How Long Will the Hiatus Period Last?

[skierinvermont]

1. Did it not occur to you that the model response to this recovery from Pinatubo was too high? Did it not occur to you that it was too high by over a factor of two? Did it not occur to you that this may suggest that the models are not responding correctly to changes in radiative forcing?

 

2. The models do not simulate the early-20th Century warming rate well at all. This is because the change in radiative forcing in the early-20th Century was substantially smaller than in the late-20th Century, thus the significantly smaller rate in temperature change in the models than in the late-20th Century. In reality, the early-20th Century warming and the late-20th Century warming are comparable in rate. This would suggest that the models do not simulate multidecadal variability very well, and thus do not take into account natural variability contributing to the late-20th Century warming.

 

 

 

The models also do not reproduce Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice trends very well either. It underestimates the Arctic Sea Ice loss, and completely misses the sign of change in the Southern Hemisphere. This to me suggests that the Bipolar Seesaw variability is not well captured in the models.

 

bipolar seesaw.png

 

3. See above. Climate Models did not predict the multidecadal shifts associated with the PDO/AMO, and do not simulate the Sea Ice trends well, thus do not handle internal variability very well. 

 

1. There you go again. Someone catches you in a lie and you change the subject. It could indeed suggest that the models do not simulate Pinatubo well. But you (possibly intentionally) misled the reader into the belief that the slow warming rate of observations v models was made somehow more extreme by the fact that Pinatubo created faster warming in observations. In reality, Pinatubo occurred both in observations, and in modelling.

 

2. First of all, your first chart is created to maximize the discrepancy (and even then discrepancy isn't all that eyepopping). The chart shoes a whopping .8C difference between 1917 and 1938. I find no such jump in any source. And who knows how reliable Tisdale was at getting the CMIP5 mean or how else he might have modified the graph. Instead of getting the information from a denier website (as if it some hushed up secret the AR5 doesn't want you to know about) you can find the exact same information (from a much more reliable source) in the AR5 report:

 

 

Secondly, your statements contain a number of obvious logical fallacies. Just because the CMIP5 models don't simulate early 20th century warming exactly (although as you can see from the above graph, they really don't do all that bad) doesn't mean that they underestimate the natural component to late 20th century warming. For one thing, there are uncertainties about forcing. For another, models actually underestimate the warming prior to 1998. Which suggests they do a good job of estimating the forced trend (including solar forcing), but account for only some of the unforced variation (ENSO, oceans etc.). 

 

Finally, models do not need to simulate a bi-polar see saw to accurately project long-term forced temperature change. 

 

 

3. Correction: The ensemble mean does not capture internal variability very well, nor should it, nor does this mean that it is not an accurate projection of long-term forced change, nor does it mean that individual ensemble runs fail to accurately project internal variability. In fact, the individual ensemble runs show long periods of cooling, rapid sea ice loss, slow sea ice loss etc. 

[tacoman25]

No, there isn't much political about AGW science. Which is why I put no stock in "speculation" by a political figure like Roy Spencer.

 

This is denial. C'mon, there have always been strong political ideals tied to AGW. As much as you might like to believe it's nothing but "pure science", there are people with political opinions involved, and there have been since the beginning.

[tacoman25]

Roy Spencer speculated blah blah blah Roy Spencer Democrats are evil anti-christs Roy Spencer blah blah blah they want to destroy god blah blah

 

is there the slightest shred of evidence for this "speculation?"

 

No.

 

You're not doing a very good job of sticking to the science with this post.

 

There is nothing of substance in your post actually addressing the evidence of the speculation mentioned. Instead you just throw out stuff about Democrats and god. You're better than this.

[ORH_wxman]

This is denial. C'mon, there have always been strong political ideals tied to AGW. As much as you might like to believe it's nothing but "pure science", there are people with political opinions involved, and there have been since the beginning.

 

 

I would say that most of what many climate scientists say outside of peer review is pretty irrelevant. On the other side of the coin of Roy Spencer guys like Michael Mann and James Hansen are huge political activists so whatever they say outside of peer review can be discarded as hogwash.

 

I do agree with your objection to the claim that climate science is not poltical. Climate science gets infiltrated by policy advocacy all the time. This makes the science politically polarizing whether we like it or not.

[tacoman25]

I would say that most of what many climate scientists say outside of peer review is pretty irrelevant. On the other side of the coin of Roy Spencer guys like Michael Mann and James Hansen are huge political activists so whatever they say outside of peer review can be discarded as hogwash.

 

I do agree with your objection to the claim that climate science is not poltical. Climate science gets infiltrated by policy advocacy all the time. This makes the science politically polarizing whether we like it or not.

 

Exactly. No matter what a scientist's political beliefs or personal opinions, if they publish a sound scientific paper through peer review, it has to be accepted for what it is (though as I've pointed out many times, it's not like peer review = correct).

 

In this case, skiier was mocking Spencer for speculation that was not in a published, peer-reviewed paper...but it also had nothing to do with Spencer's political opinions that skiier vaguely characterized. No one was treating it like it was a published idea, but skiier still felt the need to completely dismiss the idea apparently because of Spencer's political beliefs (I guess these mean that Spencer isn't a real scientist and who is he to throw out ideas relating to climate science). Without presenting any evidence that the idea was without merit. This is pretty close-minded if you ask me, especially since we are talking about something that is not well understood at all.

 

It's the same approach that some people take towards Hansen or Mann: automatically dismissing everything they say because of their political beliefs.

[Snow_Miser]

1. There you go again. Someone catches you in a lie and you change the subject. It could indeed suggest that the models do not simulate Pinatubo well. But you (possibly intentionally) misled the reader into the belief that the slow warming rate of observations v models was made somehow more extreme by the fact that Pinatubo created faster warming in observations. In reality, Pinatubo occurred both in observations, and in modelling.

 

2. First of all, your first chart is created to maximize the discrepancy (and even then discrepancy isn't all that eyepopping). The chart shoes a whopping .8C difference between 1917 and 1938. I find no such jump in any source. And who knows how reliable Tisdale was at getting the CMIP5 mean or how else he might have modified the graph. Instead of getting the information from a denier website (as if it some hushed up secret the AR5 doesn't want you to know about) you can find the exact same information (from a much more reliable source) in the AR5 report:

 

20th century simulation ar5.png

 

Secondly, your statements contain a number of obvious logical fallacies. Just because the CMIP5 models don't simulate early 20th century warming exactly (although as you can see from the above graph, they really don't do all that bad) doesn't mean that they underestimate the natural component to late 20th century warming. For one thing, there are uncertainties about forcing. For another, models actually underestimate the warming prior to 1998. Which suggests they do a good job of estimating the forced trend (including solar forcing), but account for only some of the unforced variation (ENSO, oceans etc.). 

 

Finally, models do not need to simulate a bi-polar see saw to accurately project long-term forced temperature change. 

 

 

3. Correction: The ensemble mean does not capture internal variability very well, nor should it, nor does this mean that it is not an accurate projection of long-term forced change, nor does it mean that individual ensemble runs fail to accurately project internal variability. In fact, the individual ensemble runs show long periods of cooling, rapid sea ice loss, slow sea ice loss etc. 

 

1. You misinterpreted what I meant. The relatively rapid rate of warming during the 1990s in the instrumental record came no where even close to the modelled rate of this rapid warming. Stop trying to weasel out of this inescapable conclusion by changing the subject. 

 

 

2. The first chart I posted uses CRUTEM3, which explains why there is more warming overall than HadSST2 or HadCruT3/HadCruT4. 

 

Looking at the CruTem3 and CruTem4 graphics on WoodForTrees, the 0.8 Degree C rise for land temperatures doesn't seem unreasonable on Tisdale's chart. Unfortunately there are only monthly values for WoodforTrees, so we can't really accurately compare. 

 

And data manipulation again? Really?

 

 

They simulate the rate poorly. Your chart shows that as well. There are dozens of papers that research as to what could have caused the early-20th Century warming period, since the change in net forcing in the models was not nearly sufficient to explain the warming. The models can't simulate the climate shifts very well either like in the 1940s and in the late-1970s, corresponding to a flip in the PDO. If the models cannot simulate these oscillations, then they will continually underestimate their role in modulating the long term temperature trend. Either the forcing is wrong for the early-20th Century which would lead to the possibility that the solar forcing is larger than in the models, or there is a stronger source of internal variability that modulates these temperature trends. Or, it could be both. 

 

The Bipolar Seesaw relates to multidecadal temperature changes. There are many papers which find that the sign and trend in Antarctic Sea Ice changes in the CMIP3/CMIP5 model mean is wrong. This source of variability is not captured well in the models, and thus supports that they do not have a good grasp on internal variability.

 

3. Right, but the Ensemble Mean should be able to pick up on 30 year changes in the rate of warming as influenced by the PDO/AMO. 

[Snow_Miser]

Modeled rates of warming for both warm periods:

 

 

Compared to Globally observed:

 

 

This is obviously a serious discrepancy. 

[skierinvermont]

You're not doing a very good job of sticking to the science with this post.

 

There is nothing of substance in your post actually addressing the evidence of the speculation mentioned. Instead you just throw out stuff about Democrats and god. You're better than this.

 

What evidence? There is none.

 

Why should i do anything but mock "speculation" by somebody who thinks AGW is a liberal conspiracy? Do you expect me to take this nonsense seriously?

[skierinvermont]

1. You misinterpreted what I meant. The relatively rapid rate of warming during the 1990s in the instrumental record came no where even close to the modelled rate of this rapid warming. Stop trying to weasel out of this inescapable conclusion by changing the subject. 

 

 

2. The first chart I posted uses CRUTEM3, which explains why there is more warming overall than HadSST2 or HadCruT3/HadCruT4. 

 

Looking at the CruTem3 and CruTem4 graphics on WoodForTrees, the 0.8 Degree C rise for land temperatures doesn't seem unreasonable on Tisdale's chart. Unfortunately there are only monthly values for WoodforTrees, so we can't really accurately compare. 

 

And data manipulation again? Really?

 

CruTem3 CruTem4.png

 

They simulate the rate poorly. Your chart shows that as well. There are dozens of papers that research as to what could have caused the early-20th Century warming period, since the change in net forcing in the models was not nearly sufficient to explain the warming. The models can't simulate the climate shifts very well either like in the 1940s and in the late-1970s, corresponding to a flip in the PDO. If the models cannot simulate these oscillations, then they will continually underestimate their role in modulating the long term temperature trend. Either the forcing is wrong for the early-20th Century which would lead to the possibility that the solar forcing is larger than in the models, or there is a stronger source of internal variability that modulates these temperature trends. Or, it could be both. 

 

The Bipolar Seesaw relates to multidecadal temperature changes. There are many papers which find that the sign and trend in Antarctic Sea Ice changes in the CMIP3/CMIP5 model mean is wrong. This source of variability is not captured well in the models, and thus supports that they do not have a good grasp on internal variability.

 

3. Right, but the Ensemble Mean should be able to pick up on 30 year changes in the rate of warming as influenced by the PDO/AMO. 

 

1. I am not trying to weasel out of anything. I am simply point out that Pinatubo occurred in both the models and in observations. Your claim that the discrepancy existed "despite" the acceleration of warming by Pinatubo's rebound is misleading. The discrepancy is large enough without your attempts to exaggerate it. 

 

2. "If the climate models cannot simulate these oscillations.." Except they do. Individual runs show long periods of rapid warming and cooling within the long-term trend.

 

3. See #2. The models are not designed to predict when internal variability occurs (the timing of which is often chaotic), but they do a reasonable job at simulating that this variability does occur, which is why individual runs show periods of rapid warming and of cooling. When you average 150 individual runs, all with internal variability occurring at different times, the mean is a continual warming. This conceals the fact that the individual runs showed long periods of warming and cooling. PDO and AMO-like multi-decadal variability has been observed in the models. It is the timing, not the occurrence of, this variability that is not simulated.

 

Attempts to tune models to current internal variability (AMO, PDO, etc.) do a reasonable job of predicting slow warming at present and in the near future. Predicting short-term trends is still uncertain.

 

 

Thus your statement that "The ensemble mean should be able to pick up on 30 year changes in the rate of warming due to the PDO, AMO" is extremely ignorant.

[Snow_Miser]

What evidence? There is none.

Why should i do anything but mock "speculation" by somebody who thinks AGW is a liberal conspiracy? Do you expect me to take this nonsense seriously?

Where did I ever say that AGW was a liberal conspiracy. Please link it up.

[skierinvermont]

Modeled rates of warming for both warm periods:

 

 

 

Compared to Globally observed:

 

 

 

This is obviously a serious discrepancy. 

 

All this demonstrates is that the latter period was more forced than the former and that the former was more due to internal variability than the latter.

 

I don't see the issue. 

[skierinvermont]

Where did I ever say that AGW was a liberal conspiracy. Please link it up.

 

I didn't say you. You were not the one speculating. Roy Spencer "speculated" (according to you).

 

As I keep saying, I couldn't give a damn what Roy Spencer "speculates." Roy Spencer thinks AGW is a hoax and has made a career of getting papers and books published that would never have passed peer-review. You and taco keep demanding a substantive response to this "speculation." Such a response is not possible, as there is no substance to respond to. It is mere "speculation" by a man who has made a career publishing nonsensical false anti-scientific garbage. 

[tacoman25]

What evidence? There is none.

 

Why should i do anything but mock "speculation" by somebody who thinks AGW is a liberal conspiracy? Do you expect me to take this nonsense seriously?

 

Roy Spencer does not think AGW is a liberal conspiracy. He is not a denier, he acknowledges AGW is real. Stop spewing false and misleading statements.

[tacoman25]

I didn't say you. You were not the one speculating. Roy Spencer "speculated" (according to you).

 

As I keep saying, I couldn't give a damn what Roy Spencer "speculates." Roy Spencer thinks AGW is a hoax and has made a career of getting papers and books published that would never have passed peer-review. You and taco keep demanding a substantive response to this "speculation." Such a response is not possible, as there is no substance to respond to. It is mere "speculation" by a man who has made a career publishing nonsensical false anti-scientific garbage. 

 

False. Read my response again.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I got the hiatus lasting not much longer.  this graph should show warming as the PDO slowly goes up overtime.  If that is what happens.  Nevertheless.  inspite of cooling over such a large percentage of the tropics and Pacific.  The Earth hasn't cooled.  The artic carried the torch for a while.  But the indian ocean helped too.  The West pacific has continued to gain heat at a pretty high level.

 

 

One of these days ENSO will flip hardcore and this heat will explode East and be let go into the Atmosphere.  1998 was massive phenomenom. 

 

 

 

 

2013 is still riding 4th warmest on record for UAH.  Another big month like September.  Which October should almost surely provide.  Would essentialy seal 2013 for 4th place. 

 

 

Here is my deal on the end of the hiatus. 

We can see that since March of 2007 59 of the months have had a negative ONI value. 

That is 59 of 78. 

Since June of 2010 only 6 months have been positiive.  ONLY SIX.  Of those SIX months TWO have been at 0.5 or higher. 

19 of those months have been considered NINA status.  ZERO have been considered NINO.  Not even close. 

So far 2013 has seen a completely negative ENSO.  The year started with -0.6, -0.6, -0.4, and has been at -0.2 twice and -0.3 the last three months.
 

Yet by UAH so far.  2013 is the 4th warmest year on record. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is the NODC OHC for the period of April-June 2013.  This is at 10M, 100M, 250M, 500M. The top 50M or so has seen a large influx of heat. 

 

 

 

 

 

I say the hiatus ends in 2014 unless the incredible negative ENSO streak holds.  Then 2015.

[nzucker]

CFS shows October being MUCH cooler than September with current anomalies a bit colder than -.05C. If UAH follows the surface data, then October won't provide another warm month as September did. I'm thinking October is around +.20 on UAH/RSS, maybe a bit less.

[The_Global_Warmer]

CFS shows October being MUCH cooler than September with current anomalies a bit colder than -.05C. If UAH follows the surface data, then October won't provide another warm month as September did. I'm thinking October is around +.20 on UAH/RSS, maybe a bit less.

 

I highly doubt that.  Before the govt shutdown.  AMSU Channel 6 temps were the warmest on record.

 

While they are only a small part of the TLT's it still matches up with warm UAH months very strongly.  The data stopped after Oct 3rd.  Even though it's only a few days.  It's not likely the atmosphere has cooled that much to pull October down to a .20C on UAH.

 

 

The peak of the SSTA wasn't very long ago.  Actually about 5-6 weeks ago at .375C+.  Which is typically reserved for big NINO's like 2010 or 1998.  The lag on that according to ORH is about 2 months or so typically for the satelitte sources like UAH.  Which actually lines up well.  We can see the channel 6 temps not fall like normal because of that extra heat being pumped into the atmosphere. 

 

 

 

 

Global SSTA last week came in at .251C.  The lowest figure in 15 weeks.  That is almost 4 months.  The last week below .251C+ was the last week of June into July 2nd. 

 

 

We have seen a few pockets of "cool" anomalies pop up.  One off the Western Mexico coast.  Another in the SOO.  Another South of Madagascar.  And obviously the Western coast of South America.  And another slightly cool region over the Western pacific around 30N. 

 

But at the same time the equatorial Eastern Pacific has warmed.  As well as the GOA, which should warm up more with the ridge.

 

 

 

The last 10 UAH Octobers have come in at:

 

2012: .37C

2011: .09C

2010: .30C

2009: .27C

2008: .15C

2007: .19C

2006: .32C

2005: .36C

2004: .24C

2003: .30C

 

[skierinvermont]

Roy Spencer does not think AGW is a liberal conspiracy. He is not a denier, he acknowledges AGW is real. Stop spewing false and misleading statements.

 

It is not false or misleading. Roy Spencer has written all about the liberal conspiracy to prevent publication of his work in his books. And he appears to believe that humans have barely contributed to 20th century warming at all. 

[Snow_Miser]

It is not false or misleading. Roy Spencer has written all about the liberal conspiracy to prevent publication of his work in his books. And he appears to believe that humans have barely contributed to 20th century warming at all. 

 

Roy Spencer has said that the precise contribution of the anthropogenic forcing to the warming trend is unknown. That's not having barely contributed. 

[skierinvermont]

CFS shows October being MUCH cooler than September with current anomalies a bit colder than -.05C. If UAH follows the surface data, then October won't provide another warm month as September did. I'm thinking October is around +.20 on UAH/RSS, maybe a bit less.

 

As I said last night, it's actually at +.05 currently. The month to date is .052. If the second half of the month is also around .05, then we will see around .6 on GISS. 

 

However, I wouldn't be surprised if it bumps back up to the .1-.2 values we have been seeing for most of the last 2.5 months outside of the spike down in August and the spike down in early October.

[skierinvermont]

Roy Spencer has said that the precise contribution of the anthropogenic forcing to the warming trend is unknown. That's not having barely contributed. 

 

Quote:

 

"there are benefits to more CO2 in the air, and probably to a little bit of warming"

 

"I think...we may see very little warming in the future"

 

"I think that most of the warming we've seen could well be natural"

 

Even the most recent decades of warming are mostly natural in his opinion. Over the last 40 years natural climate change probably has been near no change, or possibly even cooling due to declining solar energy. 

 

"warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning."

 

He also appears to deny that warming is even occurring. 

 

the warming trend over the Northern Hemisphere, where virtually all of the thermometer data exist, is a function of population density at the thermometer site

[Snow_Miser]

 

 

He also appears to deny that warming is even occurring. 

 

Demonstrably false. Here are his actual views.

 

"I don't deny there's been warming." At 1:31.

 

"I don't even deny that some of the warming is due to mankind." 1:34.

 

"What I deny is that we have any clue how much of the warming.. whether it's 10% or 90%.. I don't think we have a clue." At 1:37.

[Snow_Miser]

All this demonstrates is that the latter period was more forced than the former and that the former was more due to internal variability than the latter.

 

I don't see the issue. 

 

You're missing the point. The point is that the models missed that large source of natural variability in the early-20th Century, and thus do not have a good grasp on natural variability modulating the centennial warming trend. 

[Snow_Miser]

1. I am not trying to weasel out of anything. I am simply point out that Pinatubo occurred in both the models and in observations. Your claim that the discrepancy existed "despite" the acceleration of warming by Pinatubo's rebound is misleading. The discrepancy is large enough without your attempts to exaggerate it. 

 

2. "If the climate models cannot simulate these oscillations.." Except they do. Individual runs show long periods of rapid warming and cooling within the long-term trend.

 

3. See #2. The models are not designed to predict when internal variability occurs (the timing of which is often chaotic), but they do a reasonable job at simulating that this variability does occur, which is why individual runs show periods of rapid warming and of cooling. When you average 150 individual runs, all with internal variability occurring at different times, the mean is a continual warming. This conceals the fact that the individual runs showed long periods of warming and cooling. PDO and AMO-like multi-decadal variability has been observed in the models. It is the timing, not the occurrence of, this variability that is not simulated.

 

Attempts to tune models to current internal variability (AMO, PDO, etc.) do a reasonable job of predicting slow warming at present and in the near future. Predicting short-term trends is still uncertain.

 

 

Thus your statement that "The ensemble mean should be able to pick up on 30 year changes in the rate of warming due to the PDO, AMO" is extremely ignorant.

 

1. Okay. So we agree that models substantially overestimated the warming since 1993, and this was documented correctly in the Fyfe et al. paper. The paper lists some possible explanations, but notes that ultimately, we have to wait and see with additional temperature observations. The question is why this discrepancy occurred. I (along with many others here) would argue that it's due to an incorrect response to a change in radiative forcing (ie the models are too sensitive to a change in RF).

 

2. There is no signal with the PDO/AMO in the model mean. Since this oscillation is relatively predictable on a 30 year timeframe, most of the models should be able to accurately reproduce this modulation, and thus the model mean should roughly reflect this. But we see a exponential increase in the rate of warming in the models.. not a multidecadal shift every 30 years. 

 

This is probably one of the reasons why we continue to fall out of the range of modeled predictions fairly rapidly.

 

 

3. Models generally do not have these hiatus periods lasting more than 15 years. Since the PDO/AMO is an oscillation that modulates the centennial warming on a multidecadal basis, they are not correctly simulating these oscillations, which may partially explain why they cannot properly simulate Antarctic Sea Ice increases and underestimate Arctic Sea Ice decreases.

 

From the NOAA State of the Climate Report in 2008:

 

"The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

 

My point still stands though. Since the PDO/AMO is a predictable oscillation, the models should reflect this in their simulation, but there is no evidence of this. In addition, the horseshoe of cool water is missing in the spatial pattern of warming in the modeled simulations, which is a signature of the transition from the +PDO to the -PDO. This is further evidence that the models do not accurately reproduce the PDO well in their hindcasts.

 

[Snow_Miser]

I'm also glad that we have some pretty nice spread for how long the hiatus period will last. Most forums are generally echo chambers and do not have such a diverse opinion range.. that's why this forum is unique in a way. 

[tacoman25]

It is not false or misleading. Roy Spencer has written all about the liberal conspiracy to prevent publication of his work in his books. And he appears to believe that humans have barely contributed to 20th century warming at all. 

 

Ok. But that's not what you said, is it? You said he "thinks AGW is a liberal conspiracy". Not the same thing, and therefore your statement was false and misleading.

 

Hold yourself to the same standard you hold others to. 

[tacoman25]

Demonstrably false. Here are his actual views.

 

"I don't deny there's been warming." At 1:31.

 

"I don't even deny that some of the warming is due to mankind." 1:34.

 

"What I deny is that we have any clue how much of the warming.. whether it's 10% or 90%.. I don't think we have a clue." At 1:37.

 

Skiier is having trouble differentiating between "denier" and "skeptic". It's been a difficult concept for him to grasp for some time.

[skierinvermont]

Demonstrably false. Here are his actual views.

 

"I don't deny there's been warming." At 1:31.

 

"I don't even deny that some of the warming is due to mankind." 1:34.

 

"What I deny is that we have any clue how much of the warming.. whether it's 10% or 90%.. I don't think we have a clue." At 1:37.

 

Well then he is directly contradicting himself. He specifically states that the observed warming is due to UHI. 

 

Sounds like a hack trying to make some money. 

[skierinvermont]

Skiier is having trouble differentiating between "denier" and "skeptic". It's been a difficult concept for him to grasp for some time.

 

This has nothing to do with labels. He says that observed warming is due to UHI.

[skierinvermont]

Ok. But that's not what you said, is it? You said he "thinks AGW is a liberal conspiracy". Not the same thing, and therefore your statement was false and misleading.

 

Hold yourself to the same standard you hold others to. 

 

I don't see the difference.

 

He thinks future warming will be minimal. He thinks human contribution so far has been minimal. He thinks there is a liberal conspiracy to stifle those that disagree such as himself. He's also made statements suggesting no warming has occurred at all. But at other times, he has contradicted those statements.

 

Saying "Oh maybe people have contributed .1C" doesn't mean that he acknowledges AGW. That's like a dumb cop-out to pretend he's being objective.