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

Discussion > Predictions for 2016

Yes, Dung, your prediction is one I was tempted to utter, however, I suspect that, even if the Thames is frozen solid and Singapore is ice-bound, 2016 will still be declared the hottest year, like, evah!

The earliest that it will be grudgingly admitted that there is a decline in temperatures will be 2025, so we have to show some patience.

Dec 26, 2015 at 1:32 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Declining temps? Where do you see any evidence for that?

Dec 26, 2015 at 5:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff, where is anyone allowed to 'see' evidence, unless it is in pictures painted and signed by climate warmongers?

It is a warm Christmas in the UK, and wet aswell, because the winds are from the south and west. The Arctic is cold and shows lots of ice, but fortunately, that is not where the wind is from. Is this weather or climate?

Dec 26, 2015 at 9:31 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I don't think that. I don't even think there *is* such a thing as "actual temperature"

Yes I understood that from previous discussions with you. But above you did say

So I don't understand how anyone can deny that the rate of change of actual temperature has averaged to about zero since 1998.

implying that you think you can infer something about "actual temperature" from the slope in your graph. I don't see how you can have it both ways.(...)
Dec 26, 2015 at 12:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

A shrewd though nice point.

The first quote is what I really think.

In dashing off a blog comment, it's not always feasible to write it as a legal document with all the caveats necessary to make it completely consistent with everything the commenter might have said previously.

Had I been in full legal document writing mode, perhaps I might have written the second quote as follows:

So I don't understand how anyone can deny that the rate of change of actual temperature so-called "global temperature", such as represented in the HadCRUT3 dataset, has averaged to about zero since 1998.

However, there are people who do claim that (from their viewpoint) the rate of change of actual temperature (whose existence they do not question) has remained significantly positive for the past sixteen years or so. So I think that a reasonable reader might well have taken into consideration that I was stating that I don't see how they hold that viewpoint, without contradicting my own views by doing so.

Dec 26, 2015 at 11:12 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Yes, your first quote and the rewritten text chimes more with what I understood you think. And it is what I said too (Dec 25, 2015 at 1:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff):

Well from the graph you presented nobody can deny that rate of change of the "HADCRUT3 variance adjusted global mean" index was about zero between 1998.0 and 2014.
but I guess you would not have read that. I'm a reasonable person, despite what people here think. You can correct things as much as you like if the corrections better represent what you mean. I think most would agree that by careful selection of an index, a start and an end point it is possible to show a period of zero trend. It is equally possible to convince oneself that it means something. But what of it? As I said to the Yins, that is not the way statistics is done.

However, there are people who do claim that (...) the rate of change of actual temperature (...) has remained significantly positive for the past sixteen years or so. So I think that a reasonable reader might well have taken into consideration that I was stating that I don't see how they hold that viewpoint, without contradicting my own views by doing so.
I've read that several times and I still find it strange. It is as if you think of "HADCRUT3 variance adjusted global mean" as a definitive measure of something you don't believe exists. As if you think that everyone who thinks temperatures have indeed increased does so because of the values in "HADCRUT3 variance adjusted global mean" and that the existence of a segment of that index that has zero slope should change their minds.

Dec 27, 2015 at 1:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff "that is not the way statistics is done"

Are you happy with the way Mann, Lewandowsky and Cook do their statistics?

If climate science proof/nonproof is all down to tricky statistics, it is hardly worth bothering with.

Dec 27, 2015 at 12:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I'm a reasonable person…
Dec 27, 2015 at 1:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff
Not sure if it qualifies as a Christmas Cracker Joke, but, intentional or not, there is a certainly something funny about that phrase.

Dec 27, 2015 at 2:53 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Golf, I don't know how they do their stats. Lew and Cook are not climate scientists. Mann's early papers are nearly 20 years old and many other studies of temperature have been published since. Apart from providing amusement outside the "skeptic" bubble, the Mann preoccupation of "skeptics" is insignificant.

Dec 27, 2015 at 2:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff doing a fair impression of Sir Robin is always entertaining. He does get to do it often.

Dec 27, 2015 at 7:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Raff

Non illegitimi carborundum.

Dec 27, 2015 at 9:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

golf Charlie

"If climate science proof/nonproof is all down to tricky statistics, it is hardly worth bothering with."

I read this today, which better reflects reality.

"The world is full of complexity and confusion. We cannot simply wish that noise away; we make much of it ourselves. But we can cut through it too. Science, while it can only deliver probabilistic and partial answers,helps us to find the signals amid the noise: to reduce the uncertainties of a world continually reshaped by nature and technology".

Dec 27, 2015 at 9:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Raff & Entropic Mann thank you for your responses. Mann redefined climate science. If it had not been for his Hockey Stick, climate science would not now be in the mess it is.

Cook and Lewandowsky are not scientists but they get quoted as though they are. Even the President of the USA quotes Cook.. Unfortunately Climate Scientists have not criticised or rebuked Lewandowsky, Mann or Cook, so Climate Scientists are guily of non-disassociation. Climate Scientists need to work out their future without relying on Lew, Mann and Cook for a defence.

Dec 28, 2015 at 2:46 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Message to Raff and Entropic man

I would politely suggest that on this thread you either make predictions, comment on predictions or shut up?

Dec 28, 2015 at 6:15 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Dung,
I'd limit that to make predictions only, making different predictions if you disagree with prior predictions.

Prediction
They will find it impossible..

Dec 28, 2015 at 8:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

To avoid any further distraction from "predictions for 2016", I've opened a discussion thread "Statistical Analysis of Global Temperature (so-called) Data is Inherently Nonsense". EM might wish to reiterate his view (as expressed above) there.

Dec 28, 2015 at 11:06 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Golf, Mann would be just another obscure researcher if attacks by oil companies and "skeptics" hadn't made him famous. And I'll believe dissociation is important when "skeptics" dissociate themselves from one another or, for example, people disown the Bishop for suggesting greens are fascists.

Sandy, I gave some predictions on page 1.

Dec 28, 2015 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

My own prediction No.3: some “respected scientists” will point out that the period of observations so far made is truly minimal and utterly irrelevant to the geological process of the planet and start to consider the longer-terms records that the ever-munificent Gaia has made. It will be noticed that, despite there being a few peaks along the way, the general trend over the past 10,000 years is downwards. The fear will then become one of the oncoming ice age (yet again), the realisation that CO2 is actually cooling the planet, despite the valiant efforts of Gaia to combat this, which the stupid deniers have been unable to see. Now the only way to stop it is to (guess what?) de-industrialise the West to stop the production of western CO2 (the most pernicious CO2 of all – all other sources produce a more benign CO2), leave the blanket of fossil fuels in the ground, where it is helping to keep the crust warm enough to combat climate change, blah, blah, blah…. The fear of global warming will be conveniently forgotten, then denied ever existed.

Mind you, all this might take us a bit beyond 2016.

Dec 28, 2015 at 12:26 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Ratty, occasionally you post something sensible, but then you post utter drivel, like just now. I'm wondering if you are bipolar like the Yins.

You didn't say where you see any evidence for declining temperatures.

Dec 28, 2015 at 2:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

As usual, you manage to complete misread a comment. Where have I said, implied or even hinted at that temperatures are declining? (Oh, sorry, forgot: you are not capable of directly answering a simple question – perhaps you should ignore that. Well, you probably will, anyway.) This thread is about predictions, and I will make a bold prediction: the temperatures will fall, and the human race will suffer another ice age, little or otherwise, making it realise the benefits that have been enjoyed by the latest small rise. However, I cannot determine when this fall will start, but fear it may be soon.

(Now, let us all sit back and laugh at the ridiculous extrapolations you will make of this post.)

Dec 28, 2015 at 3:21 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Mann would be just another obscure researcher if attacks by oil companies and "skeptics" hadn't made him famous.
Dec 28, 2015 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

No that's incorrect. His graph was the centrepiece of the IPCC report - and of wotsisname's film. And, from the climategate emails,. it is very clear he was the head honcho of "The Team" (as they termed themselves). Those things alone meant he was heading for (or arrived at) climate science stardom.

Mann, despite a late start (only got his PhD in his 30's) was very shortly an IPCC lead author. Quite a jump for somebody just a couple of years into his post-doc career.

I remember now that until seeing his graph, I had paid no attention to the global warming stuff. But seeing the abrupt and alarming rise at the r.h.s. I decided to find out what the global warming stuff was all about. Almost immediately warning bells rang for me. The slow descent of the left half was proxy data. The rapid rise to the right was thermometer data.

A physics student whose plotted graph showed a sudden change in character at juse the point where the measurement method was changed would be asked to think again and at very least confirm that the sudden change was genuine and not an artifact of the change in measurement method. At that time I had not heard of "Mike's Nature trick" but the splicing of the data without justification was the first thing that made me smell a rat and wonder what was going on.

Climate science's willingness to overlook the issue of the the divergence between 20th century proxy data and measurement data is one of the things that brands it as cargo cult science.

Until then I had had no reason to think that it was anything but carefully and correctly done applied physics.

Dec 28, 2015 at 4:24 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A: it took me a long while to find out what was meant by the phrase “hide the decline”, and was a little embarrassed to ask. However, I think I have since found its meaning – Mann’s continued his observations of tree-rings into the modern era, to find that they mysteriously went downwards – i.e. they showed a decline in temperatures. Thermometer measurements were showing a rise at this point, so what did he do? Yep; he spliced the thermometer readings onto the end of the tree-ring data, hiding the decline that was being shown.

Please correct me if I have misread this scenario.

Dec 28, 2015 at 4:49 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I thought the graph was on an WMO report, not IPCC, but I'm sure you know better - it is not a subject that anyone outside the "skeptic bubble" would care about nearly 20 years later. Also there were several authors on MBH98 (etc) yet only Mann is singled out for such intense opprobrium. And there are many (dozens perhaps or more?) lead authors on IPCC reports but I imagine at a guess you can only name Mann (and that is a worthless guess - I have almost no prior).

Dec 28, 2015 at 5:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

RR - Yes, that's how I see it. "The decline" was already known and had already been glossed over.

It is as if they said "most of the reconstructed data cannot be compared with actual measurements. However the reconstructed data values for the most recent dates *can* be checked against measured data. For unknown reasons, the proxy data that can be checked does not agree with the measurements, which shows it is incorrect. We shall proceed to treat the proxy data that cannot be checked as being correct".

Raff
I thought the graph was on an WMO report, not IPCC, but I'm sure you know better - it is not a subject that anyone outside the "skeptic bubble" would care about nearly 20 years later.
IPCC. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis Summary for Policymakers Figure 1.

I think it *does* matter, because it was a key factor in getting the CAGW panic under way. It will be mentioned significantly in some future sequel to "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds".

Also there were several authors on MBH98 (etc) yet only Mann is singled out for such intense opprobrium.
It was Mann who originated the hockey-stick-extracting statistical methods used in the work.
And it was Mann who responded vitriolically when the shortcomings were pointed out.
It was Mann who accidentally gave access to the "censored" folder (containing suppressed evidence of the MWP).
It was Mann who shows up as the bullying capo in the climategate emails.

And there are many (dozens perhaps or more?) lead authors on IPCC reports but I imagine at a guess you can only name Mann (and that is a worthless guess - I have almost no prior). Richard Betts. Keith Briffa. Otherwise, a good guess. Not sure that that signifies anything though.

Dec 28, 2015 at 6:44 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

I think the El Nino won’t deliver the step up required to fit the models. I think a La Nina is on its way. I think the cold Atlantic will continue to play havoc with our weather. I think there will be more papers giving a lower value for CO2 sensitivity. I think many scientists will start writing like luke warmers. Note the start of cold water up welling in the east.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml

We'll know by this time next year if the AGW panic is going to die or linger on.

Dec 28, 2015 at 7:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Predictions?

In January 2016 GISS and NOAA will record December 2015 as the warmest December in the instrument .record.

In January 2016 GISS and NOAA will record 2015 as the warmest year in the instrument record.

In January 2017, 2016 will be recorded by GISS and NOAA a warmer year than 2015.

Pushing the boat out a bit, the 2016 Arctic ice extent maximum will be the smallest in the instrument record.

Would anyone here care to disagree, for the record? Then we can compare notes later.

Dec 28, 2015 at 8:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man