Watch out for carb icing - world temp plummets.

[mybrainhurts]

ludo said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

ETA: BTW, attacking the source of an argument rather than its correctness is what is known as an ad-hominem, I'm told that is the behaviour of the "True Believer".

Yes, your lot developed it into an art form.

So why not give them some back...?

so that you keep the moral high ground and make it clear that you are not a "True Disbeliever"?

Yes, of course, that'll work well. Can't think why I didn't think of it first....

[Spokey]

ludo said:

Spokey said:

ludo said:

I did notice however in the clip they selectively quote the first draft to make it look like it was originally pro-skeptic (or at least questioning) - which it wasn't (they only quoted the first sentence deleted from the original draft, not the second which strongly impled that the cold period was not evidence against a long term warming trend), so the media was doing a bit of its own manipulation there. Plus ca change...

Actually, I disagree.

I thought the first draft hinted at being pro-skeptic myself. I was rather taken aback by it, after all, I was reading it on the BBC.

If you thought that then perhaps there is an argument for it being re-drafted after all. The second deleted sentence was a clear negative from the experts to the question introduced in the first.

Well, let me rephrase that: compared to the usual tenor of the BBC, reading an article that isn't blatantly biased seems like pro-skeptic bias.

[billynomates]

ludo said:

billynomates said:

ludo said:

The best thing to do is to read the blogs on both sides of the debate (RealClimate.org and ClimateAudit for example) and follow the references they give. RealClimate has a FAQ section, which is a good place to start. I too am fed up of sensationalist articles, from both camps.

RealClimate ...get real they spend most of their time deleting comments from the non believers, however strong/weak their arguments are.
Mann and his henchman have steel like grip on that site, what a bloody obnoxious bunch they are.

Steve M's site doesn't do that it debugs all the crap coming from the likes of Hansen et al.

So bristlecones to you

Well the mass balance arguments I have been using can be found on climate audit.

ETA: BTW, attacking the source of an argument rather than its correctness is what is known as an ad-hominem, I'm told that is the behaviour of the "True [Dis]Believer".

Edited by ludo on Thursday 10th April 07:38

I've cracked it I thought ludo was a strange name.Go on admit It's you

[Mst007]

I`ve just written to the BBC to complain about good old Roger...

[GMan 2112]

The Excession said:

ludo said:

The best thing to do is to read the blogs on both sides of the debate (RealClimate.org and ClimateAudit for example) and follow the references they give. RealClimate has a FAQ section, which is a good place to start. I too am fed up of sensationalist articles, from both camps.

I too would applaud this sentiment. I would, right about now, like to thank ludo for keeping the debate alive, neigh roaring, like one of those big bonfires you'd see on November 5th as a kid, before they were banned.

Tremendous stuff!

Another for Ludo

[ludo]

Spokey said:

ludo said:

Spokey said:

ludo said:

I did notice however in the clip they selectively quote the first draft to make it look like it was originally pro-skeptic (or at least questioning) - which it wasn't (they only quoted the first sentence deleted from the original draft, not the second which strongly impled that the cold period was not evidence against a long term warming trend), so the media was doing a bit of its own manipulation there. Plus ca change...

Actually, I disagree.

I thought the first draft hinted at being pro-skeptic myself. I was rather taken aback by it, after all, I was reading it on the BBC.

If you thought that then perhaps there is an argument for it being re-drafted after all. The second deleted sentence was a clear negative from the experts to the question introduced in the first.

Well, let me rephrase that: compared to the usual tenor of the BBC, reading an article that isn't blatantly biased seems like pro-skeptic bias.

For what its worth, the aim of the article seemed to me to be saying that the "no warming since 1998" is due to ENSO rather than an end to the warming trend, which rather goes against the interpretation in the clip. I personally slightly prefer the first draft as it mentions that some have interpreted the cooler period as evidence against MMGW, but expert opinion was against that, which seems fair reporting of the issue.

[tallbloke]

Lord, protect me from experts.

[chris watton]

Does anyone watch Boston Legal?

Last night’s was pretty good (as always), they had one guy suing the legal firm for ‘not being green enough’,
The defence ripped into the false green credentials of the hybrid car the guy who was suing drove (giving the ‘un-green’ figures for the whole life cycle of the car) to the bottled water his prosecuting lawyer was drinking.
It was quite refreshing to see a program that has the balls to argue the other side of the story for once!

[turbobloke]

solar forced global cooling ahead

[mybrainhurts]

turbobloke said:

solar forced global cooling ahead

Cue ludo scratching around for Esso adverts in the Bellingham Herald....

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

solar forced global cooling ahead

That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )

“In three years we’ll at least know the direction we are headed,” Easterbrook said. “If we are one degree warmer in 2010 than we were in 2005, I will appear here and eat my words.”

One degree in 5 years is an unfeasibly high bar methinks, especially as 2005 was such a warm year, but the sentiment is right - with all the big claims being made about solar cycles recently it looks like the next few years will bang the nail in a few coffins one way or the other.

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 11th April 12:06

[ludo]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

solar forced global cooling ahead

That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )

“In three years we’ll at least know the direction we are headed,” Easterbrook said. “If we are one degree warmer in 2010 than we were in 2005, I will appear here and eat my words.”

Bit of an odd choice of test stated in 2008, especially after having said “One cold winter doesn’t mean much of anything, ... A 10-year trend is interesting.”.

kerplunk said:

One degree in 5 years is an unfeasibly high bar methinks, especially as 2005 was such a warm year,

Indeed, AFAICS the GISS temperature anomaly hasn't changed by that much even from 1909 to the present date!

kerplunk said:

but the sentiment is right - with all the big claims being made about solar cycles recently it looks like the next few years will bang the nail in a few coffins one way or the other.

Yes, both sides are making some hypotheses that are at least falsifiable in the medium term, which is a good thing.

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

solar forced global cooling ahead

That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )

“In three years we’ll at least know the direction we are headed,” Easterbrook said. “If we are one degree warmer in 2010 than we were in 2005, I will appear here and eat my words.”

Bit of an odd choice of test stated in 2008, especially after having said “One cold winter doesn’t mean much of anything, ... A 10-year trend is interesting.”

No warming since 1998, cooling sicne 2002, that 10 year trend to 2008 is indeed interesting.

kerplunk said:

That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )

One degree in 5 years is an unfeasibly high bar methinks, especially as 2005 was such a warm year, but the sentiment is right - with all the big claims being made about solar cycles recently it looks like the next few years will bang the nail in a few coffins one way or the other.

Ignoring kerplunk's false claim regarding posts, k is, by implication, damning the IPCC and its modellers. Remind us of how much enhanced greenouse warming (deg Celsius) was initially predicted for up to now, and how muxch we got. Remind us of the initial predictions of sea level rise and how much we got. Remind us of the initial predictions of ice mass loss and how much we got. All over just a few years.

Three years or five years, I'd say both are too short a timescale as we must continually look at the data for evidence of future solar activity. Late starting solar cycles being a case in point. Archibald's original submission as featured on HM Treasury website, with cooling of 1.5 deg Celsius by 2020, has the right timescale and about the right temperature change.

Archibald update here

[s2art]

ludo said:

Yes, both sides are making some hypotheses that are at least falsifiable in the medium term, which is a good thing.

If the current GCMs had factored in the correct forcing for soot then they would have produced much higher temperatures than they have. This means that such models have already been falsified.

[kerplunk]

ludo said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

solar forced global cooling ahead

That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )

“In three years we’ll at least know the direction we are headed,” Easterbrook said. “If we are one degree warmer in 2010 than we were in 2005, I will appear here and eat my words.”

Bit of an odd choice of test stated in 2008, especially after having said “One cold winter doesn’t mean much of anything, ... A 10-year trend is interesting.”.

kerplunk said:

One degree in 5 years is an unfeasibly high bar methinks, especially as 2005 was such a warm year,

Indeed, AFAICS the GISS temperature anomaly hasn't changed by that much even from 1909 to the present date!

Ridiculous isn't it, I wonder if he meant the first degree C of warming including what's occurred so far - that would tally better with the projected 0.2/decade (ipcc).

[ludo]

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

solar forced global cooling ahead

That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )

“In three years we’ll at least know the direction we are headed,” Easterbrook said. “If we are one degree warmer in 2010 than we were in 2005, I will appear here and eat my words.”

Bit of an odd choice of test stated in 2008, especially after having said “One cold winter doesn’t mean much of anything, ... A 10-year trend is interesting.”

No warming since 1998, cooling sicne 2002, that 10 year trend to 2008 is indeed interesting.

It is indeed interesting, for a start it highlights the fact that issues such as ENSO have a substantial effect on the climate (e.g. 1998 and 2008). Single linear fits to an arbitrarily chosen period can be misleading (especially if the end points happen to coincide with a strong El Nino at one end and a strong La Nina at the other or vice versa). As I have said before, the running mean gives a better indication of what the climate is doing in terms of long term trends as they are not so dependent on start and end points, only the length of the window (although you have to be careful at the endpoints, see e.g. the recent discussion on ClimateAudit). An extended down turn in say an 11-year running mean, would indeed be evidence against MMGW, especially if confounding factors, could be ruled out.

However, I not that you do not comment that the test proposed in the article you posted is:

(i) so easy to pass as to be meaningless (1 degree in five years)

(ii) based on a five year trend when he said a ten year trend was interesting

(iii) not based on today as the start date, which means that he already knew the first couple of years were already cooler than normal, so really he is asking to be proved wrong by a one degree change in three years!

[ludo]

s2art said:

ludo said:

Yes, both sides are making some hypotheses that are at least falsifiable in the medium term, which is a good thing.

If the current GCMs had factored in the correct forcing for soot then they would have produced much higher temperatures than they have. This means that such models have already been falsified.

You place too much trust on the value of a single journal paper. The majority of papers that get published end up being proved wrong or rapidly superceded as science progresses. This is self evidently true by the fact that there are often two papers appearing in print at more or less the same time that contradict eachother. Passing peer review is not guarantee truth or accuracy. It just mean that the paper is reasonable and probably doesn't contain obvious errors. The Douglass paper in IJC recently shows that peer review doesn't always prevent gross errors getting through (the end up demonstrating the opposite of their conclusions).

However, as papers are published pointing out the shortcomings of the models, they are replicated and verified, and if they have value they are added to the model. That is how science works, it is progressive, and one would hope the models get progressively better. They are still pretty much the only meaningful way to make objective forecasts and predictions.

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

It is indeed interesting, for a start it highlights the fact that issues such as ENSO have a substantial effect on the climate (e.g. 1998 and 2008)

You mean, it highlights the domonance of natural forcings, showing that invisibly small = non-existent anthropogenic effects are nowhere, and that the IPCC plus other models can't even get that right when we've known about ENSO for how long?! Then we actually agree.

Don't put your hopes in ENSO. Cooling since 2002 precedes the mid-2007 La Nina by five years and La Nina typically lasts for up to two years. Previous La Nina episodes were in 1999-2000, and a minor one 2000-2001. As of now the mid-2007 La Nina is a moderate one.

Cooling 2002-2007 was what exactly? Solar, as per the next two or three decades. Not a chance of an excuse. Dyke plugging along those lines won't stop the MMGWT edifice from collapsing.

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 11th April 12:59

[ludo]

kerplunk said:

ludo said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

solar forced global cooling ahead

That's a fairly balanced bit of reporting you've posted (for a change )

“In three years we’ll at least know the direction we are headed,” Easterbrook said. “If we are one degree warmer in 2010 than we were in 2005, I will appear here and eat my words.”

Bit of an odd choice of test stated in 2008, especially after having said “One cold winter doesn’t mean much of anything, ... A 10-year trend is interesting.”.

kerplunk said:

One degree in 5 years is an unfeasibly high bar methinks, especially as 2005 was such a warm year,

Indeed, AFAICS the GISS temperature anomaly hasn't changed by that much even from 1909 to the present date!

Ridiculous isn't it, I wonder if he meant the first degree C of warming including what's occurred so far - that would tally better with the projected 0.2/decade (ipcc).

A one degree rise in GISS anomaly from 1909 to 2010 would at least be in the right ballpark (taking into acoount other factor such as aerosols and minor solar irradiance changes etc).

[turbobloke]

Aerosols? You know the precise score there? How's that when the IPCC switch sign for the forcing and models can't cope with it?

As ever, fiddle factor parade.

Get your razor out and stick to the straightforward strong science approach. You'll have to jump off ths sinking ship sooner or later.