-simple-terms/
    “More GHGs
    6. If we add more radiatively-active gases (like water vapor and CO2) then the atmosphere becomes more “opaque” to terrestrial radiation and the consequence is the emission to space from the atmosphere moves higher up (on average). Higher up is colder. See note 6.
    So this reduces the intensity of emission of radiation, which reduces the outgoing radiation, which therefore adds energy into the climate system. And so the climate system warms (see note 7).”

  27. ghalfrunt,

    I thought the limit was where the mfp of the photons was long enough for them to escape without significant further absorption by GHGs. Thus more co2 = higher concentrations and shorter mfps requiring higher and therefore cooler emissions.

    Yes, that is essentially the point. Add GHGs and the emission then comes from slightly higher up where it’s colder, and so the outgoing flux goes down. As VTG says, you can then use radiative transfer models to determine the corresponding change in forcing, which depends logarithmically on the change in atmospheric CO2.

  28. verytallguy says:

    I can understand the energy balance but why does a warmer planet radiate from higher in the atmosphere? I thought the limit was where the mfp of the photons was long enough for them to escape without significant further absorption by GHGs. Thus more co2 = higher concentrations and shorter mfps requiring higher and therefore cooler emissions.

    Yes, that’s correct.

    With higher CO2, the point in the atmosphere where the same absolute concentration of CO2 occurs is at a higher altitude. So the effective emission height likewise is higher up.

  29. dikranmarsupial says:

    I think it is worthwhile somebody explaining the statistics in these discussions, because that is what the scientists actually do (or at least ought to do). It is important that the specific errors are pointed out in a scientific discussion. However, I don’t think we should all pursue the discussion in the same way, as we are not all the same.

    FWIW, at WUWT my use of financial analogies (which are very good as most people are financially quite shrewd – or at least not so gullible) started to be met by a flat “I won’t consider financial analogies”.

    Having said which, analogies and thought experiments are generally a good way of establishing a common basis for discussion, provided both parties actually want that.

  30. Dave_Geologist says:

    Javier … defines warming as a “positive rate of temperature change over time,” an acceleration.

    Then he’s either too ignorant to be worth reading on the topic (or any topic which requires an understanding of the English language), or too dishonest to be trusted on the topic.

    Warming equals getting warmer. Warming faster equals getting warmer, faster. It does not equal warming.

  31. Dave_Geologist says:

    ghalfrunt, it’s my understanding that the (approximate) logarithmic response is a function of the shape of the absorption lines, which are broadened into peaks or humps by various physical processes in the atmosphere. As the peak gets saturated, further warming is contributed from the flanks until they too become saturated, then from further down the flanks, etc. Because the peak is by definition higher than the flanks, each successive increment of CO2 contributes less warming (except at very low concentrations, before the peak is saturated, and at very high concentrations, where you move off the peak into the continuum). For no particular reason, at the concentrations of interest (pre-industrial to a few times pre-industrial), that translates to an approximately logarithmic response.

  32. verytallguy says:

    Dave_ Geologist

    As the peak gets saturated…

    I don’t think this is quite right.

    If you go to a sufficiently high altitude, *no* peaks are saturated.

    I don’t think there’s any simple answer to why it approximates to logarithmic other than “the numerical solution to the heat transfer equations fits a logarithmic relationship well over the concentration range of interest”

  33. Ben McMillan says:

    Hmm, think the exponential fall-off of air density with height partly explains the logarithm: the height where the gas becomes optically thin to IR then increases logarithmically with CO2 concentration.

  34. vtg,
    I’m not sure myself, but I did think that the logarithmic response was related to the absorption happening in the wings of the spectral lines.

  35. Dave_Geologist says:

    But, vtg, it’s the cumulative path from the ground, with IR being absorbed and re-radiated on the way up. With the re-radiation not necessarily at the same wavelength as absorption. So on average. fewer photons at the peak absorption wavelength make it through. Where the atmosphere is high and thin, the peaks are not saturated but IR at peak wavelength doesn’t make it that far. My recollection is that the atmosphere is effectively opaque right at the peak wavelength, but semi-transparent at the flanks. But after some Googling I can only find outgoing spectra that show a dip at the peak, so maybe it’s different degrees of optical thickness rather than fully opaque. At least for current CO2 concentrations 😦 .

  36. Jeffh says:

    What it essentially boils down to is this, at least in my humble opinion. Bart Verheggen empahsizes the same point in the talk he gives for a course I run every two years on science and advocacy at the VU University: climate change deniers, for the most part, camouflage their neoliberal political ideology with shoddy science.

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/@future-learning/2019/02/11/438169/climate-change-denial-not-about-the-science?fbclid=IwAR0_i_Xj9IHyGm5xzyfSag1_AVR2PoMQHiMtXooY57-ueqBazwJuxzTzxNw

    Javier, of course, is utterly incompetent, but virtually all of them do it. They cannot hide it, and I can barely stomach some of the drivel I read on denier blogs (I was just enduring risible bile from Jaime Jessop attacking Katharine Hayhoe on Climate Scepticism) but one doesn’t have to look far to see that they wear their right wing/deregulation/neoliberal capitalist hearts on their sleeves. It isn’t about the science and it never was.

    In the article I linked to above, Neal Curtis spells it out very clearly: “Climate change is a direct challenge to the philosophy of neo-liberalism that has made a very small group of people exceedingly rich”, writes the University of Auckland’s Dr Neal Curtis. “It’s never been about the science – it’s the ideology”.

    This is why I find it increasingly exasperating interacting with climate change deniers. They are contiunually shifting the goalposts so long as mitigation remains off of the political agenda. There is even a new ‘think tank’ (minus the thinking) in the Netherlands called the ‘Climate Intelligence Unit’ that has just be apparently spawned as offspring from the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Reading their early commentaries there is nothing ‘intelligent’ about them – they are once again neoliberal idealogues claiming the scientific high ground.

  37. verytallguy says:

    AT, Dave,

    complicated, innit?

    Like I say though, I don’t think it’s really possible to neatly ascribe a physical meaning to the logarithmic relationship. It’s just the outcome of the line by line numeric calculation.

    Here’s a paper which does far better than I could at attempting a connection of physical models to the logarithmic relationship. They claim (as far as i can understand it, which is to say, not that much) that the relationship might be expected to hold even for theoretical cases without the spectral lines we observe.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JD022466

  38. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse says:

    Statistics, photons. Meh.

    You have a sister. [Mother, daughter, anyone, will work]
    Let’s call her Tara.

    She has had a fever.
    For several hours, Tara’s temperature was not about 37 °C, the typical homeostatic value, but about 38.5 °C.

    This may be worrisome, but it isn’t yet a terminal situation – Tara’s temperature is only 1.5 °C above normal.

    Tara takes a pill (could be red or blue, doesn’t matter) and her temperature has remained at about 38.5 °C for the last several hours.

    One could say that Tara’s fever “has paused”.

    But should we say that Tara’s fever “has past”?
    Or would you define “has past” as a return to about 37 °C?

    Even if da paws can be said to exist, it is already too late for da paws to smack down da warming, And it doesn’t matter how long da paws is. Tara still haz fever.

  39. Windchaser says:

    I got to the part where Javier used a second-order polynomial to decide whether it was warming or not, and I literally laughed out loud.

    This wouldn’t pass muster for an undergraduate math project, but it’s fine to the deniers.

    Honestly, given how easy it is to obfuscate using math or statistics, and given their general lack of interest in actually understanding problems like which kind of statistical fit is the best to use… there’s no way to get through to deniers. Their motivated reasoning beats any attempt to have a serious discussion about math or science.

  40. Ben McMillan says:

    vtg:
    My summary of (section 4) of that paper is that increasing CO2 concentration largely just shifts the altitude where the absorption curve has a certain shape. The ‘Emission layer displacement model’ is the usual argument that the effective altitude where radiation happens changes with greenhouse gas concentration.

    Because of the slow decrease of temperature (moist lapse rate), temperature decreases roughly linearly with height, even though density decreases roughly exponentially. The surface then warms up linearly with the height of the radiating layer.

  41. nigel goodwin says:

    I’ve no idea how I got here, I am only a very occasional reader of climate change debates, but it started out when an old colleague Andy May shared Javier’s post on LinkedIn. It led to me spending far too much of my time trying to explain derivatives, but Javier understand neither derivatives nor statistical significance. Willard quotes from one of my replies above (starting ‘seems like Tony’s…’) but apparently all my concerns have been addressed and I know nothing about statistics, maths, polynomials or elementary calculus, even though I have a PhD and degree in theoretical physics and quantum field theory from Cambridge and have practised statistics and probability for over 40 years.

    BTW I had battles with Andy May from the mid 1980’s, we both worked in an oil and gas consulting company in petrophysics, he wanted to support clients on old IBM mainframes whereas I was looking towards the future of workstations. I still work in oil and gas and like to think I have a reasonable view of climate change and oil companies and the many benefits oil and gas has brought the world.

  42. Willard says:

    Thanks for coming by, Nigel. I simply linked to your first comment, but all of them were both instructive and entertaining. They reminded me of Vaughan Pratt‘s, who now spends more time playing ClimateBall on Quora than with contrarians. As you can already attest, contrarians are first and foremost into SpeedoScience.

    If you got a post in mind about your views on AGW, you’re more than welcome to write one.

  43. nigel goodwin says:

    Thanks. I prefer to leave it to the experts, but I know junk science when I see it. As you may have seen from my other posts and links on WUWT, I have worked with serious academics who try to put a Bayesian/probabilistic framework around climate change, and I know I have neither the time, patience or ability to discuss at that exhalted level.

    There is simply too much name calling, we are all either alarmists or deniers, I am simply somebody who understands that risk = probability x consequences, and there is always more uncertainty than anybody likes to think.

  44. Dave_Geologist says:

    Thanks vtg. But at least I was in line with the textbooks 😉 .

    Clearly I have some reading to do. I still have a sneaking suspicion that it may turn out to be two sides of the same coin, because in a system closed to everything but radiation, everything is all joined up and everything depends on everything else. I’m reminded about earlier discussions of diffusional processes, where all you have to go on is an observation of diffusion-like behaviour. You can’t deduce the process from the functional form, but if you know the underlying physics, you can predict the functional form. Or, from a different slant, exponential processes like radioactive decay. There are all sorts of ways to explain why it’s exponential, none of them wrong. But the one I remember from my Chemical Kinetics classes is that you can deduce it merely from the fact that the process has no memory. So in that case, you don’t have to understand the underlying process (or rather, you only have to understand it enough to know that it has no memory)

    And it is pretty new, only 15 Google Scholar cites and half of them about things like geo-engineering and extrasolar planets, where the authors are probably not taking it to pieces.

  45. izen says:

    While Javier is amusing and annoying in the contortions of maths and meaning, the future they are selling is more intriguing.
    A lot of attempts to d… refute the existence of AGW are also predictions, at least implicitly about the state of the world in the future. Javier and many of that ilk are presenting a future that is very similar to the historical past. That there are weather cycles of varying lengths and sizes, perhaps epicycles…
    But the reassurance offered is that radical change to the climate, or to our social infrastructure, is NOT required because of fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

    As much as the ‘contrarians’ are against mitigation and climate science, they are most positively FOR the future being very like the present. (or possibly a ‘Golden Age’ past)
    They negatively oppose the mainstream understanding that the next few generations will inhabit a world VERY different from this, whether they mitigate or just adapt or die.
    But support positively the idea that little will alter in the next few decades.
    By supporting superficially plausible reasoning that justifies a strong belief that the status quo in environmental and socio-economic terms will persist. That the future state of the climate and human society will match the present, No radical change is needed or inevitable..

  46. BBD says:

    Conservatism, in a nutshell.

  47. Willard says:

    > Even if da paws can be said to exist, it is already too late for da paws to smack down da warming, And it doesn’t matter how long da paws is. Tara still haz fever.

    Nice one, Rev.

    ***

    > Warming equals getting warmer. Warming faster equals getting warmer, faster. It does not equal warming.

    I expressed a similar intuition to Javier at Judy’s:

    Looks like you’re conflating “cooling” with “cooler,” Javier.

    Please advise.

    https://judithcurry.com/2019/02/07/climate-hypochondria-and-tribalism-vs-winning/#comment-889382

    In fairness, this may be a problem with my own interpretation. Cases like these may be solved with formalism, as Dikran suggests. Still, both common sense and statistics should ideally help one another, something that Nigel closed with at Tony’s.

    As I see it, Javier’s figure 3 above at best would show the acceleration of the acceleration of warming. If that’s the case, then the warming’s acceleration is indeed not accelerating. A Very Good Thing, so Good in fact that I’m willing to believe it. Hard to fry an egg with exponential warming.

    Whatever the proper interpretation of Javier’s trick, seems that once again there’s a relevant SkS page for it.

  48. sheldonjwalker says:

    I think that Javier is a little bit “optimistic”, about the Earth starting to cool.

    His analysis is not totally wrong, but it is a fairly primitive curve fitting exercise.

    Compare Javier’s analysis, to my sophisticated iterative smoothing of the temperature data (using a binary filter)

    [Etc. No thanks. -W]

  49. sheldonjwalker says:

    P.S. You might be interested in the temperature data that I found for “United Kingdom”. It is quite unique. (I think that you live in “United Kingdom”)

    United Kingdom actually has the 7th lowest average hottest month temperature (+19.8 degrees Celsius, that is colder than Finland, and Russia).

    [From this article:]
    https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-hot-is-that-country

  50. Willard says:

    Drive-by done, Sheldon. One per thread is enough.

  51. Jeffh says:

    Oh dear, what utter risible nonsense by Sheldon. Embarrassing, really. No real need to waste too much energy debunking it, but one point is important. Biomes across the world and the species in them have evolved in response to a range of biotic and abiotic factors. Temperature is important – extended periods above or below critical threaholds will generate stresses that reduce biodiversity and quite possibly lead to local extinctions. Species in tropical habitats are much more sensitive to small changes in temperature, precipitation etc. than species in temperate habitats, because the ranges of conditions occurring in tropical habitats does not vary so much with season (or time) compared with i.e. temperate habitats. This explains why a seemingly small shift in temperature over several decades (e.g. 1-2 degrees) can possibly lead to a huge loss in insects, as the Lister and Garcia study based on insects trapped in Puerto Rico 35 years apart (PNAS, 2018) showed.

    Sheldon seems to be one of those people who wish that climates in northern Europe or the United States were more like those in the Mediterranean or Gulf States respectively. If this were to happen in the time frame he envisages, then the consequences for ecosystems in both places would be absolutely catastrophic. Essentially, they would collapse, because the biota in them is simply not adapted to respond to such a dramatic and rapid shift in temperature. This should be patently obvious to anyone, but it clearly escapes Sheldon and others who think that the world simply exists to support Homo sapiens, and that the rules which govern the assembly and functioning of natural systems just don’t apply to us.

    Therefore his ‘article’ is a wasted exercise in futility.

  52. anoilman says:

    Jeffh: We’ve already seen massive destruction, loss of employment, and refugees from temperature shifts in Canada.

    When I was a kid Mountain Pine Beetles were a risk in Southern BC (right on the border to the US). My grandparents (41 years ago) had set up traps to see if we could detect them.

    They’ve now made it to the arctic circle.
    https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/fire-insects-disturbances/top-insects/13397

    Dead trees = lost forestry jobs;
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/province-disputes-projected-forestry-job-losses-due-to-beetle/article1389345/

    Dead trees burn;
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-wildfires-burned-large-areas-affected-by-mountain-pine-beetles-experts-say-1.4834829

    Worse still, Canada’s forests are no longer carbon sinks. If we include them in our carbon emissions budget, Canada is worse;
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-forests-carbon-sink-or-source-1.5011490

    I guess that in the future we’ll only have Monty Python to remember the forests by.

  53. Willard says:

  54. Steven Mosher says:

    “As I see it, Javier’s figure 3 above at best would show the acceleration of the acceleration of warming.”

    the word you are looking for is [lacks swags -W]

    no shit.

  55. nigel goodwin says:

    Be fair, Steven, he is showing the deceleration of the acceleration of the increasing temperature. Plus predicting hell will freeze over in a few years. See how his second order polynomial is falling, go buy shares in wool. The deceleration is so clear that that the acceleration will rapidly go into reverse and there will be an acceleration of the deceleration of warming, or rather an acceleration of acceleration of cooling.
    Javier openly admits he doesn’t believe in statistics, maybe it is because he doesn’t understand it. Many people have asked him for confidence intervals, but the confidence intervals he gives are none.

  56. [Mosh might be pulling my leg, Web -W]

  57. lerpo says:

    My favourite ‘pause’ illustration was the one Ted Cruize used to show no warming in UAH since 1997. That same temperature record also showed no warming prior to 1997. Curiously, there was considerable warming over the entire period. It seems all of the warming must have occurred on January 1st 1998 at 00:00.

  58. Willard says:

    No idea why your comment keeps hitting the Pending box, Nigel. It’s supposed to stop after the first approved comment on a WordPress blog.

    ***

    > Javier openly admits he doesn’t believe in statistics […]

    Javier also scorns at analogical reasoning, which implies he does not believe in much. And yet:

    Thank you Angech. That is exactly what I am doing. A big climate shift has been on the making since early 21st century. The warmists are taking refuge on inconclusive statistics ignoring that it is a damning situation. The statistics would not be inconclusive if it was CO2. Ergo, it is not CO2.

    […]

    In due time the statistics will become significant, but that only happens afterwards. Science is about learning how change occurs to be able to predict it, not about statistically certifying that change has occurred.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/the-planet-is-no-longer-warming/#comment-2632979

    Not sure how Javier can infer anything from a lack of significance in some analysis A, except for the possibility to infer anything from a lack of significance.

    God will exist in 2666. Roberto Bolaño initiated the process in 2004. In due time, you’ll see I’m right.

  59. Willard says:

    > [Javier] is showing the deceleration of the acceleration of the increasing temperature.

    Good point. Here’s figure 4:

    As Nick Stokes observes:

    [T]he shape of the parabola is determined by all the data since 1959, not just recent years. It has just three parameters determined by all that data. Since 1959-1975 was cool, that pulls one end of the parabola down, and so the other end has to come down too. It’s little to do with recent warming.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/the-planet-is-no-longer-warming/#comment-2618762

    Requiring 1959-1975 data to make sure the parabola drops at the end of it to confirm that the planet has been cooling since 2016 is quite nifty. Not sure Javier’s fit is determined by recent temperatures, however.

  60. Joshua says:

    Science is about learning how change occurs to be able to predict it, not about statistically certifying that change has occurred.

    How do you learn about how change occurs if you can’t certify whether change occurs?

  61. Willard says:

    > How do you learn about how change occurs if you can’t certify whether change occurs?

    You get VIP access to the evidence, Joshua, e.g.:

    [Javier 1] Evidence is never wrong.

    [Javier 2] That is the problem of religions, they are immune to contrary evidence (op. cit.).

    [Javier 3] It is not my hypothesis that it is cooling. It is the reality based on evidence.

    [Javier 4] More than one statistician doesn’t realize that statistics doesn’t say anything about the reality of things.

    Who needs statistics when one can get to the reality of things just by looking at derivatives.

  62. paulski0 says:

    In due time the statistics will become significant, but that only happens afterwards. Science is about learning how change occurs to be able to predict it, not about statistically certifying that change has occurred.

    Interesting. How does that square with this article by… oh, Javier:

    After 40 years of global warming no increase in hurricanes has been detected.… see NOAA statistics.

    IPCC AR5 states: “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

    And more besides…

    Presumably Javier will clarify that the lack of statistical detection of those things is meaningless despite the fact that he specifically highlighted these points in his article titled ‘failed predictions’.

  63. Windchaser says:

    Yeah, the part of Javier’s post where I literally snorted out loud was when I reached this graph

    And realized that those up-and-down streaks are the data that he’s drawing this curve on. *snort*

    These days I rarely argue climate change any more, because I realized I’m arguing with the people who failed statistics, or who would have failed it if they’d taken it; people who don’t see any need to understand how the math or science works, and see any arguments as you just being tribalist.

    You just can’t argue with someone who’s convinced that 2+2=5. There’s just no point.

    And to see Angech cheering on Javier, in response to Nigel and my criticisms, with “This seems to indicate touching a nerve on the warmist side so well done Javier”… /sigh. Who cares if it’s right? It pisses off warmists, so that means it’s good, yah?

    Humans as a species are so susceptible to propaganda and tribalism; I’m not confident about our future. We are dumb fucking apes.

  64. verytallguy says:

    the part of Javier’s post where I literally snorted out loud

    That is a pretty funny graph.

    I only once made the effort to look into the veracity of Javiers incontinent ramblings, turned out he was misrepresenting an IPPC author.

    https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/#comment-813217

    I couldn’t be bothered after that. tl;dr

  65. paulski0 says:

    If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing .

    It’s not clear that the way Javier got to this understanding makes any sense, but this is essentially true because of the inertia of the Earth system. I say essentially true because there are things other than CO2 going on. Regulatory interventions halted the rise in CFCs and substantially slowed methane. The rate of GHG forcing increase actually did slow significantly from about 1990 (also aided by effects of the Pinatubo eruption and collapse of the Soviet Union) and only very recently got back up around pre-1990 rates.

    Timing of major volcanic eruptions also effects apparent acceleration, as well as the decline in solar irradiance.

    And, of course, internal variability can easily confound underlying acceleration tendencies.

    I prefer an empirical approach to these kind of things. Simply apply Javier’s test to climate models. This is a classic case of “skeptics” deciding what climate models do without bothering to take the simple step of actually checking what climate models do.

  66. nigel goodwin says:

    Turn the graph upside down and you will see we are all doomed. The earth is cooling, the cooling is accelerating, and the acceleration of cooling is accelerating. By 2040 temperatures will be falling by 0.05 degrees a year, by 2060 they will be falling by 0.2 degrees a year, and by 2080 the temperatures will have fallen to….at a rate of……no, I really can’t be bothered to do the arithmetic, I have a life.

  67. Joshua says:

    Who needs statistics when one can get to the reality of things just by looking at derivatives.

    Ah. That s’plains it.

    This reminds me of the arguments about the difference between estimates and measurements. Or about how models are inherently unreliable (as if we can determine reliability without some form of model).

    How do we evaluate evidence without referemce to statistics?

  68. Willard says:

    > I only once made the effort to look into the veracity of Javiers incontinent ramblings, turned out he was misrepresenting an IPPC author.

    Thanks for the reminder, Very Tall. I rather liked the following exchange:

    [J] Natural forcings are a lot stronger than currently assumed […]

    [W] What do you think your conjecture would imply regarding climate sensitivity, Javier?

    [J] As that depends on the interplay between several forcings and feedbacks that are so unknown that for some of them not even the sign is known, I would not dare advance a conjecture.

    [W] Thank you for your non-response to a simple algebraic question, Javier. That’s all I needed to know.

  69. Willard says:

    > Turn the graph upside down and you will see we are all doomed. The earth is cooling, the cooling is accelerating, and the acceleration of cooling is accelerating.

    Nice one, Nigel. As long as the acceleration of the acceleration is not accelerating, everything’s fine I guess. Too bad you dislike ClimateBall. You’re a natural.

    For our readers, here are some references you offered at Tony’s:

    https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.ba/1340370559

    http://www.mucm.ac.uk/Pages/Downloads/Reading%20List/Probabilistic%20Inference%20for%20Future%20Climate%20ROUGIER.pdf

    http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/dbs202/publications/2012/stephenson.pdf

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.6878

  70. verytallguy says:

    I rather enjoyed the irony of.

    Javier#1: here’s a paper which used GCMs to showing evidence that 2nd order UV forcing caused slight cooling

    Javier #2: GCMs are bunk – their forecasts of large temperature rises from CO2 forcing can be ignored.

    Javier conclusion: the earth is cooling.

    We can note that regardless of evidence, the conclusion of Javier’s epistles invariably remains the same. I believe this is known as “confirmation bias”

    Javier is the Geoffrey Boycott of climateball. Possession of the crease is everything.

  71. Willard says:

    > the Geoffrey Boycott of climateball.

    Reminds me of this gem, courtesy of PaulS:

    Who but Geoffrey can one up the Son of Lobster. He does not specify the velocity to get out of bed. I bet he personally accelerates the acceleration of his acceleration.

  72. jacksmith4tx says:

    A timely interview with Daniel Kahneman (discover/inventor of behavioral economics). It’s way more than statistics and if Kahneman is right we were doomed before we even recognized we have a problem. (System 1 & System 2 thinking)
    https://onbeing.org/programs/daniel-kahneman-why-we-contradict-ourselves-and-confound-each-other-jan2019/

    We might try this:
    https://ensia.com/voices/end-economic-growth-economy/
    But I suspect we will have to reprogram a few minds. Maybe it would it be possible to genetically engineer a modification to the human brain so the species doesn’t self destruct? Use CRISPR/CasX (to edit select genes affecting behavior & memory) + gene drive (to propagate the new traits to descendants).
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/brains-bravery-cells-encourage-risky-behavior-could-be-used-calm-anxiety-180970395/#S2Jds3ZECqkoAcKQ.99

  73. dikranmarsupial says:

    I don’t think Geoffrey knows about acceleration ;o)

    Of course his mum could get out of bed with a stick of rhubarb.

  74. JCH says:

    We can note that regardless of evidence, the conclusion of Javier’s epistles invariably remains the same. I believe this is known as “confirmation bias” …

    Impossible. Professor Curry has like a bloodhound’s ability to sniff out confirmation bias.

  75. JCH says:

    Big Blue Blob off Greenland just went nuts. Global cooling baby!

  76. izen says:

    @-JCH
    “Global cooling baby!”

    Or where the meander in the Arctic jet-stream has reached that gave the North East US those storms last week.
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-18.89,53.98,445

    Or the Atlantic conveyor died with Broecker.
    That would at least make Javier right for coastal N Europe.

  77. sheldonjwalker says:

    [One drive-by per thread, Sheldon. – W]

  78. verytallguy says:

    I love that Sheldon’s “agree to disagree” site has a post titled “Is Tamino a Moron?”

    Sheer artistry.

  79. Joshua says:

    [Let’s not pile on a drive-by, please. -W]

  80. Willard says:

    > those up-and-down streaks are the data that he’s drawing this curve on.

    Good point. You might also like:

  81. sheldonjwalker says:

    [Playing the ref. -W]

  82. Jeffh says:

    [Enough. -W]

  83. Sheldon,
    Willard is running this post, so may well choose to moderate your comment (especially since discussing moderation is discouraged). However, for what it’s worth, I think that how people respond to being moderated, or banned, is informative. For example, the manner in which you seem to have responded to Tamino banning you would seem to be consistent with behaviour that jusitifies someone being banned.

  84. verytallguy says:

    Jeffh,

    Sheldon got an A+ in Applied Econometrics and is the Cartman of Climateball. Respect his authoritah, dammit!!

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/09/unforced-variations-sep-2018/#comment-710210

    First year:
    – stage 1 – Financial Accounting ……………….. A
    – stage 1 – Management Accounting ………………. A
    – stage 1 – Introduction to Law ………………… A-
    – stage 1 – Microeconomics …………………….. A+
    – stage 1 – Macroeconomics …………………….. A+
    – stage 1 – Algebra & Calculus for Commerce ……… A+
    – stage 1 – Business Computing …………………. A

    Second year:
    – stage 2 – Financial Management ……………….. A
    – stage 2 – Introduction to Investments …………. A+
    – stage 2 – Microeconomics …………………….. A+
    – stage 2 – Macroeconomics …………………….. A
    – stage 2 – Introduction to Econometrics ………… A+
    – stage 2 – Mathematics for Commerce ……………. A+
    – stage 1 – Organisation and Management …………. A-

    Third year:
    – stage 3 – Advanced Financial Management ……….. A+
    – stage 3 – Modern Investment Theory and Management . A+
    – stage 3 – Risk and Insurance …………………. A+
    – stage 3 – Applied Econometrics ……………….. A+
    – stage 3 – Financial Economics ………………… A-
    – stage 3 – International Finance ………………. A-
    – stage 3 – Optimisation in Operations Research ….. A+

    ====================

    Note the Mathematics based papers:
    – stage 1 – Algebra & Calculus for Commerce ……… A+
    – stage 2 – Mathematics for Commerce ……………. A+
    – stage 3 – Optimisation in Operations Research ….. A+

    Note the Statistics based papers:
    – stage 2 – Introduction to Econometrics ………… A+
    – stage 3 – Applied Econometrics ……………….. A+

  85. Willard says:

  86. dikranmarsupial says:

    I’m impressed by anyone that can do 343,206 regressions. Must have used a loop, or something!

  87. Willard says:

    > How do we evaluate evidence without refere[n]ce to statistics?

    We use technical-speak:

    May I interest you in my new invention, the very slow cooker? It warms food by keeping it constantly at 1K.

  88. JCH says:

    Or the Atlantic conveyor died with Broecker. …

    What are the odds?

    Judith keeps talking about the imminent onset of the negative phase of the, mega brr, AMO: a repeat of the BIG Pause; maybe even the Younger Dryas II.

  89. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse says:


    May I interest you in my new invention, the very slow cooker? It warms food by keeping it constantly at 1K.

    Technically, since 1 K is less than the ambient 3 K cosmic microwave background, what you have there is actually a very very very good micro-wave refrigerator. Otherwise known as a cryogenic crack-pot.

  90. Willard says:

    > Technically, since 1 K is less than the ambient 3 K cosmic microwave background,

    Thanks. I won’t forget to add the caveat absolute zero environment non-included in my infomercial.

  91. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse says:


    Judith keeps talking about the imminent onset of…

    Speaking of imminent onset – What ever happened to the stadium wave and its highly-anticipated 3 decades of cooling?

    If it isn’t just around the corner, probably, it got arrested by the consensus police.

    * * * * * * * *


    …absolute zero environment non-included…

    If you throw in a set of kitchen laser-knives, and free shipping, I’ll take two.

  92. Willard says:

    > What ever happened to the stadium wave and its highly-anticipated 3 decades of cooling?

    It’s just a matter of time:

    2018 climate: I predict that global average 2018 surface temperatures won’t be ‘top five’, i.e. cooler than the last few years. A cold winter for most of the U.S. (east of the Rockies). I predict an above normal, active Atlantic hurricane season. I predict that we will continue to see recovering sea ice extent in the Atlantic sector, with continued low sea ice extent in the Pacific sector (the stadium wave marches on).

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/01/looking-forward-to-2018/

    ***

    > it got arrested by the consensus police.

    In other news:

    Please don’t tell Bo that the Enlightenment is posited to start with Louis IV’s death.

  93. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse says:

    Thanks for that forward-looking retrospective, Willard.


    In the paper, the process is described, basically linear detrending. My current thinking on this is not to do the detrending on these modes, one of my employees has a paper ready to submit on this topic; more on this once it is published.

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/01/looking-forward-to-2018/#comment-864151

    Detrending without the detrending.
    That`s worth a Salby-level “Wow”.
    An information-preserving algorithm for current thinking if ever there was.

    Marches on, indeed. No doubt, the paper will change the way we think about natural internal variability.
    Again.

    That’s natural internal variability variability.
    And that Curry-employee is certainly one free-from-conflict-of-interest climate scientist.

    In many ways, Climate Etc. is a shining light in a dreary fog of conformity and self-censorship. It allows scholars, journalists, and the curious [employee] to write and publish articles that would be summarily dismissed by other outlets. These are important articles.

  94. Willard says:

    I can do backward-looking retrospective too, Rev. By serendipity, I just stumbled upon this gem:

    [Senior] reads along and sends this in:

    “I have been following the discussion and am unclear why there is any confusion with respect to our paper. What we show is that sampling the temperature near the ground, as a means to estimate temperature trends through a deeper layer of the atmosphere introduces a bias in that context. The use of a global average surface temperature trend that includes that surface data overstates the magnitude of climate system heat changes.”

    JamesA was not amused:

    You are still wriggling.

    The topic of your post is the “temperature trend” and specifically you claim that the surface temperature trend has been overstated.

    However all the paper actually claims is that the temperature trend at the surface is greater than at altitude (or at least greater than the 1:1.2 proportion that models generally indicate) so that the depth-averaged warming is less, for a given surface trend, than was previously thought. Alternatively, the surface trend is greater, for a given depth-averaged warming, than was previously thought.

    Nowhere in this work is there any basis for the claim you had made that the surface temperature trend is overstated in any way. The surface temperature trend is, by definition, the amount by which the surface temperature has increased. Yes, part of this is (according to your paper) due to heat distribution. So what? Let’s accept that is true for now. The surface has still warmed by the amount indicated by the measurements.

    Junior and Senior’s trick is a bit more complex than Javier’s, as it’s related to measurement bias (although the paper wobbles a bit on that topic if mt’s comments are correct), but the solution remains the same as here – a bias in what, what exactly is being overstated, and more importantly compared to what?

  95. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse says:

    Compared to what?

    Like Senior, I am also unclear why there is any confusion with respect to his paper.
    The error is simple enough to understand.
    And then Senior mistakes responses to a muddled argument for reader-confusion.

    Serendipity, can sometimes lead directly to acute zemblanity.
    Your gem is a nice example.

    The use of surface serendipity overstates the magnitude of climate system heated exchanges.

  96. izen says:

    While even the most creative adjustments are incapable of showing any significant change in the trend, rate, or second derivative of the warming, there have been significant numbers of observations of claims that there is.
    Confirming the predictions made during the hottest years so far that as soon as a cooler year appeared the ‘De Paws’ claim would re-emerge.

    Where are the ‘Alarmists’ screeching that there has been no significant global cooling of SSTs and OHC for decades?

  97. It’s quite amazing reading comment threads from 10 years ago. In many respects, little has changed.

  98. JCH says:

    Izen, I often point out at CargoCult Etc. that the globe has not experienced a good old-fashioned cooling since 1905.

  99. Joshua says:

    Regarding a better brand of contrarian….

    At least if you’re going to go all Tu Quoque regarding air travel, you could at least do it with a bit of class:

    https://wapo.st/2CXPSS0

    Oh, and here’s where it gets really classy:

  100. Joshua says:

    Hmmm…

    SteveF said… 4
    This is interesting, thanks. I’m not an expert on these matters, but could your findings not also be a source of concern? I can see people using them to suggest that the seriousness of climate change has been overstated. However, if we accept the independent evidence for a response to warming, such as retreating glaciers, then this response has occurred as a consequence of a smaller warming trend. Therefore, is it not possible that we have underestimated the sensitivity of the earth system to climate change?

    THU AUG 13, 10:40:00 AM MDT

    Despite responding directly to that question,…

    https://web.archive.org/web/20110108092224/http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/evidence-that-global-temperature-trends.html?showComment=1250182764674#c8065168909538597982

    RPJr. never actually answered the question – even after it was asked again…

    https://web.archive.org/web/20110108092224/http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/evidence-that-global-temperature-trends.html?showComment=1250202775907#c543531147288727268

    Interesting, that.

    Yup, Some things don’t change. Although, if that is the same SteveF who has been active in the years since in the “climate-o-sphere,” we can see one rather remarkable change.

  101. Willard says:

    Our own SteveF is an expert on everything, J. Must be someone else. As for the bit of class, Tucker might be all for it a as long as it’s not class war. From the tiny brain’s mouth:

    ***

    Checking back on Judy’s prediction for 2018:

    We conclude that 2018 was likely the fourth warmest year on Earth since 1850. Global mean temperature in 2018 was colder than 2015, 2016, and 2017, but warmer than every previously observed year prior to 2015. Consequently, 2016 remains the warmest year in the period of historical observations. The slight decline in 2018 is likely to reflect short-term natural variability, but the overall pattern remains consistent with a long-term trend towards global warming.

    http://berkeleyearth.org/2018-temperatures/

    Nevertheless, the Stadium Wave marches on.

  102. Joshua says:

    That was the change I was referring to (well, it was also a comment without also including hatred directed at “the left. ” I did have one exchange with our SteveF back in the day at The Air Vent where he was reasonably civil and didn’t express hate…so maybe there has been a change in that regard).

    … but it could be possible, I guess. Maybe he wasn’t always an expert in everything? World be fascinating if so.

  103. Willard says:

    Thanks. I liked this:

    Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that labor needs economic power, he told me, “Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed.”

    which reminded me of this

  104. izen says:

    Here comes the RED Team…


    The White House is putting together a special panel to look into the potential effects of climate change on national security and the group will include at least one well-known climate change skeptic.
    The panel, called the Presidential Committee on Climate Security in the proposal, will be formed via executive order and driven by William Happer … these scientific and national security judgments have not undergone a rigorous independent and adversarial scientific peer review to examine the certainties and uncertainties of climate science, as well as implications for national security.”

    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/430788-new-white-house-national-security-climate-panel-to-include-climate

    I understand it can become so, but I did not think that scientific peer review was meant to be an adversarial process. That seems to be the introduction of a wholly inappropriate and counter-productive legalistic method.
    I wonder what colour team will be independently and rigorously examining the judgements of the Presidential Committee on Climate Security?

  105. Nigel Goodwin says:

    I see the thread on WUWT has been closed – like my comments on Andy May’s thread on LinedIn have been removed. Who exactly is running scared?

    This is a useful summary, although the problems of overfitting are rather hidden amongst all the other mistakes – I guess it is so obvious it didn’t need any amplification.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-statistics-important-aniruddha-deshmukh/

  106. Willard says:

    Great website project, Oil Man.

    If you still have your comment, Nigel, you can repost it here. Always keep copies of those that made you work, btw. Sometimes WP eats them up.

  107. Joshua says:

    Mention here of Tucker’s “populism” …. within a generally interesting discussion (IMO) related to …deliberative democracy…

    https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/55726?in=1:52&out=

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.