Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Enforcing the dogma | Main | Battery hype »
Friday
Oct302015

Food fight in Dodge City - Josh 350

Click image for larger version

With Last Chance Saloons in mind it is worth pausing to consider the amazing '97% consensus' (TM Climate Science) around the The Pause. It's been in the news this week with the Karl et al paper, the 'no-you-cant-have-our-emails' story, and the Meehl paper with comment by David Whitehouse. Cheers again, guys!

Cartoons by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (59)

Brilliant. I think that's my favourite yet.

Oct 30, 2015 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterOwen Morgan

Captures the essence of what has been a fun week for skeptics. The Pause that Refreshes. Unsettling Science.

Oct 30, 2015 at 4:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterRud Istvan

I agree with the physicist. Do I win?

Oct 30, 2015 at 4:40 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Also worth mentioning Warren Pearce and Greg Hollins' post on the discussion of their Nature Climate Change paper:

https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2015/10/23/methodological-clarity-required-when-publishing-social-science-in-natural-science-journals/

Oct 30, 2015 at 5:02 PM | Registered CommenterRuth Dixon

Lamar Smith has hooked a big one with the NOAA emails.
==============

Oct 30, 2015 at 5:59 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

"Then came the hiatus and now it’s the other way around for decadal timescales..." (Dr. David Whitehouse)

At last, at last, at bloody last: they are talking about TIMESCALES!

Oct 30, 2015 at 6:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterUncle Gus

Cartoons and satire are some of the things that hit the hardest. Most technical arguments which completely demolish the CAGW scam can be easily rejected by the politicians on the grounds that they are 'just mathematics which no one can understand'. But a cartoon speaks to all levels and abilities in society. An artist, a journalist, a businessman and a scientist can all get the message.

And the other side have no one of this calibre. I hope a lot of use will be made of Josh during the coming conference...

Oct 30, 2015 at 9:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

What part of stochastic doesn't Josh understand:?

Has the fellow shouting "this pause is unprecedentd" forgotten the two other decade long doldrums in the last century of rising temperatures-?

Oct 30, 2015 at 10:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Russell,
You've forgotten the whackadoodle wing of the alarmist argument.

Josh is referring to people like the 97% Blog on the Guardian.

They think every rainbow is magical (and so unprecedented).

NOTE: Not every alarmist is as nuts as the Guardian, whom Russell doesn't recognise.

Oct 30, 2015 at 10:36 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Very, very funny. Nice one Josh.
Lol!

Oct 30, 2015 at 10:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterCheshireRed

Stochastic is Greek for guess. Appropriate indeed.

Oct 30, 2015 at 10:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Fawlty Towers had a memorable episode, with some Germans staying at the hotel. Basil was insistent that none of his staff should mention the war.

Paris will be great for whining and dining, provided no one mentions the absence of any Real Climate Science.

The Real Climate Science Hockey Stick is everything it has cracked up to be.

Oct 30, 2015 at 11:40 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Hi Russell,

I am a stochastic modeller, and an expert in my field.

Looking at Von Storch, who has studied climate model output and looked for pauses, he says:

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
, as a stochastic modeller myself, what part of vonStorch' statement that 15 - 20 year pauses occur at less than 2% (or thereabouts) in models.

What part of stochastic modelling don't YOU understand?

95% confidence interval anyone?

Oct 30, 2015 at 11:47 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

thinkingscientist, in climate science models, climate scientists salaries only ever go up. This has proved remarkably accurate, so far. If only the same could be said for climate science.

Oct 31, 2015 at 1:44 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

If the climate does go up and down in cycles, then climate science has been riding the crest of a wave for 20 years.

The climate science wave is heading for the rocks

Oct 31, 2015 at 2:01 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Anonymous Stocchastic Modeler of self proclaimed expertise :

I didn't mention modeling, did I ?

I refered to ine instrumental record itself:

Here's what it looked like last year , before Hans got what he asked for and 2015 temperaures terminated the hiatus by taking off like a banshee:

http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/03/better-than-best.html


The point of this reddition is that you cut out the areas spanned by all the error bars the long term trend is still plain as day.

Oct 31, 2015 at 2:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Hi Russell,

What's the difference between "stochastic" and "natural variability"?

Answer: one is a model assumption about the real world, the other simply observes that the real world does what it does, irrespective of whether we understand why.

Oct 31, 2015 at 8:12 AM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

Claimant Sceance is full of third rate poseurs teaching students fake physics. Cut off the funding for the big lumps who have risen to the top and send in crash team of properly trained scientists to take out the fake science and replace it with experimentally-verified standard physics.

Oct 31, 2015 at 8:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

Russell - what point are you trying to make regarding anonymity?

Oct 31, 2015 at 9:45 AM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

not banned yet, the point that vvussell is drawing attention to is that no one has noticed any warming anywhere. If it wasn't for hard working climate scientists, manipulating the adjustments and tweaks, they would have no work at all.

It is a bit like street sweepers worried about redundancy. The more rubbish they throw out, the more important they become in keeping the streets clean.

Oct 31, 2015 at 12:07 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Re: "If I say it's all physics, do I win?" shirt.

This is real tshirt material, if you ask me.

Somebody run a set and I'll order an XL.

Andrew

Oct 31, 2015 at 12:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterBad Andrew

Following NOAA's refusal to defend their upjustments to global temperature and comply with the lawful requests of their oversight committee - it look's like there's no smoke without fire and I see people are starting to tweet under the hashtag: #NOAAgate.

Oct 31, 2015 at 12:58 PM | Registered CommenterMikeHaseler

MikeHaseler, the laws of science do not apply in climate science. Why should the laws of any country?

"Genocide by climate science" would be an interesting charge for the UN to bring against itself.

Oct 31, 2015 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

MikeHaseler - noaagate has been around for a while:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/6/29/noaagate-josh-280.html

Oct 31, 2015 at 2:32 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

TS: the diference between science and whatever it is you imagine you are doing is that the latter has no difficulty acknowledging that a megawatt or so per Km2 of artificial radiative forcing applied to a planet without pause for a century will produce a positive delta T.

Get rid of the short term chatter , stochastic or natural and the slope still vivdly illustrates that empirical point without regard to the state of the modeling art.

Oct 31, 2015 at 4:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

@Russell: climate models are incapable of predicting more than a few days ahead because their cell size is ~10^8 higher than 1 mm characteristic length for turbulent flow, hence there is chaotic deviation from reality.

As for the MW/km^2 or 1 W/m^2 'artificial forcing', you must understand that the Enhanced GHE does not exist. This is because additional exitance (not 'forcing') is a potential rather than a real energy flux so reduces net surface IR, The water cycle and lapse rate effects offset the temperature rise to near zero, hence the 'hiatus'.

And as for 'positive feedback', it's from using as a hind-casting parameter ~1/3rd more low level cloud albedo in hind-casting in the GISS models, G L Stephens found this out in 2010; it's a fiddle producing imaginary extra evaporation.

Oct 31, 2015 at 5:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

If the climate science is so clear cut about warming, how did Michael Mann get it so wrong with his Hockey Stick, and why didn't anyone else at the IPCC realise it at the time?

Anyone who defends the Hockey Stick, has a lot of explaining to do, before they can expect to regain the public's confidence in Climate Science.

Josh has drawn another brilliant cartoon. Paris ought to have a ceremonial funeral pyre, for Hockey Stick Science, as part of the opening proceedings. Then they could have a proper scientific debate about possible causes for the climate to cycle up and down.

Oct 31, 2015 at 6:12 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

NCC1701 :

Does your patter song make any more sense sung in the original Klingon ?

Not banned yet asks:

Russell - what point are you trying to make regarding anonymity?</iL

In order to understand Thinkingscientist better , it would be useful to peruse the publications that evidence his expertise.

Mark Twain was content to stop short of stochastic modelling, with lies , damned lies, and statistics.

Oct 31, 2015 at 6:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

I notice that a number sceptical blogs are being visited often by a resident troll desperately defending "Climate Science" and denying any possible problem with it. It smacks of real desperation that the Paris Conference will deliver the necessary binding agreement on all governments thus keeping the money flowing.
As any agreement sign as a facade of agreement will say nothing in many words, this could well be the end of the scam. China, India, Russia, South Korea, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa have no intention of limiting their economic growth, as have most sub-Saharan countries. No country in the M.E. is interested in reducing the demand for oil or gas either.
The trolls have a real problem, where to find a renewable supply of gullible politicians.

Oct 31, 2015 at 9:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterGraeme No.3

Graeme No.3

It is such a shame that climate science has dug itself a hole, that is deeper than previously thought possible. Something else the expert climate scientists failed to predict, despite all the billions spent.

Having predicted future dire consequences based on the best science money could buy, they now have to amend the past, to make today, seem worse than ever before.

Even the trolls have given up defending recycled Hockey Stick science, it is that bad.

Oct 31, 2015 at 9:56 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Quite right about Paris, Graeme, but where is this troll of yours?

I published my first critique of hyped global systems models , gullible analysts and climate porn in 1984 .

Oct 31, 2015 at 10:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

So much for Keller's hypothesis.

Oct 31, 2015 at 11:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

It would serve Josh & the Bish right if the Duchy of Cornwall enlived the debate with a line of Scottish wines from the vineyards east of Balmoral.

As it's an unclaimed DOC they can call them as they please.

Steynbrecher Heisenboden Cote Chatenuef du Jones , might well age better than the plonk Josh poured last time:

http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/10/what-ever-has-bishop-been-drinking.html

Nov 1, 2015 at 1:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

jamesp, all believers in the Hockey Stick know for a fact that the Arctic is the perfect holiday destination, for sun sea and sand, with exotic cocktails brought out by roller blading polar bears in penguin suits.

Nov 1, 2015 at 1:46 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

" exotic cocktails brought out by roller blading polar bears in penguin suits."

It's a naive little Chateauneuf de Phil Jones, but it blends well with Charlie's Koolaid.

Nov 1, 2015 at 2:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Malbec de Mann?
Merlot du Myopia?
Meterological Moscato?

What I find entertaining is the climate believer implicit implication that "Arctic Amplification" is a new phenomenon, created by human industrial CO2

Nov 1, 2015 at 3:34 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

With vines growing well north of Birnam Wood, only a dunce inane would deny the reality of climate change.

Nov 1, 2015 at 4:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Is that a reference to Macbeth - The 3rd prophesy ?
: he will not be “vanquished” until “Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill / Shall come against him,” which turns out to be the way his enemies creep up on him, hidden in trees cut from Birnam Wood,

So Macbeth was deceived by GREEN Eco-warriors ..We should learn from that lesson.

Nov 1, 2015 at 4:51 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

No, but will you defect to the side of science if I offer you a small turnip?

Nov 1, 2015 at 4:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

@Russell: My posts are for people who understand science. Claimant Scientists don't come into the frame.

Nov 1, 2015 at 8:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

As usual, troll comments and follow-ups removed. PDNFTT

Nov 1, 2015 at 8:56 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

With vines growing well north of Birnam Wood, only a dunce inane would deny the reality of climate change.
Russell, you redeemed yourself (temporarily at least!) with that. Why not quit while you're ahead?
I think we'll have that in the Hall of Fame, don't you?

Nov 1, 2015 at 11:30 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

I think we can now be confident that climate scientists are absolutely positive that the average temperature is/is not rising, why this is/is not happening, what we can/cannot do about it, and that climate scientists have never admitted any mistakes or errors.

Until climate scientists admit being in denial about the unproven consensus fallacy, enshrined in the Hockey Stick, how can they, or their science be saved? If it wasn't for the damaging costs, who cares?

Nov 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Russell says:

Get rid of the short term chatter , stochastic or natural and the slope still vivdly illustrates that empirical point without regard to the state of the modeling art.

What you are describing is fitting a model to the temperature data as a function of time and attempting to split the data into a non-stationary trend component (the line) and a random (or as you seem to like to call it, a stochastic) residual. Such an exercise is an arbitrary decomposition which depends entirely on the choice of model.

By choosing to fit a straight line, you simply return your pre-conceived model which you decided on a priori. Choose a different form of function and you will return a different conclusion, eg a 70 year period sine wave is a pretty good fit too.

Douglas Keenan has pointed out the fallacy of this approach very neatly - you might like to google it.

Nov 1, 2015 at 1:25 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

Russell seems to think that there is objective knowledge about what is "chatter" and noise in the record and that if only that is removed the "true signal" will be revealed.
Except there is little if any evidence that most of what is removed is simply to achieve the pre-selected outcome.
What has been revealed to happening in Australia with their temperature is a great example of this. And Australia's CSIRO has been doing nothing not done by climate crisis promoters worldwide.

Nov 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

hunter, dismissing anything as 'chatter' is very easy, when you have decided what the theory is, and then look for evidence.

Any evidence which does not fit the theory is 'chatter', and may be discarded. Simple!

Evidence you are not sure about, is 'complex', requiring further investigation. More fees!

Evidence which does fit the theory is 'clear, irrefutable proof' whereupon you cite papers going back as far as possible, to Noah's flood if necessary, demonstrating what happens to local weather patterns, if you concentrate CO2 production from 2 of every animal, in an area the size of a man made wooden ark.

Nov 1, 2015 at 2:58 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Hunter, showing only the bounds of the error bars , as the "Better BEST" graph does, gets rid of everybodys prejudices about the data-, left and right.

All you need to figure out the caliber of a smoking gun.is the hole left behind by its bullet.

Nov 1, 2015 at 6:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

@ russell: As anyone with an elementary understanding of ballistics will tell you, only the entry hole left by a bullet can give you an indication of the calibre of the weapon that fired it. The exit hole can be up to 4-5 times as large, depending on the type of ammunition used.

Nov 1, 2015 at 6:47 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

Oh Russell, talking in analogies and riddles!

Pray tell, what meaning is there to a straight line fit to temperature as a function of time for a process that is the output of a dual-coupled chaotic system?

The IPCC so elegantly states it. Everyone knows it. And then all the climate alarmists, including scientists who should know better, ignore it.

Nov 1, 2015 at 7:04 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

The Bishop avers that ::" one can conclude that those who are using the medieval English vineyards as a ‘counter-proof’ to the idea of present day global warming are just blowing smoke (or possibly drinking too much Californian).

Hang on a sec! Surely you would not compare the two without mentioning the population size - the number of people buying and drinking the stuff - I mean that would be unscientific, wouldn't it?"


Hang on a sec, Bish !

Wouldn't it be horribly unscientific to forget that climate change determines latitude limit of where grapes can ripen, rather than the number of vineyards planted ?


Try the inverse problem - is the geographic range of low-land viticulture expanding or contracting ?

Nov 1, 2015 at 7:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

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>