Ross Lea

I havent had time yet to watch Lindzen's lecture, but I did read the Daily Mail piece.

"Professor Lindzen said the IPCC report this week had reduced the alleged tipping point from 2C to 1.5C because there had been no significant warming for 20 years.

'Warming of any significance ceased about 20 years ago, "

Look at the GISS data.

Go to the Global annua lland-ocean plain text and you will find the smoothed values for each year. The anomalies for the last twenty years varied from 0.43C in 1997 to 0.96C in 2017.

The standard deviation of each value is 0.05C and two years become significantly different when the difference between then exceeds 4SD which is 0.2C.

The difference between 1997 and 2017, twenty years apart, is 0.56C. This is statistically significant..

Professor Lindzen made what I know to be an elementary error. It does not improve my confidence in the accuracy of his other statements.

Entropic man:

Each run has one of the RCPs. It also has variables such as ENSO and vulcanism randomised or set to suit the research. The variation in output depends on the variation in input.

It would seem fair enough to have essentially random things -- asteroid strikes, say -- as random inputs to a model (reasonable to leave them out altogether, too). However I'm mystified that anybody seriously believes we can model the climate while at the same time admitting that these so called models treat ENSO -- a significant weather phenomenon -- as an input. Let's see a model that delivers ENSO as an output. The world does that all the time, and the models purport to model the world.

ENSO, el Nino, etc., put me in mind of the doctor's "idiopathic disease" -- it's just a fancy way of saying "don't have a clue". Is the "science" of climate as far along as medicine was with the four humours? Doubt it.

As for validation, not failure, I think I set the bar a little higher than you.

Trump has given up waiting for Climate Science to admit their mistakes.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/13/president-trump-witholding-money-from-climate-research-thats-where-it-hurts/

Obviously if an honest Climate Scientist could point out the rubbish Climate Science and Climate Scientists, any remaining money could be reserved and ringfenced for something useful.

EM. "I am full of satiable curtiosity. Even in my old age I want to know everything works. Sorry to hear that you have lost that spark."
Good luck to you, but I know my limits. I'm not suddenly going to learn enough mathematics to follow or contribute to most models. I may not be able to contribute in this way but I can exercise my logic and my judgement. I find myself interested in all sorts of things - this year for example how grasses react to droughts (differently from how I always thought). I still read a lot of general science and exercise my judgement. I remain utterly convinced that much of the warnings issued by climate activists are overblown. But I never reject them outright.

It's strange EM, I always gave you credit for understanding how science is done. But you don't really understand. You cannot interrogate glacial deposits to learn the answers to the types of questions you say you want answering. Nature also does not take kindly to being overly simplifed, and that's just what models do and cannot help but do.

That is not failure, it is validation.

Oct 13, 2018 at 10:05 PM | Entropic man

It is failure, validated by the rubbish.

Supertroll

I am full of satiable curtiosity. Even in my old age I want to know everything works. Sorry to hear that you have lost that spark.

Robert Swan

You know why. Every CMIP5 run has different inputs.

Each run has one of the RCPs. It also has variables such as ENSO and vulcanism randomised or set to suit the research. The variation in output depends on the variation in input.

The runs which come closest to the reality are the runs in which CO2 production and the random variables were closest to reality.

That is not failure, it is validation.