RealClimate logo

The Bore Hole

Filed under: — group @ 6 December 2004

A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.

1,866 Responses to “The Bore Hole”

  1. 1851
    ab says:

    Igor Yashayaev @79,

    You’re right that considering the totality of the AMOC process, the stronger deep conviction in the subpolar gyre (SPG) indicates that the AMOC is not slowing down and even, I would add, is going stronger and stronger. Why ? Because AMOC is being fed by water fluxes: cold water fluxes in the North and warm water fluxes in the tropics. Ice melting in the North causes stronger convection and inflation of the SPG, while global deforestation on lands, particularly tropical deforestation, causes increases in warm water fluxes as well, feeding the AMOC.

    Stefan @79,
    Weak AMOC -> SPNA cools -> stronger convection -> with some delay the AMOC recovers. That can explain the decadal oscillations we see.

    1) North:
    Ice Melting -> SPNAL cools -> stronger convection and SPNAL horizontal inflation (cold blob) -> AMOC not significantly impacted in the North (Pickart and al)

    2) Tropics:
    Global deforestation (particularly tropical) -> more warm water fluxes -> stronger AMOC

    Decadal oscillations may be related to the cycle of life of vegetation.

  2. 1852
    Victor says:

    More on Smirnov and the sensitivity issue:


    The second item lists, and quotes from, several independent studies questioning the “official” interpretation of climate sensitivity.

  3. 1853

    in the 80’s Hanson was not confusing the PHONY global warming with ”climate”

    YOU SHOULD BRUSH UP ON WHAT CLIMATE IS: -”there is no such a thing as ‘’earth’s global climate’’ same as there is no GLOBAL music– there are many INDEPENDENT different MICRO CLIMATES 1] Alpine climate 2] Mediterranean climate, 3] sea- level climate 4] high altitude climate 5] temperate climates 6] subtropical climate, 7] tropical climate 8] desert climate 9] rainforest climates 10] wet climate 11] dry climate, as in desert AND THEY KEEP CHANGING; wet climate gets dry occasionally b] even rains in the desert sometimes and improves. In the tropics is wet and dry -/- in subtropics and temperate climates changes four time a year, WITH EVERY season= migratory birds can tell you that; because they know much more about climate than all the Warmist foot-solders and all climate skeptics combined – on the polar caps climates change twice a year. Leading Warmist know that is no ”global warming” so they encompassed ”climatic changes” to confuse and con the ignorant – so that when is some extreme weather for few days on some corner of the planet, to use it as proof of their phony global warming and ignore that the weather is good simultaneously on the other 97% of the planet, even though is same amount of co2. In other words, they used the trick as: -”if you want to sell that the sun is orbiting around the earth -> you encompass the moon – present proofs that the moon is orbiting around the earth and occasionally insert that: the sun and moon rise from same place and set to the west, proof that the ”sun is orbiting around the earth” AND the trick works, because the Flat-Earthers called ”climate skeptics” are fanatically supporting 90% of the Warmist lies. Bottom line: if somebody doesn’t believe that on the earth climate exist and constantly changes, but is no global warming -> ”climate skeptic” shouldn’t be allowed on the street, unless accompanied by an adult. b] many micro-climates and they keep changing, but no such a thing as ”global climate”

  4. 1854
    Victor says:

    218 nigelj: (quoting V) “One can’t, for example, claim a “long-term” warming trend over 120 years due to CO2 emissions”

    nj: Nobody has claimed the warming trend since 1900 is ‘entirely’ CO2 emissions. Just that it mostly is.

    V: No, it mostly isn’t. This is in fact the key piece of evidence, making all other claims irrelevant. During the first 40 years of the 20th century, CO2 emissions rose too slowly to have a significant influence on either global temperature or sea level rise. During the following 40 years, THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT TEMPERATURE RISE AT ALL. How can you possibly attribute a temperature rise to CO2 emissions when there was no such rise to begin with? Am I arguing with children?

    The null hypothesis is natural climate variation. In order to overcome the null hypothesis it’s necessary to provide meaningful evidence that current temperatures are due largely to CO2 emissions rather than natural variation. When there is clearly NO correlation between CO2 emissions and temperatures for 80 years out of the last 120, that tells us the evidence is lacking and we have no reason to reject the null hypothesis. And sorry, but as I’ve stressed many times, excuses for a lack of evidence do NOT constitute actual evidence. Science is based on evidence, not explanations for lack of same.

  5. 1855
    Victor says:

    As a little experiment I’ve decided to think a bit about the possibility that I and all the other skeptics were wrong and Hansen and Co. were right. Putting myself into the shoes of a true believer, totally convinced by Hansen’s prediction that the continued burning of fossil fuels will lead the world to disaster “unless something drastic is done,” what would I be feeling at this moment and what steps would I want to recommend to our world leaders in order to best head off, or at least mitigate this coming catastrophe?

    Well, the first thing that comes to mind, as the threat most likely to appear on the horizon, would be the intensification of deadly heat waves. We’ve already seen two examples that many climate scientists have attributed to AGW: the devastating 2003 heat wave that struck Europe and the 2010 heat wave that proved so disastrous in Russia. Other outcomes, such as the loss of Arctic sea ice, while certainly of concern, seem relatively remote, with consequences we can probably adapt to over time. And it looks as though things like more intense hurricanes, floods and droughts are going to be beyond our capacity to change, at least over the next 50 to 100 years, so we may just need to live with them.

    However, there IS something we can do to mitigate heat waves, so for me the most urgent thing we could do right away would be for all governments to provide air conditioning units to as many people on the planet as possible. I myself would want to run out and buy another air conditioner as a backup to the one I already have, just in case it were to fail while temperatures are soaring to 100 degrees and above — as they certainly will just about everywhere if Hansen is right. For the world’s many homeless people, or those living in remote areas with no access to electricity, we would need to build air conditioned heat-wave shelters to preserve life when temperatures begin to soar above the limit of human endurance.

    All this air conditioning would, of course, require a tremendous increase in power generation, which would almost inevitably lead to a surge in fossil fuel emissions, but as I see it, that can’t be helped.

    As far as sea level rise is concerned, I think we would need to begin, as soon as possible, to erect massive sea walls around all the world’s major cities — a task that would require massive amounts of concrete — another source of CO2 emissions I’m afraid, but what other recourse would we have?

    It seems to me, therefore, that our only option under such circumstances would be to make every attempt to forestall disaster in the near term — but at the expense of the long term, which, if Hansen and his colleagues are correct, would eventually lead to the effective extinction of the human race over the next 100 years or so. If I actually believed that (I do NOT), then I would have no recourse but to hope against hope that the doomsayers are wrong after all, because, if they are right, there would truly be no hope.

  6. 1856
    Victor says:

    66 MartinJB says:

    MJB: On drought, as pointed out already, Heller shows a graph of precipitation (problem 1 – not a direct measure of drought) for only a limited part of the Northwest (problem 2 – possible cherry-picking alert). The third problem is that the data starts at 1988, taking away the context from the previous decades.

    V: Excuse me? Precipitation is not a direct measure of drought? You mean you can have both significant precipitation in a given area AND drought in that same area? Please explain. I’m all ears. As for the data starting at 1988, that’s when Hansen presented his forecast. FOREcast. Get it?

    MJB: Victor then links to EPA data on an actual drought metric and states that he doesn’t see an increasing trend. Not trusting Victor’s eyes (or my own), I actually did a regression of the last 4 decades (basically of the most dramatic warming period, and most likely to be relevant to Hansen’s study). Guess what? I got a trend showing drought.

    V: In other words you fiddled with the data and the method until you got a result that satisfied you. A glance at that graph tells us that any trend you might have found means little to nothing.

    MJB: I got an increasing trend over the last two decades as well. Now, neither trend was significant, but then Hansen did state that it was only a “tendency”, so I think significance is not necessarily a deal-breaker.

    V: Interesting. Neither trend was significant. So what did you prove? And the “tendency” was a prediction by Hansen that did not pan out, as Heller demonstrated. Hansen was wrong. Live with it.

    MJB:So, on drought, I’d say Hansen did OK.

    V: I’d say he flunked.

    MJB: On the “huge increase” in hot days in two regions, Heller doesn’t state which scenario this based on.

    V: No need to say. It was yet another failed prediction. ’nuff said.

    MJB: If it was for scenario A, I am not remotely surprised if we vastly undershot as total forcings didn’t remotely resemble scenario A. But this is Heller, a serial liar, reporting this. He gets NO benefit of the doubt. I would also add that region forecasts are still the least robust, so I can’t imagine they had much skill back in 1988. To ding Hansen on this, even if it’s an honest ding (doubtful), is just silly.

    V: C’mon MJB, fess up. Hansen got it wrong. You are the one who is being silly.

    MJB: I just don’t believe Hansen made the prediction that was reported about no summer sea ice in the Arctic.

    V: Well that’s one thing I really like about Heller. He documents everything. The report is there in black and white. If you can track down evidence that Hansen ever retracted it, I’ll retract my claim that he got it wrong.

    MJB: But what’s interesting here is just how incredibly dishonest Heller was in his video. He showed a graph of annual volume figures that shows volumes staying pretty steady. WOW! I thought for sure they had been falling pretty steadily (note the graph to which Kevin linked). Ahh… Heller showed the data for ONE DAY from each year. Who does he think he’s fooling? (Oh wait, we KNOW who he fooled!)

    V: Yes indeed he did, and thanks for pointing that out. I must apologize because I missed that. And yes, the ice volume graph he presented IS misleading, which, I admit, alters my opinion of Heller’s honesty. But it does not alter the facts. Hansen predicted no summer sea ice 5 to 10 years after 2008. Yet we still find a significant amount arctic of sea ice in the summer of 2018, 10 years later. He was, once again, wrong.

    MJB: The lower Manhattan thing is well known and wildly misinterpreted.

    V: I keep hearing that. But in precisely what sense has it been misinterpreted? A reporter interviewed him and reported it, and I’ve never seen any evidence that he retracted it, only that he claimed he really meant 40 years, not 20 — which I duly noted. What do you know about this incident that I don’t?

    MJB: Finally, when people talk about the skill demonstrated by Hansen’s model from the seminal 1988 paper, they are talking about one thing: the skill in predicting global warming based on total forcings.

    V: What skill? He provided an alarming forecast and then fudged by proposing a much less alarming (and far more likely) scenario B. It’s called hedging your bets. I’ve seen several graphs comparing scenario A, scenario B and scenario C with the actual data and every one is different. Looks to me like the data is closest to scenario C, but hey — you pays your money and you takes your choice. Isn’t that what “the science” is all about?

    MJB: Oh, one more thing. THIS is why Victor and his ilk are deniers. They accept uncritically almost any tripe put out by fellow members of the denialati. But when Mann links to some graphs of stratospheric temperatures, he is dismissed as a mathematician and of no account relative the august geographer who wrote a report published by a think tank. Why a geographer’s comments about satellite-measured stratosphere temperatures would hold more weight is beyond me.

    V: I never accept anything uncritically, as should be clear from every one of my posts. And it wasn’t Mann, but Gavin who offered a tweet in lieu of an actual analysis. The “geographer” in question actually studied the data before reporting his conclusions, and wrote it up in detail for anyone to review and critique. The “geographer’s” comments hold more weight than the mathematician’s tweet because 1. they are based on the scrupulous analysis of actual data and 2. a monograph beats a tweet, sorry, but it actually does.

    The bottom line, MJB, is that every prediction called out by Heller was WRONG. And what is more, there is nothing straightforward about his scenarios A, B and C, which have been interpreted in many different ways.

    Moreover, even if all of Hansen’s predictions were correct, there is nothing in any of them that supports his principal argument: that CO2 emissions were responsible. Natural variation is the null hypothesis on all these fronts. To claim otherwise requires proof, not dire predictions.

  7. 1857
    debunker says:

    Well, the idea of greenhouse gases as a cause of global warming, and particularly CO2, is not what one can call “strong” and “science -based”, only pseudo-scientific political organizations like the IPCC support it thanks to more than one billion of dollars invested each day into the theory at Earth’s scale. Angstrom and Woods independently and experimentally debunked the idea more than one century ago. Bio and geo-physical effects of global deforestation are way more potent than any greenhouse gases. The Earth is not a black body and there is no radiative balance. Radiative imbalance is needed for life to sustain itself on Earth thanks to photosynthesis. What the IPCC does not say is that replacing dioxygen with carbon dioxyde through a combustion process increases the heat capacity of air, and thus decreases its temperature for the same amount of energy entering into it.

  8. 1858
    Victor says:

    Well, well. The almighty Tamino has chosen to lower himself by responding to some of my humble comments. I’m honored. Coincidentally I debunked the same argument he now rehashes (from a blog post of 2014) in my book “The Unsettled Science of Climate Change.” Here’s the gist:

    “It’s clever, I’ll give him that. But, yes, it’s a just a trick, one of many examples of how easy it is to deceive oneself (and others) with statistics. The basis for the trick is that old standby of magicians for centuries: misdirection. Tamino’s red line tells us that, indeed, as no one would dispute, the years between 1998 and 2013 were especially warm compared to the period between 1979 and 1997, and that is why most of the data points lie above the red line, because the red line predicts absolute temperature, telling us nothing at all about the rate at which temperature changes. As he himself states, “All sixteen years were hotter than expected even according to the still-warming prediction [red line], so of course they also were above the no-warming [blue line] prediction.” Yes. Precisely. Because they were hotter. Not because there was no leveling after 1998. The leveling of the warming trend remains clearly visible on the Hadcrut graph, regardless of where those dots appear in relation to any red or blue line. That red line serves a function analogous to the matador’s red cape, directing our attention away from the actual hiatus toward the very different issue of absolute heat. Literally misdirection.”

    May I add that references to the hiatus can be found scattered very widely in the peer reviewed climate science literature, often described as a perplexing puzzle that needs to be addressed. And indeed, Tamino’s effort is only one among a great many other efforts to explain this inconvenient development away.

  9. 1859
    Victor says:

    109 CCHolley says:

    Steven Emmerson @101

    “Look up Occam’s razor for why this is a non-scientific argument.”

    CC: LOL. Victor believes that these unknown natural drivers ARE the simpler explanation. To him it doesn’t matter that they are unknown or that there is no known possible physical explanation of how such a driver could work creating heat within the boundaries of the well understood physical laws of thermodynamics and heat transfer theory. The possibility of such is the simpler explanation just because Victor says so. Natural variation! Simpler! Damned the physics or the evidence. Doesn’t matter. Simpler! Why? Because Victor with no formal training in the hard sciences says so.

    V: Sheesh. This is getting tiresome. Occam’s Razor applies when it’s necessary to decide between two or more conflicting theories. Natural variation is NOT a theory. It’s the null hypothesis. There is no need to provide evidence for its existence, especially since its been the driver of global temperature since the origin of the Earth. Unless you prefer to believe that aliens from outer space are controlling it.

    AGW is based on the notion that, since the industrial revolution, man made greenhouse gases (especially CO2) have taken over from natural variation as the principal “control knob” of global temperature. This is a radically new idea and as such requires proof. Need I add: extraordinary theories require extraordinary proof.

  10. 1860
    Victor says:

    nigelj says:

    nj: Hansen has also long predicted that the antarctic ice sheets could become unstable due to the ice shelf issue, and evidence for this along with a significant acceleration in the melting of antarctic ice has been detected this year and reported in the media. So Hansen has been right about most things.

    V: No. He’s been wrong about that as well. From a 2014 NASA report (

    “The new finding that the eventual loss of a major section of West Antarctica’s ice sheet “appears unstoppable” was not completely unexpected by scientists who study this area. The study, led by glaciologist Eric Rignot at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, and the University of California, Irvine, follows decades of research and theory suggesting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is inherently vulnerable to change.

    Antarctica is so harsh and remote that scientists only began true investigation of its ice sheet in the 1950s. It didn’t take long for the verdict on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to come in. “Unstable,” wrote Ohio State University glaciologist John Mercer in 1968. It was identified then and remains today the single largest threat of rapid sea level rise. . .

    In his 1968 paper, Mercer called the West Antarctic Ice Sheet a “uniquely vulnerable and unstable body of ice.” Mercer based his statement on geologic evidence that West Antarctica’s ice had changed considerably many, many millennia ago at times when the ice sheets of East Antarctica and Greenland had not”

    Thus what Hansen “predicted” is a condition that evidently began “many millennia ago,” long before the beginnings of the industrial revolution.


    “Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it’s being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” (


    “Scientists have uncovered the largest volcanic region on Earth – two kilometres below the surface of the vast ice sheet that covers west Antarctica.

    The project, by Edinburgh University researchers, has revealed almost 100 volcanoes – with the highest as tall as the Eiger, which stands at almost 4,000 metres in Switzerland.” (

    Given the presence of so much geothermal heat from below, plus the likelihood that the process by which West Antarctica is being eroded began thousands of years ago, the notion that we can somehow stop or even slow this process by cutting back on CO2 emissions strikes me as the sheerest of sheer folly.

  11. 1861
    Victor says:

    127 nigelj says:

    “Heres the “pause”. Victor likes “eyeballing” graphs:

    A tiny flattening in the red trend line of about 6 years from about 2004 to 2010. Not significant, and clearly natural variation.”

    V: You might want to print that up and send copies to the many climate scientists who busted their butts trying to explain away the “tiny flattening” you so easily dismiss. You can find a list of names here:

    Actually, if you eliminate the unusually strong El Nino years of 1998, 2010 and 2016-17, you can easily spot the pause, even on the graph you’ve chosen to display (one of many, each one different).

    Here’s another, courtesy of Spencer Weart:

    And here’s the analysis of Weart’s graph I provided in my book:

    “Let’s do the math. The numbers in the leftmost column represent degrees Celsius. Each one of the little ticks represents .05 degrees. Following the graph from the late 70s to the late 90s we see a rise from approximately minus .2 to plus .6, a temperature increase of .8 degrees. From 1998 to 2014, however, the rise is from .6 to .7 – an increase of only .1 degree. The “record breaking” year 2014 was only one tick warmer than the preceding record breaker: a mere .05 degrees. And every single one of those record breaking 21st century years were within only two ticks of one another . . .

    The late 20th century rise that initially concerned so many was thus 8 times greater than the rise over the last 16 years, any “record-breaking” years notwithstanding. This is the hiatus. Any claim pointing to broken temperature records in recent years that does not also remind us how narrow the differences are is, very simply: dishonest. While the hiatus is clearly visible on literally all the various readings as displayed on an array of graphs, the story is most meaningfully conveyed by the numbers: a rise of .8 degrees over 20 years of the 20th century vs. only .1 degree over the last 16 years.”

  12. 1862
    Victor says:

    Might be useful to quote directly from the original Salon article (

    Reiss: While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” . . .

    When did he say this will happen?

    Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

    Does he still believe these things?

    Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.

    V: Seems to me that Hansen had his chance to clarify the terms of his prediction, with respect to the 20 or 30 year timing AND the CO2 doubling. Yet, according to Reiss what he said was that “he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.” No mention of CO2 doubling.

    So I’m sorry, but I remain skeptical of the latest version of this story, which sounds contrived to get Hansen off the hook.

    118 CCHolley: Currently CO2 levels are up about 130 ppm with another 150 ppm needed for the doubling. We are not even 50% there.

    Thanks for the reminder, CC. Now if Reiss had asked Hansen about the possibility of what might happen in 20 or 30 or 40 years given a doubling of CO2 levels, I’d think that Hansen, as someone certainly knowledgeable about CO2 levels, would have responded that such a question makes no sense, as we we won’t be anywhere near that point in 20, 30 or 40 years. So I’m sorry, I realize that any attempt to question the integrity of one of the high priests of the climate change cult is bound to scandalize just about everyone posting here, but I, as an agnostic, have no such compunctions.

    Marco says:

    Victor, explain me how this timeline works in your little theory that Hansen bullied Reiss into changing his story:

    a) the Salon article that mentions 20 years (no further caveats) is from 2001
    b) the Salon article was an interview about Reiss’ book “The Coming Storm”
    c) the book, which was written before the interview, mentions 40 years AND the caveat of doubling of CO2

    V: The book wasn’t published until 2004.

  13. 1863
    Victor says:

    From my book: “There has been no lack of . . . efforts to account for the hiatus by considering, or reconsidering, certain factors (and conveniently ignoring others), or adjusting the data in such a way as to produce the desired result. Each new publication offers a different explanation. Few attempt to replicate any of the earlier ones. As time goes by, and carefully contrived models fail to mesh with the most recent data, new factors and adjustments are retroactively stirred into the mix, so the most up-to-date findings can be represented to the world as definitive.”

    147 Fred Magyar, quoting

    “Various studies have debunked the idea of a pause, or hiatus, in global warming—the contention that global surface temperatures stopped rising during the first decade of this century. The arguments for and against “the pause” were somewhat muted until June 2015, when scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a paper in Science saying that it had slightly revised the sea surface temperatures it had been citing for the 1900s. The measurement methods, based on sensors in the engine intake ports of ships, had been flawed, NOAA said. The revised methodology also meant that sea surface temperatures during the 2000s had been slightly higher than reported. NOAA adjusted both records, which led to a conclusion that global surface temperatures during the 2000s were indeed higher than they had been in previous decades. No hiatus.”

    V: For me this new study, published after I wrote my book, is simply one more in the long long list of attempts to nullify the hiatus. For one thing, it neglects either to replicate or in any way support any of the earlier studies, thus not only invalidating them but exposing the bias on which they were based, as their reliance on supposedly faulty data nevertheless produced (surprise surprise) the same desired result.

    More fundamentally, it is of the utmost importance that any attempt to retrospectively adjust long-accepted data in any field be conducted under the strictest controls. Adjusting data is not simply one type of project among others since flawed or biased results can have a significant effect on all future research. There is a very good reason why double-blind experiments are regarded as so important in the medical field, since, as is well known, there is always the danger that any result could be unconsciously influenced by the experimenter’s bias. And as is well known, Dr. Karl, who directed this study, has an agenda which would make him especially vulnerable to producing a biased result. I’ve looked over the paper in question and, though I lack the expertise to properly evaluate it, I couldn’t help but notice how complex it is and how many different factors had to be evaluated before the adjustments were finalized.

    I’m not accusing Karl of intentionally “cooking the books” or anything like that, but the possibility of unconscious bias in his evaluation of evidence with this degree of complexity cannot be ignored. Studies of this kind, especially when they involve revisions of very basic and important data, should never be entrusted to anyone known to have an agenda, but carried out by independent researchers with no skin in the game, whose results are least likely to be influenced by bias.

  14. 1864
    Victor says:

    Another gem from Tony Heller:

    No comment.

  15. 1865
    Victor says:

    131 Karsten V. Johansen says:

    If I may be allowed a short comment about some of the discussion above, I just think that “Victor” should do some scientific research to test his hypoteses (if there are any?) and then let the baffled world know about his mind-blowing results which would overwhelm all communities of climate scientists everywhere with their originality and theoretical revolutionizing, are we to believe his foregone conclusions. But the proof is in the pudding. No exercise in rethorics whatsoever will change neither nature nor the science about it. And that’s all I think anyone should say on that subject here until “Victor” publishes his baffling results.

    V: Responding to boneheaded posts such as this gets increasingly tiresome, but when someone so brazenly sets himself up for defeat, I can’t resist.

    So first of all, I’m not a specialist in climate science or any related field, thus not qualified to publish on this topic. But I don’t have to, as there are a great many highly qualified scientists who HAVE published papers challenging the “consensus” view, and yes, their work has appeared in peer reviewed journals. I’m often attacked on this blog as though the reservations I’ve presented originate with me alone. I’d love to take credit for originality in this respect, but in fact I serve here merely as the representative of a long list of very highly qualified scientists who share my skepticism. For some examples, see:

    Only a small sampling, but the point should be clear. There is no need for “Victor” to publish his analyses in peer reviewed journals, as the work has already been done by those far more qualified than I — or for that matter any of the self-appointed “experts” commenting here.

  16. 1866
    Alastair B. McDonald says:

    Nigel @183,

    The temperature trends are given in Gavin’s post above:

    The modelled changes were as follows:

    Scenario A: 0.33±0.03ºC/decade (95% CI)
    Scenario B: 0.28±0.03ºC/decade (95% CI)
    Scenario C: 0.16±0.03ºC/decade (95% CI)
    The observed changes 1984-2017 are 0.19±0.03ºC/decade (GISTEMP), or 0.21±0.03ºC/decade (Cowtan and Way), lying between Scenario B and C, and notably smaller than Scenario A.

    The GISTEMP trend of 0.19ºC/decade is (0.28-0.19)/0.28 = 32% lower than scenario B and the Cowtan and Way trend is (0.28-0.21)/0.28 = 25% lower, both significantly less, even if not the 40% claimed by Dan H.

    Moreover, inspection of the scenarios linked by Gavin at reveals that the actual rise in CO2 lay between those for projected for Scenarios A and B rather than B and C.

    Year A,,, B,,,, C,,,, Actual
    2014 400.6 396.7 367.8 397.1
    2015 403.0 398.6 367.8 399.4
    2016 405.4 400.5 367.8 402.8
    2017 407.9 402.4 367.8 405.0

    This all shows that, although Jim Hansen was correct that increases in CO2 cause global warming, the models he was using overestimated the warming caused.

    However, the climate is a non-linear dynamic system and if it passes a tipping point it is quite possible that these trends will be grossly exceeded, e.g. Broecker, W. S. (1999) ‘What if the conveyor were to shut down? Reflections on a possible outcome of the great global experiment’, GSA Today, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–7.