Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Something's Going On

Radical Rodent

In answer to the questions you assured me were genuine and not rhetorical.

The US Navy study, the most pessimistic of those available, regarded 2016 as the earliest year in which a collapse of the Arctic sea ice might be possible. They regarded it as the most pessimistic end of a possible range..Neither they or Al Gore regarded it as a high probability. Of course, that has not stopped you making a straw man.

The next few are rhetoric, so on to "the Antarctic ice pack is at record levels;" I think not, look at yesterday's figures. .The ice extent is close to the long term average, not the record high you claim.

"the temperatures are nowhere near those predicted by the 70+ GCMs;"

I presume you mean CMIP5. This is the most recent summary of the 298 ensembe members and the actual figures to August 2016. The individual runs projected temperatures using the same physical model and a range of values for increased CO2 and natural variation. Note that the coolest runs project cooler temperatures than we observe and that this year is well within the 95% confidence limits of the ensemble. Another straw man.

"CO2 levels continue to rise at a more or less steady pace; the world has not warmed significantly for over 18 years ."

I am glad you used that word "significantly". The 95% confidence limits for the GISS data are +/- 0.09. A significant change is therefore 0.18C.

The annual average anomaly for 1998 was 0.63C. 2015 is coming in around 0.84C. A difference of 0.21C is significant. If you want to avoid the cherrypicking, the five year averages centred on 1998 and 2012 are 0.42C and 0.67C.
Once again the 0.25C difference is significant.

" 60+papers"

The warming slowed for a while in the 2000,s due to short term natural variation cancelling out some of the CO2 forcing. This is discussed in the papers.

The warming has now resumed(see above). Somehow I do not think this is what you meant by "pause".

I have already answered your last question elsewhere. Show me a post-2015 GISS 5-year average anomaly below 0.49C and I will accept your case. Curiously the last time this happened was 1998.

Jan 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM: did I say I reject peer-review? All I did was to intimate is that it might not be as flawless as you seem to think; with humans involved, it is surprisingly easy for errors to be made or overlooked, no matter how many might be involved – witness Diederik Stapel.

Jan 2, 2016 at 8:12 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Martin A

"I guess that "dissipating moisture" is another way of saying "lowering the relative humidity" which, as I surmised, is why flooding is not much of a problem in the Sahara (irrespective of which way the wind is blowing)."

That sounds correct. As long as the atmosphere stays above the dewpoint you won't get any precipitation.

I have speculated that the Sahara monsoon stopped. The Holocene Optimum cooled 5000 years ago. This cooled the Indian Ocean.The air coming into the Sahara no longer had a high enough absolute humidity to overcome the dissipation effect.

With Indian Ocean temperatures increasing, and two Yemen typhoons this year, I am half expecting to see a wet Sahara again.

Jan 2, 2016 at 8:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM: do please read what I write: I was not referring to the present, seriously “tweaked” climate models, but to those around the turn of the century, near the start of the present plateau in temperatures; this is why I used the term “those predicted by…” The most recent, will, of course, have included the plateau, else they would be showing themselves to be as much in denial as you are. Once more, though, you are intimating that I (and, by inference, others on this site) deny that there has been any global warming, or that climate changes are occurring, or will continue to change. All I am sceptical of is that it is all due to human emission of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, I presume), and is soon to bring about terrible consequences upon the planet. I have yet to see convincing evidence of either.

As long as the atmosphere stays above the dewpoint you won't get any precipitation." Not quite correct, but I won’t be too picky.

Jan 2, 2016 at 8:38 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent

Perhaps you could be more concise in your comments. While you may not have intended to convey denial it can be easy to misinterpret them in that way.

Asking a site run by an astrophysicist and frequented by scientists about CAGW is also likely to be misinterpreted. AGW is widely used, but CAGW is used only by sceptics

Similarly, if you have been on a science site casting doubt on the validity of peer review by reference to Stapel ; it is likely to have been interpreted as a professional insult by any scientist reading it.

Jan 2, 2016 at 9:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

I’m sorry, EM, but many, many proponents of AGW assure us that it is going to end in disaster – I mean, 2°C is going to take us to the “tipping point”, the very blatant implication that we will be tipped into irreversible… erm… “bad things” happening (more severe droughts, floods, storms, forest fires, disappearing nations, earthquakes, etc., etc…). If that is not referring to catastrophes, what is it doing? Or are you saying that we really have nothing to worry about – the worst happening is that the world will get warmer, and skiing holidays might not be so common? If that is the case, why the brouhaha about it? Or, perhaps you are upset that the sceptics have stolen your thunder?

The reason I mention Diederik Stapel is that his career is a good example that peer-review may not be as fail-safe as you seem to believe – ultimately, NONE of his 30+ “peer-reviewed” papers proved valid. If you had read some of the infamous “Climategate” e-mails, you would also be aware of the “scientists” discussing the destruction of another’s career as, during his peer-reviewing of a paper, he had cast doubts upon it. Then there is the other example of a Korean who “peer-reviewed” his own papers! Yes, there will no doubt be many scientists who are upset that peer-review is not a cast-iron validity of the paper, but not all will be upset for the reasons that you imply.

Jan 2, 2016 at 10:42 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent


No sweat. I blame myself so I'm upgrading my web punctuation skills under the private tutelage of Messrs Green and Jones.

Along the way you made my point much bettter then me.

Jan 2, 2016 at 10:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Reed

EM, who objected to Al Gore making publicity and money claiming the sea ice would be gone by 2016? What is a 'Strawman' in the context of climate science, when it is linked to An Inconvenient Truth?

Do you have a Link to the biggest lies told in the name of climate science, that automatically flashes up a 'Strawman' response?

The 'Strawman' response or defence, is a clear giveaway of a credibility tipping point having been reached. Congratulations.

When are you going to stop denying the recorded history and archaeology of the MWP and LIA?

Jan 2, 2016 at 11:25 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Better imperfect peer review than just some bloke on a blog, who has no external quality control at all.

Remember that peer review is only the first step.Scientific fraud shows up because it is a jigsaw piece which does not fit. Attempts to replicate the work or extend it fail.

Jan 2, 2016 at 11:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Golf charlie

A straw man is a misrepresentation of fact. Unless you are dishonest or fooling yourself you should be able to recognise the technique, even when it is used by your own side.

I think we agree that the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods were warmer than 1880. I see them as part of a progressive decline in temperature from 5000 years ago to a minimum in the latter 19th century. Since then we have warmed past all except the Minoan peak on the CISP2 graph Radical Rodent submitted as evidence and are continuing to warm.

How does your version differ?

Jan 2, 2016 at 11:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

The Hale and Pace of climate science blogging have hi-jacked the thread, which, to be fair may have died without them. Hale and Pace were described as the only comedy duo with two straight men. Rafa and EM are the only alarmist duo with two comedians.

Please let it die it was only an attempt on my part to see if anyone else could understand why the climate alarmist community in the Met Office, after years of making every weather event evidence of global warming, had decided to pass up the opportunity to use the misery of thousands of our Northern countrymen and women to support their attempts at making humans the evil deliverers of climate armageddon. They've not done that before. Ever.

I had hoped to attract Dr. Betts to respond, particularly as I've recently recommended him to the BBC instead of Dr. Hoskins who continually asserts events and evidence even the IPPC don't suggest as reasonable. But no Dr. Betts , unfortunately,. Just the raft and Em show. Time to go home.

Jan 2, 2016 at 11:48 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

EM, so you are not going to say when you will stop denying the LIA and MWP, and you still prefer imperfect peer review. Presumably because better peer review, would prove your denial of honest scientific principles.

That's climate science.

Jan 2, 2016 at 11:51 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Scientific fraud shows up because it is a jigsaw piece which does not fit.
Yes, but Stapel kept his fraud going for many years (more than 20, if memory serves me). Once discovered, he was duly excised from academia; however, the fraud that is happening in climate science is being defended at all costs by such as yourself despite the jigsaw pieces not only not fitting but being made of a completely different material, and totally different patterns. Your personal heroes can do no wrong, yet those who question the “consensus”, such as Lindzen or Curry, are summarily dismissed, often as they are obviously in the pay of “Big Oil” (that your heroes may be in the pay of “Big Green” does not seem to bother you, though).

Jan 2, 2016 at 11:51 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

geronimo, I think you are right. EM and Raff are two strawmen. If left alone they may decompose or self-combust

Jan 2, 2016 at 11:56 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Radical Rodent, thank you for that post. Climate Scientists 'Stapeling' fraudulent data together has a lot of relevance. Prestige, fame and money was all part of his fraud, and enabled it to carry on, unchecked by peer review.

Jan 3, 2016 at 1:24 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf Charlie

I regard the three warm periods you mention as part of the 5000 year cooling trend from 14.4C+/-0.2C at the end of the Holocene Optimum to 13.8C+/-0.1C in 1880. I do not see them as separate events.

You clearly do see them as distinct. Could you give me the following numbers so that I know what I am denying.

Global average temperature before the Minoan Warm period.
Start date for the Minoan Warm Period.
The peak temperature and date for the Minoan Warm Period.
End date for the Minoan Warm Period.
Temperature after the end of the Minoan Warm Period.
Was it a local or global phenomenon?

Also give me corresponding information for the Roman Warm Period and the Mediaeval Warm Period.

Jan 3, 2016 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

I regard the three warm periods you mention as part of the 5000 year cooling trend…
Progress? Is at last reality beginning to dawn? Don’t hold out too much hope…

EM: you are right – there has been a cooling trend for the past 5,000 years. It has had its ups and downs, in a wave-cycle, from Minoan warm, to a dark age, to Roman warm, to the Dark Age, to Mediaeval warm, to Little Ice Age, to the present day. The big question is: is the present pause the peak of modern warming, with temperatures soon to plummet, or a plateau before some more warming? I do hope it is the latter; the former presages dark days, indeed.

I could give you a link (again!) to graphs which clearly delineate the periods in question, but cannot find them, yet. If, however, you are wanting actual dates, I cannot help you, though I think the Minoan period peaked on a Wednesday afternoon.

Jan 3, 2016 at 2:43 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

The models are wrong. They predicted a relentless temperature rise and there has been a pause of about 18 years so far. They predicted a hot spot in the lower troposphere that has never been found.

In normal science, if a model is wrong it is scrapped. Clearly, climate scientists are not normal.

Jan 3, 2016 at 6:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Geronimo - I do tend to agree with your suggestion that that "don't mention climate change" has been a feature of these floods. Many, including Cameron, could not resist it and those charged with preventing the floods are blaming everything.

The Somerset floods were largely caused by the EA slavishly following EU green directives which made the same greens look a bit foolish when the reasons eventually emerged. Perhaps this time they find it prudent to keep their mouths shut until the analysis is complete. If climate change is blamed they will make the most of it then.

More generally, I think there is a natural pause in rhetoric since propaganda reached a climax as we approached the Paris conference. That is now history and greens are having a breather before setting up their next demands.

My previous comment becomes more relevant because if the pause continues or if cooling starts then the credibility of the climate models will be increasingly under fire. Personally, I think that they have no credibility now, but until the wider scientific community applies scientific norms we shall be in this pseudo science world where climate science draws conclusions that contradict the evidence.

Jan 3, 2016 at 6:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

EM you are in Denial of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, in your support of Mann's Hockey Stick. Until climate science erases Mann, there is no hope.

You could ask aTTP to explain it to you, he won't on this website. Possibly because it would prove McIntyre and Montford correct.

Qualified in surveying and engineering, Mann's Hockey Stick is not a stable platform off which to build and develop a 'science'. Failure will occur, but forecasting when, is a bit like climate science forecasting. Not reliable.

Jan 3, 2016 at 10:09 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie

You are asking me to deny warm periods you cannot show exist.You do not know when they start, when they end or how warm they actually were. Your only evidence is your own belief and one noisy ice core from Greenland. Even if it is valid, the core shows that present temperatures are about to exceed anything in that core.

Ask me again when you can properly describe these hypothetical warm periods and show beyond reasonable doubt that they exist.

Jan 4, 2016 at 6:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Are these graphs acceptable for you, EM: this, this or this?

It is beginning to look as though you really are in full denial mode now, I’m afraid – all those periods are well-documented, and few people doubt that they existed or that they were all warmer than the present.

Jan 4, 2016 at 6:59 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

golf Charlie

I asked YOU for the information. Are you incapable of interpreting your own graphs?

Jan 4, 2016 at 7:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Golf Charlie

I have another problem.

You postulate the "Mediaeval warm period" and the "Little Ice Age", a 1000 year cooling trend followed by warming.

The Hockey Stick shows a 1000 year cooling trend followed by warming.

What is the difference?

Jan 4, 2016 at 8:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

You are putting yourself through some quite extraordinary mental gymnastics, EM. Is it us you are trying to convince that you position is correct, or yourself?

Jan 4, 2016 at 8:43 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent