Bishop Hill Maslin's morass
Nov 6, 2014 Climate: Surface Climate: WG2 Professor Mark Maslin, a climatologist from University College London, has written an article for The Conversation to mark the publication of the Synthesis Report of AR5. In it he makes some remarkable claims, for example:
We have tracked significant increase in global temperatures of 0.85°C and sea level rise of 20cm over the past century.
Changes in precipitation are also expected to vary from place to place. In the high-latitude regions (central and northern regions of Europe, Asia and North America) the year-round average precipitation is projected to increase, while in most sub-tropical land regions it is projected to decrease by as much as 20%, increasing the risk of drought.
I wonder if he is going to try to make a defence of his article. If you head over to the Conversation, do stay polite and on topic. Several BH regulars are already there.
Reader Comments (90)
The great thing about peddling green catastriphilia is that one NEVER has to defend any religious statement regardless of how completely obvious wrong it is.
Mailman
You simply can't believe anything that comes out of UCL these days, what an embarassment for the alumni
A certain professor Grub (?) was making equally fatuous remarks in a radio 5 interview a couple of days ago.
Oh! I get it! Ocean levels have been Static for the last billion years! Global temperatures were basically flat-lined over that same period. EVERYTHING that has happened in climate in the last century-Plus, Never happened before!
*BARF!*
The warming since CO2 was measured rising in 1958 is totally unprecedented
... within the latter half of the 20th century.
We did however get the same warming that occurred from 1970-2000 in the period 1910-1940. Also if we look and the Central England Temperature record, we see that late 20th century warming is quite typical and the biggest rise was actually after 1690 (the cold-famines in Scotland occurred in that period leading to loss of independence).
"over the past century"
Does he mean the 20th Century or the last 100 years?
In any case why do climate "scientists" always include a period of time which cannot be influenced by AGW? Oh yes of course to make the numbers bigger! Why be honest when you can be alarmist!
20cm/cemtury = 2mm/year how is this related to AGW???? Rather than a consequence of the end of the last glacial period?
Professors are not what they used to be. I suppose pointing out his errors are infringing his academic freedom.
My bold, not too sure how "strong" The Conversation is on "Academic rigour"
The no tricks zone carries an article from Der Speigel which challenges the synthesis report using AR5 as evidence.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/11/05/eike-ipcc-synthesis-report-in-crass-contradiction-to-almost-every-measurement-and-trend-in-nature/
Shame others in the MSM lack the same skills and/or commitment to their professional values.
Before launching into the Conversation, while staying polite and on topic, as the Bish says, people might like to take stock of the strengths and weaknesses of the place. Nowhere is this better illustrated for me than by Geoff Chambers' comment yesterday:
One has enough about the weaknesses there. The strength? They haven't taken that comment down or edited it in any way. Firm but fair seems to be the way forward with these people.
Oopss, wrong link to the article, same context though.
Here is the link that I intended.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/11/04/spiegel-slams-at-ipcc-alarmism-comes-before-accuracy-ipcc-gross-problems-suppresses-important-findings/
Whoever quipped that putting 'climate' in front of 'scientist' has much the same qualifying effect as 'witch' in front of 'doctor' was on to something. The word 'professor' could also do with some further clarification these days. The rapid expansion in the number of universities is not likely to have produced a correspondingly rapid expansion in the number of people qualified to be 'professors' matching the previous levels of distinction. I'd hazard a guess that the expansion in numbers of 'climate science' departments/sections/faculties/employees has been even more dramatic. Double whammy. Bad news. Take what these newly minted 'climate science professors' say with a large pinch of salt.
What struck me is the disclosure:
Then a brief look at Mr Maslin's CV:
http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/about-the-department/people/academic-staff/mark-maslin
John Shade. It was John Brignell of www.numberwatch.co.uk who coined the expression. It's well worth a visit.
Lewandowsky's at it again at
https://theconversation.com/are-you-a-poor-logician-logically-you-might-never-know-33355
Geckko on Nov 6, 2014 at 10:20 AM
" Maslin is a leading scientist with particular expertise in past global and regional climatic change ..."
To be fair, he only mentions being an expert 'in past global and regional climatic change'. :)
yesterday Dieter Helm was on Radio 4 You and Yours from 28:30min to 34 min
It seemed like a case of don't mention certain truths : that 'renewables' cause huge extra costs, Miliband's promise to lock prices, makes it difficult for companies to lock themselves into lower prices now.
"...How could price of coal halve but price of electricity go up not down ?
how come (wholesale) gas prices have fallen sharply but prices to customers have not gone down ?
how come some companies make bigger margins than others ? (isn't that normal that more efficient/clever businesses make bigger margins ?)
..these are questions that come out of a poorly designed market" (yep that's true)
Winifred Robin firmly asked "Is there any evidence that splitting up energy generation from retail supply will lower prices as the smaller competitors argue ?" Ans we'll see in the results of the Competition inquiry next year.
Money SAVING Expert surprised that UNSAVING by switching to green energy is unpopular
Green True believer Martyn Lewis latest blog post : "Green energy is surprisingly unpopular"
To be strictly fair, energy costs seem to bear only a distant relationship to prices - certainly at a domestic level. As a coal user, I have watched the price rise, while world prices have halved.
I have no doubt that all that 'renewables' (how renewable wind turbines are is a moot point) significantly boost electricity costs, but the whole energy market is riddled with scams, as far as I can see.
This needs to be investigated. It doesn't make any sense. Funding for "Climatology" would largely evaporate if it weren't being made important by alarmists.
The AR5 gives a sciencey feel to the current IPCC enterprise, which the Synthesis largely ignores in choosing alarmism.
It is telling that a scientist would ignore the science and instead choose to promote the Synthesis.
Geckko deckoes Maslin flat. Mark the splat.
=====================
@Geckko Nov 6, 2014 at 10:20
and
@Bernd Felsche Nov 6, 2014 at 11:41
Took the words right out of my mouth. BTW He's also got alarmist books to sell.
Can't be bothered creating an account on yet another warmist site. Do you think any comment you make there will make any difference at all?
I know I should have got over this by now but it still shocks me to find a Prof. Dr. FRGS, FRSA at UCL with reasoning skills that would be unacceptable in a Blue Peter presenter. One non sequitur after another.
Of course this only applies for Big Oil...
Maslin is a professor of climatology. I seem to recall that we are allowed to treat climatologists as the lesser brethren of climate scientists. If this article is anything to go by, I think we have discovered the leastest of the lesser brethren.
Tom Mills (10:21 AM). Many thanks. I agree about John Brignell's work at Number Watch. A veritable treasure trove of good insights, good data, and good writing.
Bishop Hill
If you don't think the global temperature record tells us anything meaningful about warming over the past century, I guess you don't believe Lewis and Curry since they use the global temperature record to make an estimate of future warming?
You cite both Keenan and Lewis at different times when it suits you - Keenan when you want to question whether warming has actually happened in the past, and Lewis when you want to say that past warming suggests that future warming will be at the low end.
This is called having your cake and eating it….. :-)
Also, 'significance' doesn't seem to bother you when you talk about the 'pause'. If century-scale warming is not 'significant' then why even bother discussing temperatures over the last decade or two?
Why does a climatology professor lecture us about energy policy?
Richard Betts
why are we discussing temperatures at all when there is nothing in the record that is in any way out of the ordinary? Because millions of people in the world are being subjected to regressive and harmful energy policies as a direct result of exaggerated claims and the output of useless computer models from, just by way of example, the UK Met Office.
Richard Betts
Obviously, I do think the global temperature record tells us something meaningful about warming over the past century. However, the 0.85 C warming mentioned, which I presume comes from the AR5 WG1 or Synthesis report figure for linear trend warming over 1880-2012, is rather a cherry pick. It omits the warm 1870s and the moderate 1850s and 1860s, so the cold 1880-1920 decades (which saw unusually high volcanic activity) have a far greater influence on the linear trend and the change based on it than when a longer period is used.
The linear trend increase per HadCRUT4v3 is 0.828 C over 1880-2012, close to the 0.85 figure in AR5 (which is not solely HadCRUT4 based). That is a 10% larger rise than the linear trend increase of 0.755 C over 1850-2012.
Thanks Nic, that's a fair point - but I don't think this was the Bishop's point. He was going back to the tired old debate about 'statistical significance' again, which is a red herring! The data show that recent decades were warmer than the late 19th Century, so (as you rightly say) the world has warmed.
I see no inconsistency in these two types of criticism of the sloppy science so readily accepted as gospel by the IPCC and others. On the political side, they reveal the 'since birth' bias of that very harmful organisation. On the statistical side, they reveal the 'since birth' bias of that very harmful organisation.
Richard Betts, Lewis and Curry can predict what they like. Good luck to them. I see no current reason to think them any better than some other forecasters (it would be difficult to do worse than some of the others). Perhaps we'll see in a decade or two. In the event of them being wrong, I hope they'll be more honest and open about their mistakes than the poor example set by others.
Regardless, their failings lie in the future. IPCC models have already failed. That's what I call significant.
Richard Betts, is there is a simple answer or reference to how we know what the global temperature was in the late 19th century? The Conversation has recently been telling us that we DON'T even know what the temperature was in Australia then, the BoM won't touch data before 1910.
If we don't know about Australia then how do we know about South America, Africa, India, China, Russia, both poles, and the vast oceans?
The data show that recent decades were warmer than the late 19th Century, so (as you rightly say) the world has warmed.
Nov 6, 2014 at 4:47 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts
But even if true this is still not necessarily connected to the increase in CO2, the rate of temp increase in the warming periods is no different pre or post 1945 which is seen as the dividing line. So why pick on CO2 as being the cause of this warming now when pre CO2 industial increase the rate of temp increase was the same. A simple continuing of the recovery from the LIA is more likely.
Hi John
Of course they are inconsistent. Either you think that the observations tell us something (like Nic Lewis) or you don't (like Doug Keenan).
You can't have it both ways!
Cheers
Richard
The world has warmed. No-one can say that the warming is statistically significant (Keenan). Some, like ATTP, claim that it is scientifically significant but that is simple assertion.
In spite of the fact that there is nothing in any way out of the ordinary in the temperature record, the policy makers have been persuaded to introduce draconian measures to reduce CO2 emissions. These policies are causing real harm. This fact alone means that those of us who do not see the surface temperature record as meriting anything more than passing interest are obliged to take a real interest. We are heartened that a few within the scientific community (Lewis and Curry) have also taken it upon themselves to take an interest and in doing so they are obliged to use the data and concepts that have been used by the proponents of CAGW. This has led to a ludicrous position where people are arguing about a fiction called climate sensitivity and are trying to predict the unpredictable.
The whole thing is a complete and utter waste of time and money.
Richard Betts
It helps if you don't misrepresent the sceptic position whether by accident or design. To help you and others who might visit here....
Keenan is not disputing the minor and probably entirely natural warming, just the continuing misuse of a straight line fit to an obviously nonlinear process as if the resulting trend actually meant anything. You can assume a random walk with rather more validity. In order to declare what is 'manmade' or 'significant' we first have to know the extent of nature's contribution.
Lewis and Curry is only an upper bound estimate based on the pessimistic assumption that manmade warming is really dominant. The lower bound estimate remains at the 1K, no feedback value. As the pause lengthens so does this upper bound estimate continue to drop.
The 'pause' demonstrates firstly that climate scientists don't understand enough about natural variation to be able to declare it as 'declining' and hence lessen its influence in climate models: This initial assumption about natural variation is all that the IPCC assertion of 'dominant manmade warming after 1950' rests on. Secondly a decreasing temperature rate coinciding with an increasing carbon dioxide rate is a good indication that CO2 is not a climate driver in the first place; perhaps just a negligible feedback. Again this assertion always rested on a great deal of biased subjectivity. The putative CO2-temperature connection was raised twice last century and rejected both times because the temperature fell again. Exactly the same thing looks like happening again.
I await patiently the outcry from someone prominent in climate science of why the IPCC synthesis report directly contradicts the IPCC reports it is purported to summarise. Alas I already know that the policy to undermine fossil fuel use is behind this collective duplicity. What I have never understood is why? I have been active in alternative energies all my life - and I still am - but that is becasue they will one day run out: Meantime it should be obvious to everyone that fossil fuels have only ever been hugely beneficial to society. Why such hatred and why so many abject lies? I remember the contradictory ice-age scare and the acid rain hype. Earth scientists seem institutionally biased against the fossil fuels that they also depend on for no apparent reason.
They believe that key elements of the capitalist system cannot survive without fossil fuels. Their avowed wish to destroy that system long predates the CAGW scam, which was invented when it became rather obvious that no one sane would buy what they were selling on pure ideological grounds, as the resulting lifestyle was demonstrably shit.
Richard mate I think you are making a logical fallacy. Let me explain simply : I don't have to believe a brick of your argument in order to use it against another brick of your argument as I would just be showing the logical inconsistencies between them.
- I have noted recently that warmists have come here to BH with the thought "You sceptics have attacked the warmist position, so I'm coming here to attack yours." and I feel sorry for them cos there is no sceptic position to attack; it is not a two way street. Sceptics are attacking flaws in warmists arguments and all warmists can do is defend those arguments or correct them. I notice as @JamesG points out not finding a sceptic position to attack the warmist debater first tries to make up a postion to attack ie he misrepresents sceptics using a strawman argument.
- What is this "believe" thing ? In science you don't go around "believing" and taking fixed positions on arguments. Rather you let the evidence do the talking, so talk of scenarios that might be possible . Only if something has been properly validated in multiple independent experiments so that it makes accurate predictions everytime, can be accepted as proven fact for the situations defined. Then of course you can believe that definition. I guess you are using shorthand and actually mean specific works of Keenan & Lewis, as I said scientist should not have "beliefs".The point is sceptics are not the ones claiming to be clairvoyants, rather we are attacking the warmist abilities as clairvoyants.
- Dramagreens who seek to "buy" magic solutions like wind/solarPV so they can continue to have the big house, frequent flying, high consumption lifestyles is surely the biggest example of "having your cake and eating it".
When I studied climate science, I always got the impression that it was highly complex. Thanks to the likes of Richard Betts and Mark Maslin, I see now that I was mistaken.
Natural warming, is beneficent and yep the Temperatures have risen a tad since the fall out of LIA. That's just the point, none of it is significant of aught, the whole shebang - man made warming is statistically insignificant because there is no signal to detect.
Where we do have a problem, when someone and because he/she holds a position remunerated from the public purse, and of considerable power and influence but who chooses to wield said influence, not at all wisely.
They, who clearly should know better, the likes of such as Dame. Julia Slingo starts to propose that, UK rainfall variegation and changes in the jet stream are somehow significant of something called 'climate change' and all thanks to MM emissions of CO2 - thus making scurrilous accusations with absolutely no clue as to the veracity of such utterances. Verbiage based on nothing other than computer models whose provenance quite evidently is scientifically unsound.
Hearsay - what a bunch of civil servants think - and only that, because.....it fits in with the global weird [ing] theme. Cripes, no evidence and no reasonable explanation other than specious correlation - that's significant because it is akin to downright lying.
Cheesy love and kisses.
I have just posted a question
Professor Maslin, You say
On WG1 SPM, table SPM.2 for model RCP8.5 (the most extreme of the four models) gives a likely range for 2081-2100 of 2.6°C and 4.8°C for temperature and between 45cm and 82cm for sea level rise, so I believe the 2100 figures are from this, the most extreme of the four models
The least extreme model - RCP2.6 - gives a likely range for 2081-2100 0.3°C to 1.7°C for temperature and between 26cm and 45cm for sea level rise.
Should not your range include the full range of models?
The .85C claim is as I expected. I started reading on this topic daily from around 2006. Back in those ancient times, the standard quoted century warming was .5C. A year or two later I noticed this had shifted to .6C. At this point I made the mental prediction that I'd see a .1C increase in the claim every few years. I've since seen that the standard claim is now .7-.8C for the last century. The .85C is the highest number I've come across so far, by someone who should in theory know what they are talking about. We should expect to see a 1C warming claim in about 2-3 years from now, if anyone is still paying attention to these people, of course.
Richard, you say "The data show that recent decades were warmer than the late 19th Century, so (as you rightly say) the world has warmed"
So what?
Big Deal.
For those who wonder where Prof. Maslin gets his extreme twentieth century warming figure from, I may have found the answer. This comment was just posted.
Professor Maslin. You say
Many climatologists now recommend the website skepticalscience.com as a resource. It has a trend calculator, with five global data sets covering 1900 to 1999. These are the results.
GISTEMP 0.68 ±0.10 °C/century (2σ)
NOAA 0.68 ±0.10 °C/century (2σ)
HADCRUT4 0.63 ±0.11 °C/century (2σ)
BEST (Land only) 0.85 ±0.20 °C/century (2σ)
NOAA (Land only) 0.76 ±0.14 °C/century (2σ)
Why do you use the most extreme temperature series, which covers just 30% of the globe?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Prof Maslin has replied to my first question (above Nov 6, 2014 at 8:10 PM).
My response is
Richard Betts: "He was going back to the tired old debate about 'statistical significance' again, which is a red herring!"
Intriguing to hear that statistical significance is a "red herring". Please can you explain more? I think this could have repercussions for all sorts of data based investigations.
I believe I now understand the divergence issue.
The IPCC scenarios are based on a single measure of climate sensitivity, not a number as I had assumed. The explanations are diverging in two areas – emissions have accelerated whereas surface temperatures have flattened. There are two areas of explanation for this divergence. First are the natural factors dampening the human emissions effect – which begs the question of why natural factors were not contributing to the previous late C20th warming phase. Second is the warming has gone into the oceans. This leads to questions of why the IPCC did not recognize before now that this was where over 90% of the excess heat was residing, and why there is only cursory analysis of this more significant warming over the last 40 years in the WG1 chapter on oceans.
You know John Kennedy and co at the Met Office have made great pains to produce very detailed analyses of uncertainty in the temperature record. And that applying some statistical models can predict what the temperature error is.
The trouble is that these analyses are still just theory. It isn't fact no matter how much backslapping and cross referencing people do.
So Richard Betts, seeing as you are a climate science (and also a physicist), can you please start stating that "errors in the temperature anomaly are theoretical and based on a number of assumptions" each time we talk about temperature.
That way people can use common sense and decide whether to believe you or not. Instead of assuming we have achieved a mystical accuracy of 0.1 degrees when at best it's more like 0.5 to 1 degree. Also you may want to filter your predictions through a team of engineers. They would say it doesn't look like much has changed for the last 100 years, at least not that we can realistically measure.
But that would probably change the funding emphasis.