Oreskes and Switzer on The Drum

Naomi Oreskes appeared on The Drum on Tuesday. Lotharsson has written a handy summary. I want to comment on a couple of extraordinary claims by Tom Switzer in that episode. First (at 31:56):

“Interestingly, the IPCC models, there is a great deal of uncertainty, because the rate of warming has not increased to the extent that the IPCC models suggested it would in the 1990s — there has been some tapering off. To the extent that that is true that does lead one to believe that there is more uncertainty.

Switzer provides more detail in this column in the Spectator:

I can name no better book to read over the summer vacation than Mark Lawson’s A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy. A senior journalist at the Australian Financial Review, Lawson has provided a valuable antidote to what passes for climate science. …

Mark Lawson highlights the perils of the forecasting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We learn that its first report, in 1990, was dead wrong. It forecast a minimum temperature increase of 0.4 degrees centigrade over 20 years, and a maximum of 0.8 degrees. Lawson shows that the most favourable estimate is for an increase of only 0.25 degrees.

Well that’s easy to check, since the First Assessment Report is on line. Here’s the relevant passage (my emphasis):

under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
global mean temperature during the next century of
about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade), this is greater than that
seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a
likely increase in global mean temperature of about
1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before
the end of the next century The rise will not be
steady
because of the influence of other factors

Lawson came up with his “minimum temperature increase of 0.4 degrees centigrade over 20 years” by assuming that the IPCC had predicted a steady rise even though they specifically said that the rise would not be steady. What did they project for the next twenty years? You can read the numbers off their graph below, and they are a minimum increase of about 0.2°C and a best estimate of about 0.4°C.

i-9d5d05d5a9d7d427c3df9a136705c7dd-farwg1fig8.png

And how much did temperatures rise from 1990 to 2010? Look at the graph below — it’s about 0.3°C.

i-32558e0399427ff846e101eb75d1167f-Fig.A2.lrg.png

So it was Mark Lawson who was dead wrong, not the IPCC. And he wasn’t wrong about a prediction of the future but what was clearly stated in easily obtainable public documents. Switzer will no doubt now declare his confidence in the IPCC and his lack of confidence in Mark Lawson.

Second, Switzer continued with another extraordinary claim:

“In this country, especially during the time of 07 and 08 and 09 it was conducted in a heretic hunting and anti-intellectual environment where sceptics were hunted and hardly heard and indeed it was not only impermissible to question the science, it was impermissible to question the response.

During that time, Switzer was the opinion editor of The Australian, one of its generals in its war on science. Far from not being heard, Switzer would publish everything and anything they produced, for example this, or this and even a front page headline declaring that global warming was a “FRAUD”. That last one was based on the discredited Wegman report. Has Switzer completely forgotten everything he published at The Australian?

Comments

  1. #1 Area Man
    May 19, 2011

    Clearly the original forecast was for 0.2 degrees a decade minimum, or 0.4 degrees over 20 years…

    You are either an extremely stupid or extremely dishonest human being.

    Here’s one last chance to redeem yourself:

    Please show us where the 1990 IPCC report forecast a minimum of 0.4 degrees warming between 1990 and 2010. You’ve been asked many, many times to produce the evidence. Alternatively, you could admit that it doesn’t exist and that you made the whole thing up.

  2. #2 Vince whirlwind
    May 19, 2011

    Is Mark confusing “a rate of increase” with “cumulative gain”, perhaps?

    He’s clearly blocking out the words “in the next century”, in order to misunderstand the report.

    Mark, the rate of increase in the next century *could well actually be 0.5 degrees per decade*, for all we know. We won’t know for sure until the century is over. We do know the rise is not likely to be steady.

    Now go and have a think about what it is you are missing. All the world’s relevant scientific research organisations say you are wrong. It should be obvious to you that it is highly unlikely that it is they who lack an understanding you have been blessed with.

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    May 19, 2011

    > The original point still stands unshaken. You cannot point to a very large scale graph from which it is difficult to tell anything, and say that it somehow modifies the written forecast in the same report, particularly considering that one would have been derived from the other.

    And you expect people to buy your book for reasons other than comedy value?!!!!

    As others have pointed out there is good reason to believe your claim is false because the written forecast would have been derived from the work that also produced the graph.

    But that seems too advanced for you, so let us merely note that if your claim is true then it shoots down your own argument.

    You cannot legitimately take a written forecast for a hundred year time span and linearly interpolate to a 20 year period, UNLESS you can ALSO make a solid case that the forecast expects a linear progression. You have provided no evidence of the latter, and the quote Tim provided explicitly rules this out! I could find year 10 students who could explain why you are wrong – and maybe even a few in earlier grades.

    (Never mind any of the other more advanced concepts that strongly suggest your assumptions are wrong, or that your generalised conclusion is not even close to being valid.)

    I look forward to your continued assertion that “the rise will not be steady” implies that “the rise will be steady”.

    You are clearly incompetent to make the claims that you make about the science if you get something so basic so wrong – and CONTINUE to assert that you are write after having been corrected in any number of ways.

    Assuming on the evidence at hand that this is the level of your competence and logic, then if you had any embarrassment you’d be withdrawing your book as we speak, pending a rewrite with a great deal of aid from people who actually know what they are talking about.

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    May 19, 2011

    Doh!

    > …and CONTINUE to assert that you are write right…

    Hmmm:

    > It should be obvious to you that it is highly unlikely that it is they who lack an understanding you have been blessed with.

    Shorter Dunning-Kruger: “should != is”

  5. #5 Vince whirlwind
    May 19, 2011

    I wonder if it would help if the people who actually wrote the IPCC report told Mark his interpretation of what they wrote is wrong?

    It’s just basic science education.

    a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade

    says one thing to us, and something else to people who
    . don’t do science AND
    . try to fit data to their ideas instead of the other way around

  6. #6 James Haughton
    May 20, 2011

    Mark Lawson, do you have any objection to me quoting you as claiming that the 21st century began in 1990? I have put this to other idiots and they have tacitly accepted it and moved on.

  7. #7 MapleLeaf
    May 20, 2011

    Ben,

    “Wow called me a “denialist.”

    I know that ben. And yes he did, and on that count he was wrong, you did claim to support the theory of AGW before that. I was simply noting that the term in question (Lying sack of shit) that you used also seems to apply to Switzer and Lawson. Are you following me mate?

    Maybe you are not openly defending Switzer and Lawson, I’m happy to concede fault if that accusation was false. But your posts seem to be trying to detract for their many failings.

    So to get on topic let me ask you this: Do you agree with Switzer’s and Lawson’s antics as exposed by Oreskes and Tim here?

  8. #8 frankis
    May 20, 2011

    As we all surely know there’s no hope of Switzer or Lawson even understanding why they’re wrong let alone owning up to their misunderstandings. When Ian Plimer’s your scientific reference there’s no doubt that you’re quite inept with statistics, little doubt that you probably wouldn’t learn any even if you were taught, and I at least will be betting that you’re quite possibly a brazen liar to boot (the malign Plimer influence; see Tim’s extensive archive on him).

    Scientific education? – these tools, like Monckton, need no education because they know it all already. They’re out, loud, proud, and ineducable.

    And Alan Jones has just launched something named after Galileo.

  9. #9 Chris O'Neill
    May 20, 2011

    Tom Switzer:

    I think that many of the overwhelmingly hysterical responses to this blog

    When Switzer loses the argument, he just comes back with an ad hom.

  10. #10 Area Man
    May 20, 2011

    @103:

    “Is Mark confusing “a rate of increase” with “cumulative gain”, perhaps?”

    I think he’s confusing “average rate of increase over 100 years” with “expected increase over the next 20 (starting 10 years too early)”.

    As an analogy, the average increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average was about 1000 points per decade during the 20th century. But if someone was told this in 1940, and he then predicted that the Dow would increase by 2000 points by 1960, he would have been off by a factor of 4. That’s because the Dow didn’t increase in a steady fashion, but rather exponentially. Which is roughly what global temperatures are expected to do.

  11. #11 John Brookes
    May 20, 2011

    Well, the thing that gets me, is that 0.3 degrees per decade is a really huge rate. That’s 3 degrees by 2100! I can’t imagine that it will continue at that rate – that is, I find it hard to believe. So I’m a skeptic!

    However, the weight of science convinces me that my personal skepticism should be put aside in favour of action to reduce the threat.

  12. #12 Vince whirlwind
    May 20, 2011

    Area Man – I reckon Lawson and Switzer will grasp their mistake if they read it the clear way you’ve put it.

    John Brookes – you’re an optimist, but as we see that crashing economies *do* noticeably reduce CO2 emissions, perhaps there will be a self-regulating (human) element to all of this?

  13. #13 SteveC
    May 20, 2011

    Mark Lawson:

    The original point still stands unshaken

    Mark Lawson’s Theorem: I am Right and You Is Wrong

    Method: Stick my fingers in my ears and go “LALALALA CAN’T HEAR YOU” really loudly.

    Results: I can’t hear you!

    Conclusion: I Am Right. QED.

  14. #14 Wow
    May 20, 2011

    > >Mark Lawson:

    > > > The original point still stands unshaken

    This is because Mark is in denial. The point has fallen down but he just tips his head to one side and look! It’s upright again! (of course, the world has now fallen, which just goes to prove how right he is!).

    Winning an argument is pretty easy when you’re nuts.

  15. #15 Wow
    May 20, 2011

    > Ben,

    > “Wow called me a “denialist.”

    > I know that ben. And yes he did, and on that count he was wrong, you did claim to support the theory of AGW before that

    Denial. Not just for AGW.

  16. #16 Wow
    May 20, 2011

    > Wow called me a “denialist.” I already informed him that this is not the case, hence he is a liar.

    How can I be a liar when you are a denialist ben?

  17. #17 Wow
    May 20, 2011

    > I only found a glaring fault with the Tim’s quote from the IPCC.

    No, you haven’t. You’ve constructed what you want to believe is a glaring fault.

    The fault is in your brain, ben.

  18. #18 Wow
    May 20, 2011

    > I never liked the guy and he sure hasn’t lived up to my libertarian fantasy, but then I didn’t expect him to.

    Note how ben still hasn’t answered or been on topic.

    Why?

    Because he likes what Lawson says.

    He knows he can’t say it, though, since his pretense at being no denier will crumble. Yet, such is is desire for Lawson to be right, he can’t actually even pretend to censure him or even hint that maybe something, somewhere, he said has been slightly less than 100% accurate.

    Denial.

    Not just for AGW, for some, it’s a way of life.

  19. #19 Mike G
    May 20, 2011

    >”Clearly the original forecast was for 0.2 degrees a decade minimum, or 0.4 degrees over 20 years, despite strenuous attempts by posters to redefine what was said.”

    Again, I’ll point out that there are graph digitization software programs designed specifically for the purpose of extracting data values from graphs such as this. The minimum forecast change from 1990-2010, as indicated by graph digitization software is 0.31 degrees, not 0.4. However, I’m sure you’ll continue to pretend that this is a misreading of the graph by someone squinting at the screen with a ruler.

    Also, does it look to you like your claimed 0.4 degrees per 20 years is a constant rate of change in the graph? Compare rate in 1990-2010 and 2080-2100. Do they look the same? Now would you care to explain to us why you think they included that graph with the written forecast if one was not derived from the other?

  20. #20 PB
    May 20, 2011

    Switzer and Lawson haven’t responded have they? Came here thinking they’d show these guys a thing or two, but after having had their collective arses handed to them on a plate they’ve slunk away. After that humiliation, anyone else would crawl off and die of shame, but I suspect shame is not an emotion they’re familiar with.

  21. #21 Gus
    May 20, 2011

    Hi Mark and Tom
    You appear to have misunderstood, and the angry crowds may not be helping to clarify the nature of the problem. Let me try.
    1) The 1990 report does say an average of 0.3 degrees a decade (with a range of 0.2-0.5 degrees a decade) over the century.
    2) As Tim has pointed out, however, the graph shows that the rate of warming will be lower in the first part of the century and faster after that. This is because the ocean acts as a heat sink (for a while).
    3) Mark’s interpretation is therefore incorrect, because he is assuming straight line growth, when we know (and the graph shows) curvilinear growth.
    4) Tim’s approach is much better, but hard because the graph does not have high resolution.

    Does that help? If so, I think it would show that you are really concerned about truth, and not just trying to cause confusion (as Ms Oreskes alleges), if you would apologize to everyone for your mistake (Mark), and write an editorial about how you got all mixed up (Tom).

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    May 20, 2011

    > However, I’m sure you’ll continue to pretend that this is a misreading of the graph by someone squinting at the screen with a ruler.

    If you’re speaking of someone using a ruler, I did, and on the screen rather than paper where it would be easier – and reported that it looked pretty close to 0.3 degrees. Not bad :-)

    And that suggests that Lawson could have done at least that well if he had actually cared to.

  23. #23 MapleLeaf
    May 20, 2011

    MikeG @120,

    Thanks for taking the trouble to do what Lawson should have done in the first place. You mention the “minimum” projected increase was 0.31 C between 1990 and 2010, what was the “best” projected increase for the same period? Or am I asking too much. No worries if I am…..

  24. #24 Mike G
    May 20, 2011

    It’s not asking too much. It literally only takes a minute or two to check. The “best” projection for 1990-2010 is 0.44 C.

    BTW, I wouldn’t put too much faith in that second decimal place since the thickness of the line can affect the computer’s precision in determining where the center of the line is.

  25. #25 ben
    May 20, 2011

    >How can I be a liar when you are a denialist ben?

    You are a liar because I am not a denialist. Can you find any quote of mine from the last two years that indicates that I’m a denialist? What is it exactly that you think I am denying? AGW? I’m saying right now that this is not the case. If you have a problem with that, GFY.

  26. #26 Jeremy C
    May 20, 2011

    The thing is Tom Switzer and Mark Lawson kmow exactly what they are doing. They don’t need funding to persuade them to deny, they would gladly pay to continue denying if that is what it takes.

    On the other hand I just loved Switzer’s ‘agnostic on climate science’ line during the session on the Drum. Oreskes must have a great deal of patience to deal with such a line, but then she has seen all the lies and twists and turns that the deniers put out and Switzer is most probably a cream puff compared with some of the ideological warriors found on the other side of the Pacific.

  27. #27 MapleLeaf
    May 20, 2011

    MikeG,

    Thanks a bunch. So observed warming was near +0.37 C (+/- 0.05 C), projected best estimate was 0.44 C, with minimum projected warming of 0.31 C. Now contrast that with the projection based on Lindzen’s ideas, here.

    Are you using freeware or did you purchase the digitizing software?

  28. #28 Dave R
    May 20, 2011

    The executive summary of [chapter 6](http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_06.pdf) (PDF!) gave the expected figures for 1990-2030: Low=0.7, Best=1.1, High=1.5. Even with the expected increase in the rate over that period, the Low estimate was still less than what Lawson claimed for 1990-2010, i.e. 0.7/2 = 0.35.

  29. #29 Eli Rabett
    May 20, 2011

    No, no, no. It ain’t denial, it’s rejection

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    May 20, 2011

    > I just loved Switzer’s ‘agnostic on climate science’ line…

    …because he hasn’t gone very deep into it – which is clear from his stunning lack of rigour on this thread.

    But he also argues, hoping no-one will notice, that despite his lack of knowledge that we shouldn’t bother doing anything about the concerns raised by the science.

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    May 20, 2011

    > Even with the expected increase in the rate over that period, the Low estimate was still less than what Lawson claimed for 1990-2010, i.e. 0.7/2 = 0.35.

    Ouch!

    > You mention the “minimum” projected increase was 0.31 C between 1990 and 2010, what was the “best” projected increase for the same period?

    It might be better to talk about the “Low Estimate increase” rather than “minimum projected”. Sans more details of what the different estimates actually are one could argue that the confidence intervals implied by the graph accommodate a “minimum projected increase” of (say) “Low Estimate” at 2010 – “Best Estimate” at 1990.

    But that’s probably too advanced a concept for Lawson.

    You’d think he’d be able to understand that graph comparing Hansen and Lindzen though :-)

  32. #32 MapleLeaf
    May 21, 2011

    Lotharsson @132,

    Thanks…point taken. I was not being true to the original nomenclature.

    Yes, that graph comparing Lindzen with Hansen and reality is quite striking. No doubt Lawson et al. do not wish to entertain such inconvenient revelations.

  33. #33 Mike G
    May 21, 2011

    @128 As I mentioned in #68, I used a trial version of the program DigitizeIt. There are literally dozens of graph digitization programs available for download online though- mostly as trial versions. I can’t attest to which one is the best since I’ve only tried this one.

  34. #34 Brendan of Wollongong NSW
    May 22, 2011

    WotWot nailed it. Switzer is a dishonest ideological bully; a politically driven sophist of the lowest order.

  35. #35 Wow
    May 24, 2011

    > You are a liar because I am not a denialist

    You’re denying like crazy, ben.

    Note also how people like ClimateWatcher over at SkS insists they aren’t a denialist but a “lukewarmer”.

    You’re denying lots of things.

  36. #36 Wow
    May 24, 2011

    > Can you find any quote of mine from the last two years that indicates that I’m a denialist?

    Apart from that one?

    > I believe that the available data is not sufficient to make such a claim. What, did they have temperature stations 10,000 years ago? And if the data from 10,000 years ago is so wonderful, why do we need expensive measurement stations now? Wouldn’t the same data sources from 10,000 years ago be good enough today?

    > They claim know the rate of increase/decrease in global mean temperature for any 100 year window over the last 10,000 years to this level of precision?

    > I got in an argument here last week about melting glaciers and the “scientists” in that fight were perfectly happy to raise the alarm over a 5 year trend!

    > I call bullshit. I don’t believe that temperatures were known to this level of precision for the last 10,000 years. It’s not my fault that they fail to convince. Their job is to demonstrate that the data indeed shows this

    > And right, Obama isn’t a socialist in the correct sense of the term, he’s just a proponent of the highly regulated welfare state.

    See, it’s not just climate you’re in denial over.

  37. #37 PaulS
    June 1, 2011

    I’m a little late to the party but there’s a key point that everybody seems to have missed here. The whole discussion has involved the question of whether or not temperature observations match what was projected by the Business-as-usual scenario but nobody seems to have checked whether or not that was the scenario that actually happened. Here’s the thing: it wasn’t. Business, from the perspective of 1990 Man transported directly to 2011, has been decidedly unusual. To elucidate, I’ll go over what happened regarding the three greenhouse gases highlighted in the FAR SPM:

    1) CO2 – The collapse of the Soviet Union was surely a major contributor to the relatively stunted CO2 increase in the 90s. The BaU scenario had 2010 CO2 levels at over 400ppm. What really happened lies in between BaU and Scenario B.

    2) Methane – Clearly Communism is a methane-heavy ideology… actually I don’t know why methane levelled-off so abruptly during the 90s, but it did. 2010 levels are just about spot on for Scenario B.

    3) CFC11 – The Montreal Protocol was implemented around the world and worked better than expected. 2010 CFC11 levels are significantly below even Scenario D.

    Overall I would suggest that Emissions Scenario B is a better fit for what happened between 1990 and 2010, which means a best estimate of about 0.15 C/decade

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    June 2, 2011

    Well worth saying, PaulS.

  39. #39 factoid
    June 21, 2011

    The best evidence that the IPCC 1990 predictions were wrong, is the IPCC 2007 prediction of 0.2C/dec warming from 2001. That’s a 50% reduction in warming, which is a significant error.

    IPCC 1990 predicts 1C warming from 1990-2025 which is 0.29C/dec. We are nearly 60% through to the end of this projection. Warming since 1990 is hadcrut 0.15C/dec and Giss 0.18C/dec.

    So according to Hadcrut, the IPCC dataset, warming since 1990 has been half that projected by the IPCC in 1990.

    Warming since 2001 is actually a cooling of -.05C/dec. Another IPCC failure.

    Lambert’s clever misdirection would have you believe that we are on track for a rise over the next 15 years of 0.6C or 0.4C/decade. Remember IPCC 2007 project 0.2C/decade or half that. And we have cooled this century.

  40. #40 Dave R
    June 21, 2011

    >cooled this century.

    You’re a liar. [Warming has continued as expected](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2009/warmest-decade).

  41. #41 factoid
    June 21, 2011

    Dave R like most people here you are sadly misinformed.

    The warmest decade is not inconsistant with cooling during that decade.

    Take a look at the figures yourself before exposing your ignorance.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend

  42. #42 Dave R
    June 21, 2011

    >cooling during that decade.

    And you’re a moron as well as a liar. [Get yourself a basic education](http://web.archive.org/web/20100104072651/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/).

  43. #43 factoid
    June 21, 2011

    Dan R are you too afraid to even look at my link with current figures?

    Your link is a Deltoid post from 2009.

    It doesn’t even mention Hadcrut which is the IPCC dataset.

    The datasets it does use are nowhere near 0.2C/decade.

    Rss -0.04C/dec COOLING
    Giss 0.04C/dec 20% OF PROJECTED WARMING

  44. #44 Dave R
    June 21, 2011

    >Your link is a Deltoid post from 2009.

    Neither of the links I posted are to a deltoid post, you liar.

    >It doesn’t even mention Hadcrut which is the IPCC dataset.

    Yes it does, you liar. Here is what it says:

    _New figures released today in Copenhagen show that – despite 1998 being the warmest individual year – the last ten years have clearly been the warmest period in the 160-year record of global surface temperature, __maintained jointly by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia__._

    >Rss -0.04C/dec COOLING

    You are cherry picking a period that is [too short to determine the trend](http://web.archive.org/web/20081029173848/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/dont-get-fooled-again/), as explained in the link I posted that you either did not read, were too stupid to understand, or are deliberately lying about.

  45. #46 factoid
    June 21, 2011

    I did mistake the Tamino blog for this one. Same rubbish though.

    You are the liar. Post 143 link does not mention Hadcrut because there is cooling.

    Your post 145 link shows even Tamino admits the cooling: “HadCRU data don’t show an upward trend at all over the last decade.” You are wrong again.

    So first you claim no cooling, and now its too short a period.

    I suggest you read Fawcett and Jones 2008 from the BoM: “Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about
    ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-toyear
    fluctuations.”

    How many times can you be wrong?

  46. #47 Dave R
    June 21, 2011

    >Post 143 link does not mention Hadcrut

    No, it doesn’t. Post 141 link does.

    >”HadCRU data don’t show an upward trend at all over the last decade.” You are wrong again.

    I did not say that you could not cherry pick a decade in which the noise masks the trend. I said that you _could_ cherry pick a decade in which the noise masks the trend and that’s what you are doing.

    It is profoundly dishonest to throw away nearly all the data in order to cherry pick a period which gives a misleading result, as you have done.

    >I suggest you read Fawcett and Jones 2008 from the BoM

    I suggest _you_ read it instead of just quote mining the abstract. It does not support your claim at all.

    _We have noted that ten years is about the __minimum averaging time__ to remove the year-to-year variations in these global temperature data sets_

    They use 11 year moving averages to filter out the noise, like the met office link I posted first. And their results show that you are wrong.

  47. #48 chek
    June 21, 2011

    Factoid, as with most deniers you’re relying on cherry picked data. You might want to acquaint yourself with the limitations of the hadcrut dataset and include other series for the [global picture](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend/plot/uah/plot/rss).

    Even then, you should also be aware that a decade is too short a timespan to have any statistical significance.

    We’ll put this attempt down to yet another wannabee thinking they’ve overturned climate science with a few mouse clicks again. Not.

  48. #49 factoid
    June 21, 2011

    Wow your link to yet another blog is meaningless.

    You and everyone else here don’t understand the basic flaw of IPCC projections. The IPCC itself has revised down its projections from 0.3C/dec to 0.2C/dec.

    That is a blatant admission that the 1990 projection was wrong, from the IPCC itself.

    Another thing you guys don’t realise is that not all sceptics think the same. You assume that because you are in groupthink, with consistant talking points and websites you can link with easy answers, that everyone else is like you. Sceptics are actually individuals with free thought, and often unique analysis.

  49. #50 Dave R
    June 21, 2011

    >How many times can you be wrong?

    It appears that you can be wrong _every_ time. How many more times do you want your nose rubbed in it?

  50. #51 Dave R
    June 21, 2011

    >Sceptics are actually individuals with free thought, and often unique analysis.

    Yes we are, and we certainly aren’t taken in by your moronic anti-science talking points.

  51. #52 chek
    June 21, 2011

    factoid said: “Sceptics are actually individuals with free thought, and often unique analysis”.

    ROFL.

    Who somehow coincidentally just happen to repeat climate dunce Watt’s failed canards

  52. #53 Wow
    June 21, 2011

    It’s also an unique analysis that says that we’re being led astray by lizard alien overlords.

    The thing that makes it unique is also what makes it wrong.

    > The IPCC itself has revised down its projections from 0.3C/dec to 0.2C/dec.

    Nope, that’s a load of bullshit from Bob Carter who ignored that there were several scenarios and Bob just “forgot” about all of them apart from the worst one.

    The IPCC didn’t revise its projections. We followed one of the scenarios the projections were on and Bob “revised” his argument to pick the scenario we didn’t follow.

    The meaningless thing here is you, factoid.

  53. #54 Wow
    June 21, 2011

    > You assume that because you are in groupthink

    There’s a reason why mathematicians all say that two plus two is four, and the answer isn’t “groupthink”.

  54. #55 Robert Murphy
    June 21, 2011

    “Another thing you guys don’t realise is that not all sceptics think the same.”

    True. Some say there is no warming, and it’s natural. Others say there is but it’s the Sun. Others say it’s ENSO. Other’s say it’s UHI. Other’s say the temp data is all a fraud, and it unequivocally shows that the warming ended in 1998 (or 1995). Others say that climate scientists are all a bunch of alarmists, and that we are going to be entering into a LIA soon. Others like to pretend the Sun is made of iron. That the greenhouse effect isn’t real.

    And that’s just sampling posts at WUWT. :)

  55. #56 factoid
    June 21, 2011

    I’m convinced you guys don’t read IPCC reports.

    Are you saying that AR4 does not project 0.2C decade up to 2030?

    Are you saying we are on track for another 0.7C between now and 2025 according to IPCC 1990?

  56. #57 Chris O'Neill
    June 21, 2011

    factoid:

    I suggest you read Fawcett and Jones 2008 from the BoM: “Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-toyear fluctuations.”

    I suggest you read it too. Ten years are required which doesn’t mean the same as sufficient as you are implying. 30 years are normally required to establish an estimate of climate and would also be required to establish an estimate of climatic trend.

    I suggest you go back to the cherry-picking fields to put your skill to some use.

  57. #58 factoid
    June 21, 2011

    Chris, you should read what is there, and not suppose what isn’t there when you don’t like it.

    It clearly states 10 years are required to determine a trend from the noise.

  58. #59 Dave R
    June 21, 2011

    >10 years are required to determine a trend from the noise.

    You’ve already been given a reference which proves that 10 years is not sufficient. [Here's another one](http://web.archive.org/web/20100104074329/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/). If you think those analyses were wrong, explain _why_ they were wrong instead of just begging the question.

    If you can justify your claim that 10 years is sufficient, do so, showing your working. If you were not lying about Fawcett and Jones, it would be a simple task to copy their justification of your claim.

  59. #60 chek
    June 21, 2011

    From the FAR Executive Summary:

    “Based on current model results, we predict:
    • under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
    emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
    global mean temperature during the next century of
    about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
    0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade),
    this is greater than that
    seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a
    likely increase in global mean temperature of about
    1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before
    the end of the next century The rise will not be
    steady because of the influence of other factors
    • under the other IPCC emission scenarios which
    assume progressively increasing levels of controls
    rates of increase in global mean temperature of about
    0.2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0.1°C per
    decade (Scenario C) and about 0.1 °C per decade
    (Scenario D)”

    From AR4 SPM:
    “For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. Afterwards, temperature projections increasingly depend on specific emissions scenarios (Figure 3.2). {WGI 10.3, 10.7; WGIII 3.2}

    Since the IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global averaged temperature increases between about 0.15 and 0.3°C per decade from 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {WGI 1.2, 3.2}”

    I’m convinced you don’t understand them, factoid.
    But then again, your chosen mentors don’t actually want you to either.

    Factoid said: “It clearly states 10 years are required to determine a trend from the noise.

    Good luck backing that claim up with an actual citation.

  60. #61 factoid
    June 21, 2011

    I’m happy with the analysis of the BoM in a published paper as quoted.

    As opposed to the calculations on an activist blog.

  61. #62 factoid
    June 21, 2011

    chek thank you for confirming the IPCC revised its projections from 0.3C/dec to 0.2C/dec.

  62. #63 Wow
    June 21, 2011

    You really don’t understand a damn thing, do you factoid.

    Yet because of your overwheming arrogance, you insist on conflating your lack of comprehension as demonstration of intelligence.

    You see, business wasn’t as usual.

    The IPCC didn’t change their forecasts, businesses failed.

  63. #64 Dave R
    June 21, 2011

    >I’m happy with the analysis of the BoM

    Good. Let’s see what they have to say:

    Global warming stopped in 1998. Global temperatures have remained static since then, in spite of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Global temperatures have cooled since 1998. Because 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, a global cooling trend has established itself.

    All these statements, and variations on them, have been confidently asserted in the international and Australian media in the past year or so, but __the data do not support them__.

    So the source you are citing to support your claim __states precisely the opposite__.

  64. #65 Wow
    June 21, 2011

    > It clearly states 10 years are required to determine a trend from the noise.

    FALSE.

    You need at least 10 years to remove most of the noise.

    But you need at least three points to determine a trend and give its variance.

    Tell me, hemorrhoid, what are three 10’s?

  65. #66 Lotharsson
    June 21, 2011

    > chek thank you for confirming the IPCC revised its projections from 0.3C/dec to 0.2C/dec.

    Wow, we’ve got a live one here. Doesn’t understand uncertainty ranges, doesn’t understand scenarios, doesn’t even understand the accelerating nature of the predictions – and is *still* confident it’s understanding is correct.

    > So the source you are citing to support your claim states precisely the opposite.

    So factoid == sunspot, at least as far as clown-trolling goes. Clown-trolling, as personified by sunspot in his own glorious thread dedicated to his uniquely enthusiastic pursuit of the art in the context of climate science, is the practice of pretending to substantiate your claims with references that almost every time refute the claims you are making.

    Factoid, you’ve got a long way to go before you’re even fit to lick sunspot’s clown boots.

  66. #67 factoid
    June 21, 2011

    wow – businesses failed. LOL. That’s the best excuse yet for failure. I guess it fits your evil business ideology, and lack of reality.

    DaveR- The BoM was correct with data 1998-2007.
    N0w with data 2001-2010 the same principles and methodology show cooling.

  67. #68 rhwombat
    June 21, 2011

    Oh good…more Troll-goring. Mind you, this one’s a bit flat, not a patch on watching GWS do hockey puck impressions.

  68. #69 Dave R
    June 21, 2011

    >N0w with data 2001-2010 the same principles and methodology show cooling.

    [The same methodology shows that warming has continued as expected](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:132).

  69. #70 Chris O'Neill
    June 21, 2011

    Chris, you should read what is there, and not suppose what isn’t there when you don’t like it.

    factoid, you should take your own advice and stop being a hypocrite and learn some english while you’re at it. You obviously don’t realize that you are trying to conclude that 10 years is sufficient. Nowhere did Fawcett and Jones say 10 years is sufficient. They said that 10 years are required. “Required” does not necessarily mean that 10 years is enough. It just means that less than 10 years is certainly not enough.

    It clearly states 10 years are required to determine a trend from the noise.

    Not disputing that. You just don’t know what it means.

  70. #71 Wow
    June 21, 2011

    > wow – businesses failed. LOL. That’s the best excuse yet for failure.

    Well, maybe you didn’t notice in your mom’s basement, but:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union

    So businesses failed so the BAU wasn’t BAU.

Current ye@r *