Kim. I'm afraid I've stored up a little more than I should have. Is this a sign of an approaching ice age?

I'm not thoroughly convinced about everything Tim Ball has to say, either,

ROF. I think he has done a pretty good job of trashing his own reputation, starting with credential fudging and the humiliating bailing of his $325K lawsuit against Don Johnson, Especially amusing is Dr Tim's CV. In court he laid claim to 51 scientific papers, 32 of them on atmospheric science. These 'papers' turn out to include gardening magazines and something called The Beaver and a total of maybe 4 on historical climate in the literature.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/14/tim-ball-sues-for-325000/

Add in his denial of the greenhouse effect and you have an unreliable witness, to put it mildly. That this long-retired and litigious Geography professor is now being sued by scientists for accusing them of fraud and incompetence is nothing more than karma.

But there is fraud and incompetence, from the hockey stick to inadequate models, and much, much more. I'm not particularly hopeful that Ball will prevail, but he certainly has a case.

History will decide, and I'll bet on nature over narrative.
==================

Ravishing Rattie. I wrote that EM TRIED to blindside you, I had no worries that you would be. However when you responded with
"However, based on recent comments Entropic man has made, I do question his understanding of science, thus wonder what harm he has done to the thought processes of those he taught."
A) I would want to know exactly what comments you are referring to, and
B) I believe the last to be below your usual very high standards of debate. You must be extremely p1$$ed off with him about his recent comments.

Alan, relative obesity has historically been a sign of health or prosperity, worldwide. So be of good cheer.
================

More heh, Alan, Entropic Man and Phil Clarke are both flying monkeys, deployed in aid of evil. I'm not pissed off, nor am I resigned. They're just part of the bubble of this mistaken belief, the alarmism.
==================

But there is fraud and incompetence, from the hockey stick to inadequate models,

Such claims should be backed up with robust evidence. The comments section of a blog are one thing, a court of law something rather different. We'll see.

Kim. What a simply horrid thing to write. Being of good cheer has given me type II diabetes and liver problems.

We'll see alright, but not necessarily in court. The hockey sticks are fraudulent and the models inadequate. Alarmism overegged the pudding, and the eating of it is nauseating, sickening; 'tis morbid and mortal.
================

Old enough to have acquired a liver, eh? Surely you are not a super fatted poop, but if so, I'd back you in a contest.
=============

RR yes I understand, EM seems to have set out to deliberately provoke you. But at other times he has done this you have flattened him with little apparent effort. He can always be ignored, he rarely comes back for more, unlike our "friend" PCar.

Radical Rodent

Great fun indeed.

Remember the limerick by Monsignor Ronald Knox, summarising Berkeley.

Here's that limerick below:

God in the Quad

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

What constitutes an observer, and how she influences reality, is still one of the central questions in quantum theory. Regrettably you cannot dismiss it by seeing a rock.

May I assume that you espouse some variant of realism?

kim. Not "a super fatted poop" (what a horrid designation!) merely ready for a siege. Liver problem due to bad genes, which my specialist finally accepts following multitudinous questions re my drinking habits.
What contest?

EM. Stop muddying the water. The problem of observer in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with climate "predictions".

EM...

EM - Have you considered this?

Ellis and Palmer (2016):

When CO2 reaches a minimum and albedo reaches a maximum, the world rapidly warms into an interglacial. A similar effect can be seen at the peak of an interglacial, where high CO2 and low albedo results in cooling. This counterintuitive response of the climate system also remains unexplained, and so a hitherto unaccounted for agent must exist that is strong enough to counter and reverse the classical feedback mechanisms.

But there is fraud and incompetence, from the hockey stick to inadequate models,

Such claims should be backed up with robust evidence. The comments section of a blog are one thing, a court of law something rather different. We'll see.

Oct 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM | Phil Clarke

Phil Clarke does the Gergis fiasco prove that the Hockey Stick is a fraud, because you said Gergis proves the Hockey Stick, or are you relying on Entropic Man's definition to only prove what you decide about Ball, when proof is convenient?

Gergis 2016 has yet to be "quietly withdrawn" to give it parity with Gergis 2012, so are you still maintaining Gergis 2016 is correct until withdrawn or formally repudiated? What level of proof is sufficient to challenge Gergis 2016, but not the Hockey Stick?

It does seem that Climate Science Projectionists maintain no quality control over Peer Review for research that meets the approved conclusions, yet a snide remark constitutes a "demolition" for research that challenges the approved conclusions of the fabricated consensus.

Do Climate Science Projectionists get paid double to match their standards?

Replicating the Hockey Stick still seems impossible, no matter how much money is thrown at the problem. Some problems, like the Hockey Stick, would be better if thrown.

Which Hockey Stick are you referring to?

I ask because the original MBH studies were NH only, whereas Gergis et al was an Australasian reconstruction.

So which (of the many ) Hockey Sticks do you believe depends on Gergis?

Actually, it is the Gergis Australia study, Joelle and her team have corrected the various issue and resubmitted the study and it has been reviewed and accepted, in the face of the usual denier unpleasantness.

Conclusion:"Overall, we are confident that observed temperatures in Australasia have been warmer in the past 30 years than every other 30-year period over the entire millennium (90% confidence based on 12,000 reconstructions, developed using four independent statistical methods and three different data subsets). Importantly, the climate modelling component of our study also shows that only human-caused greenhouse emissions can explain the recent warming recorded in our region."

Add it to the list.

Jul 11, 2016 at 10:46 PM | Phil Clarke

Phil Clarke 2:30, as you decide what is evidence and proof, everyone else can decide what you were previously referring to. Did Gergis use 12,000 reconstructions from just the Southern Hemisphere?

Are you now trying to imply that the temperatures in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres run independent of each other, and that the Medieval Warm Period did not happen outside of Europe?

It's ok, you don't have to answer the question if you choose not to.

Oh, boy, Ellis and Palmer(2016) is kicking up a storm over @ Judy's. See Donald Rapp's review at judithcurry.com
===================

Phil Clarke, which list were you referring to in your post celebrating the triumph of Gergis 2016? Perhaps you are incapable of reading your own words, to understand your own words. Which part of your own words are you struggling with?

Climate Science had a communication problem, Climate Science Projectionists have certainly developed and enhanced the inherent communication problems without improving science.

Having failed in Science, Maths, Geography, History, and English, presumably Climate Studies provides a safe refuge for serious academic failures. No wonder Science Philosophy is taking off.

Meanwhile, back at the thread, the Hockey Stick was demolished, and repeated attempts to fix it keep failing. Why do people keep charging taxpayers?

ACK

My conversation with the ladies concerns their delusion that climate science or indeed any science, can be proved correct, as one would prove the Pythagorus Theorem.

Prediction, or projection is another matter. How does one show that a prediction of future conditions is correct ?

The traditional method is to wait for the appropriate time and then compare the predicted conditions with observation.

The other method is to use the predictive technique to project present conditions from past data. If you can successfully forecast the present using the past, it increases your confidence that the same technique can forecast the future using the present.

For example, my own basic hypothesis is that CO2 is forcing temperature in accordiance with the equation

∆T=5.35ln(C/Co)climate sensitivity/forcing effect

with a 25 year lag in surface temperatures due to ocean heat capacity and IPCC mid range figures of 3 for sensitivity and 1/3.7 for the conversion from ∆wattage to ∆temperature.

CO2 figures here and GISS five-year averages here. (I'm using 5-year averages to try and minimise the effect of short term variability). All calculations use the 1880 conditions of 280ppm and anomaly -0.2C.

Four examples.

The most recent five year temperature average is 2013. The CO2 concentration 25 years earlier in 1988 was 350.6ppm.

The predicted ∆T is 5.35ln(350.6/280)3/3.7 = 0.97C.

That is a predicted anomaly of 0.97- 0.2 = 0.77C. The actual mean is 0.70C +/- 0.09C

The CO2 concentration in 1958 ( the earliest Hawaiian data ) was 315 ppm .

The predicted ∆T to 1983 is 5.35ln(315/280)3/3.7 = 0.51C.

This is a predicted anomaly of 0.51 - 0.2 = 0.31C. The actual mean was 0.27C +/- 0.09C.

The CO2 concentration in 1920 was 303 ppm. 0.08C is WW2.c o2 303ppm

The predicted ∆T for 1945 isis 5.35ln(303/280)3/3.7 = 0.34C.

The predicted anomaly for 1945 is 0.34 -0.2 = 0.14C. The actual temperature was 0.08C +/- 0.09C

Three predictions matched reality within the 95% confidence limits.

Extending the same technique to other forcings one can compare the temperature record with the various natural and artificial forcings. The result looks like this

The natural forcings are neutral. The human forcings account for the warming.

In a earlier comment, using the same method, I calculated an anomaly of 1.4C for 2056.

On the basis of the post 1880 data this is a reasonable prediction. You clearly think otherwise. Personally I suspect that this is just your opinion, rather than a reasoned judgement.

Imagine I have just presented this data and forecast in a departmental seminar. You stand up to challenge it. What is your case?

You keep claiming that I don't understand your position. Here's an opportunity for clarification.

EM, have you worked out where the mistake(s) are then?

If you keep repeating the same failed dogma, it is not suddenley going to produce the result you want. 97% of climate science's failed projectionists are not going to thank you, but the rest of the world's population will be so much happier.