Rhoda, golf Charlie

Could one of you IT types do some maintainance on BH? I still have trouble getting the site to accept comments with links.

Realclimate Borehole.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/#comments

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/03/tamper-tamper-how-they-failed-to-hide-the-gulf-between-predicted-and-observed-warming/

Tamper, tamper! How They failed to hide the gulf between predicted and observed warming

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

"The indefatigable Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville is the first to declare the global temperature anomaly for December 2017. As Fig. 1 shows, in the 39 years 1 month from December 1978 to December 2017, the planet has warmed by half a Celsius degree. But that is equivalent to 1.28 C°/century, or little more than one-third of the 3.3 C°/century predicted with “substantial confidence” by IPCC in 1990 and also by the fifth-generation general-circulation models of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project in 2013."

Golf Charlie

You and Monkton may not have noticed, but even the early models did not predict that the rate of temperature change will be constant for the rest of the century.

They predict acceleration.

http://www.realclimate.org/images//Tglobal_verification_Hansen81.png

Perhaps you should contact Mr Monkton and point out his mistake.

Golf charlie

You might like to look at recent years in UAH.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2017_v6.jpg

Examine the red line, the running 13 month average. Between mid 2011 and December 2017 it has gone from anomaly 0C to 0.36C.

In 5 1/2 years it has increased by 0.36C. That is 0.65C/decade or 6.5C/century.

So wasn't Phil Clarke just here with an explanation in case temps go flat for sixteen years? Or are they accelerating? Either way the models will be justified by those who cannot let go of their CAGW faith. My prediction? I don't know. But I am able to admit it.

Tomo

Your American friends are already making that bet.

Hurricane Harvey $180billion

Hurricane Irma $110billion

By cutting back on climate mitigation measures and trying to boost fossil fuel burn Trump and his federal government are betting against AGW, assuming that costs like those from Harvey and Irma are one-offs.

How about a bet of your own? Beachfront properties in Miami Beach are easy to buy at present because of fears about sea-level rise, yet I don't see AGW deniers rushing to invest.

I like bets. How about this one.

On another discussion thread, "Natural Orbital Cycles, Solar Activity Cycles And Oceanic Cycles Are Mostly Driving The Climate" , Dr Norman Page predicted that UAH temperatures will drop to anomaly 0C by 2020. If the latest 13 month average on the UAH graph for July 2020 is lower than 0C I will pay £10 to the RNLI.

If it is above 0C you pay the same.

Galveston 1900. Climate change or not?

Any news of a cheap beachfront nproperty in Miami? I looked in Naples Fl when I was there after the last hurricane. Prices unaltered, business as usual for restaurants, hotels etc.

In 5 1/2 years it has increased by 0.36C. That is 0.65C/decade or 6.5C/century.

Jan 3, 2018 at 5:54 PM | Entropic man

Is that weather or climate?

You mention Hurricane Irma and Harvey, was it weather or climate that caused no hurricanes to make landfall on US soil for 10+ years? Did Insurers pay out for hurricane damage during that time, or give policy holders a refund or discount? Insurance Companies have made money out of charging extra premiums for all this extra weather that nobody has had.

tomo

Thank you. We have a bet. All we have to do now is avoid senility long enough to remember it until July 2020!

I've done my own numbers on this. Even a full Maunder Minimum would only produce 0.3C cooling, At the GISS warming rate of 0.18C/decade that offsets only 16 years of warming. At the UAH warming rate of 0.13C/decade that offsets 23 years.

Golf Charlie

Good to see that at least one sceptic has learned the difference between weather and climate. 🙂

This is the nature of the sceptic bet.

It is not just two hurricanes. The number of high cost weather/climate related events in the US is increasing in the longer term.

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/number-cost-of-weather-disasters-is-increasing-in-the-us

Trump is betting that we are not the cause. Personally I think he and his voters are stuck in the monkey trap.

Tomo

Escrow?

Whatever happened to the days when a gentleman's word was sufficient?

It is not just two hurricanes. The number of high cost weather/climate related events in the US is increasing in the longer term.

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/number-cost-of-weather-disasters-is-increasing-in-the-us

Trump is betting that we are not the cause. Personally I think he and his voters are stuck in the monkey trap.

Jan 4, 2018 at 12:26 PM | Entropic man

Climatecentral is not relable for such data.

Tomo

Bets are an old tradition in science. They tend to crystallise different views. Stephen Hawking has had several, and usually lost.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/539gbz/stephen-hawking-finally-won-one-of-his-famous-bets

I doubt that anyone will take David Rice's second bet.that the 2010s will be no warmer than the 2000s. The 2000-2009 decade averaged 0.59C. Eight years in, and with a provisional 2017 figure of 0.9C, the average for 2010-2017 is 0.75C.

For Rice to lose the bet, the two remaining years of the decade, 2018 and 2019, would have to average 0.55C. In the last decade there were four years below 0.55C. In this decade so far there have been none.

Rhoda

Lots of folks willing to sell cheap houses to optimists.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-19/the-nightmare-scenario-for-florida-s-coastal-homeowners

Jan 4, 2018 at 2:27 PM | Entropic man

But very few suckers have invested their own money in Unreliable Energy schemes as advocated by the Green Blob. People don't trust the maths and publicity machines like Bloomberg.

Golf Charlie

The data was compiled by the NOAA

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/

Are they unreliable?

After a while you learn to check Monckton's claims. After a small while longer you learn that they are nearly always false.

 But that is equivalent to 1.28 C°/century, or little more than one-third of the 3.3 C°/century predicted with “substantial confidence” by IPCC in 1990 and also by the fifth-generation general-circulation models of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project in 2013.

First, and minor point, the words 'substantial confidence' were not attached to any numerical prediction. Monckton has lifted and shifted from a completely different section. This one:

climate models are only as good as our understanding of the processes which they describe, and this is far from perfect The ranges in the climate predictions given above reflect the uncertainties due to model imperfections, the largest of these is cloud feedback (those factors affecting the cloud amount and distribution and the interaction of clouds with solar and terrestrial radiation), which leads to a factor of two uncertainty in the size of the warming Others arise from the transfer of energy between the atmosphere and ocean, the atmosphere and land surfaces, and between the upper and deep layers of the ocean The treatment of sea-ice and convection in the models is also crude Nevertheless, for reasons given in the box overleaf, we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad scale features of climate change

But the biggest error is the representation of Scenario A as the appropriate one for comparison to observations. The report gave projections for 4 scenarios, A-D. All IPCC reports do this - they cannot predict how fast concentrations GHGs will rise and so they give a number of trajectories, bracketing a range of likely outcomes.

But now with hindsight we can look back and see which Scenario came to pass, and although the report labels Scenario A as 'BAU', with rapid growth and minimal controls, in fact the actual trajectory was rather slower - somewhere between B&C.

What did these scenarios project in terms of global temperature?

under the other IPCC emission scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls rates of increase in global mean temperature of 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)

Which given Monckton's claim of a rate of 0.128C per decade, is not bad. But we can't have that can we? And so Monckton dishonestly airbrushes Scenarios B, C and D from history.

If you require confirmation, I refer you to this quote

I had not recalled that IPCC had made its 1 k by 2025 prediction under Scenario A. However, Scenario A was its business-as-usual scenario, and it had incorrectly predicted  a far greater rate of forcing, and hence of temperature change, than actually occurred

Which was from Lord Moncton posting at WUWT.

So, by his own admission he is using for comparison the wrong scenario.

Always best to check.

Just an aside about hurricane costs. Relatives have a house in Naples Fl. (gulf coast, far nicer than Miami). A quote to replace the roof before the hurricane (Florida roofs do not last, they need replacing every few years) was $15K. Afterwards it was $22K, same job, not possible until June/July. The dollar cost of hurricanes goes up and up. Also insurance adjusters are overwhelmed, and lots of folks who need a new roof anyway put a claim in.

The cost in lives is another thing. Galveston 1900 was 6-12000. Irma in 2017 was around 80, which includes things like crashes in the evacuation. That is the real cost, not some inflated dollar number.

It is all weather. All of it. Hurricanes, typhoons, monsoons, cold, hot. If it's not unprecedented, it's weather. If it is, it's still weather.

Which given Monckton's claim of a rate of 0.128C per decade, is not bad. But we can't have that can we? And so Monckton dishonestly airbrushes Scenarios B, C and D from history.
Jan 4, 2018 at 3:25 PM | Phil Clarke

Have you forgotten how much history Mann airbrushed, to produce his Hockey Stick graph, complete with Peer Approval, for the IPCC?

Why should Climate Science be trusted to report accurately about anything, with such a proven record of lies?

Have you forgotten how much history Mann airbrushed, to produce his Hockey Stick graph, complete with Peer Approval, for the IPCC?

Yes. Please refresh my memory.

https://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/hans-oeschger/2012/michael-mann/

Jan 5, 2018 at 12:49 AM | Phil Clarke

Does that take pride of place, now he can't keep claiming a Nobel Prize?

Mann was a co-Author of Harvey et al 2017, described by Judith Curry@curryja

"This is absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen publishedacademic.oup.com/bioscience/adv… pic.twitter.com/XnuRZDrsUt"

'(apart from prescribed charity "fun")'

Nailed it. A perfect description of a phenomenon which is designed to turn even starry-eyed me into an ever-so-slight cynic.

So, a terminological error and coauthorship of a paper that JC doesn't like.

Neither of which is actually about the Hockey Stick.

On the IPCC's Nobel Prize Guidance

There has been some confusion with respect to the proper terminology to be used in connection with the contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that resulted in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to that organization. I am writing to try to clear up that confusion.

After the receipt of the award, the IPCC sent certificates to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, and IPCC staff congratulating them for “contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC.” A number of IPCC authors, including myself, understood from this commendation that it was appropriate to state that we either "shared" or were a "co-recipient" of the award.

To clarify the proper terminology to be used, IPCC has issued guidance regarding the matter. I also understand that the Norwegian Nobel Institute’s director, Geir Lundestad, has confirmed that the IPCC’s guidance is correct. Needless to say, I couldn’t be prouder of our contribution and the recognition that the IPCC received for its work.