Discussion > Zombie blog - what's the point?
You gave yourself away, Phil, sourcing Sou.
I came up with 'We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn't know.' in approximately 2007, when it struck me that the pause may be a peak, that of the Modern Warming Period. Once, at lucia's, Arthur Smith, librarian to the American Physical Society, tried to ridicule me by making the same point as Phil does above. It gave me the opportunity to explain the rationale behind the thought which was basically: The concatenation of cooling phases of the oceanic oscillations, and the Cheshire Cat Sunspots. This encapsulated both the changing ocean and the changing sun.
Two, well, three things are particularly amusing. One is the effort that Arthur Smith made to track back and discover when I'd first made the comment. Two is the effort Phil Clarke has made to dig through my posting history. Three is that I no longer have to make the claim that we are cooling, because so many others are now.
Me? I remain as perplexed as I ever was.
==================
kim
'the effort Phil Clarke has made to dig through my posting history.'
Approx a minute with Google.
'I no longer have to make the claim that we are cooling, because so many others are now.'
Whoever they are, they are demonstrably wrong.
Phil Clarke
The good question is whether the pause is just the same oscillation around the mean of the rise in temp since the end of the LIA or does it mark the end of that steady rise. It would seem to me to be the former, but given any warming effect of CO2, it may represent the latter, and suggest that strong natural cooling may be occurring right along with the anthropogenic release of a greenhouse gas.
Get your searchbots after that idea, Phil. They, and you, might learn something.
==============
kim
Heh, I'm remonstrably right. Phil, we don't know enough about the oceans to know whether or not the earth is net warming or cooling. There are signs of cooling.
Perhaps if we'd not suffered the extraordinary popular delusion of catastrophic warming we would have had the sense to figure this out by now. Your mania, and that of your fellow alarmists, has greatly hampered progress in climate science.
I'm no longer nearly the lone voice calling a cooling. I'm no longer so lonely because temperatures have not risen as much as expected. It's really just that simple, Phil.
==================
kim
Kevin's 'Travesty' was a heartfelt admission of ignorance. Where his head got involved, and mistakenly, was to assume the missing information would show missing heat. He doesn't know, nor does anyone else.
====================
kim
More 'hehs'. If in fact missing heat is down there it can't come up to bother(benefit) us until the onset of glaciation.
=======
kim
Alas, I don't really think the missing heat is down there, instead, it is radiated back out to space, as Kevin Trenberth suggested in a famous 2008 National Public Radio interview. It would have been nice if that magic gas, CO2, had helped to store up heat in the deep oceans, a layer of fat for the coming hibernation.
=================
kim
Under the other IPCC emission scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls, average rates of increase in global mean temperature over the next century are estimated to be about 0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0.1 °C per decade (Scenario D)
First IPCC Assessment Report. 1990.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
Actual forcings trajectory was somewhere between Scenarios B & C.
Observed trends (least squares) since 1990 in the satellite and surface observations.
UAH (v6 beta) 0.12C / decade
RSS 0.13C / decade
GISTEMP 0.18C / decade
HADCRUT4 0.17C / decade.
The world has warmed exactly as expected.
Phil Clarke
All pigs fed and ready to fly.
golf charlie
Now for the good news. Our anthropogenic aliquot of CO2 most likely is storing up heat in the oceans, but it seems to be a much smaller phenomenon than Kevin hopes for. Will our extra stored heat impact the onset of glaciation? I dunno, but doubt it will have much effect, however every little bit helps, and every little bit more helps a little bit more.
================
kim
Phil, you should go ask Kevin Trenberth why he thought there was missing heat. Your instructing solicitors are betraying you.
=============
kim
Aug 30, 2016 at 7:02 PM | Unregistered Commenter Phil Clarke
PC, lets go to the gospel according to the IPCC:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf
page 1011
Clearly shows that the models were wrong before 2005 and wrong after 2005.
What is hard to accept that climate models are not fit for purpose and therefore any prediction - doom or otherwise is useless or fraud?
I am sure with each iteration of IPCC reports, climate model output may become closer to reality but I have a sneaky feeling future runs on future models will be equally useless.
Just think of it this way: if the CMIP5 modelling team were writing the simulators that trained airline pilots, and the manufacturer stood up in meeting and said "We have run trial test flights in our shiny new simulator from Heathrow, London to La Guardia, NY Airport 42 times. The results are:
20 landed in the sea to the east, around 20 miles from NY,
20 landed 20 miles to the west in Hackettstown.
2 landed within the airport boundary.
The average landing location was at the correct end of the correct runway.
Due to the success of the simulation we are applying to the FAA for permission to evaluate the use of the 'autolanding' system.
Its a bit scary when numpties get involved with real word machinery or numpties persuade politicians to change working systems on false evidence.
Steve Richards
Clearly shows that the models were wrong before 2005 and wrong after 2005.
What would constitute 'right'.?
This graph is an update of the figure on 1011, brought up to date.
Phil Clarke
Heh, Phil, Kevin thought there was missing heat because temperatures weren't rising like the models expected. If it's any consolation, I don't really think it's betrayal; they just don't know any better.
=============
kim
PC – Aug 31, 2016 at 8:51 AM (my bolding throughout):
Increased flood risk linked to global warmingSo, you are prepared to fob us off with nonsense…Likelihood of extreme rainfall may have been doubled by rising greenhouse-gas levels.
… it has been suggested that human-influenced global warming may be partly responsible for increases in heavy precipitation
Drought under global warming: a reviewWhich is to be? Floods or droughts?
Anthropogenic Influence on Long Return Period Daily Temperature Extremes at Regional ScalesAn paper that has an abstract so convoluted I suspect that even they have no idea what they are talking about.
A decade of weather extremesWhen hasn’t there been a decade of weather extremes? The only difference is that the “extremes” over the past decade have been extremely not-too-extreme; Katrina was the last category 5 hurricane to make landfall in the USA, in… when? 2005? – over a decade ago!
Perception of climate changeA paper that starts off with:
“Climate dice,” describing the chance of unusually warm or cool seasons, have become more and more “loaded” in the past 30 y, coincident with rapid global warming.Obviously no non-scientific bias in that paper, then.
You could of course look for a study showing the economic costs of GW are less than the benefits. But I can save you some time, all such studies show the exact opposite. [sic]I have no doubt that they will, as I have little doubt that they will be as unscientifically biased as all those papers and articles you have linked to. Stop repeating the mantras you have been taught (or are paid to repeat… whatever…), Phil, and start thinking for yourself; look at the raw evidence and do not rely so heavily on the interpretations and opinions that others might apply to that data.
Whoever they are, they are demonstrably wrong.There is a growing number of scientists outside the IPCC/NASA/NOAA/UKMO/UEA/CSIRO clique that are reporting evidence that the world is starting to cool. Do note that the aforementioned clique get increased funding the more they clamour that we are going to burn (and that they are sure that they can provide “the solution”) ; while they might not be bright enough to merit the label “conspiracy”, they do have a certain vested interest in maintaining the scare.
Radical Rodent
It is a travesty that Climate Science still has not found out their models are wrong due to incorrect programming by Climate Scientists. They just adjust the data instead.
golf charlie
BTW, Phil, with your second link, did you (or your team) get as far as this sentence: “Because of the limited availability of daily observations, however, most previous studies have examined only the potential detectability of changes in extreme precipitation through model–model comparisons.” (It is the one following that which I quoted earlier.)
D’oh!
Radical Rodent
Your point eludes me. The abstract continues
Because of the limited availability of daily observations, however, most previous studies have examined only the potential detectability of changes in extreme precipitation through model–model comparisons Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas.Remember, this was in response to the claim that extreme weather has 'reduced in frequency and intensity', which seems not to be a reality-based statement.
Phil Clarke
Your point eludes me. The abstract continues
Because of the limited availability of daily observations, however, most previous studies have examined only the potential detectability of changes in extreme precipitation through model–model comparisons Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas.
Remember, this was in response to the claim that extreme weather has 'reduced in frequency and intensity', which seems not to be a reality-based statement.
Phil Clarke
But, what “intensification of precipitation events” have occurred that have never occurred before? How do these (usually, it would seem, unreported) events compare with the “precipitation events” of the winters of 1947 or 1963? Or the wet years of the 1960s, when York was flooded on a regular basis, many Welsh took to the roofs of their 2-storey houses, and parts of towns like Wray and Boscombe were washed away? Or the Great Flood of 170… whenever?
Extreme weather has reduced in frequency and intensity – the annual average of tropical storms over the past decade is lower than ever recorded, and those that have occurred have generally been less severe; there are fewer tornadoes – again, those that have occurred have generally not been as severe. Droughts are fewer, and less severe – even that in Australia is recognised by the farmers as nothing compared with 100 years ago; similarly with floods. Saying it is so does NOT make it so.
Radical Rodent
Phil has more lies designed to encourage fear. It seems intuitively obvious that a warmer world(a system with more energy in it) would have greater extremes of weather. In fact, a warmer world diminishes the polar/equatorial temperature gradient, which calms and has a much greater effect on extremes.
I don't know whether the diminution of extremes lately is from this warming effect or not. I doubt that the effect is strong enough to see in the data. However, it is clear that extremes have diminished during the time period that the public is being scared with 'weather weirding', which is a fable.
Phil is remarkably good at cherry-picking. That would tend to indicate his bad faith.
=======================
kim
Heh, 'reality-based' is a marvelous irony from someone whose expertise is sophistry to conceal it.
============
kim
Ice ages, when the polar/equatorial temperature gradient is greatest are dry, dusty and windy. The weather is vicious. The extremes are far worse than in the interglacial.
============
kim
Claims about the intensity of severe weather, are happening more frequently.
Climate Science makes lots of claims, without any evidence at all.
golf charlie
Mark,
All models are wrong.
Phil.