upon reading this... I must clarify. because I may have been carried away. I know the temps the models were modeled on were not ocean temps. I also know the models failed. I am not sure if they were model temperature over land or the combined temps. I will look that up. here is a well known pro agw scientist Has Von Storch scientist telling you the models have all but failed miserably. (and this was 2 years ago.) Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year. SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now? Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase. SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts? Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations. http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
But there was no pause in the heating of the earth. At all. In fact the rate of heat gain went up during that period. You still seem confused about this basic issue. When you are wrong on this basic issue there is little reason to listen to anything else you say.
Yes, Oreskes underestimated the consensus. It's really 100%. Except for the Russian oil guy. NO climatologist denies it. None.
The basic problem with climate science is that they run their models without proper controls. It's not the computers or the measuring equipment that causes the problem, it's the researchers. A fact of science (which people outside the field seem unaware of) is that science is done by humans and humans are subject to human nature. One of those human tendencies is "confirmation bias". This is the tendency of a human to believe data which supports his beliefs and to reject data which is contradictory to it. The early elementary particle experimenters (acting like climate scientists of today) failed to take this into account and they ended up with screw-ups that, in hindsight, were easily predicted as a consequence of human nature. And this was in the field of elementary particles! Climate science is far worse because of the emotional and political content. Here's a (peer reviewed of course) paper on the subject. It mentions the importance of "blind analysis", a concept that is not used in climate science: A selected history of expectation bias in physics Monwhea Jeng, Am. J. Phys. 74, 578 (2006). The beliefs of physicists can bias their results towards their expectations in a number of ways. We survey a variety of historical cases of expectation bias in observations, experiments, and calculations. ... More subtle errors occurred in the searches for free quarks by Fairbank and his collaborators [20]. They measured the charges on several niobium spheres, obtaining ... in excellent agreement with the fractional charges of +-e/3 expected for quarks. However, other experimenters failed to find evidence of free quarks. The calculations needed to turn Fairbank's raw data into charges was quite complex, and it was suggested that the Fairbanks group might have been unconsciously biased by their expectations when doing them. The Fairbanks group thus did a "blind" analysis. To do this, they added a random offset to their original data, and recalculated all charges without knowing the value of this offset. Only when all calculations were completed was the offset revealed and removed. When this was done the calculated charges ... did not agree with the quark model, or indeed, any major theoretical model. This case, and other cases of blind analysis in physics, can be found in the book by Franklin.[20] ... In other cases, experimenter bias is clear, but it is more difficult to identify precisely where the bias crept in. When, in 1915, Einstein and de Haas performed the first experiments measuring the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron, they expected, on the basis of their models, to find a g-factor of g = 1. We know today that the correct value is roughly 2, yet Einstein and de Haas obtained 1.02+-0.01 [21]! Around the same time, the American scientist Barnett independently did two sets of experiments on magnetism and found g=2.0 and g=2.3. But after hearing of the results of Einstein and de Haas, Barnett repeated his experiments, and then reported that g was between 1.1 and 1.4, stating that 1.0 was within his error bars. ... A very enjoyable history of this episode, as well as the already-mentioned Millikan "birth cry of the atoms" episode, can be found in the book by Galison [21]. Galison speculated that Einstein and de Haas may have unintentionally corrected for systematic errors in a biased fashion, fixing systematic errors that led to higher values of g, but leaving alone ones that led to lower values of g. ... [20]A. Franklin, Selectivity and Discord: Two Problems of Experiment (University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 2002), chapter 6. [21]P. Galison, How Experiments End (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987). ... http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508199 Here are some examples of how big physics avoids experimental bias at the largest physics experiments done on the planet: Blinding and unblinding analyses Compact Muon Solenoid (CERN) CMS performs searches for new particles by looking for signals amidst a background of known physics. If the data begin to indicate something more interesting than merely background – for instance, more decay events than expected in a certain region – it is important to make to make sure that the observation is statistically significant by collecting and analysing more data. “There is however a human tendency, sometimes at a subconscious level, to optimise one’s analysis based on what is already seen,” says Albert De Roeck, co-convener for the CMS Higgs group. To avoid such bias while analysing new data, physicists draw “blinds” over the region where an excess of decay events is expected; this region is only “unblinded” when they are satisfied with their procedures. This ensures objectivity when it comes to looking for much-sought-after signs of new physics, and gives confidence in the ultimate result. The procedure is similar to that used by medical researchers when testing a new treatment. ... To cross-check all the details, the various steps involved in the analysis procedures are usually carried out by at least two independent teams. If both teams see similar results in the background region, the analysis is signed off by the wider collaboration. It is only after the sign-off that the signal region is unblinded. The results of the unblinding are put through further scrutiny by the collaboration before being are made public. http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/blinding-and-unblinding-analyses "Blind injection" stress-tests LIGO and VIRGO's search for gravitational waves The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration completed an end-to-end system test of their detection capabilities at their recent joint collaboration meeting in Arcadia, CA. Analysis of data from LIGO and Virgo's most recent observation run revealed evidence of the elusive signal from a neutron star spiraling into a black hole. The collaboration knew that the "detection" could be a "blind injection" -- a fake signal added to the data without telling the analysts, to test the detector and analysis. Nonetheless, the collaboration proceeded under the assumption that the signal was real, and wrote and approved a scientific paper reporting the ground-breaking discovery. A few moments later, according to plan, it was revealed that the signal was indeed a blind injection. http://www.ligo.org/news/blind-injection.php Modern Methods of Data Analysis Lecture XIII (21.01.08), Blind Analysis, Emmy Noether Programm Blind analysis are commonly used since about 10 years ago (Babar experiment (SLAC) pushed forward its extensive use). ... Experimenter bias occurs when human behavior enters the equation. Typical Sources For Bias Looking for bugs, when a result does not conform to expectation (and not looking when it does). Looking for additional sources of systematic uncertainty when a result does not conform. These check may lead to "corrections" that change the answer. Decide whether to publish, or to wait for more data. Choosing to drop "strange" events (e.g. track is 2 sigma away from expectation). Data selection criteria ("cuts") are unconsciously adjusted to bring the answer closer to a theoretical value or a previous measurement. Several competing analyses are performed using the same data. The physics group charged with making the decision chooses which is worthy of publication after learning the answer, unconsciously favoring the analyses that "come out right". In each case, experimenter bias is unintentional - the experimenters normally know that these practices are objectionable, however in each example, the course of the analysis is unconsciously influenced by the knowledge of how the outcome is affected. ... To Avoid Bias Plan your analysis before hand, do a complete test analysis on Monte Carlo. Write down list of checks (corrections) you plan to do in case your result in data is 8 sigma off and perform them in any case and don't perform any additional checks, when you are really far off. ... The fundamental strategy is to avoid knowing the answer until analysis procedure has been set. http://www.physi.uni-heidelberg.de/~menzemer/Stat0708/statistik_vorlesung_13b.pdf The above includes slides showing experimenter bias in estimates of particle properties. "PDG" refers to the Particle Data Group, where these results are kept. In the graphs, you can see that the experimental results are not random, but instead are severely biased by previously published work, sometimes hilariously so (and this is in a field with no emotion and politics, and one where the field is not being funded by a government looking for excuses to make new laws!):
An example of climate science's failure to "plan their analysis beforehand" is the fact that, after failing to predict the pause, they're now scampering around changing the definition of temperature. Given a couple hundred idiots trying to find an explanation, it's inevitable that someone would find a way of massaging a data set so as to eliminate the pause. And since that's confirmation of expectation, it's immediately published. But the hilarious aspect of this is that the other climate scientists have dozens of other explanations for the pause. This is a failed experiment with the experimenters now trying to explain their failure. To avoid the (very obvious) biases, the climate scientists now need to run another experiment. They need to tell us how temperatures are going to behave over the next 20 years. If they are successful in this, then they will be 1 for 2 and we can talk about another experiment after the next 20 years. But until those 40 years have gone by, with two consecutive 20 year periods of correct predictions, they simply have not shown that they can beat random chance at even 1-sigma.
But there was no pause. We know that now. So the above two posts are so much garden manure. And this chart is before the recent science showing that the "pause" shown here? does not exist. There was a spike high in 98 is all. No pause.
It really doesn't matter what you claim now. What matters is what climate scientists were claiming 20 years ago, when they claimed that "the science is settled" and that the climate was going to be warmer now. Since they were wrong 20 years ago, there's absolutely no reason for us to believe that they're right now. The evidence now is clear that they were wrong back then. You can't redefine now, what they were predicting then, any more than you can un-ring a bell. The publications predicting the temperature rise are already published. And the admissions that the climate scientists were wrong about those predictions are also published. The incompatibility of the temperature trends with the temperature predictions means that the climate science of the year 1995 has now been thoroughly discredited. The same applies to the political maneuvers of that time (that were based on what is now discredited climate theory). So now the climate scientists have a different story? Hell, they haven't even got their stories compatible with each other yet. The explanation for the pause you're hanging your hat on has only been out a couple of weeks! Okay, show us their predictions for the next 20 years. We'll have another discussion about their competency 20 years from now. If they get it right, maybe we'll start listening to them. The reason the "Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" was ignored by the villagers was not because wolves were impossible or do not exist. The Little Boy was in a position to observe wolves and the villagers knew that. That's why the villagers listened when he cried wolf the first times. He was ignored because he kept crying wolf when there turned out to be no wolf. The climate scientists have already had their "cry-wolf" moment. Now they need to wait for another generation of villagers because this one is aware that they have proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are unable to predict temperatures. Here are some recent peer reviewed articles talking about the pause: Climate model simulations of the observed early-2000s hiatus of global warming Meehl, Teng & Arblaster, Nature Climate Change 4, 898-902 (2014) The slowdown in the rate of global warming in the early 2000s is not evident in the multi-model ensemble average of traditional climate change projection simulations [1]. ... http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2357.html Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming Trenberth, Fasullo, Branstator & Phillips Nature Climate Change 4, 911-916 (2014) http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2341.html Climate science: The cause of the pause Isaac Held, Nature 501, 318-319 (19 September 2013) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/501318a.html Pacific origin of the abrupt increase in Indian Ocean heat content during the warming hiatus Lee, Park, Baringer, Gordon, Huber & Liu Nature Geoscience 8, 445-449 (2015) http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n6/full/ngeo2438.html Earth's energy imbalance and implications Hansen, Sato, Kharecha and von Shcuckmann Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13499, 2011 ... We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum. ... http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.html Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus period Meehl, Arblaster, Fasullo, Hu & Trenberth Nature Climate Change 1, 360-364 (2011) There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period). ... http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n7/full/nclimate1229.html Externally Forced and Internally Generated Decadal Climate Variability Associated with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation Meehl, Hu, Arblaster, Fasullo and Trenberth American Meteorological Society, Volume 26, Issue 18 (September 2013) Globally averaged surface air temperatures in some decades show rapid increases (accelerated warming decades), and in other decades there is no warming trend (hiatus decades). ... http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1 Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling Kosaka & Xie, Nature 501, 403-407 (19 September 2013) Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century [1,2] challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming [3,4,5,6] but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. ... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html Pause for thought Hawkins, Edwards & McNeall, Nature Climate Change 4, 154-156 (2014) The recent slowdown (or 'pause') in global surface temperature rise is a hot topic for climate scientists and the wider public. We discuss how climate scientists have tried to communicate the pause and suggest that 'many to many' communication offers a key opportunity to engage with the public. [LOL] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2150.html
Piezoe, what, is saying wrong things some kind of hobby of yours? Twenty years ago they said it would get warmer and it has. Even before the recent science showing no pause at all the models were correct and in range. You are REALLY hung up on this so-called pause. Like it's all you have. Well guess what? There is no pause. I love how you start off with a wrong statement and then just expound from there. lol Oh, and the science was settled then and it's still settled. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas and we have raised it's level by 40%.
Oh, and "TooOld" .....have you seen this? What do you think about it? She decided to do something no climate scientist had thought to do: count the published scientific papers. Pulling 928 of them, she was startled to find that not one dissented from the basic findings that warming was underway and human activity was the main reason. She published that finding in a short paper in the journal Science in 2004, and the reaction was electric. Advocates of climate action seized on it as proof of a level of scientific consensus that most of them had not fully perceived. Just as suddenly, Dr. Oreskes found herself under political attack. Some of the voices criticizing her — scientists like Dr. Singer and groups like the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington — were barely known to her at the time, Dr. Oreskes said in an interview. Just who were they? She had connected by then with Dr. Conway, an official NASA historian who, working on his own time, helped her dig into some important archives. It did not take them long to document that this group, which included prominent Cold War scientists, had been attacking environmental research for decades, challenging the science of the ozone layer and acid rain, even the finding that breathing secondhand tobacco smoke was harmful. Trying to undermine climate science was simply the latest project. Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway came to believe that the attacks were patterned on the strategy employed by the tobacco industry when evidence of health risks first emerged. Documentspried loose by lawyers showed that the industry had paid certain scientists to contrive dubious research, had intimidated reputable scientists, and had cherry-picked evidence to present a misleading picture. The tobacco industry had used these tactics in defense of profits. But Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway wrote that the so-called merchants of doubt had adopted them for a deep ideological reason: contempt for government regulation. The insight gave climate scientists a new way of understanding the politics that had engulfed their field.............. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/s...on®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
I've told you many times before that I agree that "warming is underway" and that "human activity" is an important cause of it. The debate is not about the existence of global warming or whether or not humans effect temperatures. The debate is about how much. Honestly, cut down on the weed use and you will find yourself making a lot more sense.