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

Tiny CO2

Those forecasting the progress of the current El Nino expect it to peak soon .

It's effects will linger for some months yet. Bet on a high global average for 2016 ( third global record in a row), then a non-record year for 2017.

Dec 28, 2015 at 9:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Martin A: you are overlooking one important point when discussing matters with the little troll – the only information that matters is that which does not conflict with Raff’s sincerely-held beliefs; all else can be summarily dismissed. My prediction on that matter is that something will occur/be revealed in 2016 that cannot be so dismissed, and Raff will be in such a spin he/she will disappear up her/his own fundament. (Well, we can wish…)

Entropic man: so what? Who has argued that the temperatures have not risen? One important thing to consider is that the end of an upwards trend does tend to be higher than much that has appeared before (particularly if previous measurements have been suitably “scientifically adjusted” in such a way as to no longer pose a threat to that claim!). You may as well predict that the sun is going to rise tomorrow; other than that there is an infinitely small chance that it will not, you are onto a winner. If you are to make predictions, do try and make predictions which are a bit of a risk.

Dec 28, 2015 at 9:45 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Entropic man, warmest on record means nothing if it falls well short of the models. This super El Nino was the chance to catch up. What NASA and NOAA report is somewhat suspect by now but even they will have to stop 'improving' the data or be caught doing it. Climate scientists will begin to talk like luke warmers as if there was never any other position.

Dec 28, 2015 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Well it has definitely warmed up sufficient for people to get excited about the North West Passage, just like they did in the 1840s. Yachts and cruise liners were going to be travelling with ease through the NWP by now, except they aren't.

Oil exploration from floating drilling rigs was going to be happening by now. But it isn't, and oil companies now seem to have given up on the idea.

It is almost as though the climate warms and cools in a cyclical manner, and we are 'cresting out' at the moment, maybe there is something in this 'pause' which is worth further thought by global warmists, as all attempts to explain it with CO2 Consensus theories have failed to achieve a consensus amongst Global Warmists.

Dec 29, 2015 at 2:11 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Ratty, I interpreted your statement:

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.
to mean that you think temps are going down. It is an odd thing to say when temps are at a record high.... and then:
Who has argued that the temperatures have not risen?
That is one of the fun things with "skeptics". One can argue like his life depended on it that there is "pause" and another can say the complete opposite. And all the while they pretend "skepticism" had some intellectual integrity. Priceless!

Martin,

it was a key factor in getting the CAGW panic under way
You mean the IPCC started up the third (3) assessment report as a result of Mann's graph? Did it just do the first two for fun? Or was the IPCC itself set up as a result of the graph? Too silly for words.

Was Mann's lead authorship so remarkable or was he the only person who agreed to do it? No don't answer that. I don't take much notice of skeptics when they talk about Mann. They seem to lose their normal critical faculties entirely. It is fun to watch though.

Dec 29, 2015 at 3:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Do not feed the troll. Especially when in dumber-than-shit mode.

Dec 29, 2015 at 4:12 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

hunter, it is interesting how Raff makes assumption about how people think, just because they do not agree with his Consensus view on climate science.

Even more strange, when combined with attempts to disassociate from Mann, before a court has started hearing evidence. The Consensus seems to be that Mann is not worth defending, either in court, or in scientific papers.

Where is the new evidence that consensus supporters are now relying on, that did not originate with sceptics such as McIntyre, Montford et al? Or did they know it was rubbish from the start, and choose not to say anything?

Dec 29, 2015 at 6:29 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

GC,
Raff, like Entropic Man, has a hard assignment. They both want to disparage criticisms and critics of catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (cAGW) theory. Some of the criticisms of of cAGW are good, and some are bad.

But they are many.

Happy 2016. It looks like the world as we know it is going to continue, and I feel fine.

Dec 29, 2015 at 6:52 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

My predictions for 2016:

- Global temperature (so called) 0.012C (+/- 0.1C) above any previous. The Met Office proclaims 2016 as the hottest year ever.

- Obama embarrasses democrat candidate; republican US president elected.

Dec 29, 2015 at 8:38 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

it was a key factor in getting the CAGW panic under way

You mean the IPCC started up the third (3) assessment report as a result of Mann's graph? Did it just do the first two for fun? Or was the IPCC itself set up as a result of the graph? Too silly for words.
(...)
Dec 29, 2015 at 3:19 AM Raff


Raff - Those things may well be silly but they are your words, not mine.

Dec 29, 2015 at 8:51 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Action Replay : 26th 1pm @Dung makes a prediction about temperature falling

At some point in the next five years (maybe 2016?) the pause will end!
A period of cooling will begin which will end in cold place
1.30pm @Radical Rodent replies saying what he thinks will happen in that HYPOTHETICAL situation
....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.

5pm @Raff shouts 'ha, ha I've got you, you are a loony who thinks temperatures are going down'
Didn't he read the previous post ?

Meanwhile @Martin A and Raff go off on a side discussion ..which they really have taken to new thread...(and do eventually) ..Raff admits he is a denier "people (don't) think CO2 is the only influence on climate..."

Raff then throws out some insults "I'm wondering if you are bipolar like the Yins." thus baiting @RadicalR

on 29th @Raff is still banging on about "decline" still not bothering to read the context that it was hypothetical.

... Good tidings to anyone who anyone who shines a light on discussions rather than waving a light in people's faces trying to muddle up the discussion and confuse people.

Dec 29, 2015 at 8:56 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Stewgreen – so far, I am the only one to make a correct prediction! Score one to me – and it is not even 2016, yet!

Let us just continue chuckling at the extrapolations that can be made from so little information – this is one of the key difference between believers and sceptics; at least sceptics have no shame in admitting that they do not have enough information to reach any conclusions, or that they could be wrong

Dec 29, 2015 at 11:21 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Yes, you are right. I didn't see the context. Clearly nobody thinks it is cooling now. They'd have to be bonkers to do so, so I'm glad nobody does. Not even Dung or Ratty. Nobody! But if it were to start cooling in the next few years it would take many years to be sure that the change was permanent. So 2025 seems reasonable.

Stewgreen (and clipe elsewhere) think that to agree that CO2 is not the only influence on climate is somehow an indicator of denialism. But everyone who knows anything knows that CO2 is one factor among many. Perhaps stewgreen has been misled by sites such as this....

Martin, yes I was being silly. But seriously, there were two reports before the TAR so climate change was clearly taken seriously scientifically before then. The graph may have been iconic (or maybe not, I don't know) but my guess (and there's no statistical analysis to this one) is that this is because powerful people who stand to lose from action against CC took one look at the graph and said "Holy shit, this could kill us. We've got to stop it!" and the attacks started.

Dec 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Tiny CO2

"Entropic man, warmest on record means nothing if it falls well short of the models."

Which models? There are 298 runs in the ensemble, with the same physical model but different rates of CO2 increase and different projected levels of vulcanism, albedo, pollution, insolation and ENSO. Only one of the 298 would be expected to match observation. By definition, most of the ensemble runs will be wrong. You will only know which in hindsight.

This is the most recent comparison of the CMIP5 models and the temperature data.

The graph is updated to the end of August 2015. As of the end of November 2015 HadCRUT4 is near the upper end of their projected range, well within the ensemble range.

The graph is captioned "Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25 with HadCRUT4.4 (black) global temperature time-series. The CMIP5 model projections are shown relative to 1986-2005 (light grey). The red hatching is the IPCC AR5 assessed likely range for global temperatures in the 2016-2035 period. The blue lines represent other observational datasets (Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA NCDC, ERA-Interim, "

Dec 29, 2015 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

So we all agree the climate warms and cools, and always has and always will.

Yet this time, we all have to believe it is due to CO2, and anyone who disagrees is 'bonkers', even though the CO2 theory does not explain the pause/hiatus.

Raff are you 97% certain that Radical Rodent is a male rat, and not a female high-kicking hamster with a mohican haircut?

Dec 29, 2015 at 2:02 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf, where did anyone dispute that "the climate warms and cools, and always has and always will"? Give us a link. When you say "even though the CO2 theory does not explain the pause/hiatus" what do you understand by "CO2 theory"?

Dec 29, 2015 at 2:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff, it is your presumptions and assumptions about anybody that disagrees with you and why they disagree with you, that is of more interest, and amusement.

Challenging people to a duel by internet link, will only prove that you have more internet links, with your ready access to other sites. I have never posted an internet link, evah.

The Hockey Stick Graph 'proved' that the climate had not warmed and cooled in the past, with it's eradication of the LIA, MWP etc. Total bunkum, as I am sure you agree.

The CO2 Theory holds that the only cause of the current warming is CO2. If you do not agree with that concept, then you are showing more Sensitivity about CO2, than the Climate.

Can you provide a link to demonstrate any of your assumptions and presumptions about Radical Rodent, or me?

Can you provide a Link to any evidence or proof that convinces you that Global Warming is due to CO2?

I DID accept the Hockey Stick, once, based on the assumption that the UN and their experts would not be wrong, and would not deliberately deceive.

Dec 29, 2015 at 4:10 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie

The climate warms and cools ultimately because energy flow changes. Long term cooling happens because more energy leaves to spacecthan comes in. Long term warming happens when more energy comes in than leaves.

For the last century more energy has come in than has left, hence the warming. Of the half dozen factors which affect this energy balance, the only one which has changed in a way consistent with the observed warming is CO2 concentration. The others show small changes which, separately or together, .

Dec 29, 2015 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Martin, yes I was being silly. But seriously, there were two reports before the TAR so climate change was clearly taken seriously scientifically before then. The graph may have been iconic (or maybe not, I don't know) but my guess (and there's no statistical analysis to this one) is that this is because powerful people who stand to lose from action against CC took one look at the graph and said "Holy shit, this could kill us. We've got to stop it!" and the attacks started.
Dec 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff - It is one of the items of faith of the CAGW religion that there are powerful people who stand to lose from action against CC and who therefore initiated action to discredit the hockey graph. But it's a total fantasy. If you believe that, you'll believe anything that is fed to you.

The sad fact is that it is poor and powerless people who are loosing through "action against CC".

I see no reason disbelieve Steve McIntyre's account of how he received a Canadian Government leaflet displaying the hockey graph. From his work in assessing mining proposals he knew that hockey stick graphs about future prospects (usually about future profits for mines) are often based on dubious calculations. As a maths and stats wiz he looked into it off his own bat. To believe that he did it at the command of "powerful people" is simply ludicrous.

By then there was already wall-to-wall coverage of the hockey graph - from government pamplets to a central feature in Al Gore's film.

Al Gore on his lift

As I said earlier, it certainly got *my* attention. Until then I had paid as much attention to CO2 global warming as I had paid earlier to the ozone hole - ie close to zero. But as soon as I saw the graph it was clear what it was saying - and it made things seem pretty serious. Until I read up on climate change and discovered that the graph had been stitched together from different data sources, I had no reason to doubt its correctness.

Dec 29, 2015 at 4:52 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Golf Charlie

The climate warms and cools ultimately because energy flow changes. Long term cooling happens because more energy leaves to spacecthan comes in. Long term warming happens when more energy comes in than leaves.

For the last century more energy has come in than has left, hence the warming. Of the half dozen factors which affect this energy balance, the only one which has changed in a way consistent with the observed warming is CO2 concentration. The others show small changes which, separately or together, are insufficient to generate the observed warming.

Despite talk of pauses or other straw men the Earth's climate system continues to accumulate 3*10^22Joules/year, as projected from CO2 theory.

I would take your view more seriously if you could make the energy numbers add up without the effect of changing CO2.

We've been over this ground before. You may believe that "anything except CO2" has caused global warming, but outside this echo chamber you will continue to be put in with believers in leprechauns and UFOs until you can make a sensible scientific case.

Dec 29, 2015 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

a) There are powerful people who stand to lose from action against CC. That seems undeniable.
b) There was certainly action by at least one oil company to discredit climate science, for example the stuff about the differences between what Exxon knew from its research and what it actually did.

I don't know whether they "initiated action" specifically "to discredit the hockey graph" and neither do you. But given (a) and (b) how do you conclude that it's a total fantasy?

The poor and powerless lose, action against CC or no. They stand to lose from CC too. They doubtless lose when their homes are flooded.

I don't really care about McIntyre or his crusade against hockey sticks, it is old history. I don't know his motivation and neither do you. Neither do I know whether he is correct in what he says and I've seen conflicting reports. I don't have the skills to redo the analysis myself. I do know from talking to people here that language is not the same in the "skeptic" world, that "lies" are usually not and that conspiracy theories lie at the heart of much "skeptic" opinion and discussion. It is a strange world you inhabit, but I'll take your word that you believe the HS remains important 20 years later. But I don't.

Al Gore on his lift looks like a picture of CO2 levels, not (as I thought you were discussing) temperatures. That graph *really is* a hockey stick. To refute that I guess you have to call on your disappeared friend Salby.

Dec 29, 2015 at 8:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Golf Charlie (2:02 PM): have you been peeking? I must rehang my curtains.

Martin A (4:52 PM): apart from the name and a few other changes, when you talk about me, the story’s the same one… (Oh. Where have I heard that before?)

Entropic man: you really are hooked onto this “energy flow changes” malarkey, aren’t you? I suspect you really meant: “Of the half dozen known factors which affect this energy balance…” Surely, even you should get a little suspicious when the only factor that is affecting the climate just so happens to be the only thing that humans (perhaps) might – just might – be able to have some (or, more likely, none whatsoever, but let’s not go there, eh?) control over. Anyhoo… apart from all that, perhaps the easiest way for us to determine that the energy “continues to accumulate” is by measurement of temperatures; now, what have the temperatures been doing for the past decade and a half? Erm… not a lot, in terms of rising. So… how can you be so sure of the 3*10^22 J/y figure?

Dec 29, 2015 at 9:22 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Raff & Entropic Man, if the maths and physics is so obvious and simple, why the need to fabricate a Hockey Stick? If it is all down to CO2 Theory, what caused the LIA and MWP , that Mann was so keen to eradicate from history. If you want to dismiss the Hockey Stick as being old hat, where is the new hat?

Where is the Climate Science consensus on the cause of the pause? The solution only seems to be to produce new papers denying the pause, after loads of climate scientists had failed to explain it.

Radical Rodent, how high a ceiling can you paint with that Mohican? If Michaelangelo had thought of it, he could have boshed out the Sistine Chapel in less than a year.

Dec 29, 2015 at 10:06 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Radical Rodent

If you study economics it all comes down to the flow of money. If you study climate it ultimately comes down to energy.

The main heat sink for the climate system is the ocean. There are two independent ways of calculating the change in ocean heat content.

One is to measure the rate of change in temperature using ARGO and calculate the energy required using the specific heat capacity.

The other is to measure the rate of change in volume using the change in sea level and then calculate the energy required from the thermal expansion coefficient.

A third crosscheck is to compare this with the projected change in energy uptake derived from greenhouse effect theory.

A fourth check is to compare this with the energy imbalance measured by the satellites.

All four converge on that same value. The climate system is gaining 3*10^22 Joules/year.

This is independent of surface temperature measurements. Short term variations in the annual surfacebtemperature due to weather, noise, etc tend to cancel out when you have 1.2 billion cubic kilometres of seawater involved.

This is one of the reasons why I do not take the pause seriously. A genuine pause in global warming would also show a pause in ocean heat content growth.

Unknown factors? If energy data from different sources gave widely different figures there would be scope for unknown factors. Since there is good agreement between the different sources, I see no scope for significant unknowns.

If you want me to accept your unknowns, show me the gaps in the energy budget that they are required to fill. Your hypothesis, the onus is on you to demonstrate their existance.

Dec 29, 2015 at 10:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

One is to measure the rate of change in temperature using ARGO…
So, what is the rate of change, and how long has this measuring been going on? If less than the now-agreed period of 30 years required to be a feature of climate, how come they are considered to be such important evidence? How accurate are the ARGO thermometers? And how much ocean is each buoy measuring?

The other is to measure the rate of change in volume using the change in sea level…
The sea levels are increasing solely by increasing heat in the oceans? Weren’t we being assured that the seas were rising because of all that melting ice? Now, what proportion are these sea level increases the result of melting ice, infilling by eroded silt, movements of the Earth’s crust and increasing temperatures (or increasing energy, as measured by thermometer)?

3. Which greenhouse effect theory are you going to use?

4. Is there not some contention with satellite measurements? Or are there some measurements that you “know” to be sound, and others (which, quite coincidentally, you happen to disagree with) are not so sound (like, er, the flat line of temperature for… well, almost 20 years)?

Sorry, EM, but it strikes me that you are clinging to this number by any means you can drag up, without showing proper scientific scepticism (or even cynical realism) about provenance or prominence.

Dec 29, 2015 at 11:20 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent