Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > It was 20 years ago today ....

Heh, that's actually irrelevant, Phil.

Apr 25, 2018 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Apr 25, 2018 at 5:33 PM | Phil Clarke

Your sources have a track record of unreliability as long as Climate Science's, and a US Court has recently favoured Monckton's evidence over that of Climate Science's heavily funded efforts.

Climate Science ran out of science long ago. Will Climate Science be seeking crowd funding for future ad homs?

Apr 25, 2018 at 6:36 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The jig is actually up. No longer can alarmists ever get back to the high water mark of fear and guilt of 10 years ago, and the tide has a long way to go out, yet.

This whole fiasco will be a very fascinating chapter in the history of Science. Phil's son asks: 'Daddy, what did you do in the war?'

Apr 25, 2018 at 8:21 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Apr 25, 2018 at 6:16 PM | Phil Clarke

All models are wrong. So is Climate Science.

Macron states there is no Planet B. Does Climate Science have a Theory B to replace failed Theory A?

Apr 25, 2018 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

clipe, great minds think alike, they say.
I was going down the avenue:

[Verse 1]
It was twenty years ago today
Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play
They've been going in and out of style
But they're guaranteed to raise a smile
So may I introduce to you
The act you've known for all these years
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

As the good ship HMS Global Warming Hockey Stick goes down, the band is still playing on.
Which instrument Phil Clarke and ATTP are playing is open to debate, but it appears to be the same one, the hookah.

Apr 26, 2018 at 2:52 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Apr 26, 2018 at 2:52 PM | michael hart

I was thinking about the song American Pie, and the line: "The day, the music died"

Climate Science got a fatal dose of undeserved financial fertilser following Mann's Hockey Stick, but the last 20 years have shown it was (mostly?) bovine in origin.

Apr 26, 2018 at 4:03 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sent my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry. So much for sea level rise.

An astute commenter on another blog, after reading the Daily Mail article about Nic and Judy's new report, said that all the sea level rise must be around Scotland.

H/t jmh

Apr 26, 2018 at 4:41 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

An astute commenter on another blog, after reading the Daily Mail article about Nic and Judy's new report, said that all the sea level rise must be around Scotland.
Apr 26, 2018 at 4:41 PM | kim

Apart from these bits?

Sea level rise is a very good indicator of anything, provided you choose your bit of land and sea very carefully. They are very unreliable, so are preferred by Climate Scientists.

In 2008, the BBC must have got confused, when they reported on the Romans building harbours miles from the sea:
Dig uncovers Roman invasion coast:

Apr 26, 2018 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Ack, the article was in the Express for 4/25. That'll help you appreciate jmh's joke.

Apr 26, 2018 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Abstract. Our climate is constrained by the balance between solar energy absorbed by the Earth and terrestrial energy radiated to space. This energy balance has been widely used to infer equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from observations of 20th-century warming. Such estimates yield lower values than other methods, and these have been influential in pushing down the consensus ECS range in recent assessments. Here we test the method using a 100-member ensemble of the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM1.1) simulations of the period 1850–2005 with known forcing. We calculate ECS in each ensemble member using energy balance, yielding values ranging from 2.1 to 3.9 K. The spread in the ensemble is related to the central assumption in the energy budget framework: that global average surface temperature anomalies are indicative of anomalies in outgoing energy (either of terrestrial origin or reflected solar energy). We find that this assumption is not well supported over the historical temperature record in the model ensemble or more recent satellite observations. We find that framing energy balance in terms of 500 hPa tropical temperature better describes the planet's energy balance.

Dessler et al. 2018

Using observed surface temperatures to infer the energy balance was of course the approach of Lewis and Curry. Dessler et al used the tropical temperatures in a paper earlier this year and derived an estimate for ECS of 2.4-4.5 K with a median value of 3.3 K.

Apr 26, 2018 at 6:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Heh, Phil, Lewis already shut Dessler down, but whether it was at ClimateAudit or Judy Curry's I can't remember.

But that's all you've got, and it's nothing. You get an 'E' for effort.

Apr 26, 2018 at 7:21 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

@ Judy's, yesterday and today. Dessler's estimate is 'strongly dependent on the feedback behaviour of GCMs'. H/t to Nic.

Grasping at straws, Phil.

Apr 26, 2018 at 7:32 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

More haha. Dessler's tweet that the L&C paper has already been shown to be wrong is a 'wild, unjustified claim.' H/t Nic

'Wild', as in panicked. H/t me.

Apr 26, 2018 at 7:49 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Apr 26, 2018 at 6:43 PM | Phil Clarke

Climate Science based on observations has always beaten Climate Science based on extrapolations, adjustments, models etc.

Has Dessler improved either his techniques or sources of real information about the Climate, or is he still dependent on Real Climate?

If you read Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit, you would realise that. Robert Way of Cowtan and Way did.

Apr 26, 2018 at 8:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Ooh, that subthread @ Judy's goes on with documentation now of an instance where Dessler admits to having more confidence in GCMs than in observations.

There is a get out of jail free card for the conspiring modelers; they were fooled by the computers.

But we were fooled by the modelers. Well, some of us.

Apr 26, 2018 at 9:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

And it's about the hot spot. A poster boy for the perversion of science, brought to you by Phil.

TNX, Phil.

Apr 26, 2018 at 9:20 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Thanks especially Phil for the back-up to my speculation earlier that it was overconfidence in the GCMs which has primarily brought us into this mess.

Apr 26, 2018 at 9:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

My Gawd, how they can be fudged. To what degree were they deliberately fudged and to what degree was it just groupthink? Corrupt or stupid, that is always the question, the question.

Apr 26, 2018 at 9:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Apr 26, 2018 at 9:18 PM | kim

"Ooh, that subthread @ Judy's goes on with documentation now of an instance where Dessler admits to having more confidence in GCMs than in observations."

Is that why Climate Scientists keep reprogramming observations, no matter how old they are?

Apr 26, 2018 at 9:31 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


I think ECS could end up anywhere between 2 and 4.5 K — I have a paper about to be submitted that yields a likely range of 2.4-4.4 K. Whether our policy should be different for an ECS of 2 vs. 3.5 is not a scientific question, so I don’t have any professional opinion about that.

I agree with a lot of what Mr. Lewis says. If you add up the feedbacks we are very confident about (Planck, water vapor, lapse rate, ice albedo), you get an ECS of about 2 K. If the cloud feedback is positive, which most of the evidence suggests is true, then you end up with an ECS > 2 K. That’s basically the argument that I find most compelling for why the low values (< 2 K) of ECS are unlikely.

Mr. Lewis suggests that one way around this is if the water vapor + lapse rate feedback are overstated b/c the atmosphere is not warming up as fast as expected ("no hot spot"). The evidence on that is mixed, with some data sets showing expected warming and others not. Obviously, some of these observational data are wrong — and my guess is that the data sets that don't show a hot spot are wrong.

The reason I have that view is that the atmosphere and surface are tied together by pretty simple physics (see moist adiabatic lapse rate) and if the atmosphere is not warming as fast as expected, then something really weird is going on. The more parsimonious explanation is that data sets that don't show warming are wrong.

From <>

Not sure the paraphrase is all that accurate, if so. Or was it some other quote?

Apr 26, 2018 at 10:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, it is here if you are able to read it.

"The implications of our results are that high estimates of ECS and TCR derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent (at a 95% confidence level) with observed warming during the historical period. Moreover, our median ECS and TCR estimates using infilled temperature data imply multicentennial or multidecadal future warming under increasing forcing of only 55−70% of the mean warming simulated by CMIP5 models.

I hope to discuss in more depth in a subsequent article some of the material in LC18 and its Supporting Information that has been dealt with only very briefly here."

Nic Lewis  April 2018.

With reference to a separate paper about ECS being lower than he assumed, Mann wrote:
Now, with great fanfare (see e.g. this Washington Post coverage ") comes a new study in the journal Nature by Cox et al that purports to have reduced the upper end of the "likely" ECS uncertainty range from 4 or 4.5C down to 3.4C. That would be good news if it were true. But I have severe doubts it is, as I have some technical reservations about the study. My first concern is that internal climate variability can’t be accurately modeled by a simple first-order autocorrelated process, which is the foundational assumption behind their approach. There are phenomena, such as El Nino, that defy such a characterization, and render an approach which assumes a direct relationship between climate sensitivity and internal variability somewhat dubious. Indeed, I co-authored a study that demonstrates shortcomings in this sort of approach some years ago  [Foster, G., Annan, J.D., Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E., Comment on "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System" by S. E. SchwartzJ. Geophys. Res., 113, L22707, D15102, doi: 10.1029/2007JD009373, 2008]. 

Apr 26, 2018 at 10:57 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The subthread and whole thread at Judy's keep getting better and better. Fudgeable GCMs in the hands of activists. More and more people are realizing just how this fiasco came about.

Apr 27, 2018 at 11:31 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Apr 27, 2018 at 11:31 PM | kim

at aTTP's there seems to be some concern about LC18. Climate Science's loss of US Taxpayer funding will win the popular vote.

Andrew Dessler does not help at April 27, 2018 at 2:51 pm, with his Model Dependency:

"Mosher: a lot of your objections are implicitly or explicitly addressed in our ACP paper. According to our model ensemble, 155 years is not enough to eliminate the impact of variability on the estimate of ECS. Also, you asked how internal variability could’ve turned out differently. Well, that’s exactly what our model ensemble tells us. And the answer is that it can turn out differently enough to confound our estimates of ECS. I realize that people may be distrustful of model results, but in the absence of any other arguments, models are our best view of reality."

But it is not until April 27, 2018 at 10:38 pm, that Willard admits defeat, and tries damage limitation, in his normal fashion:

"As anyone can see, ClimateBall ™ is all about science."

Apr 28, 2018 at 2:02 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"The Canadians’ 2003 study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th century that exceeds the warmth of the 20th century.

McIntyre and McKitrick also published a study on Mann’s “hockey stick” graph in 2005.

However, Mann wrote that “dozens of groups of scientists” had validated his 1998 study. Mann specifically pointed to a 2006 U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report that “affirmed our findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006.”

Even McIntyre said subsequent studies have “produced somewhat hockey-stick-ish temperature reconstructions,” but added, “none (NONE) of our specific criticisms of Mann’s methods, proxies, and false claims has been rebutted.” "

Apr 30, 2018 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"none (NONE) of our specific criticisms of Mann’s methods, proxies changed the conclusions one iota."


Heh - notice the reproduction of McIntyre & McKitrick's reconstruction posted by Nick Stokes. Identical to MBH, except MM found (by removing some inconvenient data) warmth in the 15th century greater than today.

That's right - McIntyre and McKitrick got rid of the Little Ice Age!

As for the truthfulness of McIntyre's claims.

McIntyre and McKitrick (MM), in one of their many false claims regarding the Mann et al (MBH98) temperature reconstruction, assert that the “Hockey Stick” shape of the reconstruction is an artifact of the “non-centered” Principal Components Analysis (PCA) convention used by MBH98 in representing the North American International Tree Ring Data Bank (ITRDB) data series. We already demonstrated the falsehood of this assertion here by showing (a) that the hockey stick pattern emerges using either the MM (centered) or MBH98 (non-centered) PCA conventions, but was censored by MM through an inappropriate application of selection rules for determining the number of Principal Component (PC) to retain, (b) that use of the correct number of PC series (5) to be kept with the MM (centered) convention retains the characteristic “Hockey Stick” pattern as an important predictor, and yields essentially the same temperature reconstruction as MBH98, and finally (c) the MBH98 reconstruction is recovered even if PCA is not used at all to represent the North American ITRDB Data (i.e., each individual tree-ring series is used as a predictor with equal weight in the analysis). The claim by MM that the hockey stick pattern arises as an artifact of the PCA centering convention used by MBH98 is seen to be false on multiple levels.

On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick

See also:

False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction

Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

May 1, 2018 at 1:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke