Study vindicates climate models accused of 'missing the pause'

Jul 21, 2014 by Michael Hopkin
Models that accurately capture Pacific temperature patterns are best at reproducing short-term global trends. NASA

Climate models can recreate the slowdown in global warming since 1998, as long as they correctly factor in crucial variables such as the state of the El Niño system, new research has shown.

The discovery vindicates the models against the accusation that they failed to predict the "alleged hiatus" in surface warming, says CSIRO researcher James Risbey, who led the study.

In the study, published in Nature Climate Change, Risbey and his colleagues looked at a set of 18 featuring data on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) – the seesawing temperature pattern that determines whether a given period is dominated by El Niño or La Niña conditions.

They then looked only at those models whose PDO settings matched those in the real world, and found that these models gave a much more accurate reconstruction of temperature trends – including the slowdown in warming seen over the past decade and a half.

Model settings

The discovery shows that El Niño has a strong influence on temperature trends over relatively short timescales such as 15 years, Risbey said.

Because Pacific temperature patterns flip back and forth every few decades, not all models reflect the real-world state of El Niño at a given time. That means that, when many models are averaged together, climate models have tended to overestimate the rate of post-1998 warming.

Choosing only those ones with accurate settings for Pacific Ocean temperatures for each 15-year period meant they did a better job of recreating during those periods, Risbey explained.

But for longer-term projections, such as the expected warming by the end of the century, this approach will not work because the dominant influence on temperature will be greenhouse gases, rather than natural cycles such as El Niño.

"If you want to do a forecast for next year then you can neglect the forcing, meaning the change in greenhouse gases, because hardly change the climate from this year to next year relative to natural variations," he said.

"But over 100 years, it doesn't really matter what phase of PDO we're in – whether it's El Niño-dominated or La Niña-dominated. The main thing that's going to determine where our temperatures are in 100 years time is going to be the response to the forcing: the greenhouse bit."

Still breaking records

University of Tasmania climate modeller Stuart Corney pointed out that temperature records are still being broken, despite temperatures having risen more slowly than expected.

"Remember that the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest decade on record. The decade of slowdown has still seen the warmest years on record, with 2005 and 2010 both hotter than 1998," he said.

The study also highlights the difference between climate "forecasts" and longer-term climate "projections".

"Projections are essential for giving us information on long-term trends, but the timescale is beyond what many policy makers (and the public) consider to be relevant to their decision-making processes. Climate forecasts seek to address this issue by providing information on a shorter term (decadal) that can be used directly to inform policy," he said.

"As climate forecasts improve, they will become more and more important in providing reliable information on what is likely to happen to the climate over the next decade. This paper by Risbey et al demonstrates a new technique for developing .

"In many ways we may have been lucky over the past 15 years, as temperatures have not risen as dramatically as expected due to being in a period of less intense El Niños. To some extent the long term climate change signal will have to 'catch up' as it has been lagging behind our best projections for over a decade now. This suggests significant warming (and other associated changes, such as drought in Eastern Australia) when this occurs."

El Niño's impact

University of New South Wales climatologist Matthew England, who earlier this year published a study linking the apparent hiatus to strengthening winds in the Southern Ocean, said:

"This work confirms the idea that decadal variability in the El Niño cyclehas a major impact on globally averaged surface air temperatures.

"The past 15 years have seen a relatively large number of La Niña eventscompared to El Niños. This cools the east Pacific and drives a strengtheningof the trade winds, which leads to enhanced heat uptake in the westernPacific Ocean. Extra ocean heat uptake means less heat in the atmosphere,and a slowdown in surface warming is the result.

"But it's important to point out that this decadal variability in the Pacific will swing around again at some stage, and when it does we expect acceleratedsurface warming to occur."

Explore further: Different types of El Nino have different effects on global temperature

More information: "Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase." James S. Risbey, et al. Nature Climate Change (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2310. Received 20 March 2014 Accepted 20 June 2014 Published online 20 July 2014

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

Apr 15, 2014

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

El Nino and La Nina explained

Jun 20, 2014

We wait in anticipation of droughts and floods when El Niño and La Niña are forecast but what are these climatic events?

Recommended for you

Rising anger as Nicaragua canal to break ground

9 hours ago

As a conscripted soldier during the Contra War of the 1980s, Esteban Ruiz used to flee from battles because he didn't want to have to kill anyone. But now, as the 47-year-old farmer prepares to fight for ...

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

Dec 20, 2014

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

New challenges for ocean acidification research

Dec 19, 2014

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

User comments : 108

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Anonym
2.3 / 5 (25) Jul 21, 2014
In other words, the models were wrong, just as the skeptics said. Nice to see that's finally admitted. Now, the models are less wrong. I wouldn't call that "vindication" unless I were a climate alarmist. We're still talking about relatively crude models of a complex, dynamic, not thoroughly understood global system, and we're still talking about imposing hardship and suffering on poor people in both developed and underdeveloped nations based on those crude models.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (26) Jul 21, 2014
"The discovery vindicates the models ..."
No, they CHANGED the model.
Popper called this pseudo-science.
Pexeso
1.1 / 5 (22) Jul 21, 2014
If my dark matter model of global warming is correct, then the global warming should cease down soon. We are essentially passing the same hiatus in solar activity, as at the beginning of global warming pause in 2000 year, so that the signs of some symmetry exist here. Of course this still doesn't exclude the human factor, which is superposed to it. But I believe, the people are co-responsible only for droughts, not for elevated temperatures as such.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't switch from our dependence on fossil fuels ASAP, if you don't want to see our people dying around fossil fuels fields (as at Ukraine by now).
TourLooper
2.3 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2014
Or you could just make it up as you go along...
wxmatt
3.1 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
But the key here is that these models DID NOT have the correct Pacific configuration initially.

Going back in time and re-fitting the model with more accurate data will almost always give you a better answer. That is the challenge with climate modeling and the chaos theory.

I'm not clear about how "backcasting" = vindication.
Johan-C
1.7 / 5 (22) Jul 21, 2014
One of the main principles of the scientific method is replication or reproducibility.
Their article states that they chose only those models with accurate settings for Pacific Ocean temperatures for each 15-year period. But nowhere in the article can we find which ones they chose. Hence, their work is not reproducible. Hence, this is not science.

aoberley
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2014
There have been several recent developments that have to give people pause. First, Antarctic sea ice has reached record levels. When confronted with this fact, climate alarmists say that it is "because of global warming, and it's the Arctic that counts". Why? They've had predictions for years that melting polar ice would rise sea levels, not that ice would INCREASE. Second, temperature records were "adjusted" after being found to have been manipulated, Third, the hottest year on record was changed from "now" to the 1930's, and Fourth, Al Gore still burns as much electricity in his own home as many small towns.
lorcan
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 21, 2014
We found the problem with our models -- we forgot to include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation exponential fudge factor -- a peer reviewed mathematical adjustment to the model to correct for the fact that we know nothing.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2014
Why should they bother to change the climate models when they change the historical temperature data at will in order to prove anything that they want to? Lets not mention the fact that they include "estimated" temperatures when determining today's land based readings and that these estimations are responsible for much of the so called record new warmth.

ben3
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2014
So if La Nina has cooled the last 15. If El Nino warms up the pacific then the major players would be those 2 for most of the heating of the planet. If the pacific is warmed then the affect on the world as a whole would be very high also.
kennyhobo
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2014
The Climate Models are so bad, that any 7th grade math or science student would laugh at the graphs of prediction and actual data.
mpcraig
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 21, 2014
Were the same models used for each 15 year period?
tadchem
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 21, 2014
Bottom line: "The models were wrong, (just as the skeptics pointed out) so we tweaked them."
Nothing and nobody was vindicated.
'You can fool some of the people all the time, and you can fool all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time,' and judging from the comments above the climate change alarmists (present company included) have run out of time.
Feldagast
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2014
Stop mounting your temperature gauges over blacktop parking lots and on the sides of buildings and watch the temperatures go down significantly.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (22) Jul 21, 2014
Bottom line: "The models were wrong, (just as the skeptics pointed out) so we tweaked them."
Nothing and nobody was vindicated.
.......and judging from the comments above the climate change alarmists (present company included) have run out of time.


This just one one of mostly current postings displaying extreme ignorance of what models can and cannot do.
There's a surprise then, given the names of some posters. And we have some new fanboys giving them 5's.

Repeating for the nth time on here.
The models are aggregated together to give an average temperature.
Therefore the ENSO/PDO cycle is always averaged out.
If you just consider the models that have ENSO in the correct configuration - then it shows that the bulk of the recent "pause" (only air temp and not ocean) was as a result of the predominant cool La Ninas since '98.
This was known anyway as the IPCC said at the last assessment.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (20) Jul 21, 2014
Stop mounting your temperature gauges over blacktop parking lots and on the sides of buildings and watch the temperatures go down significantly.

If you are inerring that GW is not real because of the UHI effect.
Then think again.

"...The study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05°C, and their results mirrors those obtained from earlier studies."
Richard Muller former skeptic and denialist's hero, now a pariah, for concluding the above despite being pay-rolled by the Kochs.
Any more myths while we're at it?

http://en.wikiped...ey_Earth
runrig
4.2 / 5 (20) Jul 21, 2014
So if La Nina has cooled the last 15. If El Nino warms up the pacific then the major players would be those 2 for most of the heating of the planet. If the pacific is warmed then the affect on the world as a whole would be very high also.


Correct - the ENSO/PDO realeases and stores an enormous amount of energy, both by sensible heat processes and by LH.
To anyone with an unbiased mind and who is conversant with meteorology then this is simple self-evident.

The Oceans heat the air and NOT vice versa.
The oceans receive/store ~93% of incident Solar energy on the climate system.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2014
Why should they bother to change the climate models when they change the historical temperature data at will in order to prove anything that they want to? Lets not mention the fact that they include "estimated" temperatures when determining today's land based readings and that these estimations are responsible for much of the so called record new warmth.


Please provide evidence of any substantial differences between the GISS record (if that is what you mean )and any other. Or are they all "faked" in some grand socialist/greenist conspiracy?
Scroofinator
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
Because Pacific temperature patterns flip back and forth every few decades, not all climate models reflect the real-world state of El Niño at a given time. That means that, when many models are averaged together, climate models have tended to overestimate the rate of post-1998 warming.

Hmm, so they didn't account for something in their models, something which turned out to be a major player in regards to climate, and they ended up overestimating/guessing wrong. Who'd a thunk it?

What else do you think they're missing?

I wonder what other cycle we know about that fluctuates every other decade? Hint: Solar cycle
aoberley
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
runrig, evidence of faked temperature data - http://www.telegr...ata.html
Read the links in the article, shows it all. Any other questions?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (20) Jul 21, 2014
runrig, evidence of faked temperature data - http://www.telegr...ata.html
Read the links in the article, shows it all. Any other questions?


Sir/madam.

An article in a notorious AGW denying paper by the arch denialist (of all things in the UK ) does not provide evidence. Sorry.
Show me a plot of your so called "faked" temps against all the other plots done by climatologists around the world.

http://en.wikiped...r_Booker

runrig
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2014
Because Pacific temperature patterns flip back and forth every few decades, not all climate models reflect the real-world state of El Niño at a given time. That means that, when many models are averaged together, climate models have tended to overestimate the rate of post-1998 warming.

Hmm, so they didn't account for something in their models, something which turned out to be a major player in regards to climate, and they ended up overestimating/guessing wrong. Who'd a thunk it?

What else do you think they're missing?

I wonder what other cycle we know about that fluctuates every other decade? Hint: Solar cycle


Scroofy...
Have you not been reading/listening.
I have been saying (for years) - that models can only do their job within error bounds ... because of cycles that CANNOT be modeled explicitly. Chief among which is ENSO.
Do not use your ignorance of that fact to accuse climate scientists of not knowing it either.
Solar is also accounted for fine in real time.
BobSage
1.9 / 5 (17) Jul 21, 2014
"The discovery vindicates the models against the accusation that they failed to predict the "alleged hiatus" in surface warming"

Hmm. And I thought "predict" had to do with the future. Evidently you can predict events after they happen.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (19) Jul 21, 2014
"The discovery vindicates the models against the accusation that they failed to predict the "alleged hiatus" in surface warming"

Hmm. And I thought "predict" had to do with the future. Evidently you can predict events after they happen.

Try reading my post sunshine, and you may be relieved of your ignorance.
jscroft
5 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2014
Where the hell is Scott Nudds? Has that dipsh*t taken a vacation from his mom's basement, or has he just acquired another new handle?
aoberley
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2014
runrig "Show me a plot of your so called "faked" temps against all the other plots done by climatologists around the world." - the links in the article actually showed that, but you didn't even bother to read it. Same reaction as usual from the climate alarmists. Ignore any contrary data presented as being created by some "notorious" climate deniers or oil companies.
al_hopfer
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2014
NOAA monitoring locations have decreased from 15,000 to 6,000 over the years.

This has led to comparing apples to oranges over the past 30 years.

How many cooler locations were removed versus warmer?
aoberley
1.9 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2014
For everyone, here are graphs showing the manipulation of warming data. Look at the one in the middle of the page. Before the temperature changes were "adjusted", an actual cooling trend was noted. After the falsification, a dramatic "warming" was shown. http://stevengodd...ar-2000/
Moru H_
2.1 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2014
Repeating for the nth time on here.
The models are aggregated together to give an average temperature.
Therefore the ENSO/PDO cycle is always averaged out.
If you just consider the models that have ENSO in the correct configuration - then it shows that the bulk of the recent "pause" (only air temp and not ocean) was as a result of the predominant cool La Ninas since '98.


If you just consider the models with "the correct ENSO configuration" (models in-phase with Nino 3.4 trends), then it only shows that there is no match between modeled trends/spatial patterns and observations.

From the models selected for Risbey et al, the "best" 4 are unable to simulate observed past temperature trends, it's almost surreal then to claim vindication.

Do you thinks this is science any longer?


Sean_W
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2014
The pause--which only stupid, anti-science, climate deniers believe in--can easily be predicted by our models if we know about it before hand and rejigger them a bit.

Stuff it.
Scroofinator
1.9 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
I have been saying (for years) - that models can only do their job within error bounds

I really don't care what you, or any other AGW devotee for that matter, think you know. What you have is consistency, which is comforting, but agreement isn't accuracy, especially considering how rapidly our knowledge of climate has increased recently.

What we have here has been seen throughout Earth's history, please take a look at figure 2 under "Global Temperature":
http://climate4you.com/
This pattern has repeated numerous times, all validated by science. Now, there are two possible scenarios: 1) this is a natural cycle that is modulated by the Sun-Earth interaction. Or 2) AGW is real, which means humans have existed for much longer than believed, and have reached the point of advanced technology and used fossil fuels to power their civilization.

I also want to say this: using fossil fuels for our energy needs is retarded, we must find alternatives.

Isn't this really the main issue?
aoberley
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 21, 2014
BEFORE AND AFTER DATA MANIPULATION http://stevengodd...mp;h=355
aoberley
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2014
Great Lakes water levels baffle global warming scientists - http://newsbuster...es-Water
sirfiroth
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
According to NOAA's U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) system temperature readings, that because of locations require no adjustment, U.S. temperatures are not rising, but actually falling 0.4C in the last 10 years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/
runrig
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2014
For everyone, here are graphs showing the manipulation of warming data. Look at the one in the middle of the page. Before the temperature changes were "adjusted", an actual cooling trend was noted. After the falsification, a dramatic "warming" was shown. http://stevengodd...ar-2000/


The link I assume you refer to does not take me to the post directly but a list of posts - but it seems you refer to US historic temps.
Now strange tho it may seem - the US is NOT the Globe.
As I say, please find me evidence that Global Temps have been affected by this "fakery".

http://ourchangin...11_2.png
runrig
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2014
Great Lakes water levels baffle global warming scientists - http://newsbuster...es-Water

You're behind the times my friend.
If you'd like to read the comments on this thread - it *may* dispel your puzzlement.

http://phys.org/n...kes.html
runrig
4 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
I really don't care what you, or any other AGW devotee for that matter, think you know. What you have is consistency, which is comforting, but agreement isn't accuracy, especially considering how rapidly our knowledge of climate has increased recently.

And I don't really care what deniers have to say other than it is stupid and ignorant and an abrogation of 500 years of human advancement of knowledge. Just because we do not know the answer to the question of "Life the Universe and Everything" (Hitch-hikers guide to the Galaxy) - does not mean we cannot be virtually certain that GHG's are the cause. A 40% increase (in just CO2 never mind others eg methane), constitutes a bl*** large change in the last ~150 yrs. The heat retentive effects of CO2 are not up for argument. Nothing else fits. Unless you have a correlation re your Solar effect?
aoberley
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
"I don't really care what deniers have to say" but it appears that's what you are all about.
aoberley
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
"Now strange tho it may seem - the US is NOT the Globe." Oh, I see. You've admitted that U.S. data HAS been manipulated after all, but the U.S. is not the globe, so global warming is real....I guess.
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
Unless you have a correlation re your Solar effect?

In fact I do, here you go:
http://www.solars...ver.html

It is worthwhile noticing that at epochs of sunspot maxima, solar irradiance is enhanced and the low cloud cover is reduced together with the Earth's albedo. The opposite effect occurs at sunspot minima.


So essentially they found a strong correlation between cloud cover(and thus TSI/heat retention) and sunspots/CMEs.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (17) Jul 21, 2014
BEFORE AND AFTER DATA MANIPULATION http://stevengodd...


Now I don't normally reference WUWT as a source of anything credible - but this is interesting....

http://reason.com...us-tempe

Though I know the difference between adjustments that are necessary to climate data (particularly to TOBS - time of observation) I have not investigated in depth the reasons for the adjustments. But here Watts calls Goddard (he's actually called Tony Heller BTW) - "is wrong is his assertions of fabrication".

Now do try to investigate what you read dear chap. And not take at face value what you read on biased blogs or via biased journalists - Mr Christopher Booker being chief amongst them.

Oh, BTW - I fully appreciate this will pass you by. It matters not a jot, but you're not spouting ignorance while I can deny it.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 21, 2014
Just found this gem, wish I would've seen it earlier, would've saved me a lot of research:
https://www.youtu...eI4gqIC-
runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
Unless you have a correlation re your Solar effect?

In fact I do, here you go:
http://www.solars...ver.html

It is worthwhile noticing that at epochs of sunspot maxima, solar irradiance is enhanced and the low cloud cover is reduced together with the Earth's albedo. The opposite effect occurs at sunspot minima.


So essentially they found a strong correlation between cloud cover(and thus TSI/heat retention) and sunspots/CMEs.


Thank you for that - and interesting However a correlation between CR's and cloud cover is not the same as a correlation between CR's and Global ave temps. and the paper notes ..
"The lack of correlation between cosmic rays and low cloud factor over the poles and the significant degree of correlation in the tropics, is also unexpected, as the cut-off of the lower energy cosmic rays by the geomagnetic field operates to severely reduce the cosmic ray flux over low latitude regions...."

cont
runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2014
Cont.

And no they have not ... "So essentially they found a strong correlation between cloud cover(and thus TSI/heat retention) and sunspots/CMEs"

It is NOT the same thing. The paper says that theory says that the strongest CR interaction is expected to be a high altitude and yet they find a correlation in low cloud, chiefly in the tropics where CR's should be rarest. Have you not seen the Auroras - at the Poles.
I would suggest to you that the correlation needs to fit the causation theory. Maybe there is an explanation - but there needs to be follow-up to rationalise it.

Where is a graph of CR's vs Global ave temps?
Well here's one...

http://www.skepti...emps.jpg
Also
http://blogs.edf....swindle/

aoberley
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 21, 2014
Sea levels are not rising - http://www.21stce...view.pdf
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
Where is a graph of CR's vs Global ave temps?

Don't confuse galactic cosmic rays with the Sun's influence. It's apples to oranges. I'm not saying GCRs are causing climate change, but it's the Sun itself, which currently appears to entering a Grand Minima event in which solar activity is extremely low.

We have strong correlation, all you have to do is open your eyes and read/watch the links.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
"Now strange tho it may seem - the US is NOT the Globe." Oh, I see. You've admitted that U.S. data HAS been manipulated after all, but the U.S. is not the globe, so global warming is real....I guess.


No I have not.
I have pointed out that the US comprises just 2% of the Globe and that there are good reasons for the adjustments in US data especially after the TOBS was changed from the evening to the morning. You do realise that if you reset a max thermometer at a likely time of max temp then that temp will be read again 24 hrs later? No, of course not, silly question. when read at 0900 then the max thermo will be reset at a low temp (vastly more usually) and NOT count twice.

Do try to use critical thinking my friend and not take at face value biased and blogged information as "the truth".

From...http://www.ncdc.n...l#KWYW86
Do try to read it, eh.

runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2014
Where is a graph of CR's vs Global ave temps?

Don't confuse galactic cosmic rays with the Sun's influence. It's apples to oranges. I'm not saying GCRs are causing climate change, but it's the Sun itself, which currently appears to entering a Grand Minima event in which solar activity is extremely low.

We have strong correlation, all you have to do is open your eyes and read/watch the links.

Scroofy...
It plainly is NOT the Sun, whatever you use. CR's or W/m*2.

As all science agrees and as correlation confirms (lack of).

If you want to invoke the LIA - the likely reduction in Solar energy is 0.1 tro 0.2% (we see around 0.1% reduction at low solar at the min of the cycle). That is nowhere near enough to do anything and then it goes up again. We do NOT have a Grand minima yet!
I have shown you graphs of CR's vs global temps and yet you still maintain a correlation.
Sorry, I think those undecided have enough evidence to arrive at the appropriate conclusion.
MikPetter
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 21, 2014
From the article "University of Tasmania climate modeller Stuart Corney pointed out that temperature records are still being broken, despite temperatures having risen more slowly than expected.
"Remember that the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest decade on record. The decade of slowdown has still seen the warmest years on record, with 2005 and 2010 both hotter than 1998," he said."
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 21, 2014
You gotta love the AGW Cult's "science" where two, three..four..wrongs make a right.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 21, 2014
Sorry, I think those undecided have enough evidence to arrive at the appropriate conclusion.


Well I was not undecided - but this thread does seal the deal. Thanks Runrig - the hordes are out tonight...
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 21, 2014
We do NOT have a Grand minima yet!

You're right, we aren't there yet. It's due in about 30-40 years.

I have shown you graphs of CR's vs global temps and yet you still maintain a correlation

I never said GCR was the cause, but CMEs. It actually appears GCRs and sunspots cancel each other out long term.

AGW doesn't increase temps, but it does create more extreme weather.

This "global warming" fiasco has had a long enough run, and people are starting to see it. I would hope you would be wise enough to see through the garbage many scientists are putting out.
Dr_toad
Jul 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (16) Jul 22, 2014
Bottom line: "The models were wrong, (just as the skeptics pointed out) so we tweaked them."
Nothing and nobody was vindicated.
'You can fool some of the people all the time, and you can fool all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time,' and judging from the comments above the climate change alarmists (present company included) have run out of time.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming

http://www.nature...310.html

if you CAN prove agw wrong... go here and DO IT: http://dialogueso...nge.html

runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2014
You gotta love the AGW Cult's "science" where two, three..four..wrongs make a right.

Anti:
Trouble is your "wrongs" are not scientific "wrongs".
That's where you're going *wrong*.
And not climate science.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2014
Bottom line: "The models were wrong, (just as the skeptics pointed out) so we tweaked them."
Nothing and nobody was vindicated.
'You can fool some of the people all the time, and you can fool all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time,' and judging from the comments above the climate change alarmists (present company included) have run out of time.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming

http://www.nature...310.html


Exactly Capt:
First know what it is that the models are doing and what they are able to do before the joyous "the models are wrong" chorus from the ideologically challenged.

Do ya see boys?
No of course not - the aim, as in tobacco denial, is the denial. That is all, as it keeps the poor ignorant masses confused. A staggering deceit.

Moru H_
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2014
The abstract of the paper is pretty clear and concise. It is explicitly stated what the premise of the study was and under which criteria the tests were considered successful.

____________________________________________________

"The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution.

Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations (...)

see next post
Moru H_
2 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2014
"We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific"

__________________________________________________

Despite the claim "that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.", figure 5 in the study clearly shows the models do not reproduce the spatial trend patterns, nor the sign of the trends in the Pacific or anywhere else in the world.

If the ability of climate models to track global mean surface temperature is a necessary condition to produce credible projections, the models have no credibility at all.

Sigh
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 22, 2014
@ Johan-C
One of the main principles of the scientific method is replication or reproducibility.
Their article states that they chose only those models with accurate settings for Pacific Ocean temperatures for each 15-year period. But nowhere in the article can we find which ones they chose. Hence, their work is not reproducible. Hence, this is not science.

Nowhere in the article? Not in the journalist's article, but if you bother to look in the Methods section of the actual scientific paper, which you can easily find through the reference provided on this page, you can find the models that were used.

So either you don't know the difference between a scientific paper and a journalist's summary of that paper, or else you think that a piece of research ceases to be science when an independent third party's summary of it fails to include all relevant information. Either way, you are not qualified to comment on what is or is not science.
mpcraig
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 22, 2014
The truth is that we just don't know. This global warming pause is a real thorn and the explanations to make it either go away or appear we knew all along about are it getting really thin.

I'm not sure if this (study) is an improvement or not on a previous "explanation" that had the most curious title "Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade" http://www.nature...863.html

The only climate predictions working out are "retrospective" predictions. Ergo, the truth is that we just don't know what the future holds. And frankly, it will remain out of our grasp if spend all out time fiddling with past predictions trying to make them fit the data instead actually figuring out how it all works together (ENSO, AMO, clouds, aerosols, etc.)
aoberley
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 22, 2014
Before and after data manipulation - http://stevengodd...mp;h=355
Johan-C
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
@ Johan-C
So either you don't know the difference between a scientific paper and a journalist's summary of that paper, or else you think that a piece of research ceases to be science when an independent third party's summary of it fails to include all relevant information. Either way, you are not qualified to comment on what is or is not science.


I have the original paper. They identify 18 models, but of those 18 not the 4 "best" and "worst" they selected in constructing their crucial Figure 5. Without knowing which 4 of the 18 they considered "best", the results cannot be replicated (or unless one is willing to try every possible combination).

So you're the one jumping to conclusions, and as you are the one who either doesn't have the original paper or is unable to understand they picked 4 models out of 18 (without identifying those 4) , perhaps you're the one who ought to shut up!
Johan-C
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2014
@ Johan-C
Nowhere in the article? Not in the journalist's article, but if you bother to look in the Methods section of the actual scientific paper, which you can easily find through the reference provided on this page, you can find the models that were used.


Ah, I forgot. If somehow you managed to find out which 4 specially selected climate models (ouf of the 18 they mention) the authors claim can reproduce the spatial patterns of warming and cooling in the Pacific, please let us know ASAP.
A whole community of those who really know what the scientific method is all about are eagerly awaiting your answer.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 22, 2014
I have the original paper. They identify 18 models, but of those 18 not the 4 "best" and "worst" they selected in constructing their crucial Figure 5. Without knowing which 4 of the 18 they considered "best", the results cannot be replicated (or unless one is willing to try every possible combination).
@johan-c
Given that the original paper is paywalled above, and you say you have it, would you mind finding a way to share it or link to it for reference?

Normally, when something is cited in a graph, there are call-outs or references in the description or in the paper (sometimes in the end under sources or other related material) that specify how information was obtained and describing specific reasons for certain conclusions as well as reasons for using specific data.

On AAAS you can usually find this as supplemental material, but usually a peer reviewed study will include this info (for reasons of peer review), otherwise there is confusion

Thanks
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2014
Before and after data manipulation - http://stevengodd...mp;h=355


yes, yes - we've been there and got the T-shirt thanks.
Now move along.
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2014
Wow. The denier wing is really out to twist this story into something that supports their stupid cause and keeps them believing in this complete and utter nonsense of the non-existence of AGW. Why would I say deniers are full of it, because they are. I recommend you deniers put your tails between your legs and goto http://www.climate.gov and just view the nice selection of graphs prepared. There is nothing that skeptics have put forward to counter the overwhelming scientific data. An the only explanation for that incredible global temperature rise is the man made greenhouse gas effect known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
While the climate scientists can always improve their computer modeling, the deniers need to completely start over because they got and F for making crap up.

Sigh
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 23, 2014
I have the original paper. They identify 18 models

Which is what you complained about, so by your own admission, that information is there.

but of those 18 not the 4 "best" and "worst" they selected in constructing their crucial Figure 5.

If you had asked for that information, I would have looked for it.

Without knowing which 4 of the 18 they considered "best", the results cannot be replicated

If you are serious about replication, you will need the actual data to which the models are compared. The authors tell you where to find those data. Do you think you will then be unable to identify those models? Or you could just ask the authors. That's why they have to provide the addresses.

aoberley
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2014
"There is nothing that skeptics have put forward to counter the overwhelming scientific data. " Which "scientific data" is that? The kind that was "adjusted" or the genuine kind?

thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 23, 2014
"There is nothing that skeptics have put forward to counter the overwhelming scientific data. " Which "scientific data" is that? The kind that was "adjusted" or the genuine kind?


aoberly: All you have to do is ask them for their data. They, generally, make both the data and the source code or algorithm available. You can then report back on the status of those data and let us know. Otherwise, just whine and stomp your feet and complain to Rush.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2014
You mean ask for the data, like this.
http://climateaud...onology/
supamark23
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 23, 2014
"The discovery vindicates the models ..."
No, they CHANGED the model.
Popper called this pseudo-science.


You really do have sh!t instead of brains in your head.
supamark23
Jul 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 23, 2014
"The discovery vindicates the models ..."
No, they CHANGED the model.
Popper called this pseudo-science.


You really do have sh!t instead of brains in your head.

Another "brilliant" response from the supaturd. Of course, the AGW Chicken Little tards gave him 5s for it.
supamark23
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2014
"The discovery vindicates the models ..."
No, they CHANGED the model.
Popper called this pseudo-science.


You really do have sh!t instead of brains in your head.

Another "brilliant" response from the supaturd. Of course, the AGW Chicken Little tards gave him 5s for it.


Did I put a quarter in you? No? Then STFU.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 23, 2014
And, the supaturd is on a roll. One can only hope he'll roll back down that cesspool of ignorance from whence he floated up.
supamark23
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2014
What part of shut the fuck up did you not understand? I'm sure your parents regret not aborting you on a daily, nay hourly, basis.
aoberley
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 23, 2014
What part of shut the fuck up did you not understand? I'm sure your parents regret not aborting you on a daily, nay hourly, basis.


Sorry, but I'm not going anywhere. The truth needs to be reported. And the funny thing is, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
http://stevengodd...mp;h=355
supamark23
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2014
What part of shut the fuck up did you not understand? I'm sure your parents regret not aborting you on a daily, nay hourly, basis.


Sorry, but I'm not going anywhere. The truth needs to be reported. And the funny thing is, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
http://stevengodd...mp;h=355


Wasn't talking to you, dumbass.
aoberley
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2014
aoberley
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2014
Alice Springs, Australia, before and after temperature records were falsified - http://stevengodd...ings.gif
aoberley
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2014
130 Environmental groups - the only solution to climate change is to "end the hegemonic capitalist system" - http://dailycalle...italism/
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 23, 2014
the @Goracicle say;
You mean ask for the data, like this.

With URL to story denier blog about a FOI request for data on tree ring data which was turned down. It was turned down because the data was already published and available from one of the journals the climate scientists published in. (Is that the gist of it Goracicle?) Basically and old non-issue that is irrelevant to the subject.

Maybe our side should be filing FOI's on these denier groups and find out how much is paid by the Heartland Institute and others;
http://www.desmog...good-you

My question to aoberley is who is fudging your data to get your graphs? I'll bet your denier buddies just do what deniers do; make crap up! Certainly you don't have the skill to do it yourself.

antigoracle
2 / 5 (13) Jul 24, 2014
OK howhottard, how about you get us the data and code for Mann's Hockey Schick.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 24, 2014
OK howhottard, how about you get us the data and code for Mann's Hockey Schick.

Should be easy.
It's the same shape as every other one that's been constructed.....
Even (ex) denialist's demigod Muller's effort - who then became 'ex', when even the
Koch's money couldn't bend it to their will.
aoberley
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 24, 2014
OK howhottard, how about you get us the data and code for Mann's Hockey Schick.

Should be easy.
It's the same shape as every other one that's been constructed.....
Even (ex) denialist's demigod Muller's effort - who then became 'ex', when even the
Koch's money couldn't bend it to their will.


You mean the hockey stick the Anglia scientists joked about faking? That one?
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2014
OK howhottard, how about you get us the data and code for Mann's Hockey Schick.

Should be easy.
It's the same shape as every other one that's been constructed.....
Even (ex) denialist's demigod Muller's effort - who then became 'ex', when even the
Koch's money couldn't bend it to their will.

Is this the Muller to whom you refer.
http://www.techno...mbshell/
http://www.techno...warming/
aoberley
2 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2014
OK howhottard, how about you get us the data and code for Mann's Hockey Schick.

Should be easy.
It's the same shape as every other one that's been constructed.....
Even (ex) denialist's demigod Muller's effort - who then became 'ex', when even the
Koch's money couldn't bend it to their will.

Is this the Muller to whom you refer.
http://www.techno...mbshell/


Maybe MIT Technology Review has been bought off by oil companies and the Koch brothers?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2014
OK howhottard, how about you get us the data and code for Mann's Hockey Schick.

Should be easy.
It's the same shape as every other one that's been constructed.....
Even (ex) denialist's demigod Muller's effort - who then became 'ex', when even the
Koch's money couldn't bend it to their will.


You mean the hockey stick the Anglia scientists joked about faking? That one?


That particular specimen of the same shape graph in the instance you refer was merely the transposition of real temp data for proxy data acquired from tree rings in Scandinavia that have for known reasons wandered from their previous calibration.

http://www.youtub...VQ2fROOg

thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2014
OK howhottard, how about you get us the data and code for Mann's Hockey Schick.

Should be easy.
It's the same shape as every other one that's been constructed.....
Even (ex) denialist's demigod Muller's effort - who then became 'ex', when even the
Koch's money couldn't bend it to their will.

Is this the Muller to whom you refer.
http://www.techno...mbshell/


Yes, that is the same Muller. That is from 2003 and 2004. He was a real skeptic who crunched the numbers and changed his mind when they turned out to challenge his long-held view. Real skeptics have the ability to verify their position and change their views in the face of data. This man worked with data and found he was wrong and changed his position. You are not a skeptic, you are a denier. Your post shows Muller has integrity.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2014
OK howhottard, how about you get us the data and code for Mann's Hockey Schick.

Should be easy.
It's the same shape as every other one that's been constructed.....
Even (ex) denialist's demigod Muller's effort - who then became 'ex', when even the
Koch's money couldn't bend it to their will.

Is this the Muller to whom you refer.
http://www.techno...mbshell/


No
This one
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0
And this one
http://www.democr..._richard
Dr_toad
Jul 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2014
OK howhottard, how about you get us the data and code for Mann's Hockey Schick.

Should be easy.
It's the same shape as every other one that's been constructed.....
Even (ex) denialist's demigod Muller's effort - who then became 'ex', when even the
Koch's money couldn't bend it to their will.

Is this the Muller to whom you refer.
http://www.techno...mbshell/

Such an old article (I guess you have to go back that far to find anything that supports your POV), In response here the straight story

http://www.desmog...unmasked

The bottom line was Mann was never discredited. Who was discredited was McIntyre and McKitrick who claimed Mann did not know how to normalize his data correctly. It's been shown to be just another one of those things you deniers just like to make up! So the hockey stick is real, and VP, Nobel winner Al Gore was right all along.
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2014
Read you technology review post, and the have a look at this;

http://deepclimat...ore-1289

McIntyre only had One published paper and their arguments on the smoothing used by Mann are just made up. McIntyre was motivated (and paid) to make claims against Mann. McIntyre dislike of Canada's liberals efforts to join the Kyoto protocal (He's a CON) was his stated reason for attacking Mann. He was fed-up with the damn liberals and Kyoto.

"According to the familiar story that McIntyre has told so often, his initial interest in Mann et al's "hockey stick" graph was inspired by its relentless invocation in late 2002 by the Canadian Liberal government as a justification for ratification of the Kyoto protocol."

Anyway the link above is a great read for anyone that wants to understand how the "hockey stick" graph was attacked, the truth about deniers and their conservative partisan nature.
aoberley
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2014
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2014
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2014
Well, skeptics probably won't view this, it's too sophisticated for them but here is a real nice talk by Professor Chuck Kutscher PhD of University of Colorado Boulder discusses Mann, the hockey stick, and other issues skeptics raise. This is about 50minutes but it's a very informative talk.

https://www.youtu...GdC3HNas

I suspect that @aoberley won't watch it, it's not as fun as cartoons.
howhot2
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2014
Here is a condensed video of what is happening with climate change; No distractions here:
10 1/2 min. This is worth a view:

https://www.youtu...VTK-AAvw

In light of the Ocean water temperatures reaching their hottest temperatures ever recorded, this should raise an eyebrow.
aoberley
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2014
Here is a condensed video of what is happening with climate change; No distractions here:
10 1/2 min. This is worth a view:

https://www.youtu...VTK-AAvw

In light of the Ocean water temperatures reaching their hottest temperatures ever recorded, this should raise an eyebrow.


Sincerely, the whole point of the denialists, as you call them, is that the data can't be trusted. Who says the ocean temperatures are hotter than ever? Was the data adjusted or estimated? Who are the scientists that collected the data and who funded their research?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc


Wrong one my friend .... this one shows you emails and written evidence of the truth in the context of the full mail/letter.... and surprise! (to a logically minded sentient being) there was no conspiracy.

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2014
Sincerely, the whole point of the denialists, as you call them, is that the data can't be trusted. Who says the ocean temperatures are hotter than ever? Was the data adjusted or estimated? Who are the scientists that collected the data and who funded their research?

Who says anything in life can be trusted. Point is there comes a point where distrust becomes denialist stupidity, as the thing proposed as happening is beyond unlikely except in a disaster movie.
This is what I mean about the need for you guys to believe. You say we do. Well it's LOGICAL that we do as the whole world is founded on science
You turn the whole sane world upside down to pursue your belief.
On our part it is empirical science that underpins it. Unarguable.
Go to your doc and tell him, there's no proof of his diagnosis being correct (Mann), and that the whole medical profession is also incorrect (multidisciplinary science) and that you've spotted a convincing website telling of a psychic surgeon, who ...
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2014
https://www.youtu...c7PCJ-nc


Wrong one my friend .... this one shows you emails and written evidence of the truth in the context of the full mail/letter.... and surprise! (to a logically minded sentient being) there was no conspiracy.


Oops didn't link the vid!!
http://www.youtub...6Z9t74QY
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
as the whole world is founded on science

No, it's not.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2014
Here is a condensed video of what is happening with climate change; No distractions here:
10 1/2 min. This is worth a view:

https://www.youtu...VTK-AAvw

In light of the Ocean water temperatures reaching their hottest temperatures ever recorded, this should raise an eyebrow.


Sincerely, the whole point of the denialists, as you call them, is that the data can't be trusted. Who says the ocean temperatures are hotter than ever? Was the data adjusted or estimated? Who are the scientists that collected the data and who funded their research?

Oh I don't know, who would you trust: Scientific consensus and a peer review and competitive journals, or A conspiracy blog site run buy political operatives from the tea party?

As far as ocean temperature or heat being the hottest ever recorded; please see:
http://www.climat...-content

You can then relax and know that science is on the ball!
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2014
as the whole world is founded on science

No, it's not.

Yeah it is @R2, if I put the qualifier; "Modern World".
Sigh
1 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2014
Sincerely, the whole point of the denialists, as you call them, is that the data can't be trusted.

If you want this statement to be more than an insult people who don't believe humans contribute to global warming, you really should elaborate. Clinging to a belief in the face of contrary evidence, such as claiming that no data that conflict with a belief can be trusted, is one defining feature of a delusion. Do you have any data to support your claim that people who don't believe in warming are particularly prone to that problem? (And if you do, why should anyone who disagrees with you believe your data?) Or are you suggesting rejection of conflicting data as a criterion to distinguish denialists from sceptics?
orti
1 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2014
No no, wait, the models can predict the past if we tweak them right. Don't worry though; they're still correct about double CO2 predictions – settled science you know. There's still a bogeyman under you bed. So, do as we say.
aoberley
1 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2014
Sincerely, the whole point of the denialists, as you call them, is that the data can't be trusted.

If you want this statement to be more than an insult people who don't believe humans contribute to global warming, you really should elaborate. Clinging to a belief in the face of contrary evidence, such as claiming that no data that conflict with a belief can be trusted, is one defining feature of a delusion. Do you have any data to support your claim that people who don't believe in warming are particularly prone to that problem? (And if you do, why should anyone who disagrees with you believe your data?) Or are you suggesting rejection of conflicting data as a criterion to distinguish denialists from sceptics?


What about Climategate?
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2014
What about Climategate?


Try watching the vid I linked to below .....

And Maybe - (though not holding my breath) you may be relived of your bizarre conclusion that the world is being scammed by scientists.
Who miraculously managed to construct a graph of global historical temps of exactly the same shape as all the others on record, including the one authored by Muller with money from the Kochs.
Is that some whole other conspiracy then?
You know what they say?
Make one lie and it breeds a whole lot of others. And yet no ones been caught. Just like no ones been caught for faking the Moon landings..... because neither happened. You don't need evidence, you just need a sentient and sensible brain. FFS
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2014
Oh I don't know, who would you trust: Scientific consensus and a peer review and competitive journals,


" Although the system by which research papers and grant applications are vetted is often described as science's "gold standard," it has always garnered mixed reviews from academics at its sharp end."
"And how could Science have failed to rumble the fraudulent cloning work of Hwang Woo-suk?2"
"leaked emails showed that Phil Jones, former head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, had pledged to exclude papers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report "even if we have to redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is." Then came an even more damaging realisation. The panel's last report claimed that Himalayan glaciers were likely to melt entirely by 2035—an egregious error that should have been picked up by any specialist."
http://www.bmj.co...mj.c1409
howhot2
5 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2014
"it has always garnered mixed reviews from academics at its sharp end."
Of course, everyone grumbles when they don't get grant. They are a lot of work and no one likes to have their ideas dismissed as crap unworthy of the 1% !

"And how could Science have failed to rumble the fraudulent cloning work of Hwang Woo-suk?" Woo Suk? Wrong person it was Yu Suk wasn't it?

"Then came an even more damaging realisation" OMG! What was it? "panel's last report claimed that Himalayan glaciers were likely to melt entirely by 2035". Oh well. Bummer. Isn't that like already happening and like so much faster, that it might be much sooner.



mooster75
5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2014
One of the main principles of the scientific method is replication or reproducibility.
Their article states that they chose only those models with accurate settings for Pacific Ocean temperatures for each 15-year period. But nowhere in the article can we find which ones they chose. Hence, their work is not reproducible. Hence, this is not science.


No, it's not. It's an article about science, not the actual publication of the study. I would have thought that was obvious.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.