Nov 19, 2017 at 10:53 PM | Radical Rodent, from the same source, you could have posted:

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/if-global-warming-is-real-why-do-government-scientists-have-to-keep-cheating/

"A few decades back, an upstanding member of the global warming alarmist community said that if the public was going to take the threat of man-caused climate change seriously, the alarmists were going to have to exaggerate the evidence.

It was in 1989 that Stephen Schneider wrote in Discover magazine that in order "to capture the public's imagination . . . we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Let's not forget that the late climatologist was first a believer in global cooling in the 1970s. He was worried that a new ice age was coming.

Of course the alarmist community has followed Schneider's script. It's spent much of the last three decades trying to spook the public into a panic.

One example of this agenda to drive fright into our brains was the ClimateGate scandal at Britain's University of East Anglia. A series of email threads between climate scientists showed that they were torturing the temperature data to produce evidence of warming that wasn't occurring.

Who can forget their conspiracy to "hide the decline"?

How are Climate Scientists going to "Hide the Decline" in US spending?

The period you claim as a pause actually warmed faster.

Nov 19, 2017 at 11:21 PM | Entropic man

Then why did Hockey Team experts admit there was a pause? (Great cartoon by Josh)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/the-new-consensus-on-global-warming-a-shocking-admission-by-team-climate/

Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates:

Benjamin D. Santer, John C. Fyfe, Giuliana Pallotta, Gregory M. Flato, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Ed Hawkins,
Michael E. Mann, Jeffrey F. Painter, Céline Bonfils, Ivana Cvijanovic, Carl Mears, Frank J. Wentz, Stephen Po-Chedley, Qiang Fu & Cheng-Zhi Zou

Abstract:

"In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations."

How does a ".. model error in climate sensitivity" occur? Who knew? Should someone be sued? Isn't climate sensitivity something discussed on this thread already, which 97% of climate scientists insist that Lewis and Curry must be wrong about, despite Mann and Santer admitting that the Hockey Team allowed the computer models to be programmed wrong?

If this is all part of the deliberate exaggeration recommended by the late Stephen Schneider, then the Hockey Team might need to consult their Public Liability Insurers.

Can this thread conclude that Climate Sensitivity is programmed incorrectly into 97% of Climate Scientists, and hence their models?

What Medieval Warm Period?

Nov 20, 2017 at 3:48 AM | clipe
Nov 20, 2017 at 12:41 AM | Radical Rodent

If Climate Scientists had stopped trying to prove Mann was right, they might have retained some credibility.

Climate Science has lived and thrived whilst riding Mann's Hockey Stick, soaring through clouds, oceans and Governments. Does Harry Potter have a magic spell for turning a broomstick off?

Golf Charlie

The Mann et al 1998 graph shows a peak at 14.1C from 1000AD to 1150AD which might be your MWP, though it starts later than your MWP and finishes earlier than the 1257 eruption.

See my problem.The MWP is so poorly defined. The start date, end date and temperature are so vague that I find it difficult to accept the MWP as more than short term variation.

Tree ring specialist Keith Briffa's February 1998 study showed that this problem was more widespread at high northern latitudes, and warned that it had to be taken into account to avoid overestimating past temperatures.

Are you suggesting that Mann et al 1998 overestimated the 1000AD temperature in the hockey stick graph?

That would imply that your MWP was cooler than 14.0C and 1C cooler than the 21st century. Somehow I doubt that was what you intended to say.

Radical rodent

Both of your last two links have been fantasy physics.

One of the commenters on that list link clearly described the problems>

"The electrons only orbit at set altitudes, the closer to the molecule the lower the kinetic energy of the molecule"

At this point I started to realise that the self-taught quantum physics was a little shaky. Despite numerous technical errors like “degrees Kelvin” ( the unit is kelvin ) ; writing Km for kilometres which shows a lack of basic understanding of the unit prefices; talking of “the” wavelength of thermally emitted IR when he should be referring to PEAK wavelength. I rather gave up hope on this article having any scientific merit at this point.

No one talks of the “altitude” of an electron orbit, they are not little Spuniks. Neither is the energy involved in photon absorption or emission the “kinetic” energy of the atomic electrons, it is potential energy which is transferred. Hence the idea of energy levels and dropping to a lower energy level producing the energy of the photon. The author also seems to be confusing electron states and the vibrational energy of the atoms within a molecule.

The IR interaction comes from vibrational energy of the three atoms in gages like CO2 and H2O ( a bit like a tuning fork ) . This is why diatomic molecules like O2 and N2 are not GHGs.

IR radiation only travels a few metres at ground level without being absorbed, so lets forget the notion that this only happens at a very narrow range of altitude around 90km.

Clips

Golf Charlie has already put up that link twice.

We have discussed its shortcomings already.

EM we do not have to measure isostatic rebound by having to climb Ben Nevis. On the roadside nearby will do. Given the slow rate of movement every decade also would be more than ample. Also such a measurement is real (height above a fixed datum, whereas there has never been a real measurement of the global temperature, present or past.

EM, you are simply nailing your colours to the peak alarm of the Hockey Stick.

Trump has pulled out of Global Warming, and Green policies have derailed Merkel, as Germany burns the most coal in the EU, and will continue to do so.

I am listening to the latest news about Mugabe refusing to accept that his era is over.

Green Blob policies have caused more death and misery than Mugabe, and now it will be up to a new Chinese backed regime to revitalise the economy. I expect that burning lots of coal may be involved, encouraging other developing countries to look towards China, not the UN for economic success.

What is the point in trying to save Mann's Hockey Stick?

That would imply that your MWP was cooler than 14.0C and 1C cooler than the 21st century. Somehow I doubt that was what you intended to say.

Nov 20, 2017 at 10:00 AM | Entropic man

I take no ownership of the MWP, but I am rather fond of it. So are many experts in History, Geography, Archaeology, Geology etc.

Where do you get those figures from? Did you make them up, or did another of Mann's disciples?

Three "prominent experts" had voiced concerns about the use of dendrochronology for plotting temperatures, before the IPCC promoted the Hockey Stick, having trusted Mann's recently acquired status as an expert. Who will confirm that tree rings can be used for such purposes in a Court of Law?

Entropic Man,

PAGES2K, d'Arrigo, Mann, Jacoby and Gergis all relied on dodgy dendro.

https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/11/pages2017-new-cherry-pie/

PAGES2017: New Cherry Pie

Rosanne D’Arrigo once explained to an astounded National Academy of Sciences panel that you had to pick cherries if you wanted to make cherry pie – a practice followed by D’Arrigo and Jacoby who, for their reconstructions, selected tree ring chronologies which went the “right” way and discarded those that went the wrong way – a technique which will result in hockey sticks even from random red noise.  Her statement caused a flurry of excitement among Climategate correspondents, but unfortunately the NAS panel didn’t address or explain the defects in this technique to the lignumphilous paleoclimate community.

My long-standing recommendation to the paleoclimate community has been to define a class of proxy using ex ante criteria e.g. treeline black spruce chronologies, Antarctic ice cores etc., but once the ex ante criterion is selected, use a “simple” method on all members of the class.  The benefits of such a procedure seem obvious, but the protocol is stubbornly resisted by the paleoclimate community. The PAGES paleoclimate community have recently published a major compilation of climate series from the past millennium, but, unfortunately, their handling of data which goes the “wrong” way is risible.

The PAGES 2017 collation is a successor dataset to the PAGES 2013 collation, aspects of which I discussed a few years ago.  Not included in my previous discussion was their North American tree ring collection, which stubbornly included the same stripbark bristlecone chronologies of Mann et al 1998-9, while claiming to be “independent”.  In total, there were 146 North American tree ring series in PAGES2K (2013).

PAGES2K (2017) contains almost exactly the same number  (150) of North American tree ring series, but, if you look at the second tab (Table S2) of its Supplementary Information – an excerpt of which is shown below, one series after another was rejected because it had a “negative relation to temperature”

You get the drift? Or is it bias?

Golf Charlie

Where do I get my numbers?

I can read graphs.

Look at Figure 5. Marcott et al 2013 and Mann et al 1998 in one package.

Golf Charlie

Why should anyone deny that temperatures can go down?

Plot GISTemp from 1940 to 1970 and you get a decreasing trend.

IIRC it even showed in the tree ring data. There is even a denier straw man which claims that the climate scientists tried to "hide the decline"

Of course, it didn't last. Global temperatures have warmed 0.8C since then.

There are several problems for climate scientists. The warming towards the end of last century had the same rate as warming earlier in the century. The long term trend was warming from the LIA. The warming towards the end of last century which is virtually all the warming that underpins alarmism was neither unprecedented or more extreme than previous temperatures.

They are unable to separate warming due to natural changes from warming due to AGW.

They cannot explain the the pause. They cannot find the hotspot. The models are wrong. The models cannot deal with clouds or storms or sea oscillations or cosmic dust or a myriad of other climate effects.

Some of the mechanisms are illogical such as the atmosphere warms the oceans.

Climate Science receives support from most other scientists because the latter accept peer reviewed conclusions in good faith. Most of those who take the trouble to delve deeper are usually horrified by the undeclared levels of uncertainty and the extent of pal review, massaged data and controversial assumptions.

Honest science is now catching up.

Meanwhile, as pointed out above, the political response in terms of renewable energy has almost destroyed the electricity grid in South Australia and in Germany. The political backlash has started, particularly in Germany. It will take some time to dismantle what has become a trillion dollar industry, but with more than 200 new sceptical papers per year the process has begun.

Schrodinger''s cat

Congratulations. I counted 11 incorrect statements in your last post.

Nov 20, 2017 at 8:21 PM | Entropic man

More made up statistical analysis?

Is that why Climate Science worries so much about Mann and the 97% Consensus?

Are you going to deny this too?
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/11/1978-steven-schneider-discusses-melting-the-polar-ice-cap-to-stop-the-new-ice-age/

Golf charlie, Radical rodent, Schrodinger's cat, Supertroll

I just read this.

politics has become not just polarised but tribal. We hunker down in groups of like-minded people and then we fight to protect that group.
As the political atmosphere grows more toxic, fuelled by social media that has made the debate more personal and vicious, we feel we have to fight even harder to protect our crowd.
That means relentlessly attacking the opposing camp and refusing to budge from our opinions in the face of inconvenient truths

You are fighting to protect your group against an outsider, myself.

If what I just read is correct then nothing I say is going to budge you from your group identity and the beliefs that go with it, regardless of the correctness or otherwise of your beliefs..

Should we continue this conversation? If yes, then by what ground rules?

If what I just read is correct then nothing I say is going to budge you from your group identity and the beliefs that go with it, regardless of the correctness or otherwise of your beliefs..

Should we continue this conversation? If yes, then by what ground rules?

Nov 20, 2017 at 10:57 PM | Entropic man

If you remain satisfied that Climate Science is still 100% correct, with its "Settled Science" and 97% Consensus, and that there are no faults or mistakes that need correcting, or significant Peer Reviewed Reports that need to be retracted, then what are you concerned about?

This thread has been an attempt to re-examine the science, looking for the problems that Climate Scientists won't admit. Where do you perceive the problem(s) to be?

Climate Science is now looking at a cash flow problem, as politicians lose faith in the Green Blob to ensure they keep their jobs. They are going to need some good evidence. Which are the good bits, and which bits would Climate Scientists prefer the World to forget, with or without having to admit to a single mistake or exaggeration?

Something else that Climate Scientists may have to deny being wrong about:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/20/global-climate-models-may-be-misjudging-methane-releases-into-the-atmosphere/

“We’ve always assumed that oxygen was toxic to all methanogens,” said Kelly Wrighton, project leader and professor of microbiology at Ohio State. “That assumption is so far entrenched in our thinking that global climate models simply don’t allow for methane production in the presence of oxygen. Our work shows that this way of thinking is outdated, and we may be grossly under-accounting for methane in our existing climate models.”

"Now, EM, do you care to list the incorrect statements, and why they are so? Let me start you off:"

I could only count 9 statements in cats's post so I think so he thinks every statement is wrong. So obviously he thinks the atmosphere heats the ocean which is a bonkers idea.

I am very happy to discuss the points one by one and to admit I got something wrong if there is convincing evidence to suggest that.

Schrodinger's cat

There was no pause.

The scientists got the measurements wrong.

It strikes me as ironic that the deniers did not believe the scientists when they said that the world is warming, but believedthem implicitly when the same scientists said there was a pause. Clear cognitive dissonance/confirmation bias thinking.