Great new climate blog: Climate Wars by roymustard

In case you’ve not seen Climate Wars yet, do yourself a favor and check out Roymustard’s blog. He’s been doing some great work, as well as popping into the WtD comments section and linking (thanks!)

A recent post on Bob Carter’s dodging forecasting is worth the read:

In fact, it looks as though Bob Carter, who claims to accept no funding, is actually paid $20,000 a year by the Heartland Institute and who squeals that honestly revealing your funding is “outdated”, just cherrypicks whatever random year that suits whatever his opinion is that day. There’s little methodology to Carter’s work, except that he obsesses over the IPCC… 

Embarrassingly, Carter co-authored that paper on which John McLean based his humiliating and infamous “2011 will be the coolest year since 1956″ prediction.

Carter’s prediction depicted as a graph: 

As Roy so eloquently put it: hahahahaha

About these ads

30 thoughts on “Great new climate blog: Climate Wars by roymustard

  1. Whilst we’re discussing models, has anyone tracked the poo flinging contest between PSI and Watts on who can best misrepresent a NASA study? Too, too wonderful. Wear overalls whilst reading.

  2. roymustard says:

    Thanks for the plug WtD!

    Eric misses the point of my post. Of course Hansen in 1988 was never going to be 100% correct, but his projections are remarkably robust. No “skeptical” projection has ever come close because that all start with the false assumption that the warming simply can’t be due to Co2.

    The link Eric provides is comparing Hansen’s GISS projections with what appears to be the UAH data. That kind of dishonesty is the reason I started my blog and will probably warrant a post in itself soon.

  3. rumleyfips says:

    Eric:

    I live in the Nothern Hemisphere ( Nova Scotia, Canada ). Sping is here! Warm and sunny, robins feeding on the thawed lawn, snow just gone.

    Granted, I’m dying: hopefully at 65 I’m just dying slowly over the next few years.

  4. Eric Worrall says:

    Wow, hit a nerve here. All to distract yourself from the thought that Hansen made a wrong prediction.

  5. john byatt says:

    No evidence of Arctic warming during Eemian

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120716214457.htm

    that is why the polar bears survived

  6. john byatt says:

    worse than we thought

    New Models Predict Drastically
    Greener Arctic in Coming Decades

    Mar. 31, 2013 — New research predicts that rising temperatures will lead to a massive “greening,” or increase in plant cover, in the Arctic. In a paper published on March 31 in Nature Climate Change, scientists reveal new models projecting that wooded areas in the Arctic could increase by as much as 50 percent over the next few decades. The researchers also show that this dramatic greening will accelerate climate warming at a rate greater than previously expected.

    “Such widespread redistribution of Arctic vegetation would have impacts that reverberate through the global ecosystem,” said Richard Pearson, lead author on the paper and a research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History’s Center for Biodiversity and Conservation.t

  7. john byatt says:

    Eric

    were in the ice age now

    were in the ice age now

    he told us once or twice

    it won’t be very nice

    were in the ice age now

    It was warmer last monday

    getting colder sunday

    freeze our butts off tuesday

    were in the ice age now

  8. john byatt says:

    MY god eric was right, the ice age has begun, the arctic will freeze over any minute now

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/mini-ice-age-has-started-prof-warns.html

    hahahahahahahahahahaha

    there are actually people even nuttier than eric out there

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Wouldn’t seem so funny if you were in the NH right now – people are dying.

      • john byatt says:

        just put up a comment there

        hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah gag hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahab thanks for the laugh

        JB

      • zoot says:

        To quote Erric:
        Yawn. Let us know when they’re all dead.

        [/sarc]

  9. john byatt says:

    eric probably did not have a look here is the URL name

    the-cooling-predictions-of-tedious-hack-bob-carter-phd-in-the-science-of-being-really-shit-at-predicting-things/

    I second roy’s HAHAHAHA just louder

  10. Eric Worrall says:

    If we’re going to exclude scientists who make lousy predictions, how about ditching James Hansen? Global temperatures are still running below his “Scenario C” (all CO2 emissions stop in 2000).

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/

    • john byatt says:

      And that was from our failed weatherman willard watts

      here is a climatologists appraisal of Hansen

      The trends for the period 1984 to 2012 (the 1984 date chosen because that is when these projections started), scenario B has a trend of 0.29+/-0.04ºC/dec (95% uncertainties, no correction for auto-correlation). For the GISTEMP and HadCRUT4, the trends are 0.18 and 0.17+/-0.04ºC/dec respectively. For reference, the trends in the CMIP3 models for the same period have a range 0.21+/-0.16 ºC/dec (95%).

      As discussed in Hargreaves (2010), while this simulation was not perfect, it has shown skill in that it has out-performed any reasonable naive hypothesis that people put forward in 1988 (the most obvious being a forecast of no-change). However, concluding much more than this requires an assessment of how far off the forcings were in scenario B. That needs a good estimate of the aerosol trends, and these remain uncertain. This should be explored more thoroughly, and I will try and get to that at some point.

      Summary

      The conclusion is the same as in each of the past few years; the models are on the low side of some changes, and on the high side of others, but despite short-term ups and downs, global warming continues much as predicted.

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        Thanks John, nice reply – saves me having to go back to Hansen’s 1988 paper.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/18/hansen-scenarios-a-and-b-revised/

        Actual forcings are somewhere between scenarios A and B. Temperatures are below scenario C. so its reasonable to conclude Hansen’s prediction was wrong.

        Should we now toss out his credibility because he made a wrong prediction, which seems to be the principle you want to apply to Bob Carter?

        Or do we forgive Hansen, because he said something you wanted to hear, and is still saying things you want to hear?

        Just trying to get the rules right.

      • john byatt says:

        commenting again on stuff you do not even understand and do not even understand that you do not even understand

        you even reference a failed statistician

        failed papers

        McIntyre & McKitrick (2003) “Corrections to the Mann et. al.(1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series” [Abs]
        Juckes et al. (2007) “Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation” [Abs, Full]
        Wahl & Ammann (2007) “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” [Abs, Full

        ]
        McIntyre & McKitrick (2005) “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” [Abs, Full]
        von Storch & Zorita (2005) “Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick” [Abs, Full]
        [M&M reply]
        Mann et al. (2007) “Robustness of proxy-based climate field reconstruction methods” [Abs, Full]
        Wahl & Ammann (2007) “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” [Abs, Full]

        McIntyre & McKitrick (2005) “The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications” [Abs, Full]
        Juckes et al. (2007) “Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation” [Abs, Full]
        Wahl & Ammann (2007) “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” [Abs, Full]

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Its a simple question. Why should Hansen be given special consideration? Because he is one of you?

      • Hansen B was pretty well bang on target in both assumptions and outcomes.. Deniars don’t like that. They forget about the underlying assumptions. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm

      • Nick says:

        ‘Trying to get the rules right’ Eric? The first rule is to compare apples with apples. McLean’s sudden cooling prediction does not even make it to the level of science.

        I’ll tell you why Hansen should be given ‘special consideration’ over McLean. He made physics based projections based on available knowledge,clearly described scenarios and with a stated [though high] sensitivity. IOW.put his cards on the table in simple scientific terms in his area of research. And never was there a presumption that he was ‘certain’ or that reality would or could exactly match prediction,because scientists are realists not bullshitters.

        McLean,OTH, is an amateur with a bee in his bonnet whose ‘scientific’ projection was plucked out of his arse and motivated by phobic rage,not inquiry.

    • Watts is spam, according to Scientific American. All you demonstrate by citing him is you can typing. Jo Nova is of the same ilk.

      “I am gradually teaching my spam filter to automatically send to spam any and every comment that contains the words “warmist”, “alarmist”, “Al Gore” or a link to Watts. A comment that contains any of those is, by definition, not posted in good faith. By definition, it does not provide additional information relevant to the post. By definition, it is off-topic. By definition, it contains erroneous information. By definition, it is ideologically motivated, thus not scientific. By definition, it is polarizing to the silent audience. It will go to spam as fast I can make it happen.”

      http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/2013/01/28/commenting-threads-good-bad-or-not-at-all/

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: