The Pause comes of age: no child has seen any global warming.

58 Responses to The Pause comes of age: no child has seen any global warming.

1. Drewski says:

   3 October 2014 at 10:06

   There has been no STATISTICAL global surface warming since the largest temperature anomaly of the 20th century which sceptics seem to think is a great starting point. To be more precise, there has been 0.14 degrees warming in that period over land (0.15 is the point of statistical relevance). So, in reality, it could have warmed 0.29C or cooled -0.01C) since the hottest year of the 20th century.
   However, oceans should be part of the discussion because they are are also part of the earth and they have warmed up recently. And that is really big deal because it takes 1000 times more energy to warm them up then it does surface air.
   BTW, although there may not have been any statistical warming over the past 18 years, we have experienced all of the hottest 15 years in the temperature record during that time. We have also had almost 30 straight years where each and every month has been warmer than that corresponding month (February or June or whatever month) 20th century average. Statisticians tell us that the odds of that happening NATURALLY are greater than the number of sand grains on all the beaches of the world or greater than the number of stars in our galaxy.
   You have to have a very tall ladder to cherry pick the data that tells you that man-made global warming is a myth.
2. scottishsceptic says:

   3 October 2014 at 11:27

   In 2001 the IPCC said warming of between 0.14 & 0.58 per decade was certainly going to happen.
   It hasnt’t.
   Sceptics said that prediction wasn’t based on science and was therefore likely to be wrong.
   You and your sort then said that we should be sent to death camps and tatooed for “denying” the “science”.
   It turned out that we were right.
   Whatever way you look at it, there’s been no warming recently. There is no global warming and we sceptics were very right to highlight the lack of any real science behind these non-science predictions.
3. Drewski says:

   3 October 2014 at 13:59

   The IPCC (hundreds of scientists from 20+ science fields and interested observers) give estimates of what could occur in different scenarios. They certainly never say something will definitely happen or not happen — that would be unscientific.
   Surface warming is at the low end of their predictions, but then again, Arctic melting is way beyond their expectations. Models are never perfect but they are an indispensable part of science as well as industry. They require better observations to become better predictors. For example, we need more and better temperature buoys in the oceans to understand where the extra energy is going (because extra energy is definitely entering the system). This information will lead to better modeling. But, it is ignorant to say that, at the moment, they have failed.
4. scottishsceptic says:

   3 October 2014 at 14:42

   No they are not scientists. A scientist is someone who uses the scientific method which is that when a hypothesis fails to predict the real world, then that hypothesis is invalid.
   And saying surface warming is at the low-end, is like saying someone is a little bit dead.
   The real difference between a science and what the IPCC does, is that in real science people look forward to getting more data because it will improve their confidence.
   But in the bogus hocus pocus non-science of the IPCC they start off telling everyone its “unequivocal”, and then they hate every new bit of data and deny the clear trend … because it rightly makes everyone less and less confident in the bunch of Carletons.
5. Drewski says:

   3 October 2014 at 16:06

   Have you ever read an IPCC report? It reads nothing like you state. They don’t start out saying anything — they start with discussions of hundreds of papers compiled by dozens of scientific disciplines. It takes months to come to conclusions and along the way, scientists and sceptics alike make observations and provide input. The fact that so many different fields with contributors from virtually every country on earth and with such varying opinions can come to any conclusion at all is a minor miracle. But they do, in fact their confidence has increased with each and every report over these past 25 years.
   BTW, what data is out there that the IPCC is denying? Who came up with this data? Has it been peer-reviewed and is it published anywhere?
   Citations would be helpful.
6. scottishsceptic says:

   3 October 2014 at 17:17

   Of course I’ve read the IPCC report. E.g. I spent a lot of time looking for the bit where it actually mentions the warming effect of CO2.
   That’s in a footnote in previous report – but they don’t even mention how much CO2 ON ITS OWN is predicted to cause warming.
   THAT IS THE ONLY SCIENCE THERE IS IN THE DAMNED SCANDAL! And they hide it – because the real data does not help their environmental activism.
   “in fact their confidence has increased with each and every report over these past 25 years.” … as their predictions prove to be further and further from the truth, they have FRAUDULENTLY increased their confidence that their predictions are right.
   That’s all anyone needs to know about them.
7. Drewski says:

   3 October 2014 at 17:36

   Nothing fraudulent about it (you guys love to use that term don’t you?). It is, in fact, empirical knowledge that has continued to win over more and more scientists, multi-national corporations and governments. Each IPCC report and each new study by the dozens of science disciplines builds upon the last. That is why you don’t see the original Hockey Stick in the latest IPCC report. It is not because of the ridiculous and unfounded claim that the IPCC has abandoned it, but because there is NEW evidence that needs to be highlighted.
   It just amazes me that you will believe a scientist when his job involves anything but climate even though the very same science that is used in making better fertilizers, for example, is also used in determining the change in ocean acidity.
   And, BTW, climatology, as in other earth sciences, is NOT based upon predictions but on observations.
8. scottishsceptic says:

   3 October 2014 at 21:47

   Saying a prediction is more certain at a time when the evidence showed that the predictions were failing was clearly dishonest. And there was clearly financial gain for those telling this lie. So it wass using dishonesty to obtain money which is fraud.
   Moreover, this was not an academic report. Instead it was a report specifically intended to advise policy makers. Therefore, the standard is that of any other consultant giving advice – which is that they owe a duty of care to their client (the governments) to give truthful advice that was fit for purpose as a basis for policy.
   This is entirely different from an academic paper. An academic paper is not policy advice. In contrast the IPCC document was given to governments specifically for policy.
   When that advice was clearly wrong and those giving the advice clearly benefited financially from that advice, then it is clearly a matter for police investigation.
9. Drewski says:

   3 October 2014 at 23:58

   Your entire argument about ‘failed’ predictions hinges in the relevance of a single facet of observations — namely that the land surface (30% of the globe) has not STATISTICALLY warmed since the largest temperature spike of the previous century. If the recorded warming was 0.01 degree more over that period then it would have met that criteria. And don’t forget that during this same period we have more and stronger La Ninas and no strong El Ninos and, yet, 2005 and 2010 were still warmer than 1998 (plus we have had many other “top 10” years during this period as well).
   Why do you ignore Earth’s other “thermometers” like sea level rise or melting glaciers and ice caps or warming oceans or sustained heat waves or migrating plants and animals?
10. scottishsceptic says:

    4 October 2014 at 16:25

    It’s not warmed since they made the prediction in 2001, it certainly hasn’t warmed by the lowest level they said.
    They chose what to predict, they said it would certainly be right. I’ve just pointing out that they were certainly wrong.
11. Drewski says:

    5 October 2014 at 02:18

    Correction: To be accurate, you should say that there has been no STATISTICAL warming (to the 0.15 degree level) for land-based surface measurements.
    However we have had every year, except 2009, ranked in the top 15 hottest years during that period which makes the past decade the hottest decade in the record books. It is also a period which has had no strong El Ninos but strong La Ninas, a very deep and sustained solar minimum and where the Arctic has lost 50% of it mass.
    To say it has not warmed is to ignore a huge amount of information.
12. scottishsceptic says:

    5 October 2014 at 04:54

    What statistical test are you using?
    To be accurate you should YOU should say “we don’t have a clue what is normal so we are talking out our back sides when we say things have been abnormal”.
    And if you had any clue what you were talking about you would know that “it’s been the hottest/coldest period for a while” – tells you far more about the kind of natural variation present in the system than anything about human influence.
    So, keep proving to me, that the last people that should advise governments are people like you.
    If you look at the climate at any timescale, you will see that it varies, and you will also see that that variation increases THE LONGER THE PERIOD. So, EVERYTHING that has happened is entirely consistent with that known natural variation.
    And when you try to attack me by suggesting it was a strong “El Nino” year, you very ably demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the climate, because that “El Nino” is natural variation. El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and all the other “Oscillations” are nothing of the sort. They are just the most obvious expression of natural variation.
    And the sad thing is that you are so completely ignorant of the concept of natural variation that you will not have a clue what I’m talking about. It really is like talking to some primitive tribesman speaking with you!
13. Drewski says:

    5 October 2014 at 12:32

    “What statistical test are you using?”
    I am using the convention that the margin of error is 0.15 degrees + or -. So the surface warming of land (using the combined land-based thermometers from JAXA, NASA, NOAA and HadCru) show a warming of 0.14 degrees per decade since the peak of the temperature spike of late last century that sceptics like to use as their starting point for measuring the temperature trends. That means that sceptics can “truthfully” say that there has been no warming for 18 years because it is STATISTICALLY true although just barely.
    And, boy, do they like to say it.
14. Drewski says:

    5 October 2014 at 12:43

    BTW, natural variation is a concept that earth scientists are familiar with. One very big reason that scientists are so confident of man-made global warming is because we have had a couple of intense and sustained solar minimums over the past 2 decades and yet temperatures continue to rise. And we could dispense with El Ninos, if you prefer, but then you would have to do away with the El Nino temperature spike of last century that you use as your starting point to establish a trend.
    However, that would also mean you would have to retract a lot of disingenuous headlines regarding the lack of warming.
15. scottishsceptic says:

    5 October 2014 at 22:03

    You haven’t a clue what statistical test is being used have you!
16. scottishsceptic says:

    5 October 2014 at 22:04

    Nor do you understand natural variation!
    Natural variation come from within a system not from external forcings!
17. Drewski says:

    5 October 2014 at 23:11

    “Natural variation come from within a system not from external forcings!”
    All variation comes from forcings of one sort or another and earth’s environment is constantly being influenced by “external” events such as plate tectonics, solar radiation, a wobble in Earth’s orbit, airplane chem trails, cloud seeding, ozone depletion, effluent dumping, CO2 emissions, dam building, deforestation, acid rain, you-name-it.
    How exactly can you separate out external forcings from the environment?
18. scottishsceptic says:

    6 October 2014 at 08:10

    Yet again you show how little you know.
    Natural variation is variation from within the system not variation from external forcing.
    El Nino is one manifestation of that natural variation – or are you suggesting that’s caused by the sun?
19. Drewski says:

    6 October 2014 at 08:45

    “Natural variation is variation from within the system not variation from external forcing. El Nino is one manifestation of that natural variation – or are you suggesting that’s caused by the sun?”
    Of course El Nino is affected by the sun (as is our entire biosphere). Oceans absorb solar radiation and depending how much radiation is absorbed, you will have trade winds or not (changing trade winds is a pre-curser to an El Nino event), ice coverage or not, rainfall or not, not to mention a change in current temperatures which in turn changes their dynamics.
    I am amazed that you had to ask that question.
20. scottishsceptic says:

    6 October 2014 at 09:22

    Are you suggesting that natural variation as we see in one of its manifestations in El Nino is driven by variation in solar activity?
    And if not, where does this natural variation come from?
21. Drewski says:

    6 October 2014 at 09:51

    Whatever is not man-made or artificial is natural. Natural variations are caused by forcings — cause and effect. This includes plate tectonics, cosmic rays, a change in the Earth’s orbit or tilt, solar radiation, etc.
    A change in solar radiation changes the energy within the system and as El Nino is an energetic event, then of course El Ninos — their strength and, probably, their rate of occurrence — are affected by solar radiation.
    Or do you believe we had El Nino events during the epoch of frozen oceans due to less solar radiation?
22. scottishsceptic says:

    6 October 2014 at 10:04

    One of the simplest forms of natural variation is that random distribution means that extreme values just happen to be where you are measuring them.
    Another form, is that natural changes in e.g. cloud levels affect the flow of heat.
    These aren’t driven by anything – they just are naturally occurring variation.
    There is no “cause and effect” – unless you delve down in the almost infinite number of different things that contribute to natural variation.
    And yes, solar forcing can effect El Nino – like it affects any other part of the heat engine we call climate.
    And no, I’m not going to go into the exact nature of El Nino, because you’ve got such a closed mind and such a fixed outlook, that it would be pointless trying to explain it to you.
23. Drewski says:

    6 October 2014 at 11:27

    All the cogs on heaven and earth are moved by cause and effect.
    If you don’t believe that then, yes, it would be pointless to try and explain anything to anybody.
24. scottishsceptic says:

    6 October 2014 at 12:47

    Haven’t you heard of quatum mechanics or the wave particle duality or Schroedinger’s cat?
    What causes a photon to “go through” one slit rather than another? The answer is that we don’t know which slit it goes through.
    And just as asking “which slit did it go through” is a faintly ridiculous question, so trying to link cause and effect with natural variation is totally unproductive and leads to ridiculous assertions and total claptrap from those who try.
    “If you don’t believe that then, yes, it would be pointless to try and explain anything to anybody.”
    We are not trying to explain something, we are trying to predict the climate. We don’t need to know which slit a photo “goes through” in order to predict the pattern of light after those slits. Likewise, there is no need to know what “causes” natural variation in order to predict how it behaves.
25. Drewski says:

    6 October 2014 at 23:03

    “Likewise, there is no need to know what “causes” natural variation in order to predict how it behaves.”
    I am flabbergasted.
    Now I know why you disdain academics and earth sciences.
26. scottishsceptic says:

    7 October 2014 at 08:34

    Unlike you and you narrow minded thinking, Science, understanding and the narrow minded thinking of academia is just one of the tools in my toolbox.
27. Drewski says:

    7 October 2014 at 14:26

    With your statement: “Likewise, there is no need to know what “causes” natural variation in order to predict how it behaves.”, “narrow-minded” is now measured in nano meters.
28. scottishsceptic says:

    7 October 2014 at 18:04

    Somehow your responses are so predictable.
29. Drewski says:

    8 October 2014 at 08:19

    scottishsceptic: “Somehow your responses are so predictable.”
    Well, I certainly can’t say the same about you. Your comment that it is unnecessary to know the cause of an event in order to predict its effects has half my department scratching their head in puzzlement and the other half shaking their heads in wonder.
30. scottishsceptic says:

    8 October 2014 at 08:30

    You should get their head lice treated. Leave it too long and it will rot their brains and make you believe in complete non-science … but perhaps it’s already beyond that stage!
    You just typify why we have to lock up academics in their ivory towers and let the rest of us run the real world. They haven’t a clue how to handle real world situations where you need to assess an issue without understanding it.
    It’s what every doctor does when you go and say “I don’t feel well”. They don’t do an MMR scan for every patient that comes in – but if they were an academic – they couldn’t even prescribe a placebo without “understanding” what was wrong.
31. Drewski says:

    8 October 2014 at 09:10

    So your solution for “real world” problems is to de-educate?
    And I don’t agree with your comparison of global warming with a patient not “feeling well”. A doctor (if he/she is at all capable) would ask where does it hurt, how severe is the pain and how long have you had it. The symptoms would give him/her an idea of the “cause” of the problem. And if any of the patient’s answers deviate from common problems that the doctor is well acquainted with (i.e a bout of flu making the rounds, too much wine the night before, old left-overs for dinner, etc), then he/she would very likely investigate further.
    Medicine is, after all, a science.
32. scottishsceptic says:

    8 October 2014 at 11:04

    A doctor uses the same approach to treating patients as any other engineer. And in the real world of 10minute appointments & limited money you are yet again talking bollocks.
    I have 3 doctors and 3 vets in my immediate family. They tell me that they cannot possible know what is wrong with each patient after a 10minute consultation, but miraculous, almost all of them get better.
    In most cases, all people want to know is that what they have “is not serious” – so after checking for something serious, and being able to reassure the patient that is is not serious, most patients really don’t care what it is so long as they do get better.
33. Drewski says:

    8 October 2014 at 11:35

    “almost all of them get better”. Great, I guess. and if one dies, oh well, humanity survives.
    And what about the man (we will call him S. Keptic) who has a high temperature, even though everything is normal in his life EXCEPT the lounge heater which has been acting up and making funny smells recently? Does the man then tell the doctor the is certain that can’t be the reason he is feeling poorly and then complain about the cost of repairing the heater? And when the qualified gas fitter examines the heater and says that it is releasing carbon monoxide, does the man then accuse the tradesman of saying those things just to get money and then go to the internet and write that the gas fitter and his plumber and construction friends are making up stories in order to scare the neighbors just so they can get more repair jobs?
    My personal opinion is that you should take your health seriously and listen to a QUALIFIED doctor, particularly if you happen to be a planet and 7 billion people depend on you.
34. scottishsceptic says:

    8 October 2014 at 11:39

    What do you think most doctors would say if you went to them in perfect health with a 0.7C temperature saying you thought everything was much much worse and the world was heading to doomsday?
    … “Not another hypochondriac!”
35. Drewski says:

    8 October 2014 at 12:37

    Suppose the patient’s temperature jumped up that much within the past day (equating to geological time) and ALL the medical specialists in EVERY sub-specialty of medicine from EVERY hospital in the city is telling the man that his temperature will become life threatening unless he fixes that heater ASAP.
    Do you think Mr S. Keptic is being rational by going home, cranking up the heater, and listen to his uneducated drinking buddy tell him that doctors just want to take all his money?
36. scottishsceptic says:

    8 October 2014 at 13:26

    Your analogy is completely wrong. Your “everyone” would be some academics in a university who’ve never seen a real patient in their lives. Who have never once correctly predicted the temperature and who have a vast self-interested in promoting the scare.
    Very much like the bird flue scare!
    And all the practitioners – all the engineers, doctors, and private sector academics are laughing at the twits in the University for being such idiots – until they see how much money the stupid politicians are pouring at them for all the vaccines which then prove to be totally ineffective.
    You are an academic – you have never once treated a patient! And listening to your advice on treating the planet is about as intelligent as listening to those drug “scientists” who told us we needed bird flu vaccine.
37. Drewski says:

    8 October 2014 at 15:14

    scottishsceptic; “Your analogy is completely wrong. Your “everyone” would be some academics in a university who’ve never seen a real patient in their lives. ”
    Actually, in my analogy, the ones “who’ve never seen a real patient in their lives” would be the climate sceptics.
    The people who climb the mountains, row the boats, weather the extremes of this earth, take the measurements, who do the research, who are in the field — THE ONES WHO TAKE TEST THE BLOOD AND TAKE THE TEMPERATURE OF PATIENT EARTH — these are the very ones who are warning you about the health of the planet.
    I repeat (from a different post): “Can you name ONE (1) scientific organization ANYWHERE IN THIS WORLD that does original research and disagrees with the theory of man-made global warming?
38. anng says:

    8 October 2014 at 15:24

    Drewski,
    You’re changing the goal-posts. The Chair of the IPCC had a radio interview in which he stated that natural variability had been under-estimated – which is all sceptics were saying in the 1st place.
    Your Quantum Mechanics example is incomplete. Quantum Mechanics includes a probability distribution for where the photon is.
    That shows you what the problem with climate science is. It doesn’t have the probability distributions. It doesn’t understand what all the different possible natural variability mechanisms are – just look at IPCC’s list of ‘very uncertain’ or ‘uncertain’ (i.e. unknown) issues are – clouds, aerosols, volcanos, sun’s magnetism variability etc.
    Above all else, it’s climate models can’t reproduce the past.
39. scottishsceptic says:

    8 October 2014 at 15:54

    Sceptics almost all have more than 15 years experience of real life science.
    Can you name me one climate sceptic that disagrees with the theory of man-made global warming?
    97% of climate scientists agree it warmed in the 20th century
    but
    98% of sceptics agree it warmed.
    This shows that 50% more academics cannot tick the right box.
40. Drewski says:

    8 October 2014 at 16:04

    I am the one changing the goal posts? That is an extra-ordinary thing to say.
    I am not the one to state that Michael Mann lied because he was not the subject of any UK inquiry, then completely ignore the evidence that showed he was mentioned 80 times in just one of them.
    I am not the one to accuse climate scientists of rejecting evidence, then fail to elaborate what that evidence is.
    Or to say that they are making money from the “scam” then never mention exactly who pays them, how much they are paid or why they would be paid.
    I am not the one to write dozens of convoluted articles on the evils of climate scientists EACH OF WHICH HAS DIFFERENT GOAL POSTS (Wikipedia, no warming, Michael Mann, etc, etc).
    Now you are apparently hop-scotching over to “climate models can’t reproduce the past”. You are the climate sceptic version of “Whack-a-Mole”.
41. scottishsceptic says:

    8 October 2014 at 16:07

    Anng, I suspect the biggest difference is that climate academics said: “it’s all manmade unless the sceptics can show otherwise”. Whereas the sceptics said: “the null hypothesis is that it is natural, until there is compelling evidence to show otherwise”.
    We were just lucky that natural variation just happened to produce a nice long pause which no one who expected to be listened to could deny.
42. Drewski says:

    8 October 2014 at 16:09

    Sorry, just realized that I responded to the wrong person (below). Surprised to find another person on this site.
43. Drewski says:

    8 October 2014 at 16:14

    scottishsceptic: “it’s all manmade unless the sceptics can show otherwise”
    Just more non-referenced gobbledygook. I am still waiting for a citation for the “evidence” that the IPCC has ignored.
44. scottishsceptic says:

    8 October 2014 at 16:27

    Drewski, please stop being an idiot.
    The UK inquiries only had a remit of investigating the UK Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.
    The key paper was produce by Mann * Bradley (Massachusetts) and Hughs (Arizona). And unless Massachusetts or Arizona have miraculously become part of the UK whilst I was not looking, Mann is telling a lie if he says those UK inquiries vindicated the work in that paper.
    And that is an end to it.
45. scottishsceptic says:

    8 October 2014 at 16:34

    After every single one of their models failed to predict the 18 years of no warming you ask me to cite the very same fraudsters who said they could predict the climate.
    The evidence is clear. They universally predicted warming and said they were certain that it was caused by mankind. Then it didn’t warm – and then they increased their confidence in human causation.
    When models fail to predict the real world, confidence in those models MUST GO DOWN.
    But not in the crazy delusional world of climate academics where their confidence only goes up despite the evidence.
46. anng says:

    8 October 2014 at 16:50

    I was writing about the surface temperature predictions. After the long pause, we’re now told the prediction included the deep oceans. Not a whisper of that before-hand.
    It’s the behaviour that puzzles me – having a go at people & name-calling them doesn’t engender trust.
    Why on earth do you remind me of Michael Mann’s behaviour? I really don’t want to know.
    There was a UK legal enquiry done by lawyers, with the result that none of the UK guys at University of East Anglia broke UK law and also didn’t break the University rules. It was not about the science.
47. anng says:

    8 October 2014 at 16:57

    ScottishSceptic,
    The biggest difference is that sceptics don’t get so worked up.
    CO2 worriers won the UN resolution years ago. Any dilly-dallying is down to the cost of replacing fossil fuels – nothing to do with the science. Yet they still get worked up.
48. Drewski says:

    8 October 2014 at 18:00

    [Snip]
    I said this was closed and I’m not wasting my time arguing against absurd nonsense.
49. Drewski says:

    8 October 2014 at 18:04

    Not a whisper- eh?
    You are sure about that? Because, I can find references going back decades. It is quite common knowledge that water absorbs heat more effectively than land and seeing that the Earth’s surface is 70% water, it is unquestionably part of every climate model for as long as they have been making them.
50. Drewski says:

    8 October 2014 at 18:09

    What has the UN got to do with renewable energy? The UN sponsors the IPCC which is a panel on climate change. Individual governments decide on their individual energy requirements which may take into account the harmful effects of carbon pollution. For example, India has just announced a $100 billion dollar plan to become the world’s renewable energy super power.
51. anng says:

    8 October 2014 at 18:14

    scottishsceptic,
    I want to reconsider my last reply. I studied mathematical physics at university. Although I have had a career in engineering, I’m still hooked on the precision of maths and physics – the ‘hard’ sciences.
    The folk who developed Quantum Mechanics were quite often laughed at and in general not believed until they came up with some behaviour predictions which hadn’t been already tried and lots of other groups of researchers had confirmed it worked.
    You can’t do that with climate. But you could frame your predictions rather better. I mean, did nobody think the the atmosphere itself might react to CO2 in some unthought-of way?
    Because CO2 can radiate infrared, I didn’t question the assertions of CO2-driven warming until I heard that ice-cores showed co2 increases a few hundred years after warming rather than before. Then Al Gore came out stuff about polar bears when the Inuit said they had been increasing since the ban on hunting plus stuff about the Arctic being warmer than ever before when it must have been warmer when the Vikings were sailing it. Not to mention the glacier gaffe when the Alps were just melting to uncover 13th century hunters and the Romans don’t seem to have noticed any.
    It seems I had assumed that scientists understood a lot more about the atmosphere than they actually do.
52. scottishsceptic says:

    8 October 2014 at 21:37

    In the early days climate was very much the “media studies” of science – trendy but otherwise devoid of much talent.
    So, none of them understand that if you cannot predict the climate in the short term you haven’t a hope in the long-term.
    Instead they arrogantly make predictions over timescales that have never been attempted before and claim their predictions are “unequivocally” certain.
53. Drewski says:

    9 October 2014 at 00:08

    By that logic, the unexpected increase in Arctic ice loss and the percentage of glaciers which are in retreat, would mean that scientists should HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE.
    This is the trouble you get yourself into when you choose to harp on and on about predictions from a SINGLE AREA of research which only covers 30% of the the lower troposphere in any case. And then you choose to ignore the footnotes in these predictions such as the series of La Ninas, the huge brown clouds of reflective particulates hanging over south Asia and the deep solar minimums during the same period.
    And, BTW, your characterization of “the crazy delusional world of climate academics ” happens to contain all the reputable scientific organizations in the world that carries out experimentation and field work. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
    Delusional is an appropriate word, only you have misplaced its emphasis.
54. anng says:

    9 October 2014 at 13:55

    scottishsceptic,
    The band-wagon that’s been set in place seems to encourage the nasty ranting & politics. But I don’t like being insulted by ignorant politicians as a ‘denier of climate change’ when I’m in plant-environment-improvement meetings just because I worry about cooling as well as warming.
    The IPCC Report does include the uncertainties e.g. it explains the models failure to predict the pause as either unknown natural variability, flaws in key parameters, or model structural flaws. Couldn’t put it better myself. Pity individual advocates aren’t as honest.
55. Drewski says:

    10 October 2014 at 07:35

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:
    Global Highlights
    The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), topping the previous record set in 1998.
    The global land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), the second highest on record for August, behind 1998.
    For the ocean, the August global sea surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F). This record high departure from average not only beats the previous August record set in 2005 by 0.08°C (0.14°F), but also beats the previous all-time record set just two months ago in June 2014 by 0.03°C (0.05°F).
    The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for the June–August period was also record high for this period, at 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), beating the previous record set in 1998.
    The June–August worldwide land surface temperature was 0.91°C (1.64°F) above the 20th century average, the fifth highest on record for this period. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average, the highest on record for June–August. This beats the previous record set in 2009 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).
    The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for January–August (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.3°F), the third highest for this eight-month period on record.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
56. scottishsceptic says:

    10 October 2014 at 07:40

    Boring! For the last 18 years they’ve been predicting that “this will be the warmest on record”. Am I supposed to be impressed if (and usually this kind of claim doesn’t stack up) … if a mere 5% of forecasts are right?
    I can get a much higher success rate if I predict rain each and every day.
57. anng says:

    10 October 2014 at 09:39

    scottishsceptic,
    What do you think of the following paper:-
    Wang, X.L., Feng, Y. and Vincent, L.A. 2014. Observed changes in one-in-20 year extremes of Canadian surface air temperatures. Atmosphere-Ocean 52: 222-231.
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07055900.2013.818526
    where they conclude “Overall, our results are consistent with those reported in previous studies, particularly in the sense that Canada has become much less cold but not much hotter.”
    It feels right to me that carbon-dioxide should have an effect at night, but be totally swamped when the sun’s out. Then, average temperatures would hardly move over much of the earth.
58. Drewski says:

    10 October 2014 at 10:12

    The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was RECORD HIGH for the month, at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), topping the previous record set in 1998.
    For the ocean, the August global sea surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F). This RECORD HIGH departure from average not only beats the previous August record set in 2005 by 0.08°C (0.14°F), but also beats the previous all-time record set just two months ago in June 2014 by 0.03°C (0.05°F).
    The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for the June–August period was also RECORD HIGH for this period, at 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), beating the previous record set in 1998.
    We have had no strong El Ninos and we have had deep and enduring solar minimums yet we continue to break land AND ocean heat records just as the model predicted.
    What do you think “causes” us to break heat records at 3 times the rate we are setting cold records?

Comments are closed.