Matt Ridley responds with a “sleight of hand”

Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial:

I did not write for the Globe and Mail in 1993 let alone about climate!

global av temp (ignoring pinatubo drop) is about 0.2C above 1991 level after 22 yrs – so I was spot on so far!

As you can see, the graph he cites shows 0.5 degrees of warming since he made his prediction, so it seems that he is applying a 0.3 degree correction for Pinatubo. Which brings us to Ridley’s next column, published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 Jan 1994 (one month after his column with the failed prediction):

The satellites, however, tell a very different story about the 1980s (their data do not go further back). Orbiting the planet from north to south as the Earth turns beneath them, they take the temperature of the lower atmosphere using microwave sensors. By the end of 1993 the temperature was trending downwards by 0.04 of a degree per decade.

The satellite’s masters explain away this awkward fact by subtracting two volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichon in 1982) and four El Ninos (sudden changes in the circulation of the water in the Pacific). Since they assume that all these would have cooled the atmosphere, they conclude that the 1980s did see a gradual warming of the air by 0.09 degrees: still less than a third of that recorded by the old method.

Even with this sleight of hand (and when I was a scientist I was trained not to correct my data according my preconceptions of the result), the startling truth remains that the best measure yet taken of the atmosphere has found virtually no evidence of global warming.

So according to Matt Ridley in 1994, Matt Ridley in 2013 used a “sleight of hand”, something that he was trained not to do. If we hold Matt Ridley to the standard he declared at the time of his prediction there has been 0.5 degrees of warming since he predicted that there would be just one degree by 2100.

But if we do want to know what the long term warming trend is, it is not a “sleight of hand” to remove the short term effects of volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina. It is, however, a sleight of hand for Ridley to just correct for Pinatubo and not El Nino/La Nina. Here is the graph from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) that shows what temperature records look like if the short term effects are removed:

Using Ridley’s preferred UAH data set we see that there has been 0.4 degrees of warming since he made his prediction.

Any way you slice it, there has been much more warming that Ridley predicted. I hope this information will help him reach stage 5, acceptance.

Comments

#1 bill
January 14, 2013

Ho ho – now we’ll see if sauce / goose = sauce / gander!
#2 guthrie
January 14, 2013

Before coming onto this blog post, I read teh last one and thought of checking the satellite record. I found that indeed Ridley’s 0.2 degrees came from Spencer and his fabled UAH.
I then noticed something even more amusing – the side of the graph is labelled as average from 1981 to 2010 – basically wiping out any connection to the more usual long term graphs used that are based on something like 1950 to 1980 or thereabouts, i forget exactly which. This serves to minimise the overal increase in temperature, especially since he mid 1970′s.

I didn’t realise Ridley was so anti-science as to dismiss the proven facts that la nina and volcanic eruptions have a cooling effect. Obviously the magnitude of the cooling will vary depending on the specifics of the eruption or the change in ocean circulation, but I’m pretty sure that was all quite well established by the 1990′s.
#3 joni
January 14, 2013

guthrie

Just further on the UAH graphs from Spencer. I have a screen shot from Bolt’s website from 2010, and it uses a graph from Spencer’s blog.

The graph clearly states that the average used is 79-98… and now the graphs have the average 81-10.

And the average line seems to have moved. Whereas the El Nino warming top looks to be approaching 0.8 in the screenshot graph, it now looks to be approaching 0.7.

Funny that.

I wonder when Spencer changed his base line?
#4 Matt Ridley
January 14, 2013

Sleight of hand is yours. What I said was that I never wrote for the Globe and Mail but “maybe GandM quoted something else I wrote”.

Forgot to mention that did you?

Or was it a sleight of hand?

Missed the “1991″ in my other tweet did you?

Or was it a sleight of hand?

Really, you must be desperate to resort to these tactics.
#5 Vince Whirlwind
January 14, 2013

You wrote something. G & M published it in 1993. What you wrote was wrong.

I wonder, which of those three things is salient?

And yet, for which of those things do you offer no argument?
#6 guthrie
January 14, 2013

Joni – Haha, I just noticed that myself. Something was nagging me about the graph – why 1981 when the satellite started in 1979. I went back and looked and yes, I agree with you.

Anyone got access to the Economist state of the world thingy in 1993? It would be interesting to find out if the Globe and Mail article is any different to what was in that.
#7 guthrie
January 14, 2013

Ridley’s WSJ article is indeed interesting, although I see it doesn’t do what some journalists, e.g. George Monbiot do, which is to link to their evidence for specific statements in their online article, although that is probably more the WSJ’s fault.
I note too that it is in the opinion section, does that mean we can understand it to just be one man’s opinion with little connection to reality?

The wikipedia “Citation needed” should be sprinkled throughout the WSJ article, especially for the likes of

“A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland’s ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on.”
Again, that ignores oceanic acidification and its effects on the ecology of the oceans; it assumes everything will be smooth such as rain fall increases (whereas it is clear it won’t be smooth) and ignores the parts of the world where there will be decreases in rainfall.
The quotes from unnamed but impressive sources do seem to be the standard journalistic “Look at how important my sources are” trope, rathar than a serious attempt at being useful.
More will be said by others; I am not up to speed on the claims by the likes of Lewis, but the track record of Ridley does not incline me to believe them. I shall look into them when I have a chance.
#8 Tim Lambert
January 14, 2013

Matt, your initial response was denial, just as my post says. Your tweet did say 1991. Which is a sleight of hand, since your prediction was made in 1993.
#9 Wow
January 14, 2013

“I note too that it is in the opinion section, does that mean we can understand it to just be one man’s opinion with little connection to reality?”

You can have an opinion ABOUT facts, but you can’t have an opinion OF fact. Facts get statements, not opinion.
#10 Bernard J.
January 14, 2013

Speaking of cherry-picking historical dates for comparison, this begs treatment from an Australian perspective Tim:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/global-warming-it-was-warmer-in-sydney-in-1790/
#11 Chris O'Neill
January 15, 2013

this begs treatment from an Australian perspective

Unsurprisingly, that piece of denialism was written by a member of the alternative government party that is half made up of denialists. The people of the Hughes electorate must be so pleased that this is how their member spends his time.
#12 john byatt
January 15, 2013

Another misinformation piece regarding the sea level rise assessment sea level rise, Gregory nov 2012.

Australian nonsense does not seem to be behind pywall

a discussion on the paper though is available at RC by stephan

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/sea-level-rise-where-we-stand-at-the-start-of-2013/
#13 MikeH
January 15, 2013

The Australian’s misrepresentation (Sea rise ‘not linked to warming’, says report) of the paper by Gregory et. al 2012 is by Murdoch’s science misrepresenter Graham Lloyd.

John Church a coauthor responded here

Dr John Church, a CSIRO scientist and Working Group 1 coordinating lead author also said that a newspaper story published today saying sea level rises were not linked to climate change was inaccurate.

“Sea level clearly is linked to climate change, it clearly is linked to greenhouse gases and that was in the paper quoted by The Australian. The quote is, I am sorry, inaccurate,” he said.
#14 Vince Whirlwind
January 15, 2013

I think Dr Church is calling Graeme Lloyd a liar.

Presumably Lloyd will scurry off to his next sliming without worrying about yet another taint being heaped upon his honour.
#15 bill
January 15, 2013

Honour in The Australian‘s editorial suites?

I think not. They’ve all had to drink the Kool-Aid at Uncle Rupert’s behest.

It’s hard to recall an example of a supposedly respectable media organization going so far out on a limb in support of sheer, unadulterated crankery. When you start dissing CSIRO and the BoM your days as a national institution are numbered.
#16 Vince Whirlwind
January 15, 2013

Well, there are still plenty of Real Estate Agents and Used Car Salesmen in business. Not to mention lawyers.

We have the media we deserve, I think.
#17 Toby
January 15, 2013

Ridley should just stop digging and shut up.
#18 Chris O'Neill
January 15, 2013

Matt Ridley:

What I said was that I never wrote for the Globe and Mail but “maybe GandM quoted something else I wrote”.

Forgot to mention that did you?

Since nitpicking appears important to you, I don’t believe TIm Lambert actually said you wrote for GandM, just that something you wrote appeared in GandM.

Really, you must be desperate to resort to these tactics.

I wonder how desperate you need to be to ignore your most important mistake, i.e. that your prediction of 0.1 deg C of warming per decade was WAY too low, even starting from before Pinatubo.

Pretty desperate, especially compared with how desperate you claim Tim Lambert to be.
#19 Matt Ridley responds to Tim Lambert’s War @ Deltoid | Watts Up With That?
January 15, 2013

[...] Matt Ridley responds with a “sleight of hand” (scienceblogs.com) Rate this:Share this:Google +1TwitterFacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in IPCC, Opinion and tagged Andrew Revkin, climate change, Deltoid, Matt Ridley, The Globe and Mail, Tim Lambert. Bookmark the permalink. ← Senator Vitter calls EPA FOI release “fishy” [...]
#20 Russell Seitz
January 16, 2013

I really think you owe Matt some space to reply in kind, considering how much wiggle room you’ve assigned yourself ,
#21 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

Ridley should just stop digging and shut up.

I’d prefer a correction before shutting up but one suspects that would limit his future opportunities with the outlets that prefer his incorrect messages.
#22 ianam
January 16, 2013

Matt, you’re a grossly dishonest sack of shit, and your irrelevant crap about exactly how your (climate) bullshit got into GandM is just a further demonstration of that.
#23 Rog Tallbloke
The Internet
January 16, 2013

I don’t know how anyone in this day and age can be stupid enough not to see that the world is warming, and dangerously so, all it takes is the briefest perusal of the data to see the obvious
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2012/mean:3/offset:-.25/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2012/trend/offset:-.25
#24 Jeff Harvey
January 16, 2013

Good to see old Rog cherry picking with 1998 as the start date. This has become the deniers new version of Little Big Horn.
#25 Vince Whirlwind
January 16, 2013

Ooh, look! Roger is right!
Global warming has accelerated by a factor of 30!!!!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2008/trend/offset:-.25/plot/rss/from:2008/to:2011/trend/offset:-.25

Thanks for pointing that out, Roger, it’s amazing how the real scientists are hiding the real facts from us by mis-applying statistics.
#26 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Jeff, wipe your windows, the plot and trend line begin well before the ’98 el nino, at the start of 1997. The clue is in the URL:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2012/mean:3/offset:-.25/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2012/trend/offset:-.25

Which part of ‘from:1997′ don’t you understand?

I know you warmies tend to see what you pre-suppose rather than what is actually there, but really.
#27 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Vince: I was checking out the statement from the ‘real scientists’ that the trend over 15 years shouldn’t be flat according to the climate models.

Your green trend line goes from the trough of a la nina at the start of 2008 to just past the peak of the 2010 el nino – not the present.

Cherry picking and misleading description from you. For shame.
#28 Jeff Harvey
January 16, 2013

Rog, You guys are masters of the art of cherry picking. This ‘warming stopped in 1998′ meme is straight from the comic books. 1998 was exceptional by any standards – an enormous El Nino, the biggest ever recorded, which probably was responsible for 0.2 C of warming on its own.

Do you people have no shame? Is this how your ‘science’ masquerades as intellectual discourse? Before 1998 Hansen’s arguments were seen as a doomsday myth; in other words, there was no warming. The it was natual, then it stopped in 98… et al. ad nauseum. What’s in your next bag of tricks?
#29 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Jeff: This ‘warming stopped in 1998′ meme is straight from the comic books.

No, it’s straight from the data, if you give blunt instruments like linear regression any credence.

A slightly more sophisticated analysis would be that the warm half of the ~60 yr oceanic cycle topped out around 2004, and air temperatures lag behind SST on the global average by a number of months.

In any case, the ’98 el nino was a natural event. ENSO has been a feature of the climate system since long before man set fire to coal. There were some big ones around solar minimum in the late C19th soon after the Sun went quieter then too.
#30 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

So what Rog is saying is that, if you factor out certain natural variations, it has warmed since 1998 or maybe 1997, even if you cherrypick RSS lower troposphere and ignore surface temperatures!.

They really don’t want to look at HADCRUT4 then. It’s warming even faster than RSS lower troposphere is!

Good to know. There are a whole lot of people who need to hear that from you, Rog. You’ll get right on that, I’m sure?
#31 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

Or you can try the denialists’ previous favourite satellite record: UAH (lower troposphere).

Shit, that’s warming too! Lucky Rog didn’t pick that one for his graph, eh?!

Or you could try this GISTEMP data.

Warming too! Rog luckily avoided that one too!

And…once you subtract out Rog’s “natural variation caused extra warming prior to 2004, but isn’t any more”, the underlying trend is EVEN MORE WARMING THAN THE TRENDLINE ON THOSE GRAPHS SHOWS!

Thanks Rog! I’m, like, totally convinced now!
#32 bill
January 16, 2013

Speaking of Dunning-Kruger…
#33 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Lotharsson: let the chips fall where they may, I follow the evidence, not a credo. My understanding of the climate system is that we would expect the oceans to carry on kicking out enough energy to keep the lower troposphere warm for some time to come. After all they were absorbing more solar energy than the long term average for seven decades before the Sun went sleepy-byes in 2005.

There’s a goodly amount of thermal inertia in the climate system so far as the easily warmed air is concerned. Resting your theory of climate on air temperatures is for air-heads, and ‘real scientists’ overly obsessed with atmospheric physics.

The ocean is the big dog on the block when it comes to heat capacity. Before the latest round of ‘adjustments’ in late 2011, ARGO was showing a fall in ocean heat content from 2004. I suspect that is the reality still. If so, then while the continuing warm ocean-heated lower trop and near surface temps lull people into thinking warming of the whole-Earth systm is continuing, the end of the run of el ninos in another decade or so will reveal the harsh reality of a cooler world.

Nature is now performing the crucial experiment our insufficiently accurate instruments can’t decide. During the late C20th, temperature was rising, co2 was rising, and the Sun was at a well above average level of activity.

Now, co2 continues to rise, the Sun has gone sleepy-byes and the temperature trend has flattened out.

There is a correlation between low solar activity and increased volcanic activity.

Place your bets. I have $1000 on the trend from 2005 to 2020 being downwards.
#34 Toby
January 16, 2013

Rog, your argument is inane. Whatever about short term “pauses” in rate, the earth’s climate system is not in thermal equilibrium and energy in > energy out. Simple physics says the earth will warm over the long term until that becomes equality or reverses iself. Heat sequestered in the oceans will come back.
#35 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

…let the chips fall where they may, I follow the evidence, not a credo.

Er, no, that doesn’t seem to be the case. That’s why you chose RSS and didn’t point out any of the others, and why you DIDN’T point out that your 60-year oceanic cycle theory means the underlying surface warming trend is even larger than the trendline on the graphs.

…we would expect the oceans to carry on kicking out enough energy to keep the lower troposphere warm for some time to come.

Well, unless I’ve missed something they’re still accumulating rather a lot of energy right now, far more than the atmosphere is. Not sure why you think the sun stopped warming them in 2005. (Ever pondered just how much energy it takes to melt a large volume of Arctic sea ice?)

…hen while the continuing warm ocean-heated lower trop …lull people into thinking warming of the whole-Earth systm is continuing…

Did you notice that you had just alleged the opposite – that the lower trop hasn’t warmed since about 1997? And that your previous comment about 60 year ocean cycles undermines your own “it hasn’t warmed since 1997″ thing? But now you’re back to arguing that the lower trop is part of the evidence that will falsely convince people it’s really still warming?

Which one of you wins when you argue with yourself?

(And hey Bernard, here’s someone willing to bet on climate skepticism. Make him your standard offer!)
#36 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

Here’s a trenchant article for Tall Rog.

Won’t make any difference, of course.
#37 Wow
January 16, 2013

During the late C20th, temperature was rising, co2 was rising, and the Sun was at a well above average level of activity.

Now, co2 continues to rise, the Sun has gone sleepy-byes and the temperature trend has flattened out.

There is a correlation between low solar activity and increased volcanic activity.

And CO2.

‘sfunny how you forgot that.

With more CO2 and sun, hotter.

With more CO2 and less sun, not colder.

Since more sun == hotter (you DO agree with that, right?), then “less sun == colder”, right?

Therefore not colder is warmer than colder. More CO2 is warming.
#38 Wow
January 16, 2013

I note that when it comes to YOUR ideas, Roggie, there’s no such thing as “correlation != causation”.

You aren’t using a different standard than one you demand of others, are you?
#39 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

And he totally follows the evidence – except when he doesn’t like it, and then he “suspects” something other than what it shows.
#40 spangled drongo
January 16, 2013

[off topic - deleted TL]
#41 bill
January 16, 2013

Stepping outside your field of incompetence there, Drongo?
#42 Agnostic
January 16, 2013

As you can see, the graph he cites shows 0.5 degrees of warming since he made his prediction, so it seems that he is applying a 0.3 degree correction for Pinatubo.

Hang on a second, the UAH shows 0.3 degrees of warming since 1993:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1993/to:2013/mean:3/offset:-.25/plot/uah/from:1993/to:2013/trend/offset:-.25

That equates to about 0.15 degrees per decade. Since the prediction was for warming over a century, isn’t it a little disingenuous to pick out 2 decades of very noisy data to say the claim was wrong? If you go further back to 1983:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1983/to:2013/mean:3/offset:-.25/plot/uah/from:1983/to:2013/trend/offset:-.25

…you get about 0.45 degrees of warming, still only around 0.15 degrees per decade.

If you go back 60 years you have to use a broader range of temperature series such as HADCRUT4 and you get:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1953/to:2013/mean:3/offset:-.25/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1953/to:2013/trend/offset:-.25

or about 0.65 degrees of warming or about 0.108 degrees per decade. Which is pretty much what he said. Ah but temperature rise is accelerating? Well if we are using decades to as way markers then it doesn’t look like it either:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2003/to:2013/mean:3/offset:-.25/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2003/to:2013/trend/offset:-.25

So at least from the data it doesn’t look like he is far off the mark at all.
#43 bill
January 16, 2013

What are you folks going to do when we have another large El Nino and/or the sun comes bouncing back? Even Pat Michaels has warned you lot about carrying on like this…
#44 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

Aw, you know what the drill is by now bill.

When it’s warming so clearly even they can’t deny it “Look, there’s natural variation at work. Don’t even think about anthropogenic forcing!”

And when it’s not warming that clearly it’s “Look, it’s not warming [much]. There’s nothing to worry about, especially not anthropogenic forcing!”

Perfect epistemic closure, or in simple terms “heads it’s the sun, tails it’s not us”.
#45 chek
January 16, 2013

Is it perhaps the case they believe that if every denier says the same thing at the same time it will come true? The crankosphere is giving this meme maximum effort at present (until the next one).
#46 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

Chek, that could also be the case if they all share the same small set of brain cells
#47 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Toby: the earth’s climate system is not in thermal equilibrium and energy in > energy out.

Can you tell me which OLR dataset you’re looking at please. The one I’m looking at shows an increase in OLR over the last 30 years.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/olr3.png

Thanks
#48 Sou
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/
January 16, 2013

Matt R is so hard up for a climate science audience he has resorted to a denier website to post a rather silly ‘rebuttal’. The site is called wattsupwiththat (wuwt) – I doubt too many people here would frequent it (it’s full of anti-science articles dumbed down even further for the illiterati).

Readers at wuwt say ‘CO2 is plant food’ and the world is heading for an ice age any day now, (ie when they aren’t saying ‘it’s the sun’ or ‘cosmic rays’ or ‘ENSO’), so his ‘lukewarmerism’ probably won’t get a good reception there either.
#49 Harry
January 16, 2013

“So what Rog is saying is that, if you factor out certain natural variations, it has warmed since 1998 or maybe 1997, even if you cherrypick RSS lower troposphere and ignore surface temperatures!.”

Rog Tallbloke just goes with the evidence, after carefully selecting the evidence he wants to see. Every decade for the past forty years has been warmer than the previous one.
#50 guthrie
January 16, 2013

Hmmm, so what exactly is the connection between Outgoing Long Wave radiation and global temperatures? Enquiring minds want to know!

Meanwhile, on planet earth, the oceanic heat content keeps increasing, which wouldn’t happen if everything was cooling down. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/comment-on-ocean-heat-content-world-ocean-heat-content-and-thermosteric-sea-level-change-0-2000-1955-2010-by-levitus-et-al-2012/
#51 Bernard J.
January 16, 2013

I follow the evidence, not a credo.

Really? You should take your evidence and the physics that supports it and visit the thread here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/resolving-met-office-confusion.html

where exactly your sort of graphing is debunked.

And on the matter of your projected cooling to 2020… do you think that this will also be reflected in the trend in Arctic sea ice?
#52 Wow
January 16, 2013

“My understanding of the climate system is that we would expect the oceans to carry on kicking out enough energy to keep the lower troposphere warm for some time to come.”

Your understanding is deeply flawed.
#53 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

guthrie
January 16, 2013
Hmmm, so what exactly is the connection between Outgoing Long Wave radiation and global temperatures? Enquiring minds want to know!

I’m asking Toby to clarify his claim that:
” the earth’s climate system is not in thermal equilibrium and energy in > energy out.”

By showing me the OLR dataset he used to make his claim. Once we’ve dealt with that, I’ll move on to the next issue raised.
#54 Sou
January 16, 2013

No point discussing climate science with tallbloke. AFAIK he’s been on about climate for years but still hasn’t even got to first base – not understanding that there is now less energy going out to space than is coming in from the sun.

It’s called denial.
#55 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

Rog, I’ve got popcorn now.

Please explain how one uses an OLR trend to determine the current magnitude of any energy imbalance in the earth’s climate system.

Bonus points for explaining why your picture has what appears to be a quadratic curve fit.

Double bonus points if you mention “Tim Curtin”.
#56 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Well, so many comments dripping with sarc, but no links to fundamental data. I thought you warmies were in touch with the ‘real scientists’.
The OLR data I found shows an approx 2.5W/m^2 increase in OLR from the top of the atmosphere out into space since around 1985. So for Toby to be correct in his claim that:
“the earth’s climate system is not in thermal equilibrium and energy in > energy out.”
It would mean ‘energy in’ would have increased by more than 2.5W/m^2 over the period 1985-2003. We know the Sun was highly active compared to the rest of the historical record since 1749 during this period, but the peak amplitudes of the cycles were falling, even if the minima were brief and the up/down ramps steep.

So that leaves the reduction in tropical low cloud cover measured by the ISCCP as a possible culprit.

Can anyone offer other possible sources of increased incoming energy?
#57 Wow
January 16, 2013

“but no links to fundamental data.”

There were plenty.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/comment-on-ocean-heat-content-world-ocean-heat-content-and-thermosteric-sea-level-change-0-2000-1955-2010-by-levitus-et-al-2012/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/resolving-met-office-confusion.html

“Or you could try this GISTEMP data.”

“They really don’t want to look at HADCRUT4 then”

But your response?

but no links to fundamental data

Which rather explains why there’s so little linking to data in responses to you: you ignore anything inconvenient. So why link to it?
#58 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Wow, I’m asking Toby for his OLR data, wait your turn.

We need to start with the basics before we move on to ocean heat content. While we’re waiting, you can read this though, which will help explain my interest in OLR.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/

The original article is from SKS, so you should be in your comfort zone.
#59 Russ R.
January 16, 2013

Isn’t it a bit premature to call a 20 year old prediction “wrong” when it relates to a century of warming?

That’s like calling the ballgame over with one out in the bottom of the 2nd inning.
#60 Wow
January 16, 2013

“Wow, I’m asking Toby for his OLR data, wait your turn.”

No, you whinged:

“but no links to fundamental data.”

There have been plenty.

When you are given any more, what’s to say you won’t just ignore those too?

But I guess thought is an anathema to you.
#61 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Wow, you’re sounding like a petulant child, slow down and suck your thumb for a bit, while you read at the link I provided above.
#62 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

So for Toby to be correct in his claim that:
“the earth’s climate system is not in thermal equilibrium and energy in > energy out.”
It would mean ‘energy in’ would have increased by more than 2.5W/m^2 over the period 1985-2003

ROFLMAO! You apparently don’t even understand basic arithmetic inferences and you’re opining about climate science?

Glad I got the popcorn. This is looking to be even more hilariously fallacious than Jo Nova ever was.

So in your world if (say) your spouse said “Rog, we’re spending more than we make this year”, you would show her your payslips for the last couple of years and say “but I got a thousand quid raise last year, so we can’t be unless you can show that our spending went up at least a thousand quid since then”? Would she believe you? Or would she point to the financial statements and show that outgoings > incomings?

And if they did show outgoings were greater than incomings even though they had NOT increased more than a thousand quid since last year, would you back her claim or still assert yours?

You’re right that we’ve got to start with the basics – like basic arithmetic from primary school. Or at the very least, elaborating on the hidden assumptions that you might be using to make your requirement valid.
#63 Wow
January 16, 2013

“slow down and suck your thumb for a bit,”

So, unable to think and annoyed at your ignorance being displayed, you turn to pretence?

Apparently English is not your native language. Here it is again:

You have been given many links to data and you have ignored every single one.

Hence nobody can be arsed putting effort into saying something you demand but will never acknowledge.

Now put your nappies on and stop yelling “wanna wee wee!”.
#64 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

“Or would she point to the financial statements and show that outgoings > incomings? ”

Please do show me the empirical data which demonstrates that:
“the earth’s climate system is not in thermal equilibrium and energy in > energy out.”
#65 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

Ah, that’s much better, Rog.

Now, are you unaware of the data scientists use when making this claim? If you’re going to argue the scientists are wrong, you need to address their actual case.
#66 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Lotharsson: Please stop playing hide and seek and just show me the data.

thanks.
#67 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

I’m not playing hide and seek. I’m just not doing your homework for you.

I’m trying to ascertain if you know what the mainstream research concludes on this, or if you’re entirely ignoring it. The proportion of “skeptics” who who come here and do the latter is astonishing.
#68 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Lotharsson: I’ve already done homework, and provided a link to a plot of TOA outgoing OLR which shows that OLR has increased, not decreased over the last 28 years.

If increasing co2 is decreasing OLR as the AGW theoreticians claim, then the effect is being more than offset by other factors

QED.

I have offered thoughts on what those factors may be: Reduced low tropical cloud cover as EMPIRICALLY measured by ISPCC would allow more sunlight into the oceans, leading to greater emission of energy as OLR

I have asked if you have any other factors which could have increased ‘energy in’.

Since when, you have been fidgeting around the bit. Feel free to summarise what mainstream research concludes on this.
#69 drlumpusspookytoothphd
rent free in lambert's brain
January 16, 2013

I have a question for Mr. Bigshot Tim Lambert.

What about the hard fact that current GAT is below the historical average, and atmospheric co2 is below the historic average?

That’s a diamond hard fact Timmy. And the typical response of “humans weren’t alive then” or “well it hasn’t been this warm for thousands of years” are nothing but amateur cherry picks. Earth doesn’t care about humanities lifespan, it’s inanimate and has existed for far longer than humans. In fact arguing solely from the perspective of humanities existence smacks of creationism, Timmy.
#70 Wow
January 16, 2013

I’ve already done homework, and provided a link to a plot of TOA outgoing OLR which shows that OLR has increased, not decreased over the last 28 years.

This doesn’t prove energy in > energy out.

A solution of energy out increasing LESS THAN THE DIFFERENCE between energy in and out 28 years ago will still produce what you claim without changing the claim of energy imbalance TOA.

Apparently maths isn’t your thing.
#71 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Wow, apparently, reading what people wrote and comprehending it isn’t your thing.

Earlier I said:
“The OLR data I found shows an approx 2.5W/m^2 increase in OLR from the top of the atmosphere out into space since around 1985. So for Toby to be correct in his claim that:
“the earth’s climate system is not in thermal equilibrium and energy in > energy out.”
It would mean ‘energy in’ would have increased by more than 2.5W/m^2 over the period 1985-2003. We know the Sun was highly active compared to the rest of the historical record since 1749 during this period, but the peak amplitudes of the cycles were falling, even if the minima were brief and the up/down ramps steep.

So that leaves the reduction in tropical low cloud cover measured by the ISCCP as a possible culprit.

Can anyone offer other possible sources of increased incoming energy?”
#72 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

…provided a link to a plot of TOA outgoing OLR which shows that OLR has increased, not decreased over the last 28 years.

Which, as I’ve pointed out by analogy, would only show that outgoing >= incoming if you can COMPARE it to incoming. You have not done so here so your inference about energy imbalance is not valid.

So you have clearly NOT done your homework on that question.
#73 Wow
January 16, 2013

It would mean ‘energy in’ would have increased by more than 2.5W/m^2 over the period 1985-2003

Nope, I read that just fine. it is how I concluded that you can’t do maths.

If Ein-Eout was greater than 2.5W/m2 28 years ago, Eout can increase by 2.5W/m2 and still remain in imbalance.

There would be NO NEED AT ALL for Ein to change upward.

From which it is entirely accurate to claim you can’t or don’t do maths.
#74 Wow
January 16, 2013

Nor is there a need for OLR to decrease.
#75 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

Rog, apparently comprehension isn’t your strong suit. When you respond to Wow by reiterating:

It would mean ‘energy in’ would have increased by more than 2.5W/m^2 over the period 1985-2003.

you are (a) STILL asserting a fallacious inference, and (b) explicitly denying his pointing out the fallacy.

You can’t infer a current difference between two quantities by looking at a historical change in only one of them.

It’s basic arithmetic.

But bonus points for condescending about Wow’s comprehension in a reply where you clearly failed to comprehend his point.
#76 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

So are you happy with the idea that the increase in co2 hasn’t increased the climate forcing it allegedly exerts over the last 28 years?
#77 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

BTW Rog, since we’re discussing your innumeracy, how about that claim that “OLR has increased by 2.5W/m^2 over 30 years”.

Your graph shows no such thing.

If you take the “Linear (13 mo Mvg-Avg)” line which is presumably a linear trend fitted to what is presumably the 13 month moving average of approximately 0.85 W/m^2 between 1980 and 2010.

Or are you merely comparing endpoints 30 years apart and ignoring the trend?

(See now why I asked if you knew what the scientists case was and what data it used?)

And since we were speaking of your innumeracy, why the heck do you fit a trend to a moving average? That doesn’t seem like good statistical practice – it weights samples towards the ends differently from those away from the ends. If that’s what you’re doing, it isn’t even a trend line.

And why the heck did you fit what looks like might be a quadratic?
#78 Lotharsson
January 16, 2013

So are you happy with the idea that the increase in co2 hasn’t increased the climate forcing it allegedly exerts over the last 28 years?

No.

We can measure the direct forcing fairly directly. You’re trying to infer it from measurements that are confounded by other factors. That’s not very smart.

(And for all I know you’re using a data set that isn’t suitable for trend calculations. Why do you think I asked you what the scientists’ case is built upon?)
#79 Wow
January 16, 2013

So are you happy with the idea that the increase in co2 hasn’t increased the climate forcing it allegedly exerts over the last 28 years?

Why should we be happy with an incorrect statement?
#80 Wow
January 16, 2013

Are you happy with this?

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureGeosci
#81 Jeff Harvey
January 16, 2013

drlumpusspookytoothphd says:

“atmospheric co2 is below the historic average”

What an asinine remark. Get this through your herad, thicko: its NOT what the concentrarion of C02 in the atmosphere is BUT HOW LONG IT TOOK TO GET THERE. Repeat 50 times before bed.

What this means is that the planet’s biota evolved under relatively stable short-medium term C02 regimes. Certainly concentrations of atmospheric C02 have been higher in the past, but it took many thousands or even millions of years to get it there and it took an equally long time for it to decrease. We are talking about changes that normally take times measured in geological time scales occurring in one or two human generations. And, most importantly, the highest biological diversity the planet has yet housed evolved under low atmospheric C02 concentrations. By driving up these concentrations at scales far exceeding what nature itself can manifest, humans are conducting a single non-repeatable experiment. The outcome of this experiment could be dire for much of the planet’s diversity and, consequently, for us.

How many idiotic remarks are the anti-scientific denial brigade capable of spewing forth? From what I have seen, it seems that their barrel of ignorance is bottomless.
#82 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Wow, thanks for the link to the paper.

The only thing I Don’t understand so far is how they think the error on the empirical measurements of TOA energy balance is constrained to 0.6 +/- 0.4W/m^2 when the observations of OLR are +/-3.3W/m^2.

That error is in line with the other papers I’ve read.
#83 Wow
January 16, 2013

“atmospheric co2 is below the historic average”

Really?

History covers the period over which written records were kept. That makes it up to (generously) 5,000 years.

What has the CO2 been over that period?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
#84 Chris O'Neill
January 16, 2013

Before the latest round of ‘adjustments’ in late 2011, ARGO was showing a fall in ocean heat content from 2004.

As we all know, those ‘adjustments’ were made by the Great Conspiracy.

By the way, climate models don’t predict noise. And when it comes to noise, global average temperature knows how to put it on.
#85 Wow
January 16, 2013

And what we don’t understand how you think that means there is no imbalance.
#86 Wow
January 16, 2013

Here’s a little idea for you.

Read the paper.
#87 drlumpusspookytoothphd
January 16, 2013

@Lotharsson

no, we can’t measure the forcingd directly at all, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You cannot measure radiative forcing because in order to do it, you would have to hold certain parts of the climate system in a “fixed” state. The surface temperatures and tropospheric temperatures respond to radiation changes within seconds. If you think it can measured accurately, you’re a fool. Not to mention, the IPCC’s definition of the tropopause is shoddy.
#88 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

What? When did I say there’s no imbalance?
#89 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

There’s always an imbalance. At the moment, it’s not in the direction you warmies think it is, that’s all.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/
#90 Jeff Harvey
January 16, 2013

drlumpusspookytoothphd”

What your scientific pedigree? Oh, let me guess… from the back of a cereal box. You’re just another graduate of the Dunning-Kruger school of bloated self- over estimation.
#91 Jeff Harvey
January 16, 2013

Tallbloke, get off of your non-peer-reviewed hobby horse and let us see some primary literature. Your weblog doesn’t make the grade.

Its amazing how deniers seem to think that science is the online variety. Question Rog: have you ever, in your life, attended or given a lecture at an international conference or workshop where climate change is discussed and debated? Heartland bashes or other think-tank sponsored gatherings don’t count.
#92 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Jeff Harvey, the height of your horse is matched only by the shallowness of your discourse.
#93 Sonicfrog
http://sonicfrog.net
January 16, 2013

Well, this has to be the silliest argument and waste of a lot of energy I’ve seen in a while. Isn’t there, I don’t know, a margin of error to be considered here? We are measuring temps to the best of our abilities, but we certainly know each system we use to do that is not perfect by any means.

And this is a statistical exercise that has a lot of natural variability built in. I mean, really. If the average temps dip in the next three months, then at that point Mr Ridley will be able to expand on Mr. Lambert’s graph and say “See! I WAS right!”. And statistically, he would be. Same for Mr Lambert if the monthly temps go up. Being able to show a .02 percent difference either way in a chaotic non-linear system is not exactly a breakthrough moment either way.

PS. I’ve been following this debate since 1992. Both sides in this debate cherry-pick, and have for a very long time. No one is pure as the driven snow in that regard.
#94 Wow
January 16, 2013

“You cannot measure radiative forcing”

You can measure radiation.
#95 Jeff Harvey
January 16, 2013

Thanks for that Rog. What you are saying is, no, I’ve never attended a conference or workshop, let alone spoken at one. I don’t publish my Earth-shattering science in the scientific literature. My science is blog science. Period.

I also found that you spend a lot of your time writing pure drivel. Lots of it is here:

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/pages/48/432/stories.html

This piffle was particularly egregious:

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/10/first-uk-snowfall-as-the-clocks-go-back-here-comes-winter-2487020.html

You write this kindeergarten level stuff and expect to be taken seriously? By who? Smurfs?
#96 Wow
January 16, 2013

Wodger, there’s no horse.
#97 Wow
January 16, 2013

“There’s always an imbalance.”

And it’s Ein > Eout.
#98 Jeff Harvey
January 16, 2013

As an addendum, Rog, you makle the ridiculous remark, ‘Where is the global warming’after a 1 cm snowfall in November. And you expect to be taken seriously. Again, I am sure that most reputable climate scientists have never heard of you, and if they have, you are rightfully ignored.
#99 Rog Tallbloke
January 16, 2013

Addend away Jeff, you are making more of a wanker of yourself than usual.
#100 Wow
January 16, 2013

And that’s a call from an expert!