## Friday, March 05, 2010 ... //

### Met Office claims to have found the AGW fingerprint

Met Office analysis reveals 'clear fingerprints' of man-made climate change
In fact, there are two articles in the Guardian that "know" in advance that the Met Office will "strengthen" the case for human-induced climate change: the witches and prophets told them. The second article has a title that unmasks what is the real motivation behind the Met Office report:
How public trust in climate scientists can be restored
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, exactly 100 days after the AGW alarmism largely collapsed, the Met Office just found the fingerprints of Man imprinted everywhere in the climate. Because there hadn't been any fingerprints before the paper, we must ask: How did they realize this ambitious goal? ;-)

We learn that they didn't even need a single research paper to do so. One review was enough! :-)

Well, it's somewhat harder to find what the "holy grail" or "fingerprint" actually is. The Guardian article seems to be nothing else than another dose of the nonsense saying that everything about the climate is getting worse - and it must therefore be due to Man who is the only source of sins in the world. Amen. You can't even find the actual paper - which is claimed to be a review paper summarizing 100 other papers. Even when you look at the Met Office website, there only seems to be a press release with a couple of big mouths who claim to suddenly know everything. Doesn't sound too good.

Update: After lots of time, I was able to find out that the paper actually does exist:
Detection and attribution of climate change: a regional perspective (free abstract, paid full text)
There really doesn't seem to be a single glimpse of a man-made fingerprint in the first Guardian article (or in the abstract of the full paper).

They just say many wrong things about particular regional questions. For example, wet places are getting wetter and dry places are getting drier, we learn. That's a pretty bizarre statement given the recent observations that Sahara is greening.

But even if the statement about the escalating droughts were true - and probably none of their statements about the regional weather is true - how could it reveal a fingerprint of the Man? It self-evidently makes no sense whatsoever. The human fingerprint would have to look like something specifically human, e.g. the picture on the left.

This is true about all other statements in the article. None of them shows anything like a man-made fingerprint. And many of them actually show a disagreement with the man-made fingerprint. Look e.g. at this basic map of the 1970-2004 temperature change across the globe which they also included:

Does it reveal a man-made fingerprint? Well, we must know how the man-made fingerprint looks like. If the warming were due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, it would have to be global, i.e. uniform over the globe. In particular, it should have the same values in the Northern and Southern hemispheres because the concentrations of CO2 become rapidly uniform by diffusion.

At most, you could see some enhanced feedbacks in the polar regions but they should be North-South symmetric.

Instead, what the graph above shows is a warm fingerprint in Alaska. It could have been caused by the warm hand of Sarah Palin. But in that case, it would be a woman-made fingerprint, not a man-made fingerprint. We see some warming in much of the Northern Hemisphere, and cooling in southern parts of the Southern Hemisphere (much of the blue/green region conveniently has "insufficient data"). The North-South asymmetry represents a big disagreement with the "greenhouse fingerprint". And of course, many more detailed disagreements of this kind - when the dependence on the altitude is considered - are known. The greenhouse theory just doesn't seem to work as an explanation of any of the "details".

But even if you were hiding the North vs South problem above, how could the map above be considered a "man-made fingerprint"? A more sensible interpretation of the map is that the temperature in different regions is changing somewhat independently, randomly, and the regions which were warming from 1978 to 2004 just seem to be somewhat larger than the regions that were cooling. But that's not too shocking. After all, there are no quotas in Nature that would guarantee that 50% of the globe must be cooling at every moment. Random numbers don't work like that. And moreover, Nature is not quite random.

They try to criticize the Sun as a driver of climate change (they must really hate this star which gives us pretty much all the energy) - but there are lots of other obviously important causes of climate change that they're trying to hide. It's clear that much of the climate change results from regional changes, modified patterns of the ocean and atmospheric circulations at various spots. They not only failed to rule out them as an explanation: it's impossible to rule them out because they surely do play some role. And there's no reason why the "overall" effect of the changes to the oceans should be constant time time. We know it's not.

For example, a very recently discussed paper by German and Russian climatologists claims that it's normal for the climate to oscillate in the observed way at this place of the glaciation cycle, before a new ice age arrives: Register, paper.

One more comment about the format. It's supposed to be a review paper. But such things are just a matter or propaganda, education, or presentation. They don't actually bring the original evidence in favor or against various theories. If there had been no convincing "fingerprint" found in the expert literature before 2009, one cannot find it in review papers, either. The only reason why someone would prefer to "support" a hypothesis by a review paper citing 100 other random papers is that none of the 100 papers can actually settle the question. None of them really bring any convincing evidence that could be shown to others - so the author of the review just wants to impress some people by the quantity instead of the quality.

But for scientific arguments, it is always just the quality that matters. 100 lousy arguments and vague proclamations that someone like AGW are just not enough to beat 1 solid argument in real science. It's not shocking that 100 papers trying to support AGW have been written - the AGW research industry has swallowed tens of billions of dollars and you can surely hire typists who can write millions of pages of text for the money. However, this extensive and expensive activity hasn't produced any evidence supporting AGW - much like the millions of monkeys who almost never write Shakespeare's plays. The main reason is that what they're trying to prove for the money is not true.

The funding for climate science has increased by a factor of 10 in the last 15 years or so - so you can also say that only 10% of the funding is for the legitimate old-fashioned climate science and 90% of the money they're getting today are bribes for them to get AGW-alarming results. The whole field is completely corrupt but being completely corrupt is not a sufficient condition for being able to produce the actual scientific evidence.

So the work of the Met Office is just about propaganda. It's not science. It's about their attempts to intimidate people by suggesting that there are hundreds of people who may disagree with you if you disagree with AGW. But none of them actually has any argument that would be ready for a detailed promotion in isolation. It's only the quantity, the brute force of the people who have a vested interest for the panic to continue.

That's not how science can be done. I think that the British should abolish the existing Met Office and start from the scratch because the institution has been so brutally contaminated that it is no longer useful for the society. It is not useful for the climate projections but it is not useful for the weather forecast, either. In fact, it may be more harmful than useful.

And that's the memo.

Bonus: Xena on AGW

Looks great, doesn't it? However, you don't necessarily want to generalize your visual perception to her brain which is... Well, look what Lucy Lawless told Mother Nature Network about the ClimateGate:
After Climategate and other reports questioning climate change science, many people worldwide are still skeptical about global warming. What would you say to disbelievers to get them to change their minds?

I think the people running climate change denial campaigns are sociopaths. They don't want you to get off the grid in any sense because then you'd be autonomous and they couldn't make you buy their poison.
You have heard Xena's word. ;-) I wonder what poison she's buying for her brain - it will probably be a nasty one.

If you're an alarmist and you want to effectively use her excellent argument about the poison, grid, and sociopathy, be ready that if two people are doing the same thing, it's not quite the same thing. One more AGW video from her.

Blessed are poor in spirit. ;-) Have you tried Plan @ before your Plan A? ;-) More importantly, have you tried to live on Planet Earth before Planet A? :-)

The video above shows one of the disadvantages of having a reduced funding. If skeptics' financial resources are 4,000 times smaller than those of the alarmists, they must be ready for the fact that they can pay 4,000 times fewer low-brow charming MILFs for their video clips.

Let's hope that this quantity, the number of video clips with attractive yet low-brow older women, won't decide about the future of our civilization.

#### snail feedback (7) :

"They just say many wrong things about particular regional questions. For example, wet places are getting wetter and dry places are getting drier, we learn."

This is the style of projection Kevin Trenberth admitted was no good - take recent trends and extrapolate. Snow, rainfall, temperatures, hurricanes, etc, etc.

How can we be sure the fingerprint isn't that of a koala?

This is sheer politics. This announcement by the Met Office comes on the same day that they have thrown in the towel on seasonal forecasting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8551416.stm

"Met Office seasonal forecasts to be scrapped: The Met Office is to stop publishing seasonal forecasts, after it came in for criticism for failing to predict extreme weather. It was berated for not foreseeing that the UK would suffer this cold winter or the last three wet summers in its seasonal forecasts."

The other report about finding the fingerprints is just the cover to bury the bad news that they are getting out of the seasonal forecast business.

In spite of the fact that it has resources second to none, its success rate at seasonal forecasting has been worse than coin tossing.

So, it's seasonal forecasting is rubbish, but it thinks it can do regional climate change projections on 25km grid out to the end of the century.

When ex-WWF Robert Napier became chairman of the Met Office he started to steer it into the climate change arena. This is clear from his words in the first annual report after he became chairman.

These two news items confirm that the steer is ongoing.

I read the press release, and it's just the same "signature": "We don't know what does this, so it must be human CO2". Hey, but there are fairies too! Why not fairies?

"You need to have a testable hypothesis and you need to confirm it with multiple lines of evidence," Kring added. "What's important is for the international community to have that opportunity to review the data and make up their own minds."

This is a quote from another scientist, David Kring, about the theory of an asteroid causing the extinction of dinosaurs. Even though it's off topic, it shows how the scientific process should work. I wish some climate scientists thought that way.

The NG articles are interesting reading.

"hotter air has more capacity to hold moisture"

"The last green phase, which started some 12,000 years ago, may be due to increased water evaporation from oceans. This led to monsoon rains that penetrated the interiors of tropical continents, he said."

'"Now, today, man is probably causing the same thing," he said. '

Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist at the Met Office and President of the Royal Meteorological Society clearly said in the parliamentary committee that the Met office uses the same model for weather forecasting and climate projections. She claimed that the climate projections must be OK because the models are tested for robustness twice a day (doing the daily weather forecasts). She really did say that to the committee, and it wasn't a 'mis-speak' on her part because she says the same in a written document as well:

"At the Met Office we use the same model to make weather forecasts as we do to make our climate predictions, so every day we are testing the model and saying, ‘how well did we do with the weather forecast?’ We know that on many occasions our weather forecasts are incredibly skilful and that’s increasingly giving us confidence that the science in our models is fit to do this ‘crystal ball gazing’ into the future to say what will happen to our climate as we go really into uncharted territory."

That is unequivocal: the Chief Scientist says that they use the SAME MODEL for weather forecasting and climate projections, and thus the accuracy of the weather forecast is 'verification' of the robustness of the same model for climate projection. No verification or test of robustness could be applied if they were different models. Both in the extract above and to the parliamentary committee she made the point that the climate models are OK because they are tested on a daily basis doing daily weather forecasting (!!). Believe me, Slingo has spent years on the computing aspects of climate prediction, so if she's wrong on this one she shouldn't be in her job: she'd either be ignorant, deluded, or trying to hoodwink parliament and people.

Of course, what this shows without a shadow of a doubt is that since (if we can believe the Met's Chief Scientist) the same model is used, then the climate projections MUST be factored into the weather forecasting because the same model is serving both - the weather is simply the diurnal, seasonal and annual variation on the inexorable climate trend determined by natural variation and anthropogenic forcing. It is no wonder, therefore, since the actual climate has failed to march in step with the climate projection, that the Met's seasonal forecasts are consistently wrong: they MUST by now have a warm bias in them by including the climate trend (which is factored into the model as increasing, but which in reality is flatlining). This is a divergence problem between the presuppositional data fed into the model (based on AGW dogma) and the reality.

Since the seasonal forecasts HAVE consistently turned out to have had a warm bias in them compared to reality (which the Met office says it cannot explain - but I would have thought was pretty obvious following the logic above) then there is strong indication that the underlying bias, which is the supposed anthropogenic signal, is not there, or the model is wrong, or the natural variation has not been accounted for properly (or any combination of the above), any or all of which are fatal to the AGW hypothesis and climate projections.
This all drops out from logic, which is not the monopoly of science.