Imagine — a computer predicts our demise just as…

… our demise occurs!

Here’s an argument against the validity of climate catastrophe, straight out of the “too good to be true” basket. It goes something like this:

“After several centuries of humanity’s meandering technological development, the odds are remote that, at precisely the time of our demise, we developed computer hardware and models sophisticated enough to predict our imminent demise.”

Computers are now sophisticated enough to model our demise but not so sophisticated that they know more than we do. The likelihood of our demise actually being imminent is vanishingly small because:

  1. We don’t know how the climate works.
  2. There’s been no warming since 1995, despite a 20% increase in CO2.
  3. The atmosphere (since 2001) and the ocean (since 2004) have been cooling.
  4. Models fail hindcasts, thus inspiring no confidence in their forecasts.
  5. The IPCC, from whom the government takes its advice, is utterly discredited.
  6. There’s been no alteration in natural rates of sea-level change.
  7. We don’t know how the climate works.

But don’t believe me – ask any climate scientist (warmist or sceptic) and they’ll tell you we don’t know how the climate works.

h/t – GJB

15 Thoughts on “Imagine — a computer predicts our demise just as…

  1. In terms of the “no warming since …” theme, I used the HadCrut3 dataset to demonstrate this over at HT, but I was accused of cherry-picking, being a “liar” and “despicable person” (the usual stuff you know…)

    It was also suggested that both HadCrut3 and HadCrut4 have a “cooling bias” because they don’t include Arctic data where “the most warming has occurred”

    Is it correct that GISSTemp etc use infilled data for the Arctic that extrapolates from stations that are geographically very far away?

    I am just trying to get to the bottom of my “lies” and general despicableness, you know. What do I tell the children?

    • Mike Jowsey on June 12, 2012 at 11:11 am said:

      Found a couple of WUWT posts by Stephen Goddard:

      “A likely explanation for discrepancy in identification of the warmest year is the fact that the HadCRUT analysis excludes much of the Arctic ….. (whereas GISS) estimates temperature anomalies throughout most of the Arctic.”

      In this post, I will show a number of things wrong with that claim. GISS uses the maps below as evidence of their better coverage.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/gistemp-vs-hadcrut/

      and…

      Conclusions: GISS explains their increases vs. Had Crut as being due to their Arctic coverage. Their Arctic coverage is poor, and they rely on extrapolations across large distances with no data. Comparisons with other data sources show that GISS extrapolations across the Arctic are likely too high. In short, GISS trends over the last decade are most likely based on faulty extrapolations in the Arctic, and are probably not reliable indicators of global or Arctic temperature trends during that time period.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/20/giss-arctic-trends-disagree-with-satellite-data/

    • Thanks Mike. There will of course be a “rebuttal” or “debunking” on Skeptical Science to booby trap the unwary.

  2. It’s not nice, is it, no matter how often it happens?

    Yes, it’s correct that GISS infills with data from remote stations; I forget the details, except that distances are up to 1200 km, iirc. But what did you actually say? Why did they accuse you of cherry-picking?

    I’m not sure a whole lot can be done about your general despicableness. 😉

    • They accuse me of cherry picking because apparently it is only Hadcrut3 that shows no warming over the last decade.
      I am not sure how independent the other datasets are.

      But anyway, on the last rather tiresome thread I was accused of “failing climate school” because I stated that warming in the 20th century occurred in two main periods.

      When I provided a link to the IPCC to back this up I was accused of trolling and calls were made for me to be banned

      It goes downhill from there

    • Richard C (NZ) on June 12, 2012 at 11:36 am said:

      HadCRUT3/4 is land/ocean, the ocean component (the larger) of 3 being HadSST2 and 4 HadSST3 (or something).

      The problem they have (to create warming) is that HadSST2 has been cooling since 2003/04:-

      http://climate4you.com/images/HadSST2%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

      It takes some major “adjustments” in the relatively smaller Arctic to offset the globally expansive SST cooling.but then their problem compounds because HadCRUT3, GISS and NCDC already diverge from the satellite series:-

      http://climate4you.com/images/AverageSurfaceTempVersusAverageSattelliteTemp%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

      This is probably why HadCRUT4 terminates at 2010 at this stage (the divergence is just too obvious if the series was up-to-date).

      Their next problem to confront is that SST is more consistent with RSS and UAH than with HadCRUT3/4, GISS and NCDC.

      Problems, problems.

      BTW, I see almost rapturous euphoria at HT on the prospect of a El Nino developing later this year. Hope they’re not too disappointed if it turns out to be a fizzer.

    • Richard C (NZ) on June 12, 2012 at 2:43 pm said:

      The impending release of all that pent-up heat doesn’t have a ’98 “look” about it though (doubtful rapid warming).

      ENSO Cycle: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions

      Update prepared by Climate Prediction Center / NCEP 11 June 2012

      Summary
      • ENSO-neutral conditions continue.*
      • Equatorial sea surface temperatures (SST) are near average across much of the equatorial Pacific, except for above average SSTs in the far eastern Pacific Ocean.
      • There is a 50% chance that El Niño conditions will develop during the second half of 2012.*

      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

      NOAA Operational Definitions for El Niño and La Niña (Page 21)

      El Niño: characterized by a positive ONI greater than or equal to +0.5°C.

      La Niña: characterized by a negative ONI less than or equal to -0.5°C.

      By historical standards, to be classified as a full-fledged El Niño or La Niña episode, these thresholds must be exceeded for a period of at least 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month seasons.

      CPC considers El Niño or La Niña conditions to occur when the monthly Niño3.4 OISST departures meet or exceed +/- 0.5°C along with consistent atmospheric features. These anomalies must also be forecasted to persist for 3 consecutive months.

      Official Probabilistic ENSO Outlook (updated 7 June 2012) (page 25)

      ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere summer, with approximately equal chances of neutral or El Niño conditions during the fall and winter.

      CPC/IRI Consensus Probabilistic ENSO Forecast graph being referred to (page 25) shows equal chance of either EN/LN from now through to OND then slightly better chance of EN from OND – JFM. Not much hope there for trend reversing, CO2 correlation restoring, model verifying warming.

      Worse, the chance of Neutral returns NDJ and by JFM has equal chance with EN.

      Hot Topicers derive their new-found confidence and enthusiasm from the updated (April-May) MEI at +0.71 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

      But the NOAA definition is in terms of ONI (El Niño +0.5°C,
      La Niña -0.5°C). The most recent ONI value (March – May 2012) is -0.3oC (page 22).

      All considered, a tempered optimism might be in order for the return of the ‘Christ Child’ and salvation of “the cause”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on June 12, 2012 at 2:54 pm said:

      “This is probably why HadCRUT4 terminates at 2010 at this stage (the divergence is just too obvious if the series was up-to-date).”

      The other reason being of course that Phil Jones is much more amenable to a linear trend ending in warm 2010 El Nino conditions (even some “statistical significance”) than he is to a trend inclusive of a cool double-dip La Nina.

      Makes ALL the difference in funding submissions.

    • Anthropogenic Global Cooling on June 12, 2012 at 3:39 pm said:

      Hi Richard. Regarding the following:

      ‘Yes, it’s correct that GISS infills with data from remote stations; I forget the details, except that distances are up to 1200 km’

      For anyone who wants to let others know of this they’re welcome to cut and paste the following:

      Go to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
      Note the ‘smoothing radius’ states 1200km
      Click the ‘make map’ button
      Observe the red spots which represent warming.

      Now return to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
      Change the ‘smoothing radius’ to 250km
      Click the ‘make map’ button
      Observe most of the red spots are now missing, replaced by grey areas
      Note the statement at the top of the graph that says ‘Gray areas signify missing data.’

      The vast majority of warming in the map is a result of stretching known temperatures up to 1200km. This is as ridiculous as trying to judge the temperature in Christchurch from the temperature in Whangarei, and is the stuff of fantasy not science.

      Now ret

    • Andy on June 12, 2012 at 4:20 pm said:

      This is as ridiculous as trying to judge the temperature in Christchurch from the temperature in Whangarei, and is the stuff of fantasy not science

      Isn’t that roughly how they constructed the Hokitika temperature series? You know, the one they used to validate the proxy used in Gergis et al?

    • Richard C (NZ) on June 12, 2012 at 7:55 pm said:

      According to Gergis et al page 5:-

      For instance, two periods of 125 above average warmth are recorded in the western South Island Silver Pine record in the medieval period around A.D.1137–1177 and 1210–1260. This represents temperatures 0.3–0.5o 126 C higher than 127 the 1894–1998 average calibrated from the single station record of Hokitika (Cook et al., 2002b), 128 but is within the 0.4–0.7°C range of abrupt instrumental warming observed in the 129 anthropogenically-influenced period in the west coast of the South Island of New Zealand since 130 1950 (Hennessy et al., 2007).

      Except Hennessy et al 2007 (AR4 WGII Chap 11) omits “anthropogenically-influenced period” and it’s not West Coast specific but regional:-

      Regional climate change has occurred (very high confidence). Since 1950, there has been 0.4 to 0.7°C warming, with more heatwaves, fewer frosts, more rain in north-west Australia and south-west New Zealand, less rain in southern and eastern Australia and north-eastern New Zealand, an increase in the intensity of Australian droughts, and a rise in sea level of about 70 mm [11.2.1].

      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter11.pdf

      Elsewhere in AR4 (Australia and New Zealand) if you follow the references you get to Salinger and Mullin 1998 (I think) and an attribution of the 0.4 to 0.7°C warming to a climate shift i.e. natural variability.

      Haven’t got to the calibration/verification yet – so many background issues emerging (as usual it seems) it’s hard to get around to crunching the paper in its entirety.

    • Andy on June 12, 2012 at 9:41 pm said:

      The confirmation bias positively oozes out of that snippet from Gergis

    • Richard C (NZ) on June 12, 2012 at 10:23 pm said:

      Gergis makes a big noise about “monotonic warming” coinciding with a “rapid rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” from 1950 to present:-

      Warming starts 415 from the 1860s onward, when a pronounced temperature increase coincides with a rapid rise in 416 anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (see Figure S4.2). The increase in temperature is 417 interrupted by cool intervals ~1900–1910 and again around 1930, before monotonic warming on 418 decadal and longer timescales continues from 1950 to present.

      Except “present” in the study period is 2000.

      It would have been useful (and far more interesting) if say, the “monotonic” forced simulation (Blue line, Figure S4.2, Line 1224, Page 66) had been extended to 2012, for which extended period, the monotonic flat observed temperatures are inconsistent with the previous monotonic warming, the continuing rapid rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and probably the forced simulation too.

      They could have digressed a little from the period covered because apparently it was “worth noting” that 2000 – 2009 is warmest evaaar:-

      It is worth 406 noting that the 2000–2009 decade not covered by the palaeoclimate reconstruction is the warmest 407 recorded in the observational temperature data

      The “clear signal” was a doddle 1950 – 2000.

      535 Conversely, in recent decades, anthropogenic forcing has a clear signal in the model data and is 536 consistent with Australasian temperatures on decadal timescales, suggesting it is a possible 537 mechanism for recent increases in Australasian temperatures

      But post 2000, Gergis et al would have to suggest some other “possible mechanism” – much more interesting.

    • Andy on June 13, 2012 at 8:42 am said:

      Richard C,
      Do you have a link to the Gergis paper?

    • Richard C (NZ) on June 13, 2012 at 12:09 pm said:

      Yes Andy, at JoNova:-

      J. Gergis, R. Neukom, S.J. Phipps, A.J.E. Gallant, and D.J. Karoly, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”, Journal of Climate, 2012, pp. 120518103842003-. DOI. [ Paper (PDF)]

      http://www.smc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1000-years-of-climate-data-%E2%80%93-manuscript_and_Supplementary_April_2012_final1.pdf

      http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-three-years-to-produce-a-paper-that-lasted-three-weeks-gergis/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation