Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Today's Australian has a piece by Bob Carter predicting global cooling
Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's disproved projections of warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it. But why?
Well, look at this graph from my previous post. When you want to talk about climate trends, you need to use at a bare minimum ten years and not cherry pick your starting point.
Carter continues:
There are two fundamentally different ways in which computers can be used to project climate. The first is used by the modelling groups that provide climate projections to the IPCC. These groups deploy general circulation models, which use complex partial differential equations to describe the ocean-atmosphere climate system mathematically. When fed with appropriate initial data, these models can calculate possible future climate states. The models presume (wrongly) that we have a complete understanding of the climate system.
Two things wrong here. Global Climate Models (as opposed to weather models) don't depend on initial data. They solve a Boundary Value Problem (climate) rather than an Initial Value Problem (weather). And they don't presume that we have a complete understanding of the climate system (otherwise scientists would just use that model instead of ensembles of models).
GCMs are subject to the well-known computer phenomenon of GIGO, which translates as "garbage in, God's-truth out".
Alternative computer projections of climate can be constructed using data on past climate change, by identifying mathematical (often rhythmic) patterns within them and projecting these patterns into the future. Such models are statistical and empirical, and make no presumptions about complete understanding; instead, they seek to recognise and project into the future the climate patterns that exist in real world data.
Because our understanding of atmospheric physics is incomplete, Carter thinks we can get better results if we throw out everything we do know. Fitting curves to the data without any modelling of the processes involved is not a good way to predict the future. See that sixth-degree polynomial fit again.
Carter then gives several examples of folks making such dubious predictions. I'll look at one of then as an example.
In 2007, the 60-year climate cycle was identified again, by Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, who used a novel multi-variate analysis of the 1881-2002 temperature records for China. They showed that temperature variation in China leads parallel variation in global temperature by five-10 years, and has been falling since 2001. They conclude "we see clearly that global and northern hemisphere temperature will drop on century scale in the next 20 years".
Basically what they did was identify a cooling trend starting in 1881 and another one one starting in 1941 and concluded that there would be cooling every 60 years. This is like rolling a die and getting a five and concluding that you will get a five every time you roll it.
Frank Bi took a more detailed look at Zhen-Shan and Xian:
Which leads me to the main problem with EMD, which isn't with the algorithm itself, but how it's used by Zhen-Shan and Xian. They try to extrapolate the IMFs in order to predict stuff. But here's the breaks: the IMFs are empirically derived functions which aren't known to correspond to any neat formulae, so they can't be extrapolated just like that -- at least, not without some more work.
Conclusion: Lambert is right: this is indeed "just a rubbish paper that should not have been published".
Politics
Environment
Comments
James Cook University obviously suffers fools gladly. It's almost as embarassing as the James A Peden piece that is doing the rounds.
Posted by: Jimmy Nightingale | January 20, 2009 12:09 AM
Tim, do you have any idea who is behind this editorial policy? On any comparable topic (HIV, say) it would be considered grossly irresponsible to do what they're doing.
Posted by: mitchell porter | January 20, 2009 1:47 AM
Yet another denial piece by Bob Carter, yet another debunking by Tim Lambert. A bit like watching a dog chase its tail. Carter will surely return touting his association with James Cook University. In his most recent effort in the Australian he represented himself as an "adjunct Professor of Geology." If you go back to "The Australian's War on Science XXVII" he was " an adjunct research fellow at James Cook University who studies ancient climate." In a New Zealand television interview in April last year (see video link in comments #22) same posting, he was a "Professor at James Cook University Marine Geophysical Laboratory." No wonder James Cook University has trouble keeping tabs on him.
Posted by: Richard McGuire | January 20, 2009 1:48 AM
The climate denialists are a lot like the tobacco denialists of the 1990s. Where are they now? How come 10 years later the tobacco denialists haven't been vindicated? If they were right, how come it hasn't been proved to public, once and for all that there are no causative links between tobacco and lung cancer?
No, something more sinister is going on. They are smart enough to know they aren't right. They are simply buying time. The whole point is not to prove that AGW isn't happening; they know it is.
People like Carter are similar to insurgents who throw IEDs under trucks of a conventional army. They know they are outmanned, outgunned, out numbered, and the enemy has better training, better equipment, and better strategists than them.
The strategy becomes to make diversions - to sidetrack the other side, distract them, and prolong the ultimate victory for the better armed forces.
Carter doesn't have to win. As long as carter can keep the Carter-Lambert tail-chasing happening it accomplishes two goals for Carter: it provides a way for him to get his hands in the pockets of the interests that want to fight against change (fossil fuel industries, arch-conservative politicos, etc), and it provides a way for him to prolong this source of income.
Despite the fact that his views are unpopular, and his "research" is just plain faulty, he can become the darling of moneyed interests, and the longer he can drag it out, the more money and influence he himself acquires.
Not unlike the attorneys who represented Big Tobacco in the 90s, not unlike aspiring jihadis wanting to gain rank and prestige among their own extremist factions. The case of Big Tobacco shows what the outcome of this will be. They will ultimately fail, but by buying time, they may be able to escape with their personal fortunes intact, and a good resume to present to the next bigshots who are invested in technologies, ideologies, or shady business practices that can't otherwise survive.
Posted by: yogi-one | January 20, 2009 3:43 AM
As a simple lay person, I frankly don't know who to believe and suspect that none of the so-called "experts" on either side really know what's going on, but I feel compelled to point out that the Australian author used 1998 as his starting point which, I believe, is ten years ago. So he seems to be employing your recommended minimum period...?
Posted by: T. Parsons | January 20, 2009 4:01 AM
Re: T. Parsons #5
Perhaps you might go this link published today:-
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php
The real experts don't have any doubt.
Posted by: Bob Clip | January 20, 2009 4:30 AM
So how did that work out for your stock portfolio over the last couple of years?
Posted by: Dunc | January 20, 2009 5:43 AM
T. Parsons,
The World Meteorological Organization defines climate as mean regional or global weather over a period of 30 years or more. Ten years doesn't tell you anything, because it's not long enough to tease the signal out of the noise.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | January 20, 2009 5:49 AM
It follows that you can't possibly determine a change in climate with less than 30 years of data.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | January 20, 2009 7:57 AM
Interesting, though, that Carter has decided to explain the difference between modelling and curve-fitting to his troops. It's been obvious that plenty of the denialist commenters don't understand (or don't acknowledge) this distinction, so this seems to represent some sort of change of tack, or perhaps strategic retreat.
Posted by: Vagueofgodalming | January 20, 2009 8:13 AM
I like this Carter statement:
There ain't no such thing as a long-term climate indicator SINCE the turn of the 21st century because there hasn't been 30 years since the turn of the 21st century.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | January 20, 2009 8:56 AM
Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards.
I really don't get it.
Why does Carter make claims like that? He can't be that stupid.
Does he just have a strong contrarian personality, and is driven to reflexively take the minority view on these kind of issues?
Or is it for the sort of reasons that yogi-one postulated @ #4? In which case, if he knows he is wrong and cannot ultimately prevail, then what is he trying to achieve? It certainly will not be posthumous heroic fame.
And what is he going to say when the next El Nino comes along, with the high probability of another round of record high temps?
I really don't get it.
Posted by: WotWot | January 20, 2009 9:13 AM
Two years ago, I offered Carter 2:1 odds in his favor that temps would continue to go up. He declined the bet, saying temps were a random walk (which meant he should have taken the bet):
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2006/04/bob-carter-wont-bet-over-global.html
I guess I could try again, but I doubt he'll put money behind his prediction.
Posted by: Brian Schmidt | January 20, 2009 9:35 AM
That would be the 6th degree polynomial turn downwards.
Posted by: Paul | January 20, 2009 10:59 AM
I agree with Vauge in 10, and we should also note that he is explicit in stating that the "models" use coupled circulation. There are still some denialists arguing otherwise. This signal doesn't rise above the noise, however.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | January 20, 2009 11:21 AM
Perhaps, one’s recent couple hottest nights recorded cannot deny generally lower average summer/winter temperatures in Melbourne since 2005, and much colder winters in the northern hemisphere, in Europe these days, for instance.
As understood, having a British-style professional employment inherited in semi-colonies of England especially, could hardly address issues rationally as collecting their secured royalties pragmatically rather than producing something practically is the most since and before captain Cook’s discoveries: http://story.atlantaleader.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/37e8860164ce009a/id/390282/cs/1
All English-related insinuations if any, could be addressed to Microsoft Spell Checking creators not always perfectly incorporating grammar-correcting tools into languages’ softwares.
And no computer is helpful to p r o d u c e intellectual abilities themselves anyway.
Posted by: Michael Kerjman | January 20, 2009 8:20 PM
WotWot:
That's easy. He'll just ignore everything he said in the past and just point out that El Niño is a temporary variation in weather, unlike the idiots around now who say that La Nina is not a temporary variation in weather.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | January 20, 2009 9:56 PM
w00t. Best blame game ever.
Last I knew, William Shakespeare, Mark Twain, George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, etc. were able to write perfectly good English, even before Microsoft was born.
Maybe you should express what you mean in plain, simple language, instead of throwing in big words at random.
Oh wait, here's some found poetry!
Posted by: bi -- IJI | January 21, 2009 1:03 AM
Micheal Kerjman@16
From the Bureau of Meteorology:
Summer 2006/2007 -> "Maximum temperatures were well above average across the whole State, with temperatures throughout Central Victoria 2 to 3 degrees above average."
Summer 2007/2008 -> "Temperatures were generally within 1°C of average across the state during the summer. Warm conditions during December and January, combined with cool conditions during February, resulted in a seasonal average which was only slightly warmer than normal across the state."
Winter 2008 -> "After a series of relatively warm winters, winter 2008 saw temperatures close to the long-term (all years of record) normal"
You are wrong about Victoria being cooler than average between 2005 and now.
Not according to NASA GISS: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Have a play with the maps, you'll see that most of the years since 2005 show a positive temperature anomaly in both summer and winter.
You're wrong again.
Posted by: ChrisC | January 21, 2009 1:24 AM
The very first sentence of the Australian article contains an inaccuracy and a misleading cherrypick. The claim in the first sentence is actually taken straight from a Watt's blog post.
You may or may not be interested in the forum post I made about this first sentence, but here it is: http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/environment-energy/56371-facts-debunk-global-warming-alarmism.html#post592008
Posted by: Bobl | January 21, 2009 2:08 PM
ChrisC. #19,
Your spelling of “Micheal” felt as much noticed on this page as a real state of summer temperatures in Melbourne, Victoria: 1992-2004 were much hotter till 2005 in reality.
Perhaps, local metrologists are so flexibly–reliable as any others securing their employment in Melbourne / Australia.
Message’s spelling and grammar were checked with the latest software as usual.
With all appreciation of your info, it contradicts NO notion of a climate change as a gradual occurrence upon a planetary history: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/302957/
( The X- Challenge )
Posted by: Michael Kerjman
| January 21, 2009 8:09 PM
Michael Kerjman:
Thank you for bringing us a weather report. I'll file you with Bob Cater.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | January 21, 2009 9:40 PM
I would just like to point out that those wishing to use the last ten years must start with 1999.
Posted by: Don Smith | January 21, 2009 10:50 PM
Michael Kerjman:
So you can't even write proper English without a automatic grammar checker, and you're proud of it.
Microsoft needs to develop an automatic detector for Regurgitated Idiotic Pseudo-scientific Pile of Dung, because clearly you need some help in that department. Ideally, the moment you type
the Microsoft software will automatically correct the text to read
and then pop up a hologram of Clippy bludgeoning your head with a clue bat.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | January 21, 2009 10:58 PM
Bi-iJi,
If you are paid for your Englishness only, please, quietly read rather than produce a crap in professional topics as your message #24 did.
Posted by: KA | January 22, 2009 4:55 AM
Oh, the irony.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | January 22, 2009 5:38 AM
With supplementary evidence, it seems that the plausible computer-generation theory is growing a bit wobbly on its legs... and just when I was almost persuaded.
And so I stand by the first two sentences of my earlier observation on the matter.
Posted by: Bernard J. | January 22, 2009 8:17 AM
“Computer-generation theory” – is it "the man-made global warming", or?
In any case, it’s a typically unprofessional expression-in any language on the Earth if even presented in a plain native English.
Posted by: Michael Kerjman
| January 22, 2009 8:23 PM
Yep.
Babelfish, or for the younger amongst us, Google Translator.
Shame there's no application to translate ignorance into enlightenment.
Posted by: Bernard J. | January 23, 2009 5:50 AM
On #24: no spelling check to correct: “So you can't even write proper English without A AUTOMATIC grammar checker, and you're proud of it.”
What are you, bi-IJI, proud of-either your poor grammar or a crap you write mentioned already???
No English could help to cover an elementary NOTHING of paid-only-for-being-English AUSSIEs: MARKDOWN is a next sound example of such a stupidity on these pages.
Posted by: Ki-Ssm-Yass | January 23, 2009 11:01 PM
What's with these people that wear their ignorance like a badge of honour?
Posted by: bi -- IJI | January 23, 2009 11:43 PM
It is not ignorance, bi-IJI, it is an anti-racist position.
Posted by: Dolly | January 25, 2009 12:57 AM
Dolly:
Bragging about ignorance isn't an expression of racial tolerance.
Whether it's ignorance in English grammar, or ignorance in Swahili, or ignorance in climate science, or ignorance in any subject.
Bragging about ignorance isn't an expression of racial tolerance.
Bragging about ignorance is... just ignorance.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | January 25, 2009 1:25 AM
Bob Carter is listed as Adjunct Professor at JCU he also states he is a Research Professor at the University of Adelaide but the University of Adelaide does not list him in their online directory.
Posted by: P | January 25, 2009 8:05 PM
Bragging about English instead discussing any issue professional is xenophobia and racism, bi-IJI.
Posted by: Tully | January 25, 2009 10:41 PM
Tully, Dolly, or whatever sock puppet name you decide to give yourself next:
Or do you mean, writing in proper English grammar without Microsoft's grammar checker, and without bragging about it, is... the Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens of Liberal Fascism?
Interesting, also, how you insist on shouting RACIST!!!!!!!!! RACIST!!!!!!!!! RACIST!!!!!!!!! instead of discussing "any issue professional", according to your own advice, isn't it?
So what have you to say about Bob Carter's article?
Nothing?
Posted by: bi -- IJI | January 25, 2009 10:54 PM
Is the rest of this publication of equal quality? Do they at least print it on reasonably soft, non-scratchy paper?
Posted by: Hugh M. | January 27, 2009 10:39 AM
Yes, Bob Carter is an Adjunct Professor at the School of Earth & Environmental Sciences (Discipline of Geology and Geophysics) at the University of Adelaide.
Posted by: Barry Brook | January 27, 2009 6:02 PM
bi_IJI, this plain-English article asserts what a world already knows: short on terrestrial time-scale warmings have always been followed by more longer periods of cooling.
If in Australia so-called “scientists” were good in something really professional but playing a sort of English only-even that SOMETIMES, they need no more explanations because ones acquainted with elementary calculus and physics know ways functions work.
Posted by: Tully | January 27, 2009 8:33 PM
Is the Tully character a Turing test in the mould of Michael Kerjman?
Posted by: Bernard J. | January 27, 2009 9:06 PM
Key indicator that certain commenters type while wearing oversize shoes and a big red ball on their nose: scare quotes around "scientists".
Give it up son, you can't raise your game enough.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | January 28, 2009 1:42 AM
Joy, Tully, and Dolly are all sockpuppets of the same master, and I claim my ten shillings.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | January 29, 2009 9:08 PM
"I claim my ten shillings" - shillings?
That is a start and finish of this "modern" discussion.
Posted by: KA | February 1, 2009 12:32 AM
I hope you people on this site realize that the "myth" of global warming is NOT just "a few crackpots". The TRUTH of the matter is that there were only 12 (twelve) people (not even all were scientists or academics) who were involved with the final UN document (IPCC) and the total number of proponents numbered less than 3,000. Al Gore was one of the 3,000. He has/had virtually no credentials to establish his bona fides in the field. Less than half of the 3,000 were of any standing in the scientific community, and some number of those have now acknowledged that the "definitive IPCC report" was "severely flawed". On the "global warming is a myth" side of the argument stands over 70,000 (seventy thousand) academics, scientists, researchers (over 9,250 holding PhD's IN the fields relating to climate or associated areas of research)ALL of whom have maintained ALL along, and as recently as April 7, 2009 signed documents denouncing any validity to the global warming scam. Rather than demonize those who tell the truth, who have NO political vested interest or business interest in "selling" global warming, why not do your own research and find the truth about why people like Gore and some of the organizations who jumped on the bandwagon have to gain. The sad news is that it ultimately comes down to money. The "cap and trade" legislation (US and UN push) will result in TRILLIONS of dollars for a very few to gain control. It has NOTHING to do with REAL science, NOTHING to do with REAL climate change and CERTAINLY nothing to do with "real" concern over this worlds environment. It is about money and control.
Posted by: Kelly Howell | May 2, 2009 5:39 PM
Kelly Howell .....................
Otherwise known as proof by uppercase letters.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | May 2, 2009 9:46 PM
Kelly Howell.
You will of course be able to name the "12 (twelve) people (not even all were scientists or academics) who were involved with the final UN document". Furthermore, as you 'know' that "the total number of proponents numbered less than 3,000", you will have a record of these too, and in providing these names to us you will therefore be able to exclude all other scientists from around the world.
Additionally, you will be able to document your claim that "the "global warming is a myth" side of the argument stands over 70,000 (seventy thousand) academics, scientists, researchers (over 9,250 holding PhD's IN the fields relating to climate or associated areas of research). Please do so, in order that we can check the bona fides of each and every one.
What, you can't do this?
I wonder what that means...
Posted by: Bernard J. | May 3, 2009 12:49 AM
Kelly
You may have a point (most scientists don't see a catastrophic climate change any time soon, unless we pass some real major tipping points of course) so it is very important that you let the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat know of your concerns. Their contact details:
Main office Haus Carstanjen Martin-Luther-King-Strasse 8 53175 Bonn Germany
Mailing address P.O. Box 260124 D-53153 Bonn Germany
After all, this is the organisation (comprising about 180 signatory countries of the world) that will need to know about these "70,000 academics, scientists, and researchers ... that have signed documents denouncing any validity to the global warming scam" before they meet in Denmark later this year, December.
Can you let me know how I can sign the document?
Anyway, forget the IPCC (they obviously don't know what they're talking about) - best bypass them and go straight to the real decision makers.
Posted by: DavidK | May 3, 2009 4:22 AM
My comment #40 here
Posted by: Dan | January 15, 2011 4:53 PM