Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Finding fraud in scientific papers | Main | Moonshine 2 »
Thursday
Aug282014

Hiding the pause

Corrine le Quere of UEA is another of the scientists who were asked to address the All-party Climate Change Group about AR5, her topic being what is the evidence for that man is causing climate change. Audio is here, her slides can be seen here, an example of which is shown below:

Anybody spot the pause in temperature rise there? No, you don't, because the data has been obfuscated by means of rolling them up into decadal averages. This is troubling, because I thought that everyone agreed that you should not smooth time series

...you never, ever, for no reason, under no threat, SMOOTH the series! And if for some bizarre reason you do smooth it, you absolutely on pain of death do NOT use the smoothed series as input for other analyses!

Looks like another statistics fail by a climatologist to me, and another set of policymakers misled.

But by accident, or design?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (118)

It might be possible to justify smoothing on a very small graph, when there are lots of graphs together on a page - fig 10.21 mentioned by HaroldW looks very busy.

But here, when there is just one figure on a slide, there is absolutely no excuse for throwing away data in this way. The only possible reason for doing so is to mislead the viewers.

Aug 28, 2014 at 1:38 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

> ATTP, as someone who studied engineering over 50 years ago, I guess that I am not
> alone in finding your tone incredibly patronising

You are not.

I took him to be a PhD student used to talking down to undergrads in tutorials, but it looks like he's past that stage and is now working in academia. He demeanor would suggest he's never worked in the real world or had to put his money where his mouth is.

ATTP wrote:

> Also, it seems statistically unlikely that every time a mainstream climate scientist talks to the public
> or to policy makers that they make some kind of mistake that then misleads their audience. That
> would seem to be a statistics fail in its own right.

So unlikely the only conclusion can be that they do it deliberately.

Stuck-Record has it with:
1. They're utterly incompetent and have no clue what they're talking about, so we shouldn't ever trust them.
2. They're competent and are lying, so we shouldn't ever trust them.

Aug 28, 2014 at 1:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterNial

But the chart no doubt reflects Corinne's feelings about our climate and the havoc being wrought in it by our CO2. Briggs has come across more examples and covers it in a sensitive fashion here in a post lovingly entitled Scared Scientists! Climate Terror!. As he notes

We good-naturedly tease climatologists in our as-yet vain, but surely ultimately successful, strategy of reminding them of the key scientific principle that bad forecasts logically imply bad theories. But sometimes we forget that climatologists are more sensitive than the average scientist, and that they have feelings, too.

The junky argument about models with and without CO2-forcing is enough to bring tears to the eyes, such is the transparent desperation of it. What a wretched state these people are in to resort to such tricks. Once the mess they have help bring to the worlds of education, politics, and science is well on the way to being cleared up, perhaps some money could be found for counsellors to help them get over themselves.

Aug 28, 2014 at 1:48 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Nial,


You are not.

I took him to be a PhD student used to talking down to undergrads in tutorials, but it looks like he's past that stage and is now working in academia. He demeanor would suggest he's never worked in the real world or had to put his money where his mouth is.


To be fair, your characterisation of my behaviour may well be reasonable. I do find it remarkably hard to take my commenting here seriously, given how I'm normally received. From what I've seen, most of those who comment here appear to be people who have spent time in - as they would call it - the real world, have little or no experience of doing actual research, and have little or no understanding of climate science (or, in some cases, of science in any way whatsoever). Given how the people who comment here typically characterise climate scientists and climate science, it's hard not to comment here in the way that I do. Apologise if that seems unfair, but it's the view I hold. You're of course, more than welcome to simply ignore it (as I suspect you will do, after - once again - telling me that I'm patronising, condescending, an idiot, .....).

Aug 28, 2014 at 1:49 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

John Shade: +1

TC: Yes, about the only MP to say "I was wrong" about the Climate Change Act. I appreciated this from Nigel Farage today:

I think to not just defect to UKIP but to be noble enough to say 'let's put this to a by-election' is one of the most remarkable things I've seen in my political lifetime.

Honest about his mistakes and honourable. Let's hope Clacton re-elects him.

Aug 28, 2014 at 1:59 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

lapogus thanks for your links to the elephant in the room

I know in AR4 the IPCC acknowledged that the LOSU (level of scientific understanding) of clouds was low - along with the level of understanding of many other known climate drivers - but that does not prevent the modellers from modelling things that they don't understand. I suspect that their modelling of the unknown unknowns leaves a lot to be desired too. But it is only the western way of life that is at stake. No need for any due diligence here.

Clouds help to regulate surface temperature. One of my many amazing properties.

Aug 28, 2014 at 2:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterH2O: the miracle molecule

aTTP Aug 28, 2014 at 1:49 PM

" I do find it remarkably hard to take my commenting here seriously, given how I'm normally received."

So, why do you comment? Do you think we can profit from your wisdom? Are you in addition to Nial's characterisation also a masochist?

Aug 28, 2014 at 2:16 PM | Registered CommenterAlbert Stienstra

Physics, take it from me - people are being nice to you. As long as you are able to defend yourself and ignore comments without being required (by 'policy') to respond to every comment coming your way, you should be good.

I took that your 'let's see if we can actually achieve something here' was directed at me - given that we throw comments back and forth but only very occasionally appear to reach agreement, if at all. I see how it can sound patronizing. I hope you did not intend that meaning.

You hold the view that those outside are philistines who have no idea of the rigours of science. They say you are an example of an ivory tower academician. Nothing new here right? This comes with the turf of being an academician. I am fortunate enough in my profession to see both sides everyday, and on the same day, and there is truth in both view although it's not the whole truth.

Aug 28, 2014 at 2:22 PM | Registered Commentershub

Albert,


So, why do you comment? Do you think we can profit from your wisdom? Are you in addition to Nial's characterisation also a masochist?

Honestly, I don't know why I comment here. I've been criticised for not commenting on other blogs, so I started doing so. That, of course, won't stop the critics. I do regularly decide that I should simply stop (because I don't think I'm contributing much and nor am I benefiting) but then I give in. In this case, it was to point something out that was wrong and which was then acknowledged, which I thought was a success. The rest has just been because people seem to want to criticise my character (and, no, I'm not a masochist) and then I feel as though I should respond. However you may choose to characterise me, I am trying very hard to be brutally honest about my conduct here and my impression of the site. Do with that as you wish.

Aug 28, 2014 at 2:23 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

and Then There's Physics so tell us what you think of the use of such smoothing techniques which are used not to present good data but to cover the ‘issues’ with real data?

Aug 28, 2014 at 2:24 PM | Unregistered Commenterknr

H2O: the miracle molecule

That short post exposes the incredible intellectual denial involved in being a climate modelling technician.

Who do I believe ? Freeman Dyson or a self interested wage slave who appears to deny the influence of water vapour ?


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html

I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain. On the other hand, the remedies proposed by the experts are enormously costly and damaging, especially to China and other developing countries.

Aug 28, 2014 at 2:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterE. Smiff

Shub,


I took that your 'let's see if we can actually achieve something here' was directed at me - given that we throw comments back and forth but only very occasionally appear to reach agreement, if at all. I see how it can sound patronizing. I hope you did not intend that meaning.

Yup, that was the intention. Did not intend it to be patronising.


You hold the view that those outside are philistines who have no idea of the rigours of science.

No, I certainly don't think that at all. I do think that there are a number of people who have little experience of science, or of research in general, who seem quite comfortable stating how it should work and whether or not some particular piece of science has merit or not. I often wonder how such people would respond if I were to make strong statements about their area of expertise.


They say you are an example of an ivory tower academician. Nothing new here right? This comes with the turf of being an academician.

In a sense that's true, in that I've never worked anywhere but academia. On the other hand, I don't see that as being superior in any sense, it's just the career I happen to have followed. What I have never been exposed to, though, is the type of behaviour that I've seen since becoming embroiled in the online climate science debate. In saying that, I'm not suggesting that mine's been particularly good, just that the general standard of behaviour is remarkably poor.

Aug 28, 2014 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

E. Smiff,


so tell us what you think of the use of such smoothing techniques

I agree with Doug McNeall. Sometimes they're appropriate, sometimes not. I don't have a problem in this case as the point was to show the difference between forced runs, and unforced runs. They're not hiding the "pause" (which isn't really a pause) since that's discussed in detail elsewhere.

Aug 28, 2014 at 2:32 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

ATTP, as someone who studied engineering over 50 years ago, I guess that I am not alone in finding your tone incredibly patronising - "Let's see if we can actually achieve something here."

Kind regards

MP

"Incredibly patronising" is in my view, way OTT. And I think Shub is quite capable of fighting his own corner.

And even if ATTP did sound somewhat patronizing, it is, IMHO, far less of a misdemeanour than the way some folks respond to him here. And I say that as someone generally sympathetic to the good Bishop.

Aug 28, 2014 at 2:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichieRich

and Then There's Physics

You have the wrong guy asking about smoothing. I have a maths degree, but that was more than 30 years ago.

Meanwhile

Physicists vs the global warming industry http://goo.gl/70tzt

Aug 28, 2014 at 2:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterE. Smiff

RichieRich

Not fighting Shub's corner, merely pointing out that if you want your message to be received with listening ears, it is best not to talk down to the audience.

Aug 28, 2014 at 2:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Post

E. Smiff,
Sorry, was meant to be knr.

What's your link meant to illustrate? That there are some physicists who are skeptical of mainstream climate science? Well Freeman Dyson doesn't like modelling (which I guess many here don't like either) but as much as I think Freeman Dyson is a great physicist, I do think that modelling has changed significantly since he was last directly involved in it. James Lovelock thinks we shouldn't forget the oceans. We haven't and in fact as a consequence of his comment, I did a calculation of what would happen if the oceans played a bigger role on storing energy. It does have some impact, but the resulting increase in energy imbalance largely means we just accrue more energy without really changing an awful lot else (The TCR will go down a bit, but not the ECS). Divergence problem? Fine, argue about that if you want, but it's not physics.

Aug 28, 2014 at 2:46 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

> I don't have a problem in this case as the point was to show the difference between forced runs, and unforced runs.
> They're not hiding the "pause" (which isn't really a pause) since that's discussed in detail elsewhere.

Discussed elsewhere, but _not_when_these_were_presented_.

So these very much do hide the pause.

As always, I like to see what reality is doing....

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1840

Aug 28, 2014 at 2:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterNial

Nial,
The point - IMO - is that not every single graph has to illustrate every single point. If you want to discuss the "pause" (which isn't really a pause) then you ensure that your graphs properly illustrate this. If you want to show the difference between forced and unforced runs, you may choose to present your figures in a different way. The existence of a "pause" (which isn't really a pause) doesn't actually have much relevance as to whether or not we could match observed temperatures with unforced runs (we can't).

Aug 28, 2014 at 3:03 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

"Also, it seems statistically unlikely that every time a mainstream climate scientist talks to the public or to policy makers that they make some kind of mistake that then misleads their audience. "

Aug 28, 2014 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

A lot of us have thought the same thing, with a slightly different emphasis.

Aug 28, 2014 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

..and Then There's Physics

I created that web page because it seems to me that those who are safe from bullying by academic 'colleagues' and corporate journalist (Guardian) appear to have a much more sceptical view.

So that you understand where I'm coming from. This is the view from the left.

Mine

http://www.scrapthetrade.com/intro


Old style Guardian commentator James Heartfield

http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2008-03/heartfield.htm


best wishes

Aug 28, 2014 at 3:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterE. Smiff

E. Smiiff,


I created that web page because it seems to me that those who are safe from bullying by academic 'colleagues' and corporate journalist (Guardian) appear to have a much more sceptical view.

Except almost all physicists I know are not skeptical of mainstream climate science (and I know a good deal more than 3) and I'm completely unaware of any who feel that they are being bullied by academic colleagues or corporate journalists.

Aug 28, 2014 at 3:44 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

ATTP

The existence of a "pause" (which isn't really a pause)…..

Does it follow from this that the rise in global surface temperatures at the end of the 20th century isn't really a rise in global surface temperatures?

Aug 28, 2014 at 3:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterH2O: the miracle molecule

...and Then There's Physics

I met a physicist from CERN recently (Higgs , now back in Glasgow). He knows almost nothing about climate science and assumes that academic colleagues are telling the truth. I don't. I saw the bullying directed at Pielke and others myself. From the RealClimate team in particular.

Aug 28, 2014 at 3:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterE. Smiff

H20,


Does it follow from this that the rise in global surface temperatures at the end of the 20th century isn't really a rise in global surface temperatures?

What's paused?


I saw the bullying directed at Pielke and others myself. From the RealClimate team in particular.

IMO, many people regard being told that they're probably wrong as a form of bullying.

Aug 28, 2014 at 4:10 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

For my part I find the idea of using a smug, patronising put-down as a nom de plume rather offensive, so I'm right with Mike Post before I even read "...AND THEN THERE'S PHYSICS" output. The implication is clearly 'Physics has never been wrong, so I'm not ever wrong'. Which is a bit weird coming from somebody who claims to be an academic, doing research.

At least some of us still teach young scientists that genuine research, the proper curiosity-driven stuff that actually advances human knowledge rather than thwarts it, requires, above all, humility - which means doing experiments to find things out and being prepared to have your views overturned by your findings. If you don't have the visceral fortitude to accept this, then leave right now because you're in the wrong job. And choosing a name which tells others '...stuff your inferior ideas because I am the holder of the revealed truth' tells me that you've made a very poor career choice.

Aug 28, 2014 at 5:29 PM | Registered Commenterflaxdoctor

"Bishop,
"..."
Just out of interest, have you ever written a blog post where you haven't accused a climate scientist (other than Roy Spence, Judith Curry, John Christy, and the other select few that you agree with) of not making a major mistake and of that major mistake not then misleading those to whom they're presenting their work? From what I've seen, the answer is no, but feel free to prove me wrong..."

Curious or not you are trying to divert a thread while issuing a personal challenge along with seemingly veiled insult to the host. An ad hominem attack nonetheless, especially as you know or should know that your slimy insult is incorrect.

"...Also, it seems statistically unlikely that every time a mainstream climate scientist talks to the public or to policy makers that they make some kind of mistake that then misleads their audience. That would seem to be a statistics fail in its own right..."

Surely you are aware of the maxim; "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
And the climate disaster crowd certainly don't exhibit genius.


"...Aug 28, 2014 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics"

"...Except almost all physicists I know are not skeptical of mainstream climate science (and I know a good deal more than 3) and I'm completely unaware of any who feel that they are being bullied by academic colleagues or corporate journalists.

Aug 28, 2014 at 3:44 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics"

Indeed!?

Odd, I can usually count on the geologists and physicists to be very skeptical of climate science claims. If they're not skeptical and not employed within the green scam, physicists can often be quickly made skeptical just by asking them to investigate some of the 'science' behind CAGW.

Aug 28, 2014 at 5:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterATheoK

> The existence of a "pause" (which isn't really a pause) doesn't actually have much relevance as
> to whether or not we could match observed temperatures with unforced runs (we can't).

You're blinded by your belief that the models are doin gsomething useful.

You're missing the big picture, you can't match observed temperatures _with_ forced runs either.

_That's_ why the real data should be there.

Nial

Aug 28, 2014 at 6:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterNial

"Honestly, I don't know why I comment here. I've been criticised for not commenting on other blogs..." Not by anyone who's seen your comments you haven't.

As for the diagram presented to the politicos, I believe anyone who gives evidence to parliament has a duty to make sure the the parliamentarians have are given all the relevant information, and it sure as hell is relevant that the temperatures have stalled for 17 years and the models failed to forecast it. It was clearly intended to keep up the impression that global warming was continuing as forecast.

I think Godwin is a prick who has effectively barred the use of analogies to one of the worst regimes in history from conversations lest someone pipes up with "Gotcha! Godwin's Law!"

Aug 28, 2014 at 6:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

“have you ever written a blog post where you haven't accused a climate scientist (other than Roy Spence, Judith Curry, John Christy, and the other select few that you agree with) of not making a major mistake”

ATTP, a few years ago Left Foot Forward helpfully presented a chart of sceptics versus consensus supporters

http://leftfootforward.org/images/2010/03/CC-Networks-large.jpg

Compare the two and tell me why the consensus side needs support from the Bish when they get things right and leeway when they get things wrong? He and others like him point out the flaws because your side almost never do. You have nearly all the resources and still you flounder. That you ask us to be fair is laughable.

You think we don’t understand how science is done. What if we understand how it’s done we just think it’s not fit for purpose? What you and Richard Betts seem unable to grasp is that climate science is no longer a matter for scientists to tinker with. You’ve hit the big time and you get exactly the same treatment from the public that scientists working for pharmaceuticals or chemical companies get. At the moment you’re still getting an easy ride from the authorities. That will have to change if you guys want to be taken seriously. Like all critical organisations that are self policing, you don’t do a very good job of it.

Aug 28, 2014 at 7:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

In the days before post-normal ethics, this sort fo stuff was called "fraud". Now it is just called "normal operating procedure".

Aug 28, 2014 at 8:07 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Asking septics not to criticise climate science all the time is a bit like asking the Tories to say something nice about Labour every now and then.

Aug 28, 2014 at 8:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

TinyCO2,


Asking septics not to criticise climate science all the time is a bit like asking the Tories to say something nice about Labour every now and then.

I get the impression that you don't appreciate quite how revealing that comment actually is. Also would seem to indicate that your meaning of the term "skeptic" is very different to the standard definition.

Aug 28, 2014 at 8:11 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

...and Then There's Physics
If you want to discuss the "pause" (which isn't really a pause) then you ensure that your graphs properly illustrate this.

In other words if you want to show what is happening with the temperature your graphs need to show more data points , because otherwise they show a false representation. Which is exactly l what people have been saying , the approach used fails to supply the information in the way needed . So either their dishonest , and working at UEA not would come come as a surprise, or their not very good , and once again working at UEA that is not a surprise .

Aug 28, 2014 at 8:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterKNR

ATTP I imagine you think you are responding with ripostes that show you as someone who is both quick witted and humorous. If that's what you think, then take it from me, that's very far from how you appear to readers here.

Here's a comment I left, on an earlier thread, that you may have missed.

" Admittedly, in my experience the dictionaries used by pseudo-skeptics appears quite different to the dictionary I normally use, so maybe your meaning of the term "patience" is different to mine."

attp - with slyly derogatory sentences like that, you don't come across too well.

Aug 28, 2014 at 8:17 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

KNR,


In other words if you want to show what is happening with the temperature your graphs need to show more data points , because otherwise they show a false representation.

You're fighting your own strawman. The point of that graph is simply to illustrate the difference between forced runs (which can explain our post 1950s warming) and unforced runs (which can't). Just because you want it to illustrate something else, doesn't mean that the person who presented should have done so. Generally speaking, the person presenting the information gets to decide what information to present and what to focus on.


So either their dishonest , and working at UEA not would come come as a surprise, or their not very good , and once again working at UEA that is not a surprise .

Hmmm, let's just assume that I've made some similarly insulting comment about the fact that you're a regular commenter here, and we'll leave it at that.

Aug 28, 2014 at 8:18 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Martin A.,


I imagine you think you are responding with ripostes that show you as someone who is both quick witted and humorous. If that's what you think, then take it from me, that's very far from how you appear to readers here.

Have no fear, I have no doubt that I'm not coming across as quick witted and humorous.


with slyly derogatory sentences like that, you don't come across too well.

Then, from what I've seen, I should be fitting in perfectly.

Aug 28, 2014 at 8:21 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

"I get the impression that you don't appreciate quite how revealing that comment actually is."

For me. disillusionment with climate science and it’s hangers on became absolute about four years ago. I don't think we have common ground any more. Is that revealing enough for you? It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with experience.

Aug 28, 2014 at 8:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

TinyCO2,


For me. disillusionment with climate science and it’s hangers on became absolute about four years ago. I don't think we have common ground any more.

The we, indeed, do not have common ground anymore. I fail to see how that is a good thing, but that's your choice.

Aug 28, 2014 at 8:26 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Doug McNeall wrote (Aug 28, 2014 at 10:55 AM):

"Oh, nonsense. I think the advice would be better stated as "know what you are doing when smoothing time series". Briggs gives a nice rundown of ways that you can fool yourself when smoothing time series, but it isn't inherently evil. Basically, you're applying a model to the data. All models are wrong, but some are USEFUL." (my emphasis)

Doug is completely right. Briggs does not object to smoothing of noisy data, just the mistakes that can arise when one further analyzes the smooth data.

The issue isn't smoothing - the issue is what the smoothing was USED to do. (Some models are useful.) It isn't obvious why annual averages weren't suitable, but there are better ways to smooth this data than: taking decadal averages, plotting one point for each decade, and connecting them with straight lines. It appears as if one point was plotted for 1910 (1906-1915), 1920 (1916-1925), all the way up to 2000 (1996-2005). So no data for the last 8-9 years since 2005 is shown on this graph. This eliminates the hiatus in warming AND the growing discrepancy between projected and actual warming - critical information for drawing a scientific conclusion from this graph. Whether or not the black line for observations falls outside the red envelop of projections is critical deciding how much faith to place in the conclusion that 20th century warming can only be explained by anthropogenic forcing. (FWIW, a proper graph would still convince me that man played a significant role.)

It needs to be noted, that after two decades of development, probably none of the climate models that are used by the IPCC hindcast 20th-century warming that disagrees with the instrumental record. With multiple forcings, dozens of parameters to "tune", the need for funding, and political considerations; it is unlikely that any climate model would have survived if htat model hindcast results for the 20th-century that differed significantly from observations*. If aerosol cooling were weakened to the IPCC's current best estimate, how many of these models would have predicted 20th-century warming of about 1.5 degC? Such results would be a political impossibility. Therefore, only the forecast portion of this graph - the missing part - is suitable for judging agreement. As Feynman said in Cargo Cult Science:

"When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition."

Or read Lorenz on attribution: http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Chaos_spontaneous_greenhouse_1991.pdf

* It is certainly possible that all of the IPCCs models correctly reach roughly the same conclusion for purely scientific reasons. However, in the absence of a method for finding the global optimum for the parameters used by a climate model (assuming a global optimum even exists), one can't be sure whether science or other factors have driven this process. The fact that all climate models rely on a strong negative forcing from aerosols and don't show 15-year pauses in warming hints that the historical record influenced model evolution.

Aug 28, 2014 at 8:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank

ATTP

If it was my choice then climate science would be honest and open and it’s not. It wouldn’t be full of arrogant game players who care less about the truth than being seen to be right. It would have removed those who bring the science into disrepute. It would be quicker than the sceptics to point out the flaws and blogs like this would be redundant. It would present a true picture of the current body of knowledge and not just that bits its members think will nudge the public and politicians in the direction they think we should be moving.

Is it a good thing that we have no common ground? Since the only deciding factor, in what will or won’t happen with CO2 reduction, is the future climate, then it doesn’t matter one way or the other. At the moment your side is clearly unconvincing and you have no intention of improving your credibility. My side remains (and is perhaps more) unconvinced but with few resoures to disseminate our position. Time will tell.

At the moment we are both losing. From my perspective money is still being frittered on poor solutions to an un-quantified problem. From yours, CO2 is still rapidly rising and isn’t likely to slow any time soon.

Aug 28, 2014 at 9:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Steveta

Sherlock Holmes said:
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

That has always struck me as the most arrogantly stupid thing anyone ever wrote. History of science is littered with examples of people who thought they had all bases covered, only to be found wanting later. Lord Kelvin being a prime example.

Aug 28, 2014 at 9:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Frank and Doug McNeall
Well said. Smoothing is not the problem in that graph, undersampling is. Although I don't see why the annual averages would not have served as well as, if not better than, decadal averages for the purpose. Plus it has the advantage of clarity with respect to "the pause".

Frank, one correction. My understanding is that the decadal points were computed as the average over 1900-1909, plotted at the abscissa of 1905 (or so), etc. The last decadal point would then be the 2000-2009 average, plotted at 2005. These points were then connected by straight line segments.

Aug 28, 2014 at 9:28 PM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

steveta
I was talking about Conan-Doyle rather than you, sorry the original post wasn't clear.

Aug 28, 2014 at 9:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

aTTP

A (believing) scientist should be able to refute (posts pre-28th):

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

and I mean refute, rather than disputable arguments against.

Aug 28, 2014 at 9:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterHamish McDougal

Hamish,
Seriously, you quote Steven Goddard? Why?

What do you mean by "should be able to refute"? Normally what people mean when they say this is "should be able to refute to my satisfaction", which normally makes it completely unachievable.

Aug 28, 2014 at 9:47 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

I have to say, the use of smoothing in that graph doesn't rise above "meh". Shub's point about selective sampling is interest in the bias it exposes, but there are no real skeletons in the smoothing of the graph.

The graph itself is absurd, of course, because it presents a tautology. I could equally configure a model (with suitable "feedbacks") that could crudely reproduce 20th century temperatures from cosmic rays influencing cloud cover. I could then run it with constant cosmic ray flux, and find it then diverges from 20th century temperature.

So what? Of course it would! That is just the assumption built in to the model. It doesn't show anything beyond the assumption that we already know.

The fact that someone thinks such an absurd tautology is worth presenting is the thing that amazes me, although of course we are all familiar with these daft graphs from the IPCC usage. Nothing more than pointless tautological spin that should not convince anyone but the most delusional.

Aug 28, 2014 at 9:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterSpence_UK

Eternal Optimist asked an interesting questino:
"Why is it that they cannot think of any other reason for the warming, but they can pull 39 reasons for cooling out the hat without breaking a sweat?"

+1.

Why indeed? The more we see ATTP and the arrogant proud ignorance of his position we see the real impact of CO2 obsession: an inability to think; mental processes reduced to echoing extremist swill.

Aug 28, 2014 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

If Carswell wins back his seat in Clacton and gets back into parliament would he bring a private members bill to repeal the Climate Change Act .

In light of the Climate pause and issues of Climate sensitivity is Draconian Decarbonisation legislation justified.

Skeptic movement may finally gets political representation in the House of Commons.

Aug 28, 2014 at 10:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamspid

aTTP: you have proven to be a masterful cherry-picker, and remarkably adept at not seeing the evidence in front of your eyes – as well as misreading with amazing skill. For one who seems to be setting themselves up as the Source Of All Truth, this does not seem to be a particularly good course to be setting.

If you would like to be taken seriously by others on this site, try to keep the snidey comments and personal put-downs and vendettas out of your posts. The moniker you give yourself becomes rather pretentious when you refuse to apply dispassionate argument but resort to personal riposte instead. Leave your prejudices aside when you type; you might be surprised at the response you get should you attempt that approach.

Aug 28, 2014 at 10:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>