As I have been saying

Today I found this:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/new-paper-finds-climate-models-cannot.html
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/climate-models-cannot-explain-why-global-warming-has-slowed/#more-29963

Undoubtedly, it appears on many more blogs. The test of a theory is whether or not the evidence fits the theory. AGW is based on models that predict warming–which is not occurring in reality. Advocates may try to claim that the heat went into the oceans, but the models did not predict that starting in the late 1990’s the heat storage would shift to the oceans. Clearly the models cannot accurately predict and since the theory is based on the models, the entire theory is in need of a thorough reworking.

In addition, the models for the melting of Arctic Ice have made predictions that are virtually worthless. In this case, the models showed the melting far into the future, not now. Again, bad model, bad theory.

A true scientist, when confronted with this failure, would set about finding where the errors are and revising the theory. Should we take bets on whether or not AGW advocates publicly admit the failure and rethink the theory, looking for where the errors are, or if they return to name-calling, shrill cries of “Big Oil Conspiracy”, etc? Odds are very, very high the real science route will not be followed.

Get ready for mudslinging and desperate attempts to cover up the failure in the science. It’s going to get ugly.

 Scientific Badger


Scientific Badger

Advertisements

12 comments on “As I have been saying

  1. Quick reply–more later:
    Your response does not explain how you know the bucket will be taken out again. There is no evidence that what goes up continues to go up and up. Only the graphs of the climate advocates do that. Plus, even if the bucket will be taken out again, will it be full? Will it be in 100 years? How many times will this repeat?

    I still cannot see why you use 30 years. Also, I find no evidence that this actually does remove “natural cycles”. Obviously, it does not do it very well. However, I appreciate your explanation and will do more research to see if I can understand the reasoning and science behind it.

    Yes, I introduced the paper and said it did not back up its claims. This is not a climate advocate site–I don’t just introduce information that I agree with and fits my world view. In the past, I have been told that using climate research from 1976 was eons behind what we know now (not by you). The mantra is climate science is so advanced now, that predictions and studies from the 70’s are no longer valid. That is why we are supposed to disregard the ice age papers.

    I will be gone from blogging for the weekend, but feel free to post comments. I’ll deal with them when I get back.

  2. I am unclear as to the problem here. Hans von Storch SUGGESTS alternatives. He does not provide any research to back that up. I can understand why you would mistake “could be” for actual fact, since that is a common behaviour when it comes to AGW. He has to do research on all those alternatives and then show which actually fit reality. He has done none of that as far as the paper indicates. It may be that all three are incorrect.

    The climate models, so far as I can tell, did not indicate nature could overcome AGW. If so, I would love to read the study and see how closely it reflects the flattening of the temperatures. Right now, AGW means temperatures continue to go up and none of the models showed that. Mann’s hockey stick completely, totally, entirely showed NO possibility of leveling off. The theory is therefore wrong and should be rejected. Others outside of Mann may have theories that require major revisions.

    Please explain how “overcoming” is not the same as offsetting or masking.

    I am still unclear why if climate is 30 year intervals, and we need that to average out variability, how does that not translate to: Climate is always changing and always has been.

    • youkipper says:

      “Hans von Storch SUGGESTS alternatives.”

      And he clearly suggests one that is ” simple and plausible”.

      “He does not provide any research to back that up.”

      You introduced this paper now you are saying that it doesn’t back up it’s claims? Actually you are wrong, straight after the quote; “The first explanation is simple and plausible. Natural climate variability is an inevitable consequence of a slow system (climate) interacting with a fast system (weather)”, he provides a reference to another paper published in 1976.

      “The climate models, so far as I can tell, did not indicate nature could overcome AGW.”

      It hasn’t ‘overcome”, it, a trend can only be masked and most models I know off show predictions linearly smoothing out natural fluctuations.

      “Please explain how “overcoming” is not the same as offsetting or masking.”

      Because the warming signal is still there. Throwing a bucket of water in a sink doesn’t overcome a running tap. Where that analogy lets me down is that when we are talking about natural variations, that bucket will be taken out again. 🙂

      “I am still unclear why if climate is 30 year intervals, and we need that to average out variability, how does that not translate to: Climate is always changing and always has been.”

      An interesting question but a bit technical. Because climate is weather averaged over time and the way to average cyclic signals is over twice their whole frequency, 30 years is chosen because the frequency of the longest natural fluctuations that affect weather on our time scale are all within 15 years. Solar cycles are around 11 years for example.

      So the average of weather over 30 years (climate), would give a straight line if the cycles were perfect sine waves. Of course it doesn’t because there is still a lot of randomness in weather cycles like El nino. However it should still be around a zero trend line. This averages out the fact that ‘climate always changes’ at least on our time scale.

      However any trend not around zero, i.e. with an incline or decline must be because of other signal(s) that are not cycles and are not constants, but have a trend.

      Global temperatures over the last century have a positive trend. It is that positive trend, after all the natural cycles have been averaged out for 30 years, that climatologists say is substantially due the the signal from increased GHGs by our emissions. It is also that trend that the few sceptical scientists have been trying to explain away by looking for other signals that might account for it.

  3. From the Free Online Dictionary:
    Occam’s Razor
    the principle in philosophy and science that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity, and hence the simplest of several hypotheses is always the best in accounting for unexplained facts.
    The simplest is true ONLY when it explains all of the facts as well as the hypothesis that contains extraneous details.

    Isn’t “natural climate variability” what the questioner’s side has said all along?

    How does “natural climate variability” not mean that nature overcomes human CO2 additions? Is the paper saying we would still be in an ice age without added CO2? If nature overwhelms, then CO2 is not the dominant force, nor is water vapor. It means there is no dominant force and that the forcings can change out at will.

    It DID overcome that trend–the temperatures are flat, not increasing. The trend was upward, now it’s flat. Whether or not that violates the “known” laws of physics, if it seems to, we need to find out what part of the “unknown” laws we are missing here. The temperature stopped going up while the CO2 continued to go up. Theory did not hold.

    • youkipper says:

      Reality check says:

      “From the Free Online Dictionary:
      Occam’s Razor the principle in philosophy and science…”

      But didn’t you state above “OCCAM’S RAZOR IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE, LAW OR ANY OTHER SUCH THING”?

      It would be nice for you to admit that you were wrong.

      “The simplest is true ONLY when it explains all of the facts as well as the hypothesis that contains extraneous details.”

      But doesn’t Hans von Storch’s paper tell you which that is? You were the one who initially proposed the paper, why are you not accepting it’s conclusions?

      “How does “natural climate variability” not mean that nature overcomes human CO2 additions?”

      Because natural variability is oscillatory. It will only offset anthropogenic warming in the short term, masking it, then it won’t. When the oscillation flips it may even enhance warming above the anthropogenic forcing, (which happened in 1998). The point is that there will always be an underlying anthropogenic warming trend caused by human CO2 emissions. Overcoming is not the same as offsetting or masking. That is one of the main reasons why climate trends are usually based on 30 year averages, to average out climate variability.

  4. I am doing this in caps due to frustration:
    OCCAM’S RAZOR IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE, LAW OR ANY OTHER SUCH THING
    It is a rule of thumb–and it works best in specific situations. It does not prove science–it replaces a coin flip.

    I agree–it’s natural climate variability. Which means nature can overcome the CO2 we put into the atmosphere, so what’s all the fuss. Nature overcomes.

    I’m thinking Nature controls the climate, not us, so there’s no problem. We need to work on dealing with weather and be better prepared for hurricanes, tornados, etc.

    • youkipper says:

      Occam’s razor is a principle of logic. It has nothing to do with a coin flip. I have never claimed it proves science. It is a guide using logic showing which theory or principle is the most likely. It remains true for science as it does for any area.

      According to Hans von Storch’s paper, the “Natural climate variability” “explanation is simple and plausible”. It is the one most likely to be true. nothing will change that logic except more compelling data.

      I’m not sure why you have gone on to misrepresent the whole focus of the paper with ;

      “I agree–it’s natural climate variability. Which means nature can overcome the CO2 we put into the atmosphere, so what’s all the fuss. Nature overcomes.”

      The paper has nothing to do with nature over coming CO2. It is about why models haven’t been more accurate over the short term.

      Natural variability, the simplest and plausible reason for this, is the natural ups and downs in the climate system which will mask and exaggerate the anthropogenic warming trend. It cannot under the known laws of physics overcome that trend.

  5. youkipper says:

    !I don’t care which explanation is simple and plausible, I care which one is right.”

    Science doesn’t do right or wrong, it does simple (Occam’s razor), and plausible, (the most likely).

    ” The hypothesis/theory FAILED.”

    The research doesn’t show that and you certainly haven’t. All you have is a paper questioning if climate models should have been able to explain the last decade or so of temperatures without even naming any models or showing that they were designed to do what Von Storch suggests they haven’t.

    Even so, and I think the point you have been deliberately avoiding is that, the papers conclusion says that the explanation that is simple and plausible is that it is down to “Natural climate variability”, exactly what most scientists have been saying. And as Occam’s razor shows the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

    So if you truly ‘care which one is right’, the Von Storch paper tells you where you should be looking, though I suspect it isn’t what you want to hear.

  6. What part of “Von Storch et all suggest three reasons why the models are FLAWED–ie, they don’t work–do you not understand? The authors admit failure.

    Science is not determined by simple and plausible but by actual data and experiments. I don’t care which explanation is simple and plausible, I care which one is right. For that matter, they can all be wrong and the scientists need to find out why. The hypothesis/theory FAILED. That’s what “flawed” is code for–they did not work.

  7. “Von Storch et al suggest three reasons why the models are flawed. Essentially, there might be more natural wobbles within Earth’s climate than they expected (“stochastic” or “natural” variability), there might be another forcing the models don’t account for, or perhaps climate sensitivity to man-made changes is too high.”
    from Jo Nova’s site

    The model failed–and the theory with it. Why is not really important to the failure, only to the construction of a real working theory.

    • youkipper says:

      “The model failed–and the theory with it. “?

      Why have you done a post about a paper that you appear not to have read? I don’t really blame you as it is a terrible paper anyway but what you claim isn’t in the papers summary, or anywhere else for that matter. Is it just that you didn’t want to answer my question?

      Can you answer this one; According to Hans von Storch’s paper which “explanation is simple and plausible”?

  8. youkipper says:

    Don’t you think it odd that neither site mentions the three possible reasons for inconsistencies even though Nova has a section “The paper’s summary”?

    Why would that be?

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s