‘Skeptical Science’ Misrepresents Their Animation “The Escalator”

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

Apparently, one of the proudest achievements of the website SkepticalScience is their “Down the Up Escalator” gif animation. They prominently display it in their right sidebar. The intent of the animation is to show that global temperature anomalies can flatten or cool over decadal or shorter periods while warming over the long term.

The first version was created using the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) land surface air temperature dataset. That, of course, made SkepticalScience appear two-faced, because the papers associated with the BEST dataset had not yet appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journals and SkepticalScience downplays any research efforts that haven’t been peer reviewed.

ONE OF THE TRENDS IN THE REVISED ESCALATOR IS MISREPRESENTED

Bogus Escalator

In an effort to distract from their duplicity, SkepticalScience revised and reissued the animation (modified screen cap above), using the average of the GISS LOTI, HADCRUT4, and NCDC land surface air plus sea surface temperature anomaly datasets. If you were to click on the mini “Escalator” animation along the right-hand side of their main page, you’re brought to the updated GISS-, UK Met Office- and NCDC-based Escalator. SkepticalScience describes “The Escalator” animation as (my boldface):

Average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through August 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan ’70 – Oct ’77, May ’77 – Dec ’85, Jan ’86 – June ’94, Nov ’94 – Dec ’00, Jan ’01 – Aug ’12.

You’ll note that they’re now calling it “The Escalator”—no longer calling it the “Down the Up Escalator”. Yet each of the steps in their escalator clearly shows a short-term trend that’s flat or cools slightly.

SkepticalScience misrepresented the trend of the “fourth step”. The time period they selected is November 1994 to December 2000. As it turns out, the only dataset that shows a flat trend during that period is the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI). Both HADCRUT4 and NCDC have significant warming trends from November 1994 to December 2000 at about 0.08 to 0.09 deg C per decade. The average of the three datasets is approximately 0.06 deg C/decade, and that is a significant warming trend.

Actual Linear Trends During Fourth Step of Escalator

How significant is that 0.06 deg C per decade trend? It’s comparable to the trend in global surface temperatures since 1880.

GISS LOTI Global Surface Temperature Anomalies Since 1880

The following animation will give you an idea what “The Escalator” would look like if SkepticalScience had used the real linear trend for the fourth step. Depending on your browser, you may need to click on the following gif animation.

The Escalator With Actual Linear Trends

A COUPLE OF NOTES

As noted in my WUWT-TV presentation “The Natural Warming of the Global Oceans”, “The Escalator” is an exercise in cherry-picked start and end dates. Proponents of anthropogenic global warming will incorrectly cite “The Escalator” during my blog discussions of ENSO-related upward shifts in Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific (90S-90N, 80W-180) sea surface temperature anomalies. (In recent years, I typically present that dataset as the “Rest-of-the-World”, because I usually now start with the East Pacific data, which shows no warming over the entire 30-year term of the satellite era.) When the disciples of SkepticalScience link “The Escalator”, they are simply trying to distract from the process-caused shifts. Those natural processes were described in the WUWT-TV presentation and detailed with numerous datasets in my book Who Turned on the Heat?

Rest of the World Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies With Linear Trends

The above graph was presented in the post Does The Sea Surface Temperature Record Support The Hypothesis Of Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Proponents of anthropogenic global warming have another, related, inconsequential complaint about my research. They claim the decade-long time periods between the 1986/98/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Niño events are too short for the trends to be significant. Curiously, when SkepticalScience is trying to make a point, they have no trouble presenting a series of decadal trends, and when SkepticalScience is trying to mislead their followers, they have no trouble misrepresenting the trend for a shorter 6-year period. Apparently, linear trends over periods as short as 6 years do have significance. Looks like another example of the double standards of the proponents of anthropogenic global warming.

In the next few days, I’ll present PBS’s sleight of hand about “The Escalator” when they presented it in their Frontline report Climate of Doubt. They were pretty blatant about it.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate data and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

250 Responses to ‘Skeptical Science’ Misrepresents Their Animation “The Escalator”

  1. Harold Ambler says:

    I’ll accuse SkepticalScience.com of turning the last 7,500 years into an “up the down escalator” exercise, along with everyone else in the AGW camp.

  2. Arfur Bryant says:

    Ah yes, I remember the Nov 1994- Dec 2000 period well. Following the presentation of the MBH98 graph, when the ‘Team’ were clamouring that the world was indeed in the throes of a ‘linear trend’!

    Oh, wait a minute…

  3. Poptech says:

    A cartoonist like Cook should know better.

  4. HenryP says:

    Bob Tisdale says
    How significant is that 0.06 deg C per decade trend? It’s comparable to the trend in global surface temperatures since 1880. ;;;; graph LOTI
    Henry says
    I have no problem with that graph from around 1920 or 1925 to date, seeing that the uptrend from around that time conforms to my own (statistical) analyses of measurements:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    (uptrend from around 1927 upwards)
    However, I seriously doubt that we could have any basis for “global” temp. recording from 1880 to 1920.
    In fact, I doubt if you can even show me one calibration certificate of a thermometer from that time.

    .

  5. David Ball says:

    The whole temperature record is misrepresented by the start and end points selected by SknonSence.

  6. Dou Proctor says:

    “Flat” periods between El Nino spikes: is global warming just the result of closely spaced El Nino events without the countervailing, equivaent La Nina events?

    El Nino spikes clearly demonstrate them to be thermal energy redistribution events; the energy that drives up temperatures is already in the planet. Somewhere else must have lost this energy, and if you can’t find it in other surficace substances with a higher thermal capacity, then it must come from the 3rd dimension: beneath the surface of the sea.

    The thermal capacity of the oceans is well established to be much more than that of the atmosphere and surface objects such as plants, rock and dirt. How much would it take of the upper 100m (discounting the immediate surface waters)?

    The El Nino spikes bring up a thought: could a closely spaced series of La Ninas without equivalent but opposite El Ninos cause a period of global cooling a la 1940 – 1965? Were the Dalton and Maunder Minimum cold spells also a period of La Nina activity or at least a time of no El Ninos?

  7. David Ball says:

    Their focus on the satellite record cannot be allowed to stand.

  8. john robertson says:

    Bob T why bother with the truth team from “ss” ? After reading their in-house comments I now consider any commenter who sources their supporting arguments from sceptical science, as a troll.
    Its probable that you have generated more traffic for that site than they have seen all month.
    I mean its fun to watch the children get slapped down when they come to WUWT to bleat, but is it not cruel to seek them out in their cuccoon of digital security and beat them up with reality?

  9. 2Kevin says:

    ” Poptech says:
    November 25, 2012 at 10:14 am

    A cartoonist like Cook should know better.”

    It’s all part of his transformation from cartoonist to cartoon.

  10. Dr Burns says:

    Even though it may be a disaster, the next ice age will be such a relief.

  11. KR says:

    Bob Tisdale – You appear to have entirely missed the point of that particular illustration, that short time periods (such as the 11 to 12 year trends you favor in your presentations, as per the “Volcano adjusted” anomalies) are both statistically insignificant and entirely expected in short segments of a noisy series. The complaint you present here can best be classified as “nit-picking”.

    The 2σ uncertainty ranges for (as an example) GISS data for the 1987-1998 and 1998-2010 periods are ±0.255 and ±0.201 °C/decade, respectively. The uncertainly of the smaller areas you are looking at will, of course, be even higher.

    That level of uncertainty around your short time trends of -0.001 and 0.0001 means that short “step-changes” of the kind you favor are statistically unsupportable. The range of uncertainty for that short a time series means you can exclude trends of perhaps >0.2 and <-0.2, but nothing in between.

    Now, if you look at the entire period of 1987 to 2010, you see (in GISTEMP) a linear trend of 0.165 ±0.082 °C/decade (2σ). That (unlike your “step-changes”) is statistically significant.

    Calculate and show your ranges of uncertainties, and demonstrate that your trends are meaningful – until then I (for one) will not take your data seriously. Nor, I expect, will anyone else with knowledge of statistics. In the meantime, your _continued_ assertions based on 10-12 year periods demonstrate that you don’t get the point of that “Escalator” graphic.

  12. One is reminded of the M.C. Escher drawing of the stairwell that appears to keep rising but also mysteriously meets itself at the bottom!
    To say that Cook has misrepresented ‘one’ thing is going for the soft target…much harder to find some aspect of the science that he is portraying correctly!

  13. Matt G says:

    The biggest issue with this step SkepticalScience graph are periods shorter than they told us are not long enough periods to judge. Yet they have cherry picked themselves and chosen shorter periods all less than a decade except the latter. Which can easily be extended back to at least 1998 and still show a flat trend. Hypocrites is the word I am looking for here. The recent period is different to these short cherry picked steps as it is a much longer period now. Finally each short ease in warming doesn’t mean it will warm after as in the 1940’s to 1970’s periods more recently shown. The recent period resembles closer to the 1940’s extended no warming period and we know what happened then.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:1980/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1940/to:1980/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:1980/normalise/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1995/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/normalise

  14. Max Hugoson says:

    How can ANYONE publish these NONSENSE GRAPHS (Including WUWT) without making some ATTEMPT to put ERROR BARS ON THEM?

    A LITTLE effort, putting S.D.’s on the NOISE would also be invaluable.

    Just whining….

    Max

  15. Bob Tisdale says:

    Dou Proctor says: “Flat periods between El Nino spikes: is global warming just the result of closely spaced El Nino events without the countervailing, equivaent La Nina events?”

    Yup. Speaking of the combined dataset of the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific Oceans (90S-90N, 80W-180), it was the major 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events (and maybe the 2009/10 El Nino) that caused the sea surface temperature anomalies to rise in upward shifts. That happened because the sea surface temperature anomalies did not cool proportionally during the trailing 1988/89 and 1998 thru 2001 La Nina events. The failure to cool during the La Nina events can be seen if we detrend the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data (aka Rest of the World in this graph):

    Graph is from this post:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/a-blog-memo-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/

  16. Bob Tisdale says:

    HenryP says: “In fact, I doubt if you can even show me one calibration certificate of a thermometer from that time.”

    I only present data, HenryP.

  17. FergalR says:

    It’s much worse than that – their 2nd and 3rd flat trends were caused by El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo. There’s been no similar cataclysmic equatorial eruption since then to explain the recent lack of warming. Which is a travesty.

  18. Dagfinn says:

    As I remember it, RealClimate once argued that there had been another hiatus in global warming (thus implying that post-1998 was nothing unusual). They conveniently neglected to mention that the period they referred to included the 1991 Pinatubo eruption. This seems to be a factor in the SkepticalScience graph as well.

  19. Bob Tisdale says:

    OOOPS, for some reason, the animation disappeared from my website over the past couple of days. It, therefore, was missing when Anthony cross posted the post here. The animation is here:

    My fault, apparently.

  20. P. Solar says:

    I remember, as a kid, playing at going up and escalator with my eyes closed but one foot on the step in front.

    I could always tell when I got to the top because my feet would start coming to the same level.

    Looks like the guerilla forces at Septic Science haven’t quite worked out that little trick yet.

    Hey guys! When you get to the flat bit, it’s time to step off.

  21. RobertInAz says:

    Harold Ambler at 10:01 am — yes!

    Obviously I do not publish but I did take a crack at it.

    http://tinyurl.com/c5ddfob

  22. Arno Arrak says:

    Bob – give up that phony “Volcano-Adjusted” feature. Volcanic cooling of lower troposphere is a myth – it does not exist. Read my book pp. 17 – 21.

  23. You can take warmists’ money by betting on global cooling at Intrade!

    http://intrade.com

    It’s easy. Just short everything! They really believe the warming is going to increase!

  24. MikeN says:

    What’s with the 5 month gap from June to November? All the other trends involve no gaps.

  25. JohnB says:

    SKS has always had a problem in that area of the graph.
    If you look at the original “escalator” (http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html), there were six “steps” instead of five. And the last three steps overlapped significantly in a very unescalator-like manner.

  26. GlynnMhor says:

    The SS animation appears to have been concocted as a way to diminish the perceived importance of the stagnation of temperatures over the last decade, trying to imply that the recent flat trend is just another illusion, an artifact of selection.

    However, looking at the smoothed datasets one sees that the other ‘false trends’ do not appear, with the exception of a small dip around each of the El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions of the early 80s and 90s respectively. In contrast, the ongoing slump in warming is quite clear, deeper and longer than those two, and unaccompanied by any major vulcanism.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png

  27. michaelwiseguy says:

    Carbon Dioxide is Gaia Food.

  28. Matt G says:

    Arno Arrak says:
    November 25, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    It may be a myth how much it reduce, but the early 1980’s had a strong El Nino. This would have shown a big peak in global temperatures without a large volcanic eruption. What prevented the rise if it wasn’t down to the volcano?

  29. Ric Werme says:

    Bob, it looks like you or the upload process didn’t drag along the .gif image for your “The Escalator With Actual Linear Trends” .gif. At least in the article, that quote isn’t near a URL for the image.

  30. David L says:

    The real “trend” all this data is a complex set of cyclic functions. However people are constantly fitting short term and long term segments with lines. It’s as if they are approximating the area under the curve by using the trapezoidal rule, rather than integrating the actual function. Why do that not abandon the linear regression nonsense and start thinking about Fourier transforms?

  31. Bob Tisdale says:

    KR says: “The complaint you present here can best be classified as ‘nit-picking’.”

    Illustrating the misrepresentation of trends is not nit-picking.

    KR says: “Calculate and show your ranges of uncertainties, and demonstrate that your trends are meaningful – until then I (for one) will not take your data seriously. Nor, I expect, will anyone else with knowledge of statistics. In the meantime, your _continued_ assertions based on 10-12 year periods demonstrate that you don’t get the point of that “Escalator” graphic.”

    Feel free to replicate the post and add/calculate anything you’d like to add, KR. Also, I get the point of the Escalator graphic. The obvious point is to misrepresent the real trends for appearance sake. If SkepticalScience presented them properly, the steps look broken and the visual doesn’t work:

    Get it?

    Personally, I do not care if you take my posts seriously, KR. If you, KR, don’t appreciate my presentations, then save yourself some time and don’t bother to read or comment on them.

    Adios

  32. Bob Tisdale says:

    Arno Arrak says: “Bob – give up that phony “Volcano-Adjusted” feature. Volcanic cooling of lower troposphere is a myth – it does not exist. Read my book pp. 17 – 21.”

    Arno, there was no La Nina following the 1991/92 El Niño, so your assumptions don’t work. ENSO is not an oscillation and does not cycle between El Niños and La Niñas. El Niños and La Niñas can be independent events.

  33. Bob Tisdale says:

    Ric Werme says: “Bob, it looks like you or the upload process didn’t drag along the .gif image for your ‘The Escalator With Actual Linear Trends’ .gif. At least in the article, that quote isn’t near a URL for the image.”

    Sorry. My mistake. The animation is here:

  34. edmh says:

    Never forget that the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD has been the coolest of the current happily benign holocene epoch where mankind has developed from hunter gathers to our current level of technology. The coming reversal to a real ice age is ever nearer. That will make concern for natural minor warming over the past 50 years totally irrelevant.

  35. 1. Dr Burns says on : Dr Burns says on November 25, 2012 at 11:12 am:
    “Even though it may be a disaster, the next ice age ——-.”
    =============

    Toot toot, doc. We could already be some 6 – 7 thousand years along the downslope of the Holocene graph. –
    Just like for the previous “Warm Periods” atmospheric CO2 is high – long after the warming has started its dive and I wish it was true that CO2 can act as a blanket (sweater even these days) around the globe. We could then, I am sure, produce some more of that gas – by burning a few forests etc.
    But instead of CO2 impersonating a sweater, I think it works more like a “string west” would do if worn without a shirt on top.

    PS. Good article Bob

  36. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Put a sine curve on it. Of course the very diverse SkS people can’t do sine fits as they are linear thinkers over there. One track minds. They also have this amazing luck to always start their trending right at the bottom of the cycle. What a stupendously amazingly amazing coincidence!

  37. Sorry about the “doubling up” of Dr. Burns says.

  38. Dodgy Geezer says:

    I’m not too sure why anyone is responding to this strawman.

    I don’t know anyone who thinks that the temperature went down between 1970 and 1999. The ‘escalator’ is pretending that sceptics claim something that they do not. I think it is important that this technique is exposed for what it is – not that individual minor errors inside it are discussed…

  39. Mycroft says:

    Apparently, linear trends over periods as short as 6 years do have significance…..REALLY but 15 years of no warming does’nt????? someone better go tell Phil Jones.

  40. Hans Erren says:

    the Atlantic Warm Period was warmer than the Minoan Warm Period which was warmer than the Roman Warm Period which was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period, which was warmer than the Present Warm Period

    Now, who is going up on down escalators?

  41. A Crooks says:

    I’m just applying the “escalator” method to the period from1880 Wow! It works!
    There is a flat period between 1880 and 1920 and another flat period from 1940 to 1980
    With rises in between This “escalator” goes right back to 1880 But doesn’t that make this pattern pre – CO2 warming?
    Anyone who stops their analysis at 1970 without offering an explanation of what happens before is just being disingenuous.

  42. Day By Day says:

    I don’t understand the GISS graph for 1880 to 2012–If I have been following the real science correctly, 1930s-40s were as warm as it is today and 1934 was the warmest year int he US–How could the graph look like that? I know the climatologists adjusted temps down for the past and adjusted current temps up to creat the hockey stick–but surely we are not using those adjusted tempreatures to make a point here? Are we, Mr. Tisdale? –it gets so confusing. I wonder if we could just get a page with unadjusted and historical data and use that for comparisons? It’s too hard to know who has adjusted what, when we keep using “their” adjusted graphs, how can we make a point?

    I would say “just whining” but I really want to know. It’s very possible I missed something important–like the point….. the various graphs are driving me nuts.

  43. renewableguy says:

    Out of the noise the climate does show a trend of warming. It isn’t just the escalator alone.
    2011 to 2012
    Trend: 4.15 ±52.21 °C/century (2σ)
    2010 to 2012
    Trend: -11.42 ±22.32 °C/century (2σ)
    2009 to 2012
    Trend: -2.57 ±12.59 °C/century (2σ)
    2008 to 2012
    Trend: 3.08 ±9.84 °C/century (2σ)
    2007 to 2012
    Trend: 0.44 ±7.24 °C/century (2σ)
    2006 to 2012
    Trend: 0.23 ±5.29 °C/century (2σ)
    2005 to 2012
    Trend: -0.59 ±4.03 °C/century (2σ)
    2004 to 2012
    Trend: 0.19 ±3.44 °C/century (2σ)
    2003 to 2012
    Trend: 0.10 ±2.80 °C/century (2σ)
    2002 to 2012
    Trend: -0.03 ±2.41 °C/century (2σ)
    2001 to 2012
    Trend: 0.31 ±2.05 °C/century (2σ)
    2000 to 2012
    Trend: 0.97 ±1.92 °C/century (2σ)
    1999 to 2012
    Trend: 1.42 ±1.73 °C/century (2σ)
    1998 to 2012
    Trend: 0.95 ±1.61 °C/century (2σ)
    1997 to 2012
    Trend: 1.05 ±1.44 °C/century (2σ)
    1996 to 2012
    Trend: 1.34 ±1.32 °C/century (2σ)
    1995 to 2012
    Trend: 1.33 ±1.21 °C/century (2σ)
    1994 to 2012
    Trend: 1.58 ±1.13 °C/century (2σ)
    1993 to 2012
    Trend: 1.88 ±1.07 °C/century (2σ)
    1992 to 2012
    Trend: 2.08 ±1.03 °C/century (2σ)
    1991 to 2012
    Trend: 1.92 ±0.96 °C/century (2σ)
    1990 to 2012
    Trend: 1.76 ±0.90 °C/century (2σ)
    1989 to 2012
    Trend: 1.79 ±0.83 °C/century (2σ)
    1988 to 2012
    Trend: 1.66 ±0.79 °C/century (2σ)
    1987 to 2012
    Trend: 1.61 ±0.74 °C/century (2σ)
    1986 to 2012
    Trend: 1.67 ±0.69 °C/century (2σ)
    1985 to 2012
    Trend: 1.77 ±0.65 °C/century (2σ)
    1984 to 2012
    Trend: 1.81 ±0.62 °C/century (2σ)
    1983 to 2012
    Trend: 1.71 ±0.59 °C/century (2σ)
    1982 to 2012
    Trend: 1.75 ±0.56 °C/century (2σ)

  44. Ninderthana says:

    Doesn’t anyone appreciate Bob Tisdale’s seminal assertion that the SST of the central east Pacific Ocean has not warmed over the last 30 years. This extremely important result lead you to two possible conclusions:

    a) The cooling effects upon the surface of this vast area of ocean must perfectly balance the energy inputs from the universal warming of the atmosphere and oceans by increasing levels of CO2.

    If this is to be believed then why isn’t this amazing result achieved in the rest of the world’s oceans.

    OR
    b) CO2 induced warming of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans is not the result of AGW.

    I would favor the latter explanation.

  45. Ninderthana says:

    Sorry,

    The last few lines of my previous post should read:

    OR
    b) the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans is not the result of AGW.

    I would favor the latter explanation.

  46. bee bop says:

    At least we can all agree the world has been warming.

  47. Gail Combs says:

    Matt G says:
    November 25, 2012 at 11:47 am

    The biggest issue with this step SkepticalScience graph are periods shorter than they told us are not long enough periods to judge. Yet they have cherry picked themselves and chosen shorter periods all less than a decade except the latter. Which can easily be extended back to at least 1998 and still show a flat trend. Hypocrites is the word I am looking for here….
    ____________________________________
    It is fun to compare their graph to the global Sea Surface Temperature graph from the EPA it shows the present lack of warming starting in 1998 or their abouts. It also shows a large drop in ~ 1910 and a smaller drop in 1945. It also does not show any major plateaus except the one ~1960 – 1970 (aka Global Cooling hysteria time)

  48. Greg House says:

    Guest Post by Bob Tisdale: “[...] It’s comparable to the trend in global surface temperatures since 1880. [...]In the next few days, I’ll present PBS’s sleight of hand about “The Escalator” when they presented it in their Frontline report Climate of Doubt. They were pretty blatant about it.”
    ==============================================================

    Bob, this is very interesting about “The Escalator” and the “PBS’s sleight of hand”, thank you. But what about the use of therm “global surface temperatures“? Isn’t this “global” just another sleight of hand and a more important one?

    What is the scientific reason to consider the thermometer network to be representative of the whole world or of the whole surface? Is there any scientific proof that they are? Because if they are not, we can not say that the calculated trends are global. No “global warming” then.

    Or even a simpler question. So, we have a thermometer placed outside. How large is the area this thermometer can be scientifically considered to be representative of? Who proved it and how? I mean, the air is moving naturally in different directions, cold wind, warm wind etc.

    Maybe you can clarify that.

  49. Gail Combs says:

    David L says:
    November 25, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    The real “trend” all this data is a complex set of cyclic functions. However people are constantly fitting short term and long term segments with lines. It’s as if they are approximating the area under the curve by using the trapezoidal rule, rather than integrating the actual function. Why do that not abandon the linear regression nonsense and start thinking about Fourier transforms?
    ________________________________
    Easy answer.

    If you do not use a straight line you do not get CATASTROPHIC global warming. Without a crisis Climate Science becomes a big yawn. The politicians can’t use Climate Scares to beat more tax dollars out of a frightened electorate. The grant dollars evaporate. CAGW is good for politicians, climate scientists, universities, the MSM and large corporations positioned to take advantage of government ‘Green Project’ money. The only loser is the tax payer.

    So why would anyone on the gravy train want to consider the cyclical nature of the climate? There is no money in it.

  50. Bob Tisdale says:

    KR: Let me expand on why I don’t care if you take my work seriously. My work is not dependent on uncertainties of the linear trends, which is your focus.

    I can plot the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific (which I present as the Rest of the World as opposed to the East Pacific) sea surface temperature anomalies with volcano adjustments (in the post above) or without them, as follows. I don’t need to include linear trends or period average temperatures to show that the Rest of the World data rises primarily during the major El Niño events. Simply color coding the data will suffice:

    If I include the period average temperature, then people can get an idea of the magnitude of the upward shifts. The period average temperatures also help to highlight those ENSO-caused upward shifts:

    People complain that period average temperatures can be misleading. They assume they give the wrong impression that the trends between the major El Niño events are flat. So I add the linear trends to satisfy their curiosity:

    Again, the linear trends are not required. People can easily see that there’s little to no warming in the Rest of the World data between the significant El Niño events. They can also see quite plainly that the majority of the warming takes place during the major El Niño events. The question then arises: why do they warm only during major El Niño events? The answer is, because they do not cool proportionally during La Niña events that follow those El Niños. We can see this by detrending the Rest of the World data and comparing it to scaled NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies:

    It’s pretty obvious, if the Rest of the World sea surface temperatures cooled proportionally during the La Nina events, they then would mimic the East Pacific data, which has no long-term trend:

    The next question: why don’t the sea surface temperature anomalies for the Rest of the World cool during the La Niñas that follow the major El Niño events? Because, there’s warm water left over after the El Niño that cannot be accounted for by the ENSO index (the NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies).

  51. Gail Combs says:

    bee bop says:
    November 25, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    At least we can all agree the world has been warming.
    _________________________
    Depends on your starting point. graph

  52. Chad Jessup says:

    If carbon dioxide influenced global temperatures as the CAGW crowd maintains, there would not be temperature plateaus of fifteen years or lengthy cooling periods while the atmospheric content of CO2 continued its ascent.

  53. renewableguy says:

    The world seems to have several lines of evidence showing that it is warming. But lets stay with thermometers. James Hansen is a able to show that extreme temperature events are increasing significantly. The year 2010 compared to 1955 shows a huge increase in etreme heat events. If you look further down 2003 to 2011 have very significantly higher extreme events than the period of 1950 to 1980.

    1951 to 1980 baseline. James Hansen is comparing the world regions anomalies to 2003 to 2011. I have read over this several times and get something new out of it each time.

    1 sigma events occur 33% above and below a mean (or central point)
    2 sigma events occur 2.43% above and below
    3 sigma events occur .13% above and below

    if you look at fig 3 up in the rt hand corner are the percentages of the points lieing in the sigma ranges.
    sigma
    ………-3. -2…-1 ….0 …. +1…+2..+3
    1955…. 0… 2… 45…32…. 20…1…..0
    2010….. 0….1….15….18….34…18.. 13

    2003…….6%
    2004…….3%
    2005…….5%
    2006…….5%
    2007…….5%
    2008…….4%
    2009…….6%
    2010……11%
    2011……..8%
    The near normal distribution expected is close to what 1955 is. If you go back and look at 1965, and 1975 you will see similar numbers provided by Dr. James Hansen. +3 sigma is the very hot category. The sigmas are decreasing and the + sigmas are increasing all through the last decade which is the hottest decade in instrumental temperature history.

  54. renewableguy says:

    Chad Jessup says:

    November 25, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    If carbon dioxide influenced global temperatures as the CAGW crowd maintains, there would not be temperature plateaus of fifteen years or lengthy cooling periods while the atmospheric content of CO2 continued its ascent
    ###################################

    That is eactly the point of the escalator graph. The warming mainly driven by co2 is not a steady upward rise.

  55. renewableguy says:

    From 1950 to 1980 is nearly flat and yet show mild warming.

    1950 to 2012
    Trend: 1.15 ±0.20 °C/century (2σ)
    1950 to 1980
    Trend: 0.27 ±0.53 °C/century (2σ)

  56. Gail Combs says:

    Greg House says:
    November 25, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    ….What is the scientific reason to consider the thermometer network to be representative of the whole world or of the whole surface? Is there any scientific proof that they are? …
    _______________________________
    Actually there has been a lot of work done on that question. The short answer is the data is rubbish.

    A.J. Strata did an error analysis on the data.

    Alarmists Hide Truth About (Lack Of) Global Warming
    …this post [focuses] on two key documents that became public with the recent whistle blowing at CRU. The first document concerns the accuracy of the land based temperature measurements, which make up the core of the climate alarmists claims about warming. When we look at the CRU error budget and error margins we find a glimmer of reality setting in, in that there is no way to detect the claimed warming trend with the claimed accuracy.

    The second document contains 155 graphs showing the raw global temperature measurements and ‘trends’ for every country from 1900 though today. It contains two version of the CRU ‘processing’ – one from 2005 and one from 2008. What is just amazing from this ‘raw’ data is the realization that many areas of the Earth are not showing a huge upswing in temperature. The raw data paints a completely different picture than the final ‘results’ we see in Al Gore’s charts.

    Kommersant: Russia affected by Climategate
    ….On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

    The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

    Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

    Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

    The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

    The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

    On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations….

    The ‘Station drop out’ problem (several more on either side of this article)

    WUWT: On the “march of the thermometers”

    Assume A Spherical Cow – therefore all steaks are round (several more on either side of this article)
    “…So what does all this mean? It means that the bulk of all the rise of the numbers comes from instrument change, not from an increase at the individual stations. Further, it means that any temperature series codes (such as GIStemp) run on this data has a built in bias to deal with….”

    PART1: The perplexing temperature data published 1974-84 and recent temperature data.

  57. Richard M says:

    This entire discussion shows quite a bit of desperation at SkS. They are grasping at straws. It is true that cherry picking in any noisy sequence will account for short term trends going against the long term trend. However, the last period of time is getting longer and longer every day.

    There is absolutely no indication that this will change. The fizzled El Niño is indicative that something has change (like the PDO) and that something will influence future temperatures. In addition, the Sun will likely become more quiet which can’t help the alarmists. There is absolutely nothing going on that gives any indication the current flat trend will change.

    For me this is key. If temperatures were to jump upward at this time I would likely change my position. I wonder if the SkS crew will change their position if temperatures remain flat or drop for the next year? Two years? Five years? Any bets?

  58. renewableguy says:

    The problem is too much co2 leftover from the earth not absorbing it. Its just hard to get around. With extra co2 we get extra infrared being reflected back to earth.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

    The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

    The dominant mechanisms (to which recent climate change has been attributed) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. They are:[1]

    !. increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
    2. global changes to land surface, such as deforestation
    3. increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.

    There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.

    Attribution of recent climate change to human activities is based on multiple lines of evidence:[4]

    ….. A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]
    …. Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]
    …. Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]
    …. Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]

  59. D Böehm says:

    renewableguy says:

    “The warming mainly driven by co2 …”

    Thanx for your evidence-free conjecture. However, you have no empirical evidence showing that CO2 causes any measurable warming. It is amusing watching you True Believers try to promote your religion, when you have no physical evidence.

    And of course, renewableguy has it exactly backward: the evidence shows that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T, not vice versa. This is a science site, renewableguy, not a religious True Believer blog like your thinly-trafficked SkS.

    Wake me when you have testable, empirical measurements showing that ∆CO2 leads temperature. Because your True Belief isn’t enough to convince to thinking skeptics.

    Finally, you make the preposterous and easily falsifiable assertion that “Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.” Obviously you have never learned about the climate Null Hypothesis, which absolutely falsifies your silly belief: all current global climate parameters have been exceeded throughout the Holocene, when CO2 was much lower. Your ignorance comes from believing what the unreliable climate scare blog SkS preaches. Your belief is akin to faith in witch doctors, and it is quite amusing to thinking folks.

  60. Scute says:

    I saw that graph months ago and felt almost embarrassed for Skeptical Science for putting it up there. I’m glad you’ve taken them to task on it because I saw it plastered elsewhere on the web and that got me worried.

  61. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    November 25, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    The world seems to have several lines of evidence showing that it is warming. But lets stay with thermometers. James Hansen is a able to show….
    ___________________________
    NO, James Hansen is able to manipulate the data and he does so continueously.

    flick graph of Hansen adustments

    Side by Side graphs showing revisionist con tricks by Hansen graph

    Hansen has absolutely no credibility left.

    Here is data that has NOT been manipulated and shows we are not warming in the manner Hansen shows. NOAA October Snow Cover Anomalies (1960 – 2012) Remember the right quantity that should be compared with the insolation – i.e. the sunshine near the Arctic circle – is not the ice volume itself but its time derivative you increase the rate with which the ice/snow volume is decreasing or increasing. I picked October because that would be a month that would be more likely to be sensitive to changes. The Autumnal Equinox is on September 22.

    I suggest you go read the links on temperature analysis I provided above.

  62. Paul Vaughan says:

    Yuri Barkin says Earth’s shells “galloped” in 1997-98. Ben Chao shares insights:

    Chao, B.F. (2006). Earth’s oblateness and its temporal variations. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 338, 1123-1129. doi:10.1016/j.crte.2006.09.014.

    http://www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/~bfchao/publication/eng/2006-Earth%E2%80%99s%20oblateness%20and%20its%20temporal%20variations.pdf

    Climate scientists: Do you realize the implications for climate stat-inference assumptions?

  63. Greg House says:

    Gail Combs says: “Actually there has been a lot of work done on that question. The short answer is the data is rubbish. A.J. Strata did an error analysis on the data. …”
    ==========================================================

    Thanks, Gail. But I mean, it is much worse and much easier. Why search for secondary errors, if the whole “global” thing collapses immediately, if the warmists are asked to prove that the thermometers are on the right representative places and there is/was a sufficient number of them. From my experience they can not prove it and it demonstrates that the whole “global warming” is a pure fiction. We simply can not know, whether there is warming or cooling or whatever globally.

    Warmists I talked to on various blogs usually chose to remain silent on the issue but kept promoting the same unproven assertion, either directly or in a sort of skeptical form, unfortunately.

  64. DaveA says:

    What a convoluted story..

    The “Up-the-down-escalator” is supposed to prove how easy it is for skeptics to cherry pick periods of cooling and present them as proof that the earth isn’t warming. It’s intended as an anti-skeptic device.

    The fact that a flat trend can’t be found at that step would be pro-warming i.e. even cherry picking we can’t hide warming!

    But SkS go out of their way to _lessen_ warming to present a narrative that skeptics have at their disposal some dodgy technique to hide warming. Ahhhh!!

  65. KR says:

    Bob Tisdale – The very fact that you again assert (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/skeptical-science-misrepresents-their-animation-the-escalator/#comment-1157182) 4 to 12 year trends from SST demonstrates that you do not understand statistical significance, or that short periods of a noisy signal can have both low and high apparent trends far from the actual long term trend.

    Readers: – Here’s the “take-home”. As the “Escalator” graphic demonstrates, with cherry-picking you can find low (or high) trends in short periods of a noisy signal. But those short trends are just looking at the _noise_. Which is why (unlike Tisdale) proper science includes measuring the statistical significance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance) of the trend to see if it is meaningful. Until he does so, until he numerically demonstrates that a trend has appeared over and above the noise – he’s said _nothing_ of interest. He’s just looking at the noise…

  66. Jeff Alberts says:

    Gail Combs says:
    November 25, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    The bigger problem is that taking thermometer readings at thousands of different places, and averaging them, doesn’t tell you whether the surface of the globe, or the atmosphere, is warming. It’s rubbish.

  67. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    November 25, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    The problem is too much co2 leftover from the earth not absorbing it. Its just hard to get around. With extra co2 we get extra infrared being reflected back to earth….
    ________________________________
    Most of us here are well aware of the CO2/infared interaction. We are also aware the radiative forcing caused by CO2 in the atmosphere is proportional to the logarithm of the concentration. We are now into the part of that curve where increases of CO2 do not have much of an effect graph

    To multiply the effect of CO2 a positive forcing of water is invoked. But that falls flat on it’s face too. First back radiation from CO2 can not penetrate the oceans graph 1 and graph 2. Next the global relative humidity has been DECREASING not increasing so no positive feed back graph 1 and graph 2

    And that does not even get into the fact that the earth NEEDS more CO2.

    So far the consequences I have seen are all good. Plants were near starvation Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California and now The Earth’s biosphere is booming, link data suggests that CO2 is the cause. We have pretty much halved the amount of land need to grow a bushel of wheat or corn.

    Scientists have discovered an ‘abrupt increase’ since 1988 in the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the land biosphere.

    “Wellington-based scientist Dr Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher, from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, was part of the global research team investigating the distribution of CO2 emissions.

    “Ms Mikaloff-Fletcher said the breakthrough had taken scientists ‘completely by surprise’ ”…. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10818936

  68. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    November 25, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

    The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies….
    ______________________________
    OH, good grief.
    Read The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert by Donna Laframboise, or at least read the review of the book by Dr. Judith Curry or you can read Donna’s short version here UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 “F”s on Report Card

  69. renewableguy said (November 25, 2012 at 5:16 pm)

    “…The world seems to have several lines of evidence showing that it is warming. But lets stay with thermometers. James Hansen is a able to show that extreme temperature events are increasing significantly. The year 2010 compared to 1955 shows a huge increase in extreme heat events. If you look further down 2003 to 2011 have very significantly higher extreme events than the period of 1950 to 1980…”

    And yet, whenever extreme temperature events (and heatwaves) are mentioned, they always fail to put it in the context of the most extreme heatwave ever: Marble Bar, Australia – the town set a world record of most consecutive days of maximum temperatures of 37.8 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit) or more, during a period of 160 such days.

    The reason they’ll forget it? It went from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924. So it doesn’t fit into the “recent” extreme weather time-frame.

    But it could be described as a 1-88 year event.

  70. Andyj says:

    KR. It is childs play to remove noise and its obvious Bob does not deny the atmospheric climb because it is right there in his graphs. It’s the wood from the trees you cannot see.

    Talking of wood from trees. Here shows temperature leads C02 output due to Solar heating of the Sea. Not related to C02 production. If it was air heating (due to C02) it would deny almost all of the yearly C02 cycle. Oh, note C02 lags heat in almost all years here.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958/trend

    Here is C02, HadCrut3 and Sunspots. For mathematical honesty; ignore the last 1/4 cycle. Note heating to due to Sunspots which affects temperature in turn affects C02 production to the advantage of plant life. Also note C02’s rate increasing due to third world use picking up and taking over from the 90’s. Will need another decade to show the temperature drop due to the present Sun’s inactivity.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/fourier/high-pass:2/low-pass:30/inverse-fourier/normalise/from:1960/plot/sidc-ssn/fourier/high-pass:2/low-pass:30/inverse-fourier/normalise/from:1960/plot/esrl-co2/fourier/high-pass:1.5/low-pass:11/inverse-fourier/normalise

    If you have issues with reality. I suggest you see a shrink.

  71. Greg House says:

    Gail Combs says: “Most of us here are well aware of the CO2/infared interaction. We are also aware the radiative forcing caused by CO2 in the atmosphere is proportional to the logarithm of the concentration.”
    ==================================================================

    I am sorry, but who exactly and how experimentally proved that CO2 causes warming on the surface by sending back to the surface some IR it gets from the surface? Because IR from colder bodies does not necessarily cause warming of warmer bodies, it needs to be proven first.

    You surely remember me asking the warmists here on various threads to provide links to real scientific physical experiments proving that and you surely remember the result: ZERO.

    Well, things might have changed recently, so what proof do you have now I am unaware of? Please, do not hesitate to publish the links, thank you in advance.

  72. Chad Jessup says:

    Renewableguy says, “The warming mainly driven by co2 is not a steady upward rise”, an assertion which flies in the face of the laboratory experiments that log a steady rise in temperature when coupled with a steady increase in CO2. That is one bone of contention I have with the CAGW crowd, for if increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2 were such compelling arguments for elevating global mean temperatures, then one would not see decades long decline in those temperatures accompanied by increasing levels of carbon dioxide.

    One needs to investigate the entire ensemble of atmospheric, oceanographic, terrestrial, and solar possesses to determine the underlying causes of temperature changes and not rely on a one-dimensional perspective.

  73. Bart says:

    KR says:
    November 25, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    “Statistical significance” depends very much on the properties of the stochastic model. If, for example, there is a long term cyclical process contributing to the observations, then any trend calculated over a fraction of the cycle time is unlikely to be statistically significant.

    There is a very apparent ~60 year damped oscillation in the temperature data. You must include those correlations in your model when calculating statistical properties. Application of inappropriate models to determination of statistical significance yields garbage. And, that is what the purveyors of “statistical significance” for the trend from 1970 to 2000 are pushing: garbage.

  74. Gail Combs says:

    Greg House says:
    November 25, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    ..Thanks, Gail. But I mean, it is much worse and much easier. Why search for secondary errors, if the whole “global” thing collapses immediately, if the warmists are asked to prove that the thermometers are on the right representative places and there is/was a sufficient number of them. From my experience they can not prove it and it demonstrates that the whole “global warming” is a pure fiction…
    _______________________________
    Oh, I agree whole heartedly.

    Getting a good representative measurement of anything is not easy especially when the historic recorded measurements are to the whole degree and you are showing changes of 0.01C (snicker) I worked as a lab manager in Chemical QC since the 1970’s. When I heard the ASSumption that CO2 was well mixed, I laughed my head off. Uniform mixing is an ever present headache in the chemical industry. With ever changing sources and sinks and only natural mixing of the atmosphere, you are not going to see ‘well mixed’ but the myth was an absolute necessity because it allowed Callendar to pick and choose what historic CO2 measurements he was going to use. link

  75. Bob Tisdale says:

    KR says: “Bob Tisdale – The very fact that you again assert (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/skeptical-science-misrepresents-their-animation-the-escalator/#comment-1157182) 4 to 12 year trends from SST demonstrates that you do not understand statistical significance, or that short periods of a noisy signal can have both low and high apparent trends far from the actual long term trend.”

    KR – The very fact that you elected to misrepresent what I presented in that comment is telling. I did not present a trend that was less than 9 years. And the fact that you, in your “take home” to readers, overlooked the remainder of what I presented to you is also very telling. Combined, they indicate you haven’t yet grasped what was being discussed in that comment to you.

    Good-bye, KR.

  76. gymnosperm says:

    renewableguy says:

    November 25, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    “That is eactly the point of the escalator graph. The warming mainly driven by co2 is not a steady upward rise.”
    ============================================
    Why not? What would prevent a well mixed gas that warms “in place” wherever it is from continuing to warm the atmosphere over the last decade and a half as human emissions accelerated? You might speculate that the oceans are absorbing more, but the data and ocean warming suggest that the oceans are absorbing less. You might speculate that photosynthesis is using more and it is, but it will continue to do so to about 2000 ppm with no apparent reason for stair steps. The THC cannot be cooling the atmosphere because if Levitus is correct the oceans are warming. Yet greenhouse gasses cannot warm the oceans.

  77. Bob Tisdale says:

    Day By Day says: “I don’t understand the GISS graph for 1880 to 2012–If I have been following the real science correctly, 1930s-40s were as warm as it is today and 1934 was the warmest year int he US–How could the graph look like that?”

    I presented a graph of global surface temperatures (GISS Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index ) from 1880 to 2012. It represents much more than the temperatures of the US.

  78. Bob Tisdale says:

    renewableguy: Is this your first time here? Expect a not-too-warm reception.

    Good luck.

  79. gymnosperm says:

    KR,

    You love statistics too much. They are merely tools for the blind. Sure, the steps are numerically insignificant, but would you have us pretend they aren’t there? They may turn out to BE significant in the real world regardless.

  80. KR says:

    Bob Tisdale – I was referring to your illustration http://i48.tinypic.com/i42u6g.jpg, which contains segments less than four years.And those are just silly…

    Even your 1987-1998 and 1998-2010 periods (your fourth figure) have uncertainties of something on the order of ±0.255 and ±0.201 °C/decade (GISTEMP uncertainties, which cover a larger area/more data), as I pointed out in my first message (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/skeptical-science-misrepresents-their-animation-the-escalator/#comment-1156940). You cannot, from that data and those time-frames, make any assertions of flat or “step” behavior. (Actually, you can, you do, but the data just doesn’t support it as real in any fashion…)

    I’m still waiting for you to show the uncertainties of your various trends (of whatever length), relative to the noise in the data – some kind of demonstration that these are real trends, not cherry-picked short term noise (don’t forget auto-correlation). But I’ll not hold my breath.

    Adieu

  81. Ninderthana says:

    KR:

    Here’s the real take-home message.

    Please forget the fixation on trends.

    What you are claiming is that the uncertainty in the mean temperature of the rest-of-the-world’s
    oceans between 1989 and 1997 is so large that this mean temperature cannot be distinguished statistically from the mean temperature between 2000 and 2010.

    Hence you are claiming that we are unable to tell whether the rest-of-the-world’s oceans were warmer between 2000 and 2010 than they were between 1989 and 1997.

    Are you willing to stand by that claim?

    Let me assume that you realize that you cannot support this assertion using statistics.

    This leaves me believing that you are disputing Bob Tisdale’s choice of start and end
    points over which he takes the mean.

    I am assuming that you are saying that if you randomly chose end points for time intervals
    that include a mixture of data segments that are comparable in length to those that Bob used,
    Bob would only be correct if less than 1 in 20 time series (0;05 significance) showed the same
    number of differences in the mean temperature as Bob’s choice of end points?

    If so, I am sure that this simple test can be done to see if Bob is correct.

  82. Pamela Gray says:

    KR, the trend is still not outside the noise (something that AGW’rs nash their teeth about). Therefore the trend is not significant. I am into my next half century of life and trust me, the temperature trend is not outside the noise. I’ve seen decades much hotter, and much colder than the current one (think regional, not global average). Call me when the trend in Oregon rises above the short and long term natural noise (IE ENSO and volcano noise).

  83. RoHa says:

    Maybe I am missing something, but even the lumpy escalator that Bob presents still shows some flat periods in a general rise.
    Even if we acknowledge SS’s general shiftiness, doesn’t their point still stand?

  84. kazanture says:

    good very good

  85. Robert A. Taylor says:

    Arno Arrak says:
    November 25, 2012 at 12:33 pm
    Bob – give up that phony “Volcano-Adjusted” feature. Volcanic cooling of lower troposphere is a myth – it does not exist. Read my book pp. 17 – 21.

    From Wikipedia, with similar statements in popular and technical literature from 1817 on:

    The Year Without a Summer (also known as the Poverty Year, The Summer that Never Was, Year There Was No Summer and Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death[1] [emphasis in original]) was the year 1816, in which severe summer climate abnormalities caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F),[2] resulting in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.[3][4] It is believed that the anomaly was caused by a combination of a historic low in solar activity with a volcanic winter event, the latter caused by a succession of major volcanic eruptions capped by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), the largest known eruption in over 1,300 years. [emphasis added]

    I am willing to be convinced, but I am not going to buy your book to discover if there is anything to your arguments. Can you provide a concise and understandable summery? What is your opinion on “winters” caused by meteorite impact, and large scale nuclear war, which are no more extreme than some known volcanic eruptions??

  86. Olaf Koenders says:

    You can’t even feel temp differences by 0.2c. If they were honest enough to scale the chart in whole degrees, the entire thing would be a flat line.

  87. R says:

    Bob Tisdale,
    What’s the error bounds (when accounting for autocorrelation) on the trendlines you presented above. Technically they are correct if the trends are not statistically significant. Are they? Can you demonstrate that the trendline for any portion is statistically different from zero?

  88. markx says:

    Don’t even worry about their little, very short term step trick.

    No need to play their game at all …. just show the chart back to 1880, or further if they wish, then ask them to explain the CAGW story again…

  89. @renewableguy:

    There was an August thread here in response to Hansen’s claim about greater extreme temperatures:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/06/nasas-james-hansens-big-cherry-pick/

    I do think the extremes are increasing, just not as much as his analysis suggests. I believe the cause is the increasing loopiness of the jet streams. But that is something that has happened before.

    There’s an “extreme weather topic” in the “category” drop-down list in the sidebar that links to more threads on the topic. Here’s the link to it:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/extreme-weather-2/

  90. Bob Tisdale says:

    KR says: “Bob Tisdale – I was referring to your illustration http://i48.tinypic.com/i42u6g.jpg, which contains segments less than four years.And those are just silly…”

    As I noted earlier, they are not required for the presentation, since I’m presenting the effects of processes. The processes are what cause the divergences between the detrended Rest of the World data and the ENSO index, and the existence of those divergences contradicts the assumptions made in numerous papers, like Foster and Rahmstorf, that assume the effects of El Nino and La Nina events on global temperatures are proportional.

    KR says: “I’m still waiting for you to show the uncertainties of your various trends (of whatever length), relative to the noise in the data – some kind of demonstration that these are real trends, not cherry-picked short term noise (don’t forget auto-correlation). But I’ll not hold my breath.”

    I seem to recall noting in my earlier reply that the trends aren’t required for my presentation, yet you’re fixated on trends. Additionally, the start and end dates for the time periods are based on the “official” El Nino months (based on NOAA ONI index) associated with the 1982/83, 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Nino events with a six-month lag, so they’re not cherry-picked.

  91. Bob Tisdale says:

    R, here’s the same reply to basically the same question you left at my blog:

    The discussion is not if the trends are statistically significant; it’s about the misrepresentation of actual trend lines in their animation. If they had used the actual trend lines, the escalator would appear to have a broken step and the visual doesn’t work:

  92. RoHa:

    At November 25, 2012 at 10:36 pm you ask the very reasonable – and fundamental – question:

    Maybe I am missing something, but even the lumpy escalator that Bob presents still shows some flat periods in a general rise.
    Even if we acknowledge SS’s general shiftiness, doesn’t their point still stand?

    An answer to your question depends on what is “their point”. In his above article, Bob Tisdale correctly states that “point” to be

    The intent of the animation is to show that global temperature anomalies can flatten or cool over decadal or shorter periods while warming over the long term.

    So, the simple answer to your question is, ‘Yes’.

    However, like all simple answers, that ‘yes’ requires some expansion.
    It ignores
    (a) The cause(s) of the overall warming trend.
    (b) The cause(s) of the periods when the trend ‘flattens’.
    And
    (c) The dissimilarity of the periods of ‘flattening’.

    Importantly, SkS presents the ‘escalator’ as being a demonstration that the present period of ‘flattening’ is not an indication that the overall warming trend is mostly or entirely induced by natural climate variation. But their demonstration is false. I explain this as follows.

    SkS (and e.g. renewableguy in this thread) assume the overall warming trend is mostly or entirely induced by increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. And that assumption is improbable for several reasons.

    The overall warming trend is most likely a recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA), and there is no reason to suppose the LIA was caused by change to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Simply, the LIA is an observed natural variation of unknown cause but the cause was not observed variation to atmospheric CO2 concentration. The Null Hypothesis and paucity suggest that whatever caused the LIA is the probable cause of recovery from the LIA (e.g. the LIA was coincident with the Maunder Minimum in solar activity: if it is assumed that the start of the Maunder Minimum induced the LIA then recovery from the LIA is a result of the end of the Maunder Minimum).

    Importantly, it has been claimed that the overall warming trend is too large for it to have been caused by natural variation other than variation caused by increased atmospheric CO2 concentration (this claim is not true, but an explanation of why the claim is false is not relevant here).

    Atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing exponentially. If it is assumed that the CO2 increase causes the overall warming trend then the periods of ‘flattening’ demonstrate that natural variations can overwhelm the warming effect of the CO2. This is a conclusive demonstration that natural variation has at least as great an effect on global warming/cooling as atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    So,
    the recent overall warming trend could be entirely a result of recovery from the LIA
    but
    the unknown cause of the LIA was not altered atmospheric CO2 concentration
    and
    the recovery from the LIA is most likely a cessation of whatever induced the LIA
    while
    the natural variability is observed to be sufficient to overwhelm the warming effect of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Which brings us to the periods of ‘flattening’ in the warming trend.

    Firstly, these periods may be apparent and not real. The measurement data are sparse so the global temperature derivations have little confidence. Hence, values of trends in global temperature over short periods could be ‘noise’ provided by the uncertainty in the data and, therefore, these trends may indicate nothing about reality. Importantly, prior to the now present period of ‘flattening’, SkS and others were claiming such short-period-trends are ‘noise’. Indeed, they needed to claim that because – if they are real – the periods of ‘flattening’ demonstrate that natural variability can overwhelm the warming effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    However, the present period of ‘flattening’ now exceeds 15 years and the claimed certainty of the data does not allow the trend of such a long period to be ‘noise’; i.e. the present ‘flattening’ is real and not ‘noise’.

    The ‘escalator’ attempts to show the present ‘flattening’ is similar to the previous ‘flattenings’. Either it is or it is not. But, whichever of these possibilities is true then it does not support the SkS assertions of the overall warming trend being a result of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.
    1.
    If the periods of ‘flattening’ are real then they indicate the overall warming trend can be overwhelmed by natural climate variation.
    2.
    If the previous periods of ‘flattening’ are ‘noise’ then the present period of statistically significant ‘flattening’ indicates the overall warming trend is being overwhelmed by natural climate variation.

    In either case, such large effect of natural climate variation provides the probability that the overall warming trend is mostly or entirely natural recovery from the LIA.

    Add to that the fact – as Bob Tisdale’s article points out – that the trends in the SkS ‘escalator’ are false and one can only conclude that the SkS escalator is deliberately misleading propaganda.

    And all of the above assumes that linear trends indicate anything about the global temperature time series. In reality the time series indicate several overlaid cycles which need to be understood and modelled for any true trends to be discerned, and those true trends would not be linear.

    Richard

  93. DWR54 says:

    According to Bob Tisdale +0.06 deg C/decade is a “significant warming trend”. The trend in the HadCRUT4 data since 2007 is currently +0.05 deg C/decade: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend.

    Was there not some clamour a few weeks ago about how the HadCRUT4 trend has been “flat” since 2007?

    If +0.06 deg C/decade represents “significant warming”, then how can +0.05 deg C/decade be called “flat”? Is the difference between ‘flat’ and ‘significant warming’ +0.01 deg C/decade? I wouldn’t have thought so.

  94. Gail Combs says:

    Greg House says:
    November 25, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    I am sorry, but who exactly and how experimentally proved that CO2 causes warming on the surface by sending back to the surface some IR it gets from the surface? Because IR from colder bodies does not necessarily cause warming of warmer bodies, it needs to be proven first….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    There is this From Dr. Spencer:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/

    About CO2 measurement at Mauna Loa: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/carbon-dioxide-growth-rate-at-mauna-loa/

    From satellite data, graph 1
    The graph is from SORCE:

    The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) is a NASA-sponsored satellite mission that is providing state-of-the-art measurements of incoming x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, near-infrared, and total solar radiation. The measurements provided by SORCE specifically address long-term climate change, natural variability and enhanced climate prediction, and atmospheric ozone and UV-B radiation….

    SORCE carries four instruments including the Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM), Solar Stellar Irradiance Comparison Experiment (SOLSTICE), Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM), and the XUV Photometer System (XPS).

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm

    There is this: graph 2 As a chemist who used UV Spectrophotometers professionally since 1972, I do not question these results as IR absorption spectra are well known and used by chemists in industry every day.

    There is this from WUWT:
    New paper: researcher in Germany has carried out a spectroscopic analysis of the impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases’ contribution to warming.

    Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: Comments On The Andy Lacis Post On CO2 As A Climate Thermostat where Pleione @ November 11, 2010 at 11:35 pm mentions

    On Mars, the relative CO2 pressure is 16 times that on Earth. The absolute CO2 amount (per surface unit) on Mars would translate to about 5000 ppm CO2 on Earth !! And all that HUGE amount of CO2 translates in a tiny increase of 3 kelvin from the -56C radiative temperature to the -53C observed average temperature….

    Unfortunately he gives no references.

    Articles by physicist Tom Vonk
    CO2 heats the atmosphere…a counter view Read all the way to the end please.

    Does CO₂ heat the troposphere ?

    And by Jeff ID (An engineer?)
    A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II

    Note: If you look at what Tom Vonk says at the end of each article his articles do not contradict Jeff. Speciffically:

    Caveat 1

    The statement we proved cannot be interpreted as “CO2 has no impact on the dynamics of the Earth-atmosphere system” . What we have proven is that the CO2 cannot heat the atmosphere in the bulk but the whole system cannot be reduced to the bulk of the atmosphere . Indeed there are 2 interfaces – the void on one side and the surface of the Earth on the other side . Neither the former nor the latter is in LTE and the arguments we used are not valid . The dynamics of the system are governed by the lapse rate which is “anchored” to the ground and whose variations are dependent not only on convection , latent heat changes and conduction but also radiative transfer . The concentrations of CO2 (and H2O) play a role in this dynamics but it is not the purpose of this post to examine these much more complex and not well understood aspects .

    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of CO2′ will have ‘little impact’ on temps” by Dr Duffy

    Dr. Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. Duffy received the New Zealand Science and Technology Silver Medal, in 2003 from The Royal Society of New Zealand. And has published 218 journal, peer-reviewed papers and conference papers including 10 patents and 62 technical reports.

    The money quote from this article is:

    …A man-made ‘greenhouse’ can only increase the residence time or hold-up time of heat just like a blanket. Likewise in the atmosphere, the ‘greenhouse effect’ acts as a mechanism to smooth out fluctuations or rises and falls in temperature (that is advantageous). It is a dampener! It cannot be a dominant factor for global temperature change. It is the sun that gives the heat energy and drives temperature change. Simply, if the sun’s energy decreases, then the ‘global’ temperature will fall; with or without any greenhouse effect (and vice-versa)….

    Again this agrees with what Tom Vonk says.

    Now on to actual proof of the dampener effect of the greenhouse gas H2O.

    Sleepalot @ July 21, 2012 at 4:21 am comments:

    I keep looking at this: air and ground temperature recorded in the N. African desert during a solar eclipse.

    (I could not get the graph to load this morning and it is not on the wayback machine. The 2008 eclipse data is also among the missing – http://www.shadowchaser.demon.co.uk/eclipse/2008/index.html)

    In this comment Sleepalot Compares the Brazilian rainforest and the N. African Desert.

    I took it a step further
    comment 1

    comment 2

    So yes CO2 and H2O slow the flow of energy from the surface to space and on a molecular level can emit IR back towards the earth but the macro net flow is going to be from the earth to space unless the sun is shining. When the sun is shining in the presence of high humidity the flow of energy is again dampened.
    Note that CO2 has a much much smaller effect that H2O does as humidity. All you have to do is look at the IR graph and the amount of H2O in the atmosphere.

    One only has to look at the moon to see what the result is for no atmosphere. The day temperature is 107°C: Mean surface temperature at night is-153°C and the Maximum surface temperature is 123°C. (Note radiative transfer is only a one of the reasons for the difference)

  95. Gail Combs says:

    RoHa says:
    November 25, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    Maybe I am missing something, but even the lumpy escalator that Bob presents still shows some flat periods in a general rise.
    Even if we acknowledge SS’s general shiftiness, doesn’t their point still stand?
    ________________________________
    That is the real I gottcha.

    Bob’s data suggests the flat periods are the periods between El Niño’s where the El Niños are the mechanism that raises the surface water temperature and thereby the land temperature. In the period he has looked at the La Niñas have not cooled the oceans. It is going to be very interesting to see if the sleepy sun causes a change in the dynamics and there is a switch to more frequent and stronger La Niñas with the La Niñas ratcheting the temperature DOWN.

    Notice there is no CO2 in sight in this explanation.

  96. wsbriggs says:

    renewableguy
    If increasing CO2 levels, as the models seem to indicate, lead to catastrophic warming, how is it that with 20x the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth had an ice age?

    This is geologically well documented, I would like an intelligible response based on known science, as opposed to handwaving.

  97. renewableguy says:

    wsbriggs says:

    November 26, 2012 at 6:11 am

    renewableguy
    If increasing CO2 levels, as the models seem to indicate, lead to catastrophic warming, how is it that with 20x the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth had an ice age?

    This is geologically well documented, I would like an intelligible response based on known science, as opposed to handwaving.
    ########################

    I assume you are talking about hundreds of million years ago. CO2 is not the only driver of climate but is necessary to explain what is happening.

  98. renewableguy says:

    It appears that from this graph one is saying that the ocean isn’t being heated directly by sunlight. I find that true in that sunlight can only penetrate so deep into the ocean. And yet I would imagine it would be easy for heat to travel from molecular bumping, from ocean currents and different forms of mixing.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html

  99. Tom in Indy says:

    The takeaway I get from the graph is that a continuous increase in CO2 concentration since 1970 causes (1) long periods of constant temperature change of random length, followed by (2) brief bursts of warming of random size.

    What’s the mechanism in AGW theory that explains these 2 features of the data, given that the effects of nina’s/nino’s are assumed away as noise?

  100. renewableguy says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/11/27720/

    “ there is a clear demonstration that without the radiative forcing provided by the non-condensing GHGs, the terrestrial greenhouse effect collapses because there is no structural temperature support to restrain the current climate water vapor from condensing and precipitating.”
    ######################
    The relationship between H2O and co2 is the main driver of our climate. That is what drives our climate. From the ice cores, the absolute humidity levels are driven by the climate drivers such as co2 and orbital variation. In our recent ascent in temperature orbital variation is too slow to of effected our climate.Those listed below are not contributing to warming.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

    There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.

  101. Venter says:

    Renewable guy, you handwaving and assertions based on beleifs don’t count as facts

  102. HenryP says:

    renewable guy said
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate but is necessary to explain what is happening

    henry says
    so how did you figure out you NEED CO2 to explain things?
    There is not one study that shows that an increase in CO2 causes warming.
    Those that do exist are more than a 100 years old and lack the cooling part and not one of any recent studies has a balance sheet of the amount of cooling and warming caused by an increase in x% of CO2 in the atmosphere with the right dimensions…….never mind the fact that the increase is (largely) caused by natural warming: (gigatons of bicarbonate in the oceans)
    HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    Can I suggest you read this

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/

    and you will figure out the science that we have all been trying to explain here to you from the beginning.If you do not try to understand it you will just stay ignorant.
    .

  103. renewableguy says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/04/even-doubling-or-tripling-the-amount-of-co2-will-have-little-impact-on-temps/

    It is also important to highlight that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is vital for plant, tree, and food-crop growth. The basic principle of equilibria shows that when A and B make C and D, then C and D will react to form more A and B. Hence, as CO2 is produced, it will ‘react’ to produce more oxygen and cellulosic carbon through the well-known chlorophyllic process. Tree, plant, and food-crop production goes up markedly. With low amounts of CO2 in the air we would have severe food crop deficiencies. This process occurs with plankton too. But over and above this chemical-biochemical reaction is the simple physical equilibrium process of solubility. As the seas cool, more CO2 dissolves in the water, and CO2 in the air reduces (and vice-versa).

    ####################################################
    The world is planning on adding 1000 new coal plants mostly in india and china which effects the whole world. 4*C is considered destabilizing to the human civilization.

    http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf

    This report provides a snapshot of recent scientific literature and new analyses of likely impacts and risks that would be associated with a 4° Celsius warming within this century. It is a rigorous attempt to outline a range of risks, focusing on developing countries and especially the poor. A 4°C world would be one of unprecedented heat waves, severe drought, and major floods in many regions, with serious impacts on ecosystems and associated services. But with action, a 4°C world can be avoided and we can likely hold warming below 2°C.

  104. renewableguy says:

    Venter says:

    November 26, 2012 at 7:14 am

    Renewable guy, you handwaving and assertions based on beleifs don’t count as facts
    ###################

    I have provided sources. This is the science that I am basing this in. You are welcome to rebut my sources.

  105. renewableguy says:

    Tom in Indy says:

    November 26, 2012 at 7:00 am

    The takeaway I get from the graph is that a continuous increase in CO2 concentration since 1970 causes (1) long periods of constant temperature change of random length, followed by (2) brief bursts of warming of random size.

    What’s the mechanism in AGW theory that explains these 2 features of the data, given that the effects of nina’s/nino’s are assumed away as noise?
    ######################

    Over 90% of the heat goes into the oceans.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=46

  106. renewableguy says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/06/a-reply-to-vonk-radiative-physics-simplified-ii/

    So finally, as a formal skeptic of AGW extremism, NONE of this should create any alarm. Sure CO2 can cause warming (a little) but warmer air holds more moisture, which changes clouds, which will cause feedbacks to the temperature. If the feedback is low or negative (as Roy Spencer recently demonstrated), none of the IPCC predictions come true, and none of the certainly exaggerated damage occurs. The CO2 then, can be considered nothing but plant food, and we can keep our tax money and take our good sweet time building the currently non-existent cleaner energy sources the enviro’s will demand anyway. If feedback is high and positive as the models predict, then the temperature measurements have some catching up to do.

    ###########################################

    THe computers run the calculations for us to see what kind of sensitivity we come up with to changes in the atmosphere for a doubing of co2. The possiblity of climate sensitivity to be below 2*C appear to be very low. THe possibility of being higher are much higher than being lower.

    They run this simulation thousands of times, each time changing the starting assumptions of one or more processes. When they put all the predictions from these thousands of simulations onto a single graph, what they get is a picture of the most likely outcomes and the least likely outcomes.

    The pattern that emerges from these types of tests is interesting. Few of the simulations result in less than 2 °C of warming—near the low end of estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Some simulations result in significantly more than the 4 °C, which is at the high end of the IPCC estimates.

    This pattern (statisticians call it a “right-skewed distribution”) suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.

  107. RHS says:

    Renewableguy – Why should anyone believe a model which leaves out water vapor when water vapor has a concentration of 40,000 ppm vs. the CO2 concentration of less than 400 ppm?

  108. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 6:50 am

    It appears that from this graph one is saying that the ocean isn’t being heated directly by sunlight. I find that true in that sunlight can only penetrate so deep into the ocean….
    ___________________________________
    Read the labeling on the second graph. The higher wavelengths (UV) penetrate to 100m or 330 ft. Or look at Dr. Robert E. Stevenson’s statement The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean.

    70% of the earth’s surface is water. The higher wavelengths of sunlight, visible and above are where the ‘action’ is, not at the infrared wavelengths. And guess what? NASA has recently found that although Total Solar Insolation (TSI) may not vary much the mix of wavelengths does.

    NASA: SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise
    In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.

    “We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle….

    Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected….

    However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

    The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.

    The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate.

    graph black line is the expected, blue line is the actual from SIM.“(red) from another ultraviolet radiation-sensing instrument called SOLSTICE compare well with those from SIM”

    EVE: Measuring the Sun’s Hidden Variability
    …”Solar minimum is a quiet time when we can establish a baseline for evaluating long-term trends,” he explains. “All stars are variable at some level, and the sun is no exception. We want to compare the sun’s brightness now to its brightness during previous minima and ask: is the sun getting brighter or dimmer?”

    The answer seems to be dimmer. Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun’s “irradiance” by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths. These results, which compare the solar minimum of 2008-09 to the previous minimum of 1996, are still very preliminary….

    It remains to be seen if that decrease in the sun’s “irradiance” in the wavelengths that effect the oceans have any effect. My SWAG is we will see more La Nina’s and a drop in Sea Surface temperatures over time if the sun remains in a funk. (Two days in November have been essentally spotless official sources found four groups of very tiny specks with a F10.7 flux less than 100 and we are at sunspot MAX!)

    We are already seeing a stop in warming in the global sea surface temperatures according to the EPA graph, and the expected El Niño has not developed. The Update prepared by the Climate Prediction Center / NCEP on
    26 November 2012 shows ENSO-neutral conditions continue and ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2012-13.

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 6:50 am

    It appears that from this graph one is saying that the ocean isn’t being heated directly by sunlight. I find that true in that sunlight can only penetrate so deep into the ocean….
    ___________________________________
    Read the labeling on the second graph. The higher wavelengths (UV) penetrate to 100m or 330 ft. Or look at Dr. Robert E. Stevenson’s statement The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean.

    70% of the earth’s surface is water. The higher wavelengths of sunlight, visible and above are where the ‘action’ is, not at the infrared wavelengths. And guess what? NASA has recently found that although Total Solar Insolation (TSI) may not vary much the mix of wavelengths does.

    NASA: SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise
    In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.

    “We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle….

    Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected….

    However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

    The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.

    The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate.

    graph black line is the expected, blue line is the actual from SIM.“(red) from another ultraviolet radiation-sensing instrument called SOLSTICE compare well with those from SIM”

    EVE: Measuring the Sun’s Hidden Variability
    …”Solar minimum is a quiet time when we can establish a baseline for evaluating long-term trends,” he explains. “All stars are variable at some level, and the sun is no exception. We want to compare the sun’s brightness now to its brightness during previous minima and ask: is the sun getting brighter or dimmer?”

    The answer seems to be dimmer. Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun’s “irradiance” by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths. These results, which compare the solar minimum of 2008-09 to the previous minimum of 1996, are still very preliminary….

    It remains to be seen if that decrease in the sun’s “irradiance” in the wavelengths that effect the oceans have any effect. My SWAG is we will see more La Nina’s and a drop in Sea Surface temperatures over time if the sun remains in a funk. (Two days in November have been essentally spotless official sources found four groups of very tiny specks with a F10.7 flux less than 100 and we are at sunspot MAX!)

    We are already seeing a stop in warming in the global sea surface temperatures according to the EPA graph, and the expected El Niño has not developed. The Update prepared by the Climate Prediction Center / NCEP on 26 November 2012 shows ENSO-neutral conditions continue and ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2012-13.

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 6:50 am

    It appears that from this graph one is saying that the ocean isn’t being heated directly by sunlight. I find that true in that sunlight can only penetrate so deep into the ocean….
    ___________________________________
    Read the labeling on the second graph. The higher wavelengths (UV) penetrate to 100m or 330 ft. Or look at Dr. Robert E. Stevenson’s statement The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean.

    70% of the earth’s surface is water. The higher wavelengths of sunlight, visible and above are where the ‘action’ is, not at the infrared wavelengths. And guess what? NASA has recently found that although Total Solar Insolation (TSI) may not vary much the mix of wavelengths does.

    NASA: SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise
    In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.

    “We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle….

    Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected….

    However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

    The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.

    The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate.

    graph black line is the expected, blue line is the actual from SIM.“(red) from another ultraviolet radiation-sensing instrument called SOLSTICE compare well with those from SIM”

    EVE: Measuring the Sun’s Hidden Variability
    …”Solar minimum is a quiet time when we can establish a baseline for evaluating long-term trends,” he explains. “All stars are variable at some level, and the sun is no exception. We want to compare the sun’s brightness now to its brightness during previous minima and ask: is the sun getting brighter or dimmer?”

    The answer seems to be dimmer. Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun’s “irradiance” by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths. These results, which compare the solar minimum of 2008-09 to the previous minimum of 1996, are still very preliminary….

    It remains to be seen if that decrease in the sun’s “irradiance” in the wavelengths that effect the oceans have any effect. My SWAG is we will see more La Nina’s and a drop in Sea Surface temperatures over time if the sun remains in a funk. (Two days in November have been essentally spotless official sources found four groups of very tiny specks with a F10.7 flux less than 100 and we are at sunspot MAX!)

    We are already seeing a stop in warming in the global sea surface temperatures according to the EPA graph, and the expected El Niño has not developed. The Update prepared by the Climate Prediction Center / NCEP on
    26 November 2012 shows ENSO-neutral conditions continue and ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2012-13.

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 6:50 am

    It appears that from this graph one is saying that the ocean isn’t being heated directly by sunlight. I find that true in that sunlight can only penetrate so deep into the ocean….
    ___________________________________
    Read the labeling on the second graph. The higher wavelengths (UV) penetrate to 100m or 330 ft. Or look at Dr. Robert E. Stevenson’s statement The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean.

    70% of the earth’s surface is water. The higher wavelengths of sunlight, visible and above are where the ‘action’ is, not at the infrared wavelengths. And guess what? NASA has recently found that although Total Solar Insolation (TSI) may not vary much the mix of wavelengths does.

    NASA: SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise
    In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.

    “We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle….

    Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected….

    However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

    The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.

    The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate.

    graph black line is the expected, blue line is the actual from SIM.“(red) from another ultraviolet radiation-sensing instrument called SOLSTICE compare well with those from SIM”

    EVE: Measuring the Sun’s Hidden Variability
    …”Solar minimum is a quiet time when we can establish a baseline for evaluating long-term trends,” he explains. “All stars are variable at some level, and the sun is no exception. We want to compare the sun’s brightness now to its brightness during previous minima and ask: is the sun getting brighter or dimmer?”

    The answer seems to be dimmer. Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun’s “irradiance” by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths. These results, which compare the solar minimum of 2008-09 to the previous minimum of 1996, are still very preliminary….

    It remains to be seen if that decrease in the sun’s “irradiance” in the wavelengths that effect the oceans have any effect. My SWAG is we will see more La Nina’s and a drop in Sea Surface temperatures over time if the sun remains in a funk. (Two days in November have been essentally spotless official sources found four groups of very tiny specks with a F10.7 flux less than 100 and we are at sunspot MAX!)

    We are already seeing a stop in warming in the global sea surface temperatures according to the EPA graph, and the expected El Niño has not developed. The Update prepared by the Climate Prediction Center / NCEP on
    26 November 2012 shows ENSO-neutral conditions continue and ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2012-13.

  109. renewableguy says:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/

    From all of this, you should have figured out by now that any study implying that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, must exhibit a balance sheet in the right dimensions showing us exactly how much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by an increase of 0.01% of CO2 that occurred in the past 50 years in the atmosphere. It must also tell us the amount of cooling caused by the increase in photosynthesis that has occurred during the past 50 years.

    ################################

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate-intermediate.htm

    Greenhouse gases and ozone contribute warming of +2.9 Wm-2. The majority of this is from CO2 (+1.66 Wm-2). This warming is offset by anthropogenic aerosols, reducing the total human caused warming to 1.6 Wm-2. So the warming from CO2 actually exceeds the final total radiative forcing. The other important point to glean from Figure 2 is that we have a relatively high understanding of greenhouse gas radiative forcing. The probability density function (PDF) shows a much higher probability than the aerosols PDF, meaning the uncertainty associated with greenhouse gas forcing is much lower. This is also confirmed by experimental observations from both satellites and surface measurements which confirm the enhanced greenhouse effect from rising greenhouse gases.

    So in summary, there are two reasons for the focus on CO2:

    CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing
    CO2 radiative forcing is increasing faster than any other forcing

  110. Greg House says:

    Greg House says: “I am sorry, but who exactly and how experimentally proved that CO2 causes warming on the surface by sending back to the surface some IR it gets from the surface? Because IR from colder bodies does not necessarily cause warming of warmer bodies, it needs to be proven first….”
    Gail Combs says: “There is this From Dr. Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/ [...]”
    ========================================================

    Gail, I opened the first 5 links you presented and, frankly, I am not surprised: all of them are completely irrelevant, they contain neither description of even a single physical experiment in question nor a link to such an experiment.

    I just hope it was not an act of obfuscation and you simply did not understand the topic.

  111. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 7:07 am
    ….. The relationship between H2O and co2 is the main driver of our climate….
    ___________________________________
    No, the relationship between the SUN and H2O is the main driver of our climate. Without the sun we are a block of frozen gases. The Milankovitch cycles show the sun’s impact as dependent on the earth’s relative position link The other biggy is the position of the continents. Look up the colliding, of the Pacific Plate and the Caribbean Plate.

    Everyone seems to forget to look at climate on geological scales. graph (Present on the left) The Holocene has been a very stable interglacial compared to the others. graph (Present on the left) and the temperature as expected from the Milankovitch cycles is trending in a downward direction graph (Present on the right, instrument record in red)

  112. HenryP says:

    renewable guy says
    THe computers run the calculations for us to see what kind of sensitivity we come up with to changes in the atmosphere for a doubing of co2. (sic)

    henry says
    you cannot “calculate” that which has not been measured first. What actual measurement results can you show me?

    It is people like you who only want ‘renewable” energy who retard science. How do you think mankind can do terra forming (for example on Mars) with 300 ppm CO2? You want at least 10 x as much to speed things (=life) up a bit? (up to 4000 ppm has been OK for submarines?)
    Anyway, as I said before, do you really want to learn something here or do you just want stay ignorant?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/skeptical-science-misrepresents-their-animation-the-escalator/#comment-1157617

  113. Tom in Indy says:

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 7:50 am
    Over 90% of the heat goes into the oceans.

    Then what happens? If AGW assumes nina’s/ninos are white noise, then how does continuous increase in CO2 cause random bursts of global heat over the period 1970 – present?

    If you attribute these bursts of heat during the period to changes in CO2, then shouldn’t each step up in the chart be getting higher and higher? Or, at least the trend in step height be getting higher? 2 of the last 3 steps are shorter than the first.

  114. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 8:14 am

    ###########################################

    THe computers run the calculations for us to see what kind of sensitivity we come up with to changes in the atmosphere for a doubing of co2….

    …This pattern (statisticians call it a “right-skewed distribution”) suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.
    ______________________________________
    The computers only run the formulas and data they have entered into them. If the wrong formulas are used it is GIGO. The fact NONE of the models predicted 15 years of no warming says they have a lot of kinks. ‘Fudge factors’ such as arosols have been added.
    “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” ~ John von Neumann.

    You can find the detailed argument Probabilistic(?) estimates of climate sensitivity here

    Then there are the estimates based on OBSERVATION not models:
    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications by Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
    “As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations.” link

    Full paper http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    NASA, NOAA: total climate sensitivity is below 1.65 °C
    link

    Spencer & Braswell’s new paper

  115. MikeN says:

    RenewableGuy, how do you propose to hold warming down to 2C when China and India are adding so many coal plants?

  116. MikeN says:

    RichardM, SkS does not accept that their is a flattening of temperatures. 1998 was a warm year, but the years around it, especially before were much cooler. So the overall decade of 2000s was warmer than 1990s, with no dropoff in trend.

  117. MikeN says:

    What this shows is that the trend calculation is flawed as an analysis method. I’ve been arguing this with this thought experiment. Say I want to argue that global warming stopped in 1998 or global cooling started then. Now to prove my point, I fiddle with the temperature numbers that I use to make my calculation, and adjust 1999 and 2000 downward. The problem is, under the existing calculation method, this makes the trend HIGHER. Making temperatures colder increases the trend.

  118. HenryP says:

    Renewableguy says
    From all of this, you should have figured out by now that any study implying that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, must exhibit a balance sheet in the right dimensions showing us exactly how much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by an increase of 0.01% of CO2 that occurred in the past 50 years in the atmosphere. It must also tell us the amount of cooling caused by the increase in photosynthesis that has occurred during the past 50 years.
    henry says
    That looks like something I said. Good. At least you read something. You might be on the right track.
    so where is it \, that balance sheet with the right dimensions?
    how much cooling is caused by a certain increase in CO2 by the re-radiation of sunshine?
    how much cooling is caused by the increase in greenery? (Vegetation/ trees need CO2 and warmth, you know. Or did you ever see a tree grow where it is very cold?)
    Finally, how, EXACTLY, does that all compare with the warming by the re-radiation of earth shine?

    hint: I might be looking for something with TIME in it? And CO2 CONCENTRATION? etc.

  119. Bob Tisdale says:

    renewableguy: Great job of hijacking the thread. Are you aware that people who do what you have done are called trolls?

    Have a nice day, troll.

  120. HenryP says:

    HenryP says: “In fact, I doubt if you can even show me one calibration certificate of a thermometer from that time.”

    Bob Tisdale says
    I only present data, HenryP.

    henry says
    don’t worry about the ignorant, (like renewable guy), we will have them always with us.
    they are just here to boost the website’s visits numbers.
    (seeing that we all get upset with him/her and want to get in our penny’s worth)

    I must say that I honestly seriously doubt data presented from, say, before 1925.
    They could hardly build a car back then.
    Fact is, you could not produce a calibration certificate of a thermometer from back then so I wonder how anyone can think that we really have a basis for “global” temperature from 1880 – 1920.
    It seems our records of the flooding of the Nile (and perhaps other rivers?) are good from before 1925 and this seems to confirm my fit for the drop in maximum temperatures.
    This forms the basis of my belief in a weather cycle of around 90-100 years.
    Before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense they did look in the direction of the planets, to explain this weather cycle, rightly or wrongly.See here.

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    To quote from the above paper:
    A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
    (The 1990 turned out to be 1995 when cooling started, looking at maxima!)
    Indeed, one would expect more condensation (bigger flooding) at the end of a cooling period and minimum flooding at the end of a warm period. This is because when water vapor cools more, it condensates to form more clouds and more water (i.e. more rain).
    Now put my sine wave next to those dates?

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    1900- minimum flooding : end of warming
    1950 – maximum flooding: end of cooling
    1995 – minimum flooding: end of warming

    So far, to explain this for myself, I do not exclude a gravitational or electromagnetic swing/switch that changes the UV coming into earth. In turn this seems to change the chemical reactions of certain chemicals reacting to the UV lying on top of the atmosphere. This change in concentration of chemicals lying on top of us, i.e. O3, HxOx and NxOx, in turn causes more back radiation (when there is more), hence we are now cooling whilst ozone & others are increasing.
    Hope this helps a few people.

  121. Gail Combs says:

    Greg House says:
    November 26, 2012 at 8:47 am
    Gail, I opened the first 5 links you presented and, frankly, I am not surprised: all of them are completely irrelevant, they contain neither description of even a single physical experiment in question nor a link to such an experiment.

    I just hope it was not an act of obfuscation and you simply did not understand the topic.
    _____________________________
    I started with the theoretical physics.

    Here is a description of one of the actual experiments behind the physics: http://www.faqs.org/docs/qp/chap02.html

    What is wrong with Al Gore’s popular schoolroom experiment that was debunked by Anthony:
    American Journal of Physics — May 2010 — Volume 78, Issue 5, pp. 536
    Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics the full PDF

    ABSTRACT
    Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects. A simple analytical model for estimating the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect is presented, and the effect is shown to be very small for most tabletop experiments.

    III. CONCLUSION
    Our results demonstrate that the temperature rise observed in a popular classroom demonstration1 arises not from the radiative greenhouse effect responsible for global warming but primarily from the suppression of convective heat transport between CO2 and air due to the density difference between the two. This density difference, much like the roof of a real greenhouse, suppresses gas mixing at the CO2-air interface and therefore inhibits heat transfer. The magnitude of the radiative effect is more than an order of magnitude smaller and is difficult to demonstrate convincingly. The interpretation of other similar demonstrations2–5 differs in detail, but is subject to the same considerations…
    Although not an accurate demonstration of the physics of climate change, the experiment we have considered and related ones are valuable examples of the dangers of unintentional bias in science, the value of at least a rough quantitative prediction of the expected effect, the importance of considering alternative explanations, and the need for carefully designed experimental controls. Specifically, the use of argon as a test gas is an important supplement to the comparison of air and carbon dioxide because it allows effects due to the higher density of CO2 to be separated from those related to its infrared absorption.

    I have not run the actual experiment so I can not verify the results. Perhaps someone with access to very sensitive thermocouples and a well equipped lab could try several times and report the results.

  122. Gail Combs says:

    I should add: The Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physicsExperiment should be run in an open top box or with a pressure relief valve of some type and measurements of the pressure.

    PV=nRT and all that.

  123. Gail Combs says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    November 26, 2012 at 10:16 am
    ….. Great job of hijacking the thread…..
    _____________________________________
    Bob, you have done such a good job of investigating ENSO there is nothing much to add.
    Loved your WUWT-TV presentation BTW. Renewableguy really needs to watch both your videos.

  124. renewableguy says:

    RHS says:

    November 26, 2012 at 8:35 am

    Renewableguy – Why should anyone believe a model which leaves out water vapor when water vapor has a concentration of 40,000 ppm vs. the CO2 concentration of less than 400 ppm?
    ######################

    Im not aware that water vapor is left out of all models. CO2 is a noncondensing gas while H2O is a condensiing gas. That makes CO2 the driver of the absolute humidity of the atmosphere.

  125. renewableguy says:

    Bob Tisdale says:

    November 26, 2012 at 10:16 am

    renewableguy: Great job of hijacking the thread. Are you aware that people who do what you have done are called trolls?

    Have a nice day, troll.
    ##########################

    This is a good open sight for discussion. Am I hearing from you that you dont want that discussion?

    If you are an open science site for open discussion, then why call people names?

    Why not be the example that you would like SKS to treat your fellow skeptics?

  126. renewableguy says:

    Gail Combs says:

    No, the relationship between the SUN and H2O is the main driver of our climate. Without the sun we are a block of frozen gases. The Milankovitch cycles show the sun’s impact as dependent on the earth’s relative position link The other biggy is the position of the continents. Look up the colliding, of the Pacific Plate and the Caribbean Plate.

    ################################

    Total solar irradiance has mildly decreased while has mildly decreased while temperature has increased. The continetal drift is too slow to be relevent in the last 40 years. The same with milankovitch cycles.

    Table 1: Trends in °C/decade of the signal components due to MEI, AOD and TSI in the regression of global temperature, for each of the five temperature records from 1979 to 2010.

  127. renewableguy says:

    MikeN says:

    November 26, 2012 at 9:56 am

    RenewableGuy, how do you propose to hold warming down to 2C when China and India are adding so many coal plants?
    ###########################

    It appears we will fly right on by it.

    http://trillionthtonne.org/

  128. D Böehm says:

    renewableguy says:

    “Total solar irradiance has mildly decreased while has mildly decreased while temperature has increased.”

    Like the rest of renewableguy’s beliefs, he is wrong. TSI was low during the LIA, and has increased [not "mildly decreased"] since then.

    When you get your misinformation from SkS, count on being proven wrong.

  129. renewableguy says:

    Gail Combs says:

    Then there are the estimates based on OBSERVATION not models:
    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications by Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
    “As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations.”

    ###############################

    If you choose to look at the graph, when Linzens view of climate sensitivity is plugged in, his low climate sensitivity does not reproduce the past instrumental temperature record. It has the worst reproduction of them all even compared to other skeptics.

    Figure 1: Various best estimate global temperature predictions evaluated in the ‘Lessons from Past Climate Predictions’ series vs. GISTEMP (red). The warmer colors are generally mainstream climate science predictions, while the cooler colors are generally “skeptic” predictions.

  130. renewableguy says:

    D Böehm says:

    November 26, 2012 at 11:50 am

    renewableguy says:

    “Total solar irradiance has mildly decreased while has mildly decreased while temperature has increased.”

    Like the rest of renewableguy’s beliefs, he is wrong. TSI was low during the LIA, and has increased [not "mildly decreased"] since then.

    When you get your misinformation from SkS, count on being proven wrong.
    ################################

    I was refering to the last 40 years. At the beginning of the last century the solar activity was a little stronger than it is now.

  131. D Böehm says:

    renewableguy,

    The TSI chart I linked to went from the 1600’s to 2001, which is eleven years ago, not 40 years ago. Your chart doesn’t even start until 1975. I think that is called “cherry-picking”. TSI has been rising since the LIA. You know — when CO2 was much lower.

    And instead of quoting models, you would learn something by looking at the empirical evidence.

    Real world evidence shows that the rise in CO2 is simply coincidental with the recovery from the Little Ice Age. There are no empirical measurements showing that X rise in CO2 causes Y rise in temperature. The only empirical measurements show that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2, not vice versa.

    So who should we believe: Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science? Or the real world, and our lying eyes?

  132. Gail Combs says:

    D Böehm says:
    November 26, 2012 at 11:50 am

    renewableguy says:

    “Total solar irradiance has mildly decreased while has mildly decreased while temperature has increased.”…
    ____________________________________
    And the IPCC has been doing everything they can to hide that fact. SEE: Judithgate

    Do you have any info/paper to go with that graph BTW?

  133. renewableguy says:

    Then there are the estimates based on OBSERVATION not models:
    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications by Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
    “As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations.” link

    ##################################

    There is an inherent level of risk associated with moving forward with enormous amounts of co2 being emitted into the atmosphere. If climate sensitivity runs high, we give our future generations a rough place to live in.

    climate models

    Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

    emperical evidence

    These calculations use data from sources like ice cores, paleoclimate records, ocean heat uptake and solar cycles, to work out how much additional heat the doubling of greenhouse gases will produce. The lowest estimate of warming is close to the models – 1.8°C (3.24°F ) on average – but the upper estimate is a little more consistent, at an average of around 3.5°C (6.3°F).

    These calculations use data from sources like ice cores, paleoclimate records, ocean heat uptake and solar cycles, to work out how much additional heat the doubling of greenhouse gases will produce. The lowest estimate of warming is close to the models – 1.8°C (3.24°F ) on average – but the upper estimate is a little more consistent, at an average of around 3.5°C (6.3°F).

  134. renewableguy says:

    Tom in Indy says:

    November 26, 2012 at 9:34 am

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 7:50 am
    Over 90% of the heat goes into the oceans.

    Then what happens? If AGW assumes nina’s/ninos are white noise, then how does continuous increase in CO2 cause random bursts of global heat over the period 1970 – present?

    If you attribute these bursts of heat during the period to changes in CO2, then shouldn’t each step up in the chart be getting higher and higher? Or, at least the trend in step height be getting higher? 2 of the last 3 steps are shorter than the first
    #####################################

    I have noticed some skeptics believe that its just the El Ninos that warm the earth, when it isn’t really the case. 2011 was the warmest La Nina in the instrumental temperature record. Which to me is an indicator of a warming ocean.

    http://planetsave.com/2012/01/20/2011-hottest-la-nina-year-on-record-eleventh-hottest-overall-noaa/

    They didn’t say this in the article, but I believe it is with removal of different natural variations and this is the warming that is left from all the different temperature records.

  135. James Sexton says:

    @ renewableguy

    I’ve read your amusing banter here. You seem to be missing something important to back up your claims about the recent 15 year plateau in the temps. There are, of course many things to say about the global temp average and it’s usefulness or lack thereof, but putting that aside for now, let’s review the theory.

    Prior to the industrial revolution, the earth was at a supposed quasi equilibrium. According to warmists, as the earth gained atmospheric CO2, the earth warmed, because of it. Temperature, (the measurement of heat transfer) increased because the earth was emitting more IR as a response. This would then be an ever increasing phenomena. What mechanism is described as causing a cessation of increasing of temps against the backdrop of ever increasing aCO2? IR travels at the speed of light, no?

  136. D Böehm says:

    Gail Combs,

    The graph is from here.

    And I see that renewableguy is cherry-picking again, with his chart of temperatures beginning in 1980 [with a real scary y-axis]. This is why he cherry-picked 1980. Look at what happened before then. No global warming.

    Now, I won’t be able to change renewableguy’s mind, which is belief-based and closed airtight. But for other readers, here is a long term trend chart showing that the steady rise in temperatures since the LIA has been quite linear, with no recent acceleration at all. The planet has warmed at the same rate for hundreds of years. It did not matter if CO2 was low, or high: the warming trend has remained the same.

    Inescapable conclusion: any warming due to CO2 is too small to measure, therefore CO2 can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.

  137. Werner Brozek says:

    MikeN says:
    November 26, 2012 at 9:58 am
    So the overall decade of 2000s was warmer than 1990s, with no dropoff in trend.

    Yes, the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, but please look at the following and explain why there is “no dropoff in trend” in the 2000s.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend

  138. Greg House says:

    Greg House says:
    “Gail, I opened the first 5 links you presented and, frankly, I am not surprised: all of them are completely irrelevant, they contain neither description of even a single physical experiment in question nor a link to such an experiment.
    I just hope it was not an act of obfuscation and you simply did not understand the topic.”
    Gail Combs says: “I started with the theoretical physics. [...] I have not run the actual experiment so I can not verify the results. Perhaps someone with access to very sensitive…”
    =====================================================

    which means that you do not know any, and indicates that probably none exists, which means that that your warming “radiative forcing caused by CO2″ is a pure fiction, unproven scientifically.

  139. renewableguy says:

    Gail Combs says:

    We are already seeing a stop in warming in the global sea surface temperatures according to the EPA graph, and the expected El Niño has not developed. The Update prepared by the Climate Prediction Center / NCEP on

    ###############################

    Its such a short time interval, that to say the ocean won’t warm anymore I think is premature.

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html

    Real Climate brings out a study showing the skin effect of heating on the ocean. There is clear evidence that the skin effect helps to heat the oceans.

    Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean

    Filed under: Climate Science
    Greenhouse gases
    Oceans
    — group @ 5 September 2006

    Guest commentary by Peter Minnett (RSMAS)

    Observations of ocean temperatures have revealed that the ocean heat content has been increasing significantly over recent decades (Willis et al, 2004; Levitus et al, 2005; Lyman et al, 2006). This is something that has been predicted by climate models (and confirmed notably by Hansen et al, 2005), and has therefore been described as a ‘smoking gun’ for human-caused greenhouse gases.

    The figure below shows just the signal we are seeking. There is a clear dependence of the skin temperature difference on the net infrared forcing. The net forcing is negative as the effective temperature of the clear and cloudy sky is less than the ocean skin temperature, and it approaches values closer to zero when the sky is cloudy. This corresponds to increased greenhouse gas emission reaching the sea surface.

    Figure 2: The change in the skin temperature to bulk temperature difference as a function of the net longwave radiation.

  140. renewableguy says:

    D Böehm says:

    November 26, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Gail Combs,

    The graph is from here.

    And I see that renewableguy is cherry-picking again, with his chart of temperatures beginning in 1980 [with a real scary y-axis]. This is why he cherry-picked 1980. Look at what happened before then. No global warming.
    #########################
    CO2 has been proven to be the culprit in our warming earth climate. RG
    ##########################
    Now, I won’t be able to change renewableguy’s mind, which is belief-based and closed airtight.
    ####################
    You can convince me with overwhelming evidence. RG
    ####################

    But for other readers, here is a long term trend chart showing that the steady rise in temperatures since the LIA has been quite linear, with no recent acceleration at all. The planet has warmed at the same rate for hundreds of years. It did not matter if CO2 was low, or high: the warming trend has remained the same.
    ############################
    What the sun did 100’s of years ago isn’t relevant to today. The last 40 years the sun has decreased and the temperature has increased. Along with other evidence gathered by science, co2 has been narrowed down by eliminating the other possible causes. RG
    ############################

    Inescapable conclusion: any warming due to CO2 is too small to measure, therefore CO2 can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
    #########################
    You might want to do better than a blog for “Its the sun stupid”. There are satellites that measure the sun’s activity very precisely.
    RG

  141. Matt G says:

    renewableguy says:
    November 25, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    “…. Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]”

    Yes they can indirectly, the warming is wiped out by just decreasing global cloud albedo.

  142. renewableguy says:

    James Sexton says:

    November 26, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    @ renewableguy

    I’ve read your amusing banter here. You seem to be missing something important to back up your claims about the recent 15 year plateau in the temps. There are, of course many things to say about the global temp average and it’s usefulness or lack thereof, but putting that aside for now, let’s review the theory.

    Prior to the industrial revolution, the earth was at a supposed quasi equilibrium. According to warmists, as the earth gained atmospheric CO2, the earth warmed, because of it. Temperature, (the measurement of heat transfer) increased because the earth was emitting more IR as a response.
    ##########################
    With the same or less input from the sun, the co2 slows down the infrared escape causing warming at the earth’s surface. RG
    ########################

    This would then be an ever increasing phenomena. What mechanism is described as causing a cessation of increasing of temps against the backdrop of ever increasing aCO2? IR travels at the speed of light, no?
    #####################
    Its not clear to me why the speed of light is important in this. The simple answer is the heat goes into the oceans. If we were all land, the earth would heat up quite a bit faster. The oceans are the reason for the lag in response to increased co2. RG

  143. renewableguy says:

    Gail Combs says:

    November 26, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    D Böehm says:
    November 26, 2012 at 11:50 am

    renewableguy says:

    “Total solar irradiance has mildly decreased while has mildly decreased while temperature has increased.”…
    ____________________________________
    And the IPCC has been doing everything they can to hide that fact. SEE: Judithgate
    There are lots of crticisms of the report. With about 3000 pages I would imagine there will be errors. Does that change anything about co2 being the main driver of the recent climate change? RG

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

    Do you have any info/paper to go with that graph BTW?

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm

    It appears to be on this page for a link. RG

  144. renewableguy says:

    Matt G says:

    November 26, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    renewableguy says:
    November 25, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    “…. Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]”

    Yes they can indirectly, the warming is wiped out by just decreasing global cloud albedo.
    #################
    Let me help you out with your argument. Decreasing cloud albedo would allow more sunlight in
    to heat up the earth more. Increasing cloud albedo would reflect more sunlight back into space thereby cooling the earth. lol Have a good day. RG
    ##################

  145. D Böehm says:

    renewableguy asserts:

    “CO2 has been proven to be the culprit in our warming earth climate.”

    However, that is a completely baseless assertion. Nothing of the sort has ever been “proven”.

    The global warming trend since the LIA is exactly the same, whether CO2 was 280 ppmv, or 394 ppmv. There is no acceleration of the [completely natural] warming trend. Therefore, CO2 has no measurable effect. None at all.

    RG says: “You can convince me with overwhelming evidence.”

    Absolutely false. I have proven that RG is impervious to logic. That is typical of a religious True Believer. Nothing will convince RG that he worships a false god. Glaciers could once again flow over Chicago a mile thick, and RG would still believe the nonsense that CO2 causes any measurable global warming.

    If RG has any testable, verifiable, empirical evidence showing in a cause and effect manner that a rise in CO2 causes a corresponding rise in temperature, I challenge him to produce it. If there was any such evidence, skeptics would be pounded over the head with it 24/7/365. In fact, there are no testable, verifiable, empirical measurements showing conclusively that X amount of CO2 causes Y rise in global temperature. None — RG’s baseless assertions notwithstanding.

    Next, RG says: “…co2 has been narrowed down by eliminating the other possible causes.”

    Complete nonsense. That is nothing but the old Argumentum ad Ignorantium logical fallacy; the argument from ignorance, so beloved of climate alarmists: “Since I can’t think of any other reason, then it must be because of CO2.” Those ignorant alarmists disregard the oceans, the sun, Milankovitch cycles, albedo, clouds, and many other possible causes, and instead zero in on the one thing that lacks any measurable evidence; CO2. Theirs is religious-based ignorance, and nothing any rational person says will make a dent in RG’s pseudo-scientific True Belief.

    Finally, RG posted a chart that purports to show that declining cloud cover causes global warming. But look closely at the chart. It shows that ∆clouds are the result of ∆T. Strike three.

  146. DWR54 says:

    For Bob Tisdale,

    Re my previous (lost above): since you state that the warming of +0.06 deg C/decade observed between Nov 1994 and Dec 2000 shows “significant warming”, would you also agree that the warming since Jan 1997 – Oct 2012 in HadCRUT4, which shows warming of +0.05 deg C/decade, is also “significant”?

    As you may be aware, there was considerable press coverage lately (including on this site) suggesting that the trend in HadCRUT4 since 1997 was “flat”.

    Perhaps you would comment on why a 73 month period with a +0.06 deg C/decade trend shows “significant warming”, whilst a 188 month period showing a +0.05 deg C/decade is “flat”?

    Thanks.

  147. David L says:

    You can plot a series of random numbers and fit random segments to lines. Guess what? Virtually none will have a slope of exactly zero. Are these guys looking for a completely flat line to prove the climate is in balance? That will never happen. Any series of numbers will have some slope if fit to a line.

  148. Matt G says:

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Wow, you clearly don’t understand the graph and nature of the post.

    What you said is correct, decreasing albedo increases sunlight to the ocean and land surface and in this case is a strawman argument. The graph shows how the removal of global low cloud albedo change removes the warming of the post 1970’s period, understand now?

  149. DWR54 says:

    David L says:

    “Any series of numbers will have some slope if fit to a line.”

    That’s true David. So the questions that should concern us are:

    i) The length of the series of numbers;

    ii) The direction and inclination of the slope.

    Only if we have sufficient numbers and a significant slope based on those can we infer a possible correlation. The WMO recommends 30 years’ continuous surface temperature data as the length of the series of numbers. The direction and inclination of the slope, based on that period, is evident in whatever data set we chose to interrogate.

  150. renewableguy says:

    Matt G says:

    November 26, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Wow, you clearly don’t understand the graph and nature of the post.

    What you said is correct, decreasing albedo increases sunlight to the ocean and land surface and in this case is a strawman argument. The graph shows how the removal of global low cloud albedo change removes the warming of the post 1970′s period, understand now?

    ##############################

    Less albedo is predicted from clouds as the temperatures warm. You are right, I didn’t understand what you were saying.

  151. RoHa says:

    @ Richard Courtney, Gail Combs,

    Thanks for the helpful replies.

  152. renewableguy says:

    D Böehm says:

    November 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    renewableguy asserts:

    “CO2 has been proven to be the culprit in our warming earth climate.”

    However, that is a completely baseless assertion. Nothing of the sort has ever been “proven”.

    The global warming trend since the LIA is exactly the same, whether CO2 was 280 ppmv, or 394 ppmv. There is no acceleration of the [completely natural] warming trend. Therefore, CO2 has no measurable effect. None at all.

    ##########################
    Ignoring what the IPCC says on the matter is significant. How are they all wrong? RG
    ####################
    RG says: “You can convince me with overwhelming evidence.”

    Absolutely false. I have proven that RG is impervious to logic. That is typical of a religious True Believer. Nothing will convince RG that he worships a false god. Glaciers could once again flow over Chicago a mile thick, and RG would still believe the nonsense that CO2 causes any measurable global warming.
    #############################

    So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

    1. These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
    2. The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.
    RG
    #########################################

    If RG has any testable, verifiable, empirical evidence showing in a cause and effect manner that a rise in CO2 causes a corresponding rise in temperature, I challenge him to produce it. If there was any such evidence, skeptics would be pounded over the head with it 24/7/365. In fact, there are no testable, verifiable, empirical measurements showing conclusively that X amount of CO2 causes Y rise in global temperature. None — RG’s baseless assertions notwithstanding.
    ###########################
    For now I’ll let you read it. If you want to further discuss this, I’ll do this in a seperate post.
    ###########################

    Next, RG says: “…co2 has been narrowed down by eliminating the other possible causes.”

    Complete nonsense. That is nothing but the old Argumentum ad Ignorantium logical fallacy; the argument from ignorance, so beloved of climate alarmists: “Since I can’t think of any other reason, then it must be because of CO2.” Those ignorant alarmists disregard the oceans, the sun, Miklanovitch cycles, albedo, clouds, and many other possible causes, and instead zero in on the one thing that lacks any measurable evidence; CO2. Theirs is religious-based ignorance, and nothing any rational person says will make a dent in RG’s pseudo-scientific True Belief.
    ############################
    RG
    co2 has a measured amount of radiative forcing and is at the top of the list of ghg’s that effect our climate. Maybe that’s not good enough for you I suppose. If I’m wrong then so are 98% of the climate scientists.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases

    RG
    Below are the natural mechanisms for variation of cliamte. The IPCC has ruled out these natural changes as the reasons for our climate change temperature. RG

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

    There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.
    ###################################

    Finally, RG posted a chart that purports to show that declining cloud cover causes global warming. But look closely at the chart. It shows that ∆clouds are the result of ∆T. Strike three.
    #####################
    Read my last post
    renewableguy says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    November 26, 2012 at 3:45 pm

  153. renewableguy says:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

    Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?

    The escalator was made in response to the global warming has stopped. Having participated for several years in these kinds of conversations, the global warming has stopped has come up endlessly. The escalator is a great illustrator of that warming does not have a continuous upward slope. THere even may be a slight downward slope for awhile.

  154. Richard M says:

    MikeN says:
    November 26, 2012 at 9:58 am
    RichardM, SkS does not accept that their is a flattening of temperatures.

    I actually don’t think so either. The strong El Niño of 1998 is why people can go back so far and claim no warming. If you treat that as an outlier then the warming likely continued until 2005 or 2006. At that point it start cooling. The El Niño of 2010 happens to disguise the cooling in the same manner as the 1998 one did for warming. So, if one again treats that as an outlier we have warming until 2006 and then cooling. Hence, temps are not flat, they are cooling.

    Interestingly, this matches the PDO perfectly and nothing else is required to explain temps for the last 100 years. I won’t even bring up the cooling adjustments to historical temps that are likely too large, or the stronger Sun of the 20th century. The bottom line is there was probably a little warming during the last 2 warm phases of the PDO with slightly less cooling during the cool phases.

    Don’t even get me started on climate models. They are worthless for any big picture stuff.

    And, until climate science starts looking at the cooling effect of GHGs they will forever look like 2nd rate scientists.

  155. markx says:

    Gee Bob,

    I’m about as Skeptical as the next man, and usually admire your work.

    But all this fuss about one slightly crooked step in an upward series of steps?

    http://i46.tinypic.com/2gyd91g.jpg still looks like a staircase to me, albeit a roughly built one.

  156. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says: @ November 26, 2012 at 12:13 pm
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    First have you watched Bob’s videos? He explains ENSO very well so they are well worth watching
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    …There is an inherent level of risk associated with moving forward with enormous amounts of co2 being emitted into the atmosphere….
    _________________________________
    No there is not. The log curve shows we are at the point of vastly diminishing returns, C3 plants are no longer on the verge of starvation. Heat is uncomfortable but COLDS KILLS! Also based on the past history of earth and the Milankovitch cycles, Solar Insolation is already low enough to trigger glacial onset. For the last 8,000 years, the Earth has been cooling at 0.25°C per thousand years. See In defense of Milankovitch

    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception

    Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….

    In otherwords CO2 is PREVENTING the onset of the next ice age according to Ruddiman.

    Even Joe Romm over at Climate Progress at one time stated:
    Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds

    A new paper from Markonis and Koutsoyiannis shows orbital forcings signal in proxy and instrumental records: WUWT discussion

    Vostok graph:Temp, CO2, CH4, O18 & solar Insolation (present on left) Note Insolation, the bottom brown curve is headed DOWN.

    Insolation past million years (present on right)

    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

    …..Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present… As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent…

    Woods Hole Observatory: Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried?

    Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth vs climate can shift gears within a decade, establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades to centuries. In addition, these climate shifts do not necessarily have universal, global effects. They can generate a counterintuitive scenario: Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates.

    This new paradigm of abrupt climate change has been well established over the last decade by research of ocean, earth and atmosphere scientists at many institutions worldwide. But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.

    Solar activity reaches new high – Dec 2, 2003

    …Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years. Ilya Usoskin and colleagues at the University of Oulu and the Max-Planck Institute for Aeronomy say that their technique – which relies on a radioactive dating technique – is the first direct quantitative reconstruction of solar activity based on physical, rather than statistical, models (I G Usoskin et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 211101)

    … the Finnish team was able to extend data on solar activity back to 850 AD. The researchers found that there has been a sharp increase in the number of sunspots since the beginning of the 20th century. They calculated that the average number was about 30 per year between 850 and 1900, and then increased to 60 between 1900 and 1944, and is now at its highest ever value of 76.

    Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

    “This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University’s Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

    In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA’s ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM ‘gap.’ Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.

    NASA’s ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 experiment began in 2000 and will extend the long-term solar observations into the future for at least a five-year minimum mission. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html

    The Role of Solar Activity on Holocene Glacier Length Variability in the swiss Alps Hormes, A., Beer, J. and Schlüchter, C., 2006: A geochronological approach to understanding the role of solar activity on Holocene glacier length variability in the Swiss Alps. Geogr. Ann., 88 A (4): 281–294.

  157. Werner Brozek says:

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    None of the above. It depends on the data set, but on three data sets below, it is sometime in 1997 that the slope is 0 for all practical purposes. (It is actually very slightly negative so no one can accuse me of stretching the truth.)

    1. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
    2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
    3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 10 months (goes to October)

    See the graph below to show it all.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/rss/from:1997.0/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1

  158. D Böehm says:

    RG says:

    “Ignoring what the IPCC says on the matter is significant. How are they all wrong?”

    Another assertion, and an appeal to an authority that has been shown to be consistently wrong.

    Next, RG says: “The IPCC has ruled …” Enough with the nonsense. The IPCC cannot ‘rule’ on science. They have been shown to be consistently wrong. “ruled”, heh. As if.

    The entire CO2=CAGW scare is based on evidence-free assertions. There are no empirical measurements showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. None. The only real world evidence shows exactly the opposite relationship.

    As usual, RG cannot produce any testable measurements that support his belief system. If something can’t be measured, it is nothing but a conjecture; a belief-based opinion. An evidence-free assertion. That works fine at pseudo-science blogs like SkS and RealClimate. But it fails at the internet’s “Best Science” site. What RG is peddling here is his belief.

    Wake up, RG. The UN/IPCC is running a scam. And credulous believers like you are falling for it. They even admit it:

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”
    ~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC, WG-3

  159. Gail Combs says:

    D Böehm says:
    November 26, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    ….The planet has warmed at the same rate for hundreds of years.
    ____________________________
    And that is of course the key. As Gerald Roe and Nigel Calder have pointed out it is the CHANGE in the rate of change that is the critical parameter. As Mr Calder put it

    The reason for my chuckles is that the “change in perspective” that Roe adopts was available more than 30 years earlier in the first formal verification of Milankovitch, which I published in Nature in 1974. Using a pocket calculator, I simply assumed that the rate of change in global ice volume per thousand years was proportional to the difference between the summer sunshine at a high-ish northerly latitude and a level of sunshine at which the ice neither advances or retreats.

    http://calderup.wordpress.com/tag/lubos-motl/

    And so far we have had a 15 year change in the rate of change and the expected El Niño has fizzled into a neutral expected to last all winter.

  160. David A. Evans says:

    I’m actually curious as to how Bob can provide error bounds when the only data he has to work with has none.

    Any answers KR?

    DaveE.

  161. Gail Combs says:

    Greg House says:
    November 26, 2012 at 1:20 pm
    ….which means that you do not know any, and indicates that probably none exists, which means that that your warming “radiative forcing caused by CO2″ is a pure fiction, unproven scientifically.
    ___________________________________
    No it means I no longer have access to a lab to verify an EXPERIMENT THAT HAS BEEN PERFORMED by others. If you want to verify the experiment there it is all nicely written-up. All you have to do is shell out the money for the gases, pyrometers, and other equipment.

    Please let us know how the result come out.

  162. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Its such a short time interval, that to say the ocean won’t warm anymore I think is premature…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    There are several factors that seem to indicate a shift change in the weather patterns. The 15 year halt in SST is just one of them.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Real Climate brings out a study showing the skin effect of heating on the ocean. There is clear evidence that the skin effect helps to heat the oceans.

    That is absolutely hilarious. 400 ppm of a gas vs zillions of gallons of water covering 70% of the earth – it brings to mind Bambi Meets Godzilla

    Have you ever bothered to look at the relative energy of the sun’s spectrum vs the earth’s? graph or WHAT wavelengths the majority of the energy radiates? graph

    And while you are at it read: THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

  163. Camburn says:

    SS has an agenda that is not backed by science, but rather by wishful thinking.

    They have this great propensity to change posts, to then ban all posts that are backed by published literature.

    I have been there, watched, was banned. Even tho my posts were linked to published literature, it did not fit the political agenda.

    Anyone who goes to SS for information is doomed to failure and certainly has no understanding of the dynamics of climate.

  164. renewableguy says:

    Werner Brozek says:

    November 26, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    None of the above. It depends on the data set, but on three data sets below, it is sometime in 1997 that the slope is 0 for all practical purposes. (It is actually very slightly negative so no one can accuse me of stretching the truth.)

    1. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
    2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
    3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 10 months (goes to October)

    See the graph below to show it all.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997

    #################################
    15 years is to short a time actually. Notice the high uncertainty. And yet overall the temperature data bases show warming.

    all of them are 1997 to 2012

    GISS 1997 to 2012
    Trend: 0.92 ±1.40 °C/century (2σ)
    NOAA
    Trend: 0.49 ±1.32 °C/century (2σ)
    Hadcrut3
    Trend: 0.12 ±1.42 °C/century (2σ)
    Hadcrut4
    Trend: 0.58 ±1.36 °C/century (2σ)
    Best Land only
    Trend: 1.82 ±2.43 °C/century (2σ)
    NOAA land only
    Trend: 1.54 ±2.21 °C/century (2σ)
    RSS
    Trend: 0.06 ±2.49 °C/century (2σ)
    UAH
    Trend: 1.06 ±2.52 °C/century (2σ)

    Trend: 1.06 ±2.52 °C/century (2σ)
    Trend: 1.06 ±2.52 °C/century (2σ)

  165. renewableguy says:

    CO2 is significant enough that we will miss the next ice age. enough more and we will completely deglaciate the earth.

    Figure 3 examines the climate response to various CO2 emission scenarios. The green line is the natural response without CO2 emissions. Blue represents an anthropogenic release of 300 gigatonnes of carbon – we have already passed this mark. Release of 1000 gigatonnes of carbon (orange line) would prevent an ice age for 130,000 years. If anthropogenic carbon release were 5000 gigatonnes or more, glaciation will be avoided for at least half a million years. As things stand now, the combination of relatively weak orbital forcing and the long atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is likely to generate a longer interglacial period than has been seen in the last 2.6 million years.

  166. D Böehm says:

    renewableguy,

    Who are you trying to convince with your assertions? The relationship between CO2 and temperature is not what you believe it to be. And the UN/IPCC has been flat wrong.

    Really, you are arguing like a Jehovah’s Witness. Scientific observations falsify your beliefs, but you don’t give up, do you? Religious believers are like that. Facts don’t matter; emotion is everything.

  167. Gail Combs says:

    You can convince me with overwhelming evidence. RG
    ____________________________
    I sure hope you are young because I am fairly sure Mother Nature has some very nasty surprises in store after the next few decades and that way you will have plenty of time to change your mind. China and India will survive because they are practical. The west, unless it gets its act together and quits trying to milk all the wealth out of the middle class with the CAGW con is in for a very nasty time. Thanks to the utter stupidity of politicians we now have no strategic grain reserves in the USA. The EPA wants to shut down 42% of our electrical supply. We have little manufacturing left and enormous debt. The UK already has 70% of their population suffering from fuel poverty and thousands of extra deaths each winter as a result. All it is going to take for some major world crisis is really cold weather and failed crops.

    I suggest you look up Dansgaard-Oeschger Event, Heinrich Event, Bond Event, and “1/2 Bond Event” Oh, and do not forget to include the social collapse and famine that follow.

    It is not warm temperatures that are a problem but cold and history proves it.

  168. Werner Brozek says:

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    Thank you. So within the error bars, every single one of the data sets could be 0 since 1997. Perhaps the world should wait a few more years before spending a huge amount of money that may not be necessary. Sixteen years of no change is not something that should be ignored, especially since no model predicted it.

  169. KR says:

    David A. Evans“I’m actually curious as to how Bob can provide error bounds when the only data he has to work with has none.”

    By examining the residuals of whatever fit is applied (linear, stepped, etc.) against various noise models.

    White noise isn’t a good estimate – temperatures in successive months are highly autocorrelated with each other (if one month is high/low wrt averages, the next month is likely to be high/low as well). One of the simplest models is a first-order autoregressive, AR(1), where autocorrelation at lag “j” is p(j) = phi(j), with “phi equal to the autocorrelation coefficient.

    Temperature data residuals, however, don’t fit a simple AR(1) model very well (more autocorrelation than predicted by the AR(1) model) – an ARMA(1,1) model seems to be much better (http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~bb/TS_Chapter4_6.pdf). At the core, however, the noise estimation is found from the residuals of an arbitrary fit to the data, encompassing the random variation around trends.

    Noise estimations will be roughly identical regardless of linear, polynomial, or step fits – the variations around that. As long as the residuals have an approximately normal distribution your fit is sufficient to estimate the noise model.

    Another basic method is to look at the standard deviation of the values for temperature, and to draw a cut-off for significance relative to the stabilization of that standard deviation with increasing time periods. For GISTEMP the standard deviation stabilizes at ~43 years (http://bartonpaullevenson.com/30Years.html) – the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) long ago chose 30 years as sufficient relative to the standard deviation of the noise (it’s dropped enough) to actually pick a trend.

    Identifying the noise allows you to estimate the likelihood of finding a particular trend due to _noise_ rather than signal, a random fit to variations. Short periods with less trend mixed in with the noise are less certain (in identifying the trend) than longer periods.

    It’s also worth looking at the Akaike information criterion (AIC) for the fit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion) – the more parameters you are trying to fit, the higher the uncertainty of that fit. This is basically an Occams razor measure – more complex models require more data to be certain of. In that respect I’ll just point out that the AIC of a linear fit is much lower, and therefore more certain, than a multi-step fit with numerous parameters for each linear segment and their change points.

  170. Werner Brozek says:

    Camburn says:
    November 26, 2012 at 6:33 pm
    Anyone who goes to SS for information is doomed to failure and certainly has no understanding of the dynamics of climate.

    They seem to have some company!

    See: http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/71-the-courts-hans-jelbring-and-the-kiwis-bring-joy-for-greenhouse-gas-deniers.html

    “Weaver, the IPCC’s chief climate modeler, has fallen foul of court rules because he, just like Mann, has been timed out for failing to advance his case since since it was filed in February 2011. This boils down to a bizarre refusal to comply with court rules to show what’s behind his science.”

  171. Greg House says:

    Gail Combs says:
    November 26, 2012 at 5:59 pm
    “No it means I no longer have access to a lab to verify an EXPERIMENT THAT HAS BEEN PERFORMED by others. If you want to verify the experiment there it is all nicely written-up. All you have to do is shell out the money for the gases, pyrometers, and other equipment.”
    ==========================================================

    You have neither presented a description of a scientific physical experiment proving CO2 causing warming nor a link to it, so you apparently have nothing. Zero. Exactly like other warmists I talked to on various blogs.

    Your “radiative forcing of CO2″ is apparently a fiction. No, wait, CO2 does block some portion of solar IR thus contributing to COOLING, so it can indeed be seen as a “cooling forcing”, but apparently no way it’s “back radiation” can warm a warmer Earth surface.

  172. James Sexton says:

    @ renewable guy

    In response to my query you wrote,

    With the same or less input from the sun, the co2 slows down the infrared escape causing warming at the earth’s surface. RG

    Are you saying the sun’s variance causes temp fluctuations?

    Further, you write,

    Its not clear to me why the speed of light is important in this. The simple answer is the heat goes into the oceans. If we were all land, the earth would heat up quite a bit faster. The oceans are the reason for the lag in response to increased co2. RG

    The two statements are interesting. Most warmist literature I’ve read consider the energy from the sun as relatively constant. As to the oceans, once it starts emitting more energy, what causes it to stop and then start absorbing more?

    The idea that the earth calls a “time out” and takes a break without an adequate description of the mechanism can be regarded as nothing more than a convenient fiction.

    The speed of light is important because …. once the quasi equilibrium was established, the earth’s IR emissions increases. It wouldn’t decrease if the CO2 was sending all that energy back to the earth. It would constantly increase. Think about it for a minute, instead of regurgitating inanities.

  173. Alex Heyworth says:

    The escalator analogy is a more revealing one than SkS are probably aware. If you stay on the escalator (as for example a particle of dirt might) you always end up back where you started. In fact you (almost) endlessly cycle up and down.

    It is only by stepping off the escalator that you can escape this cycling.

  174. Venter says:

    One more ” slayer “, Greg House is back again with his no back radiation nonsense. Mods, can we put a stop to these kind of posts from the slayers?

    [then who would be next and where do we stop? You are not forced to respond to his or any post and we are tolerant of opinions here . . mod]

  175. HenryP says:

    Alex Heyworth says
    It is only by stepping off the escalator that you can escape this cycling.
    Henry says
    true. that was funny. pity renewable guy has gone asleep now.
    But fun aside,
    here are some graphs that put our current cycle on a wider scale:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    people like renewable guy don’t want to look further than their noses.
    within this, looking at energy-in, as it happened over the past 40 years, I predict temperatures to be falling, with more wind, more storms and more snow, and more extreme cold.
    This is because according to my calculations we are now near the bottom of the 90-100 year weather cycle.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    So some climate change is indeed happening, but it is as a result of (natural) cooling.
    The polar-equatorial differential is now increasing and “the weather” is trying to equalize this.
    This is one of th reasons we are all alive today: the whole weather systme protects us from extreme temperatures. Nevertheless, the deep fall in maxima still looks a bit frightening. But if you count back 90 years, you realize soon that we have been there before.

  176. trafamadore says:

    Tisdale: “The intent of the animation is to show that global temperature anomalies can flatten or cool over decadal or shorter periods while warming over the long term.”

    Really? Really?

    You lost me right there in the first para. Actually, people should go read the original, the animation was to show the error of cherry picking time intervals and confusing noise with reality. While the original post was more tongue-in-cheek than a real scientific article–after all, it was “published” on the internet, right?–it was pretty funny and it made its point clearly.

    That someone would actually try to answer it with real criticism is sort of cute (in a sad way), but I thought that made the response almost more humorous than the original article. Too bad it was not written in a more straightforward way so more people could appreciate it.

    -T

    PS You guys should really stop changing the data sets every paragraph, you start to look like used car salesmen. Stick with one and make your point. Sheesh.

  177. Bob Tisdale says:

    markx says: “But all this fuss about one slightly crooked step in an upward series of steps? http://i46.tinypic.com/2gyd91g.jpg still looks like a staircase to me, albeit a roughly built one.”

    markx, I found it entertaining for a couple of reasons. First, SkS had to misrepresent one of the trends in order to make the graphic work. There were other options. Second, no other visitors to SkS bothered to check the trends; that is, they all assumed the Escalator was correct—just like climate science in general, assuming everything they’re fed is correct. Third, I wanted to see how they would react—and as opposed to noting the error and correcting the problem, one of their regular authors elected to stop by my website and tell me how I missed the point of the Escalator in a drawn out comment:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/skepticalscience-misrepresents-their-animation-the-escalator/#comment-6490

  178. Bob Tisdale says:

    DWR54: Sorry I didn’t respond to your earlier comment, but you’ve in effect answered your own question, so I figured it was rhetorical.

  179. Bob Tisdale says:

    renewableguy says: “If you are an open science site for open discussion, then why call people names?”

    There was no name calling involved. The definition fits:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

    BTW, the hypothesis of AGW is fatally flawed. There is nothing in the satellite era sea surface temperature records or in the Ocean Heat Content records that indicate greenhouse gases had any influence on the warming.

    Adios!

  180. Bob Tisdale says:

    Gail Combs says: “Bob, you have done such a good job of investigating ENSO there is nothing much to add.”

    Thanks, Gail.

  181. izen says:

    Bad case of irony bypass going on here.
    The SKS graph is a SATIRICAL parody of the sort of cherry picking and short-period manipulation of data that is rife among those motivated to reject the science.
    That one step is inaccurately calculated or labeled just makes it a more accurate parody….

  182. richardscourtney says:

    renewableguy:

    Although you have snowed this thread with nonsense, you make a sensible post at November 26, 2012 at 4:56 pm where (although you link to a climate porn site) you write in total

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

    Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?

    The escalator was made in response to the global warming has stopped. Having participated for several years in these kinds of conversations, the global warming has stopped has come up endlessly. The escalator is a great illustrator of that warming does not have a continuous upward slope. THere even may be a slight downward slope for awhile.

    Yes, as you say, the “escalator was made” as pure, misleading propaganda.

    The falsehood of the escalator is explained in my post above at November 26, 2012 at 2:46 am.

    Richard

  183. richardscourtney says:

    trafamadore:

    Thankyou for emphasising my point as you do in your post at November 26, 2012 at 10:05 pm. You write there saying

    Tisdale: “The intent of the animation is to show that global temperature anomalies can flatten or cool over decadal or shorter periods while warming over the long term.”

    Really? Really?

    You lost me right there in the first para. Actually, people should go read the original, the animation was to show the error of cherry picking time intervals and confusing noise with reality. While the original post was more tongue-in-cheek than a real scientific article–after all, it was “published” on the internet, right?–it was pretty funny and it made its point clearly.

    Yes, as you say, the escalator is pure, misleading propaganda concerning “noise” and “reality”.

    This falsehood of the escalator is explained in my post above at November 26, 2012 at 2:46 am.

    Richard

  184. Douglas Hollis says:

    Greg House: You have neither presented a description of a scientific physical experiment proving CO2 causing warming nor a link to it, so you apparently have nothing. Zero. Exactly like other warmists I talked to on various blogs.

    Hmm. Would this perhaps suffice?

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

  185. Douglas Hollis says:

    I am still trying to understand the purpose of this article? The escalator graph employed by SS was, in my opinion, merely a tool for helping us folk (who generally believe in the findings of mainstream science) to understand the rationale of those who would claim (contrary to the observed data) that the global warming has stopped since 1998 (or 2005, or 2010, depending on the angle used). The graph, therefore, is for illustrative purposes only. The real graph (which ironically I haven’t seen anywhere on this page), shows a consistent warming trend. Which is exactly as it should be, given that 11 of the top 12 hottest years on record occurred post-2000, with both 2005 and 2010 surpassing 1998. The point SS tried to make was 1) that cherry-picked data could be used to say just about anything, and 2) the earth is still warming merrily. And I think it’s a point well made.

  186. HenryP says:

    Douglas Hollis says
    ….to understand the rationale of those who would claim (contrary to the observed data)
    Henry@Douglas
    Truth is that most global data sets including my own show a peak at 1998 and subsequently, a downward trend from the beginning of this century.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend

    In my own data set I included maxima as well which gives us a sense of energy-in. Of these measurements I analysed about 650000 daily data from 47 weather stations from 1974. Clearly, I found a change of sign in 1995, from warming to cooling.. Obviously there is a bit of a difference between energy-in and energy-out, hence the difference between 1995 and 1998. Further to this the best fit I can find for the drop in maximum temperatures is given here

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    You cannot “cherry pick” so many daily data and come up with a curve that looks as though somebody has thrown me a ball. In fact, I hope that the sine wave is correct, because if the curve is binomial the expected drop in maxima will be a lot more.
    So some climate change is indeed happening, but it is as a result of (natural) cooling.
    The polar-equatorial differential is now increasing and “the weather” is trying to equalize this.
    This is one of the reasons we are all alive today: the whole weather system protects us from extreme temperatures. Nevertheless, the steep fall in maxima still looks a bit frightening. But if you count back 90 years, you realize soon that we have been here before. But be prepared for wetter, snowier, cooler and more windy weather, with the occasional bad storm.

  187. richardscourtney says:

    izen:

    Your post at November 27, 2012 at 3:14 am says in total

    Bad case of irony bypass going on here.
    The SKS graph is a SATIRICAL parody of the sort of cherry picking and short-period manipulation of data that is rife among those motivated to reject the science.
    That one step is inaccurately calculated or labeled just makes it a more accurate parody….

    NO!
    The “SKS graph” is false and misleading propaganda.
    Bob Tisdale called them on it.
    Now it has been discredited, you try to pretend it was “a SATIRICAL parody”.

    The only “irony” is that you probably wrote your silly post because you believe what you have written following convincing yourself that the propaganda was presented as a joke.

    Richard

  188. richardscourtney says:

    Douglas Hollis:

    At November 27, 2012 at 3:51 am you say in total

    I am still trying to understand the purpose of this article? The escalator graph employed by SS was, in my opinion, merely a tool for helping us folk (who generally believe in the findings of mainstream science) to understand the rationale of those who would claim (contrary to the observed data) that the global warming has stopped since 1998 (or 2005, or 2010, depending on the angle used). The graph, therefore, is for illustrative purposes only. The real graph (which ironically I haven’t seen anywhere on this page), shows a consistent warming trend. Which is exactly as it should be, given that 11 of the top 12 hottest years on record occurred post-2000, with both 2005 and 2010 surpassing 1998. The point SS tried to make was 1) that cherry-picked data could be used to say just about anything, and 2) the earth is still warming merrily. And I think it’s a point well made.

    That seems to be the classical ‘Fifth Column’ ploy: i.e. subverting a ‘side’ from within.

    The data DOES show stasis for more than the last 15 years.

    You present a blatant falsehood when you say,
    “The real graph (which ironically I haven’t seen anywhere on this page), shows a consistent warming trend.”
    The facts were listed by Werner Brozek in his post at November 26, 2012 at 5:39 pm. To save people needing to find it, I quote it here

    renewableguy says:
    November 26, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
    None of the above. It depends on the data set, but on three data sets below, it is sometime in 1997 that the slope is 0 for all practical purposes. (It is actually very slightly negative so no one can accuse me of stretching the truth.)

    1. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
    2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
    3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 10 months (goes to October)

    See the graph below to show it all.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/rss/from:1997.0/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1

    Stasis of this length is statistically significant and, therefore, you again provide a falsehood when you extend your assertion saying;
    “The real graph (which ironically I haven’t seen anywhere on this page), shows a consistent warming trend. Which is exactly as it should be, given that 11 of the top 12 hottest years on record occurred post-2000, with both 2005 and 2010 surpassing 1998.”

    A person who climbs a hill remains at his greatest elevation when walking across the plateau at its top. Similarly, the global temperature rise before 2000 has stopped but global temperature is still high so the hottest years are recent.

    In my post at November 26, 2012 at 2:46 am, I explain the true importance of the recent stasis and why SkS are attempting to pretend earlier – but shorter – periods are similar to the recent stasis.

    So, the “point” SkS tried to make was misleading propaganda. Therefore, I conclude that your claiming it is a “point well made” is an assertion that misleading the public is something with which you agree.

    Richard

  189. Kristian says:

    KR says in response to David A. Evans (“I’m actually curious as to how Bob can provide error bounds when the only data he has to work with has none.”):

    “By examining the residuals of whatever fit is applied (linear, stepped, etc.) against various noise models.”

    Why this endless obsession with statistical analysis when you have perfectly reliable and comprehensive data from the real world right in front of you? Why not just look at the data? “We do not have to model what we can see. No statistical test is needed to say whether the data has changed. We can just look.” (William M. Briggs) That’s what Bob’s doing – he’s looking at the data. He’s letting the data tell the story. He’s not telling the story first and then manipulating the data (statistically) afterwards to fit the story. Only when the data doesn’t show what you want it to show (for example an anthropogenic signal), you start modelling (employing your preconcluded assumptions) and applying statistical tests ad absurdum.

  190. trafamadore says:

    BTW: Did I miss somewhere in your post where you attempted to contact SkS and find out the _exact_ data set they used? Or suggest a mistake was made? I know they mentioned the rough intervals they used, but I also know that adding or pulling a single point at the ends of an regression can markedly change the slope.

    Given that you are already so close to replicating their “results”, couldn’t that could be the simple explanation for the differences rather than accusing them of misleading the public?

    You don’t even seem to consider it. Why?

  191. richardscourtney says:

    trafamadore:

    At November 27, 2012 at 7:57 am you ask Bob Tisdale:

    BTW: Did I miss somewhere in your post where you attempted to contact SkS and find out the _exact_ data set they used? Or suggest a mistake was made? I know they mentioned the rough intervals they used, but I also know that adding or pulling a single point at the ends of an regression can markedly change the slope.

    Given that you are already so close to replicating their “results”, couldn’t that could be the simple explanation for the differences rather than accusing them of misleading the public?

    You don’t even seem to consider it. Why?

    Given that it is possible to bake a Christmas cake in your kitchen, couldn’t that could be the simple explanation of what a known burglar is doining your kitchen rather than accusing him of trying to steal something?

    You don’t even seem to consider it. Why?

    Richard

  192. Greg House says:

    Venter says: “One more ” slayer “, Greg House is back again with his no back radiation nonsense. Mods, can we put a stop to these kind of posts from the slayers?

    [then who would be next and where do we stop? You are not forced to respond to his or any post and we are tolerant of opinions here . . mod]”
    ==========================================================

    Thank you, mod, and please note that I have never said “there is no back radiation”.

    My point is that the alleged warming (or slowing cooling down) effect of “back radiation” has never been proven even by a single scientific physical experiment, hence it should be considered as a pure fiction and not as a scientific fact. Sounds logical to me: no proof = fiction (assumption, conjecture, whatever), but not fact. In other words, I do not question the existence of this back radiation, but I do question the alleged effect.

    At the very moment such a valid experimental proof has been presented I will change my opinion and congratulate warmists, because then this fiction would become science. I am completely open to any outcome.

    It would be nice, if my opponents could refrain from distorting this simple point of mine, thanks in advance.

  193. Douglas Hollis says:

    Wait…let me get this straight. Is anyone on here seriously contending that there’s been no warming since 1998? First of all, I think it’s disingenuous to pick the 3rd hottest year on record for the starting point of such an argument. Also, both 2010 and 2005 were warmer than 1998, while the decade 2000-2009 was the single hottest decade on record! Have I missed something? Sure, it could be argued that the rate of warming has slowed down, but surely it would be demonstrably false and misleading to claim the earth has somehow begun cooling down. If you look at the longer term trends, you’ll find that between 1979 and 2012 the earth has been heating up, on average, by 0.16 deg C.

    See also this statement by the Met Office: “Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.”

    Could someone perhaps provide more insight on the above?

  194. D Böehm says:

    Douglas Hollis says:

    “Is anyone on here seriously contending that there’s been no warming since 1998?”

    See for yourself.

    Depending on your time frame, global warming has occurred since the Little Ice Age. But it regularly pauses, with no regard to aerosols, CO2, soot, or similar factors. In other words, “carbon” has no measurable effect. Can you follow that logic?

    Further, if we look back hundreds of years we see that global warming has to be entirely natural, because the long term warming trend has been the same, whether CO2 was low, or high — proving that CO2 makes no measurable difference to the planet’s temperature.

    The entire “carbon” scare is a false alarm. I trust you can understand that now.

  195. Werner Brozek says:

    Douglas Hollis says:
    November 27, 2012 at 10:41 am
    Also, both 2010 and 2005 were warmer than 1998, while the decade 2000-2009 was the single hottest decade on record! Have I missed something?

    Four data sets show that 1998 still has the record, however if you wish to use GISS and you want us to avoid 1998, no problem. There is one thing you are missing and I have to say that a large number of people are missing this point, namely that being hot is NOT the same as warming. For the GISS record, the last 11 years and 8 months have been hot, but warming has STOPPED as shown below.

    GISS: No warming since March 2001 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to October) See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001.1/plot/gistemp/from:2001.1/trend

  196. Richard M says:

    I find it humorous that the true believers like Douglas Hollis have all migrated to the GISS fantasy. They are desperate.

    The fact is the only reason people think it’s warm now is because of adjustments. And, it’s likely the biggest problem with temperature data is they are too high now due to UHI and site problems. With proper adjustments the 1930s were probably warmer than now.

    Let’s face it. The scientists put the horse before the cart. They started trumping catastrophic warming before the science was understood. That forced them to save face with silly adjustments that essentially claim people were too stupid to read thermometers. Absolute nonsense proving once again you can fool some of the people all of the time.

  197. Greg House says:

    Greg House says: “You have neither presented a description of a scientific physical experiment proving CO2 causing warming nor a link to it, so you apparently have nothing. Zero. Exactly like other warmists I talked to on various blogs.”
    Douglas Hollis says: “Hmm. Would this perhaps suffice?
    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

    =============================================================

    No, it would not, because it misses the point. The alleged “greenhouse effect” should work through it’s “back radiation”, according to the IPCC. CO2 absorbing and emitting IR is not what I question, but the warming effect of this back radiation on the warmer surface is.

  198. MattS says:

    @ Greg House,

    I can think of an experiment to measure if back radiation can have any effect, though I don’t know if it has ever been attempted. Note: I don’t have the equipment to do this.

    Heat a plate of metal to some temp x. Place it in a vacuum chamber and measure the rate at which it cools. In a vacuum chamber the only cooling can be from radiative heat loss.

    Then take two metal plates, heat one to temp x and the other to temp x/2.

    Place both plates into a vacuum chamber in close proximity but not touching. If the plate heated to temp x takes longer to cool than in the first test then the IR radiation from the second cooler plate is having an effect on the first plate.

    Does anyone on this blog have the equipment to actually try this?

  199. Gail Combs says:

    HenryP says:
    November 26, 2012 at 9:53 pm
    …I predict temperatures to be falling, with more wind, more storms and more snow, and more extreme cold….
    _________________________________________
    Seems New York City is about to get another snow storm, the second in November. This has not happened in 74 years. link and it looks like they did get light snow (trace) between noon and 4 PM and are calling for more snow tonight. link

    I wonder if this will be called “Dirty Weather” on the TV tonight in NYC?

    And back in January 27, 2011

    New York City and Philadelphia are just two of the communities across the mid-Atlantic that broke daily snowfall records on Wednesday. For a more elite group that includes New York City, this month is now the snowiest January in history. http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/snowstorm-shatters-new-york-ci/44999

    It will be cold enough to snow here tomorrow night in mid NC (23F the normal low is 38F) but the rain is moving out before it hits the low temps… I hope. It has been a dry cold November with most nights at freezing and below. I want some global warming I’m freezing.

  200. Gail Combs says:

    Greg House says:
    November 26, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    …You have neither presented a description of a scientific physical experiment proving CO2 causing warming nor a link to it, so you apparently have nothing. Zero. Exactly like other warmists I talked to on various blogs….
    ________________________________________
    I am no ‘warmist.’ I think CAGW is a crock but I know enough to pick my fights. CO2 absorbing IR is a fact. IR is energy and energy can be turned into heat. The atom bomb proved that. However when someone wants to take those facts and say that 400 ppm of CO2 can warm the oceans I am going to laugh in his face.

  201. D Böehm says:

    Douglas Hollis,

    As Werner Brozek points out above, it is not necessary to use a 1998 start date to see global cooling. Here is a chart using a 2002 start date.

    The question that is never answered by any member of the alarmist religion is this: how many years of global cooling will it take for you to admit you were wrong about AGW? We’re currently at about fifteen years of global cooling. So, care to answer that question? Take a stand. Give us a number, instead of pushing the goal posts into the next county.

    It is past time to admit that even if AGW exists [which it may, or may not], it’s effect is too minuscule to even measure, and is swamped by natural effects. The planet itself is debunking your belief that AGW matters. If it exists it is too small to matter. The planet is saying so.

    Any honest scientist would have admitted by now that there is something fundamentally wrong with the CO2=AGW conjecture — including the major problem that there is not a shred of empirical evidence supporting it. There are no verifiable, testable measurements showing a cause-and-effect relationship between human CO2 emissions and global warming. It is simply an evidence-free conjecture. And it is getting long in the tooth.

  202. phlogiston says:

    KR

    So according to your new climate statistics, I guess you also consider the following as noise:

    Day and night (it has been anecdotally observed by some that there is a nonrandom distribution of dark and light over 24 hour periods – but yes, I guess this could be noise)

    Winter and summer

    High and low tide

    ENSO

    Interglacials and ice ages

    The heart beat

    The radio signal from a Quasar

    Breathing in and out

    Wow – sure looks like you’ve found a new science of everything! Seeing a cycle in anything just means your not good enough at approved statistics.

  203. Gail Combs says:

    izen says:
    November 27, 2012 at 3:14 am
    ….. short-period manipulation of data that is rife among those motivated to reject the science.
    ________________________________
    ROTFLMAO, Oh that is really really rich.

    Words fail so I will link to Lucy’s OLD comment on CAGW from several years ago link

    Anthony that has got to be the quote of the week.

  204. Gail Combs says:

    Douglas Hollis says:
    November 27, 2012 at 3:51 am
    ….The real graph (which ironically I haven’t seen anywhere on this page), shows a consistent warming trend…..
    ___________________________________
    No the real graph is very misleading since it is completely out of context.. link

  205. Greg House says:

    Gail Combs says: “I am no ‘warmist.’ I think CAGW is a crock but I know enough to pick my fights. CO2 absorbing IR is a fact. IR is energy and energy can be turned into heat. The atom bomb proved that.”
    =============================================================

    Atom bomb??? (shock)

    OK, about CO2 absorbing IR again. For the second time, this misses the point. According to the IPCC, their alleged “greenhouse effect” should work through the CO2’s “back radiation”, not just through absorption. Quote from their 4th assessment report (FAQ): “Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.” I hope you understand it now.

  206. Gail Combs says:

    Douglas Hollis says:
    November 27, 2012 at 3:51 am

    I am still trying to understand the purpose of this article?….
    ___________________________________
    I really suggest you look at Bob Tissdale’s Utubes that I linked to above. Without them you do not have the background/context to understand what Bob is trying to say. And no they are not “denier” anti-science in anyway. They are about ENSO.

  207. Gail Combs says:

    rd
    Greg House says:
    November 27, 2012 at 8:55 am
    ….Thank you, mod, and please note that I have never said “there is no back radiation”.

    My point is that the alleged warming (or slowing cooling down) effect of “back radiation” has never been proven even by a single scientific physical experiment, hence it should be considered as a pure fiction and not as a scientific fact. Sounds logical to me: no proof = fiction…
    _______________________________
    I am glad you finally stated that.

    Also ‘never been proven’ does not necessarily mean ‘fiction’ It can just mean too small to measure with existing technology. This is a small but critical point.

    Several chemical companies got badly stung on just that point when they did not fight the EPA on the “non detectable” rulings in the 1970’s. Back then you could detect PPM (Parts per million) at max (usually 3-10 ppm) now we detect PPB (billion) and products that were considered perfectly safe for years are now ‘Contaminated’

    Let’s not commit the same mistake.

  208. Gail Combs says:

    Douglas Hollis says:
    November 27, 2012 at 10:41 am

    Wait…let me get this straight. Is anyone on here seriously contending that there’s been no warming since 1998? First of all, I think it’s disingenuous to pick the 3rd hottest year on record for the starting point of such an argument. Also, both 2010 and 2005 were warmer than 1998, while the decade 2000-2009 was the single hottest decade on record! Have I missed something?…
    _______________________________
    Too put it bluntly we do not know what the temperature is or if it has stayed the same or decreased. We only know it has not increased. Again this is due to the things going on in the background (context again)

    This is a very very short list to give you a taste of the problem.
    Hansen’s graphs link
    New Zealand Law Suit over temperature adjustments. link
    Parliamentary requests Australian National Audit Office to reassess the BOM records. In response, the BOM, clearly afraid of getting audited, and still not providing all the data, code and explanations that were needed, decided to toss out the old so called High Quality (HQ) record, and start again.

    Even the Russians are pointing out ‘problems’ with the global temperature data set.

    What the Russian papers say
    …Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

    Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

    The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century….

  209. Greg House says:

    Gail Combs says: “Also ‘never been proven’ does not necessarily mean ‘fiction’ It can just mean too small to measure with existing technology.”
    ==========================================================

    I see. This is getting a little bit funny, like this (a warmist’s voice): “We are sure the back radiation warming (“greenhouse effect”) is a fact and not a fiction, we can not prove that however, it is just too small to measure with existing technology.” Very convincing, I like it.

  210. MattS says:

    @ Greg House,

    I posted a possible experiment for you on the issue of back radiation. Did you see it? What do you think?

  211. Greg House says:

    MattS, I think if it was possible, warmists would have proven it long ago. The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is 150 years old.

  212. Gail Combs says:

    Douglas Hollis says: @ November 27, 2012 at 10:41 am
    Also, both 2010 and 2005 were warmer than 1998, while the decade 2000-2009 was the single hottest decade on record! Have I missed something?
    _____________________________________________
    Werner Brozek says: @ November 27, 2012 at 12:02 pm
    Four data sets show that 1998 still has the record, however if you wish to use GISS and you want us to avoid 1998, no problem. There is one thing you are missing and I have to say that a large number of people are missing this point, namely that being hot is NOT the same as warming. For the GISS record, the last 11 years and 8 months have been hot, but warming has STOPPED as shown below.
    ______________________________________
    I tried to point that out here but used Ice volume instead of temp.

    You are correct it is the change in the rate of change (first derivative) that is the critical point and 16 years is enough to indicate there has been a change. The EPA Sea Surface Temp. shows the lack of warming too without the 1998 spike. graph

    What is interesting to look at is Solar Cycle 13 and Solar Cycle 14 and the dip ~ 1910 in SST. Solar Cycle 14 peaked at 64.2 in 1906. You can use Solar cycles 21-24 for comparison to modern day.

    Cycle 25 is going to be really interesting but we are assured that even if the sun goes to sleep it will not effect the temperature or Global Warming. Of course by then the grandsons of the old Robber Barons will have shoved through the carbon taxes and the rest of the sustainability BS so it will not matter if the Climastrologists are wrong… except perhaps to the freezing and starving masses.

  213. MattS says:

    @Greg House,

    Yes, but if my experiment was actually conducted and the result was what you expect that would put the GHG radiative forcing down once and for all.

  214. Greg House says:

    MattS, I have an easier suggestion, you will not need vacuum. What about this: construct two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. Insert the bulb of a thermometer in each enclosure and pack the whole in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which should be exposed. Expose both of them to the sunlight, but let the sunlight first pass through an additional glass plate. The sunlight will warm both boxes and the temperature will increase, because the colder air from the outside can not penetrate them. From what is known about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55C or so, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely.

    So, in the box with the glass lid the temperature must get much higher than the temperature in the other box thanks to the back radiation from the glass, if the “back radiation warming” hypothesis is correct.

    How do you like this one?

  215. Phil. says:

    MattS says:
    November 27, 2012 at 3:15 pm
    @ Greg House,

    I can think of an experiment to measure if back radiation can have any effect, though I don’t know if it has ever been attempted. Note: I don’t have the equipment to do this.

    Heat a plate of metal to some temp x. Place it in a vacuum chamber and measure the rate at which it cools. In a vacuum chamber the only cooling can be from radiative heat loss.

    Then take two metal plates, heat one to temp x and the other to temp x/2.

    Place both plates into a vacuum chamber in close proximity but not touching. If the plate heated to temp x takes longer to cool than in the first test then the IR radiation from the second cooler plate is having an effect on the first plate.

    It’s routine radiational heat transfer which engineers are using all the time.
    An example is a thermocouple in a hot flame which is surrounded by a wall near room temperature, it will register a temperature about 100 K or so below the adiabatic flame Temp, place a quartz radiation shield in the flame around the ThC and the temperature measured goes up close to the adiabatic T. Experiments showing this and quantifying the corrections necessary for unshielded ThCs were published by NASA (back when it was NACA!) The back radiation from the cooler radiation shield was the cause of the increase in Tmeas.

    An illustration of this can be found here:

    http://eyrie.shef.ac.uk/eee/cpe630/comfun2.html

  216. Greg House says:

    Phil. says: “…The back radiation from the cooler radiation shield was the cause of the increase in Tmeas. … An illustration of this can be found here…”
    =========================================================

    Phil., your illustration is not an illustration of an experiment. You said something about experiments, but presented no valid link or clear reference. This looks very much like an act of obfuscation to me.

    I remember you applying the same method on some previous threads: “Science held hostage in climate debate”, “Some thoughts on radiative transfer and GHG’s” and “Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming”. The culmination was your suggestion I should look for evidences proving your point myself.

    Let us be serious about this debate.

  217. Gail Combs says:

    Greg House says:
    November 27, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    Atom bomb??? (shock) [So I am showing my age]

    OK, about CO2 absorbing IR again. For the second time, this misses the point….
    ______________________________________
    Greg, think about this.

    This is the actual energy comparison of incoming energy from the sun and outgoing IR from the earth. graph The out going radiation is very very low in energy at any one wavelength compared to a wavelength of solar energy when you use the same scale. (Note the two lines showing the visible spectrum) Now look at this chart showing spectral lines for some gases absorbing in the visible spectrum chart now mentally take a couple of those lines and slap them onto the first graph. Take half of that and that is the amount of energy we are talking about for CO2 back radiation. It is equivalent to a fart in a stiff wind. The energy is just not there. That is why this chart is nothing but a misleading piece of propaganda. That is why you had Judithgate ( another very interesting comment on Judith Lean link ) and despite that Judith is back for the next round link and was the First Speaker

    This is why we are continually lead to believe the sun’s TSI is constant and does not vary.

    More importantly why was Dr. Richard .C. Willson, Principle Investigator for the ACRIM satellites not invited? Perhaps because he wrote this to Dr Nicola Scafetta who presented it to the EPA “Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments… He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance…The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean’s TSI proxy model.”

    Why wasn’t Dr. Douglas Hoyt invited? He was in charge of the Nimbus 7 satellite. Perhaps because he wrote to Scafetta “2)…The Nimbus 7 radiometer was calibrated electronically every 12 days… There was no internal evidence in Nimbus 7 records to warrant the correction… 3) Thus Frohlich’s PMOD TSI composite is not consistent with the internal data or the physics of the Nimbus 7 cavity radiometer… There is no justification for Frohlich’s adjustments in my opinion”
    This is found on klimaskeptik.cz who continues

    As I wrote elsewhere (Czech article ACRIM vs PMOD),[graph from article link ] Judith Lean and Claus Fröhlich are responsible for scandalous rewriting of the solar activity graphs. The original satellite data showed, that TSI (measured in Watts) increased from 1986 to 1996 by cca one third… But then Judith and Clause “laundered” the graphs and voila… solar output increase was gone.

    You want a nice juice bone to chase that is the real bone. Think about what that TSI increase means. A change of ~ 0.1% to 0.3% from the 1985 min. to the 2003 max in TSI as measured which is ~ 1366Wm^2 and not the 340.25Wm^2 that is always waved under our noses. About 2 Wm^2 with short peaks of 4 Wm^2 . Since most of that variation in energy is in the vis-ultraviolet range according to the data from EVE, that means it went straight into the oceans possibly adding fuel Bob’s El Nino ‘elevator’ and what did not make it to the ocean ended up in the atmosphere. (Lean claims 30% is reflected)

    Lean also claims the Anthopogenic influence is 1Wm^2 and is four times the influence of the sun. I guess she never saw those skinny spectral lines in the IR coming from the earth. IR that is so low you have to use a log scale to compare it to the energy from the sun.

  218. Gail Combs says:

    Darn it this sentence should be:
    That is why this chart is nothing but a misleading piece of propaganda.

  219. HenryP says:

    Henry@Greg/Matt
    The idea that there are “closed” box experiments that exist that would prove that the net effect of more CO2 in the air is that of warming is false. CO2 has absorptions in the sun’s spectrum 0-5 and in the earth’s spectrum 5-20 um. Most recently they even discovered that CO2 also has some absorption in the UV. I explain the problem of re-radiation / back radiation in some detail here:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/

  220. HenryP says:

    Henry@Greg
    A GH effect from clouds and cloudiness (weather systems, depressions) can be picked in the weather records from CET.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/#comment-198

  221. izen says:

    @- Gail Combs
    You object to my suggestion that those motivated to reject science manipulate short-period data saying –
    “ROTFLMAO, Oh that is really really rich.”

    Even more ironic, just one post before there is this –
    “D Böehm says:
    As Werner Brozek points out above, it is not necessary to use a 1998 start date to see global cooling. Here is a chart using a 2002 start date.”

    [snip]

  222. richardscourtney says:

    izen:

    At November 28, 2012 at 1:43 am you write

    Try this for a more rational view –

    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/10/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature/

    I was sufficiently foolish as to try it, and I found it to be as “rational” as your usual posts; i.e. complete nonsense.

    For a “rational view” of the recent cessation of global warming which addresses the same issues as your link, please read my post above at November 26, 2012 at 2:46 am.

    Richard

  223. HenryP says:

    izen says

    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/10/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature/

    henry says
    izen, what you seem to forget is the following reaction
    (more) heat + HCO3- => CO2 + OH-

    that this relationship does exist is easy to demonstrate.
    Note that it is summer here, and my pool is getting warmer. I find that to keep my alkalinity HCO3- right I have to add some soda (sodium carbonate) every now and then. I don’t have to do that in winter.

    So, the warming from 1950 to 2000:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    was pushing up CO2. Unfortunately we also do not have good reliable records of CO2 from before 1950.
    Smoking causes cancer, but cancer does not cause smoking. Cause and effect, get it?
    If you say that more CO2 in the atmosphere also causes more warming you first have to prove to us whether or not a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere actually does cause warming.
    In this respect, you have to come up with a balance sheet showing us exactly how much radiative warming and cooling is caused by the increase in CO2 + how much cooling is caused by the CO2 due to the increase in vegetation noted over the past 5 decades (remember: did you ever see a tree grow where it is very cold?).
    You must do that in the right dimensions (e.g. time, concentration CO2, W/m2/ m3 etc.) and you must show us the actual measured results.
    You cannot “calculate” that which has never been measured:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/

  224. HenryP says:

    ps to my previous post
    there are giga tons and giga tons of bicarbonate in the oceans

  225. Gail Combs says:

    izen says:
    November 28, 2012 at 1:43 am

    @- Gail Combs
    You object to my suggestion that those motivated to reject science manipulate short-period data saying –
    ___________________________________
    This discussion thread was about the recent lack of warming so what else did you expect a commenter to talk about?

    Many scientists who reject CAGW are geologists or are scientists like me who took geology courses in college for “the fun of it” The thought that CO2 can cause “Run away CAGW” is counter to all we learned such as the high levels (7000 ppm) CO2 in the past. (Cambrian) The thought that puny little man CONTROLS the weather after studying the forces of nature is even more laughable. The climate changes and it can change dramatically thanks to earth cycles but the Holocene has had a very very stable climate compared to other interglacials.

    When it was pointed out that it was warmer during the Medieval Warm period. The ‘Team” went to work and ‘disappeared’ the Medieval, Roman and other warm periods using a hockey stick. Even with evidence from all over the world it is still called a ‘local” phenomenon.

    You want LONG RECORDS? HERE The temperature changes. we have been warm before and not very long ago either. Listed Here are a set of historical temperature graphs from a large selection of mostly non-urban weather stations in both hemispheres. Large cities have been excluded because of Urban Heat Island Effect distortions to long-term data.

    To counter this the ‘team’ went to work again and disappeared the rural stations by statistical hocus pocus and ADD in adjustments to low rural stations by comparing them to hotter airport and city stations which are ALSO ADJUSTED UP. My nearest station is rural and I watch it closely. Each day 2F to 4F is ADDED to the high of the day when it is reported the next day.

    Team members in Australia and New Zealand have been called on it and just like Phil Jones, the answer is The Goat Ate My Homework

    When ‘The Team’ was asked what was a significant time for no warming we were told 12 years then 15 years then 17 years. QUIT MOVING THE GOAL POSTS!

    And if you will not show your work IT AIN’T SCIENCE!

  226. Gail Combs says:

    HenryP says:
    November 27, 2012 at 10:40 pm
    … I explain the problem of re-radiation / back radiation in some detail here:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/

    ____________________________________
    Very nice explanation. Bookmarked. (Oh and happy holidays a bit early)

  227. HenryP says:

    Gail says
    Very nice explanation. Bookmarked. (Oh and happy holidays a bit early)
    Henry says
    Thanks Gail. I appreciate.
    Note that it does contain the chart

    that you seem to dislike. I agree with you that it has some inaccuracy but I still think it gives a reasonable explanation of what is back radiated by the atmosphere (on a cloudless day!) and where what it is delayed in going out from earth. Many people don’t seem to realize that without the ozone, HxOx, NxOx and CO2 they would get about 25-30% more radiation on their heads. In fact, without those gases we would probably fry. So these gases both have a GH factor and a cooling factor. And nobody has ever presented a balance sheet……with the right dimensions.
    E.g. the sun shines 12 hours per day, the earth shines 24 hours per day…..
    nobody even figured that ….
    but they can “calculate” the results of the warming caused by the CO2…
    by putting the horse behind the carriage,
    e.g. applying the relationship not realizing cause and effect.
    How stupid can you be?
    This is almost 2013. I’ve been 3 years at this and we are still having the same old arguments.

  228. Phil. says:

    Greg House says:
    November 27, 2012 at 9:21 pm
    Phil., your illustration is not an illustration of an experiment. You said something about experiments, but presented no valid link or clear reference. This looks very much like an act of obfuscation to me.

    I take it you didn’t read the reference I gave where the phenomenon of back radiation is clearly described and quantified. The devices described are available commercially and are routinely used in scientific and engineering measurements. That’s a valid link with clear diagrams and descriptions, read it! Here’s an excerpt:

    “FINE WIRE THERMOCOUPLES, SHIELDED PYROMETERS AND SUCTION PYROMETERS

    The greatest problem with measuring gas temperatures is combatting radiation loss. This cannot be ignored and should always be estimated to make sure the difference is not excessive. There are a number of commonly used methods. The simplest is to reduce the size of the thermocouple. The convective heat transfer coefficient, hc, increases as the size reduces. In the limit you can have a bare, fine wire thermocouple. The metal protective sheath is removed. These can be as small as 50microns in diameter but are VERY fragile and are normally only used in research. In a practical device, fine wire thermocouples are normally not used.

    The next simplest method is to surround the probe with a radiation shield:

    Fig 1.2 Shielded Thermocouple

    The gas is free to pass through the shield and the shield and thermocouple are heated. The thermocouple bead radiates to the shield which is much hotter than the surrounding walls. Thus the radiative loss and hence temperature error is significantly reduced. The shield itself radiates to the walls.

    The next level of sophistication is to use a suction pyrometer, fig 1.3. “

  229. richardscourtney says:

    HenryP:

    At November 28, 2012 at 9:45 am you say

    This is almost 2013. I’ve been 3 years at this and we are still having the same old arguments.

    Well, I’ve been 3 decades at this and I am still having the same old arguments.

    The problem derives from the AGW-hypothesis replacing climate science. The hypothesis has yet to predict anything correctly and evidence which refutes it continues to increase; e.g.
    Missing ‘hot spot’.
    Missing ‘Trenberth’s heat’.
    Missing “committed warming”.
    Cessation of warming since 1997 despite continued exponential increase of atmospheric CO2.
    Lack of Antarctic warming.
    Growth of Antarctic ice.
    etc.

    We need to return ‘climate science’ to being science.
    There has been no significant advance in the knowledge and understanding of climate behaviour for 3 decades because ‘climate science’ has been replaced by the pseudoscience of a search for something – anything – which would support the AGW-hypothesis. Any evidence in support of the AGW-hypothesis is the Holy Grail of ‘climate science’. Indeed, this is why the ridiculous ‘hockey stick’ was uncritically adopted and proclaimed: it seemed to be the Holy Grail of climate alarmism, but it was merely a fabricated mirage.

    A return of ‘climate science to being science requires great reduction to (for a time, stop?) the funding of ‘climate science’. The ‘carpet baggers’ would then leave the subject to those who genuinely want to increase knowledge and understanding of climate and its behaviour.

    Richard

  230. Gail Combs says:

    HenryP says:
    November 28, 2012 at 9:45 am

    Gail says
    Very nice explanation. Bookmarked. (Oh and happy holidays a bit early)
    Henry says
    Thanks Gail. I appreciate.
    Note that it does contain the chart

    that you seem to dislike….
    _______________________________
    It is not that I dislike the chart, I use it too, because it does a good job of showing the transmission lines for water and CO2. What I do not like is it is used to fool people who are not aware of the other chart showing the relative energy strengths between the sun and earth shine.

  231. Gail Combs says:

    richardscourtney says:
    November 28, 2012 at 11:40 am

    …Well, I’ve been 3 decades at this and I am still having the same old arguments….
    ____________________________
    And that is because ‘The Science’ is a Red Herring, a diversion. It has always been a wealth redistribution scheme. That is using the government to move wealth from the working class to the politically favored. From what I can see the politicians do not give a darn whether they bring their countries economies to their knees or kill their people. And to make it even more stomach turning they and their suck-ups are all the while shouting about saving the world, the poor and ‘Social Justice’

    A pox on all of them.

  232. HenryP says:

    Henry@Richard
    You are right of course. We must stop giving grants in this science.
    What worries me that people do not realize that we are at the bottom of the cooling curve at the moment and that a lot more cold is still to come. Harvests are already failing in many places due to the extra cold, This drives up the prices of food. I think people are not ready for what is to come even though we did come through it 90 years ago. But 90 years ago there were a lot less people to feed….
    We should NOW start grand scale agricultural planting schemes at lower latitudes, eg. Africa, South America to replace the ones in the NH where it gets too cold.

  233. Greg House says:

    Phil. says November 28, 2012 at 10:28 am …
    ========================================================

    Phil., again, if you mean that something IS experimentally proven, then you should provide a valid link to the experiment. You did not.

    I also told you on other threads, where we had a discussion like this one, that multiplying the same thesis did not constitute a proof. In other words, something complex may have some effect on something else, but what exactly causes this effect must be scientifically proven, this is obvious. I also remember me giving an illustration, where my finger “causes” a significant decrease in temperature in my house by pressing the air condition button.

    So, you or anyone else can find many examples of changes in temperature, and back radiation is everywhere, BUT, if you want to attribute these changes in temperature to back radiation you need to prove the cause-effect relationship scientifically.

    If you do not have any relevant links, you do not even have to admit to, but it would be nice if you could refrain from bringing irrelevant ones.

  234. Douglas Hollis says:

    Gail Combs: Even the Russians are pointing out ‘problems’ with the global temperature data set.

    Thanks for pointing me to that. I’m not sure if you’re aware that the IEA is a right-wing economic (not scientific) thinktank run by a former aide to Putin (not to mention, big surprise, a climate skeptic)? Of course, the Russian economy would be dealt quite a blow if the scientific truth of AGW resulted in a push towards renewable energy and away from the status quo (what with its vast reserves of coal and all). That’s just for background. Moving on, it seems to me this whole story has been shown up for what it is. The Had Office didn’t pick the stations, the WMO did. Are you suggesting they knew in advance which ones to pick? The stations were selected based on even geographic distributions. But more pertinently, it turns out that the HadCrut dataset is actually conservative. Rather than picking the stations where we’ve seen the highest warming trends (the Arctic) they’re using stations further south where the heating has been less severe. Consider the following:

    “New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming. The study, carried out by ECMWF (the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) with input from the Met Office, performs a new calculation of global temperature rise. This independent analysis is based on information from a wide range of sources. It uses all available surface temperature measurements, together with data from sources such as satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys.The new analysis estimates the warming to be higher than that shown from HadCRUT’s more limited direct observations. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe over this particular period. This provides strong evidence that recent temperature change is at least as large as estimated by HadCRUT. This conclusion is in contrast to a recently released study by the Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) think tank based in Moscow. The IEA’s output is consistent with HadCRUT as they both confirm the global warming signal in this region since 1950, which we see in many other variables and has been consistently attributed to human activities.”
    (ref http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/12/21/205244/climategate-met-office-hadley-cru-temperature-record-russian-institute-of-economic-analysis/ )

  235. HenryP says:

    Douglas Hollis says
    we’ve seen the highest warming trends (the Arctic)

    Henry says

    You have the audacity to come back here again after not reacting (and most probably not reading) anything we have told you. You have not provided the balance sheet of each gas in the sky that I asked you about. We are not worried here about a few ppms CO2 in the air. It is poop in the sky for us (more plantfood)
    If you had followed the thread, you would have been able to figure out that we are more worried about natural cooling.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/

    Just to prove to you that the whole idea of the “arctic” or “antarctic” warming more, due to human activities, I can tell you the results that I found for Anchorage, which also lies in the arctic. I have analysed the results of two weather stations there telling me it has cooled there by about as much as 1.5 degree K since 2000. Not frightening enough?
    Here is a report from the “frustrated” tomato farmers there.

    http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html

    UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS NOBODY TELLING THESE POOR FARMERS THERE THAT IT WILL NOT GET ANY WARMER IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THERE ARE ONLY PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO CLEARLY HAVE VESTED INTERESTS IN KEEPING THE “WARMING” LIES ALIVE.
    SO THESE FARMERS WILL KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE, BELIEVING IT WILL GET WARMER NEXT YEAR.

    I am saying that this withholding of information of the global cooling is in fact a sin, and now, let it be known to everyone and all here that I think you are a sinner. Can I suggest you go back to see everything that I have said on this thread to try and redeem yourself?

    btw. the reason why the Norwegian arctic is still warming, even though it is globally cooling, has different reasons, which I think I have also explained earlier on.
    Otherwise follow the discussions here, especially on my analysis of the CET results.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

  236. Douglas Hollis says:

    HenryP, really? Get off your high horse already. I will respond to posts here on my own good time, as and when I find the time. There are multiple mini-subjects under discussion here, as I’m sure you’re aware. So yes, I do have the audacity to post here, sorry that I responded to Gail first and not to yours. The fact that you would resort to calling me a sinner in need of redemption (by whom, you?) is the height of arrogance. But while I’m at it, let’s do talk about your post, why don’t we. Please don’t tell me you have the unique stance that the Arctic is somehow not heating up. I have heard idiotic and completely unfounded statements from the deniers’ camp before, but that one absolutely takes the cake. The temperature data for the Arctic (not an isolated case like Anchorage or whichever two weather stations you have studied) show an incontrovertible rise, way above the global average. Maybe this is why we’ve just seen a record melt in the Arctic? And why we’re seeing vast plumes of methane being spewed out in impressive fashion from underneath the Eastern Siberian seabed, about a hundred of which have been documented to be about 1km in diameter?

    Here’s an excerpt from the NOAA (dd Nov 2011): “In 2011, annual near-surface air temperatures over much of the ocean were approximately +1.5 °C greater than the 1981-2010 baseline period and land temperatures were also above their baseline values. This continued a decade-long warm-bias of the Arctic relative to mid-latitudes.”

    Re certain localised areas that have shown cooling: “Annual average temperature anomalies over the Arctic continued to be positive (warm) for October 2010 through September 2011 relative to temperatures in the 20th Century. Unusually strong north and south winds in fall and winter resulted in an Arctic-wide pattern of impacts, with warmer than normal temperatures of several °C over Baffin Bay/west Greenland and Bering Strait, and COOLER temperatures over NW Canada and northern Europe.”

    Here’s a graph showing the air surface temperature anomalies from the Arctic relative to the 1961-1990 mean.

    As you can see, the Arctic has indeed marginally cooled down since 2009 (and there are reasons for that), but over the longer term there has been nearly consistent warming. In the words of the NOAA, “the average temperature for the last decade remained the warmest in the record beginning in 1900.” Future projections show only one reality – consistent warming, on a scale faster than anywhere else on the planet.

  237. Douglas Hollis says:

    richardscourtney: “Growth of Antarctic ice.”

    Actually, it’s only the sea ice that’s growing. Land ice, however, is busy retreating ever faster. This taken from NASA’s site:

    “Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. ”

    For a graphical representation of Antarctic Mass Variation since 2002, have a look here:

    The expansion of sea ice (despite a warming Southern Ocean) is due to a complex interaction of air circulation patterns (in turn due to stratospheric ozone depletion), and changing ocean circulation (resulting in lower salinity water in the upper layers). Ref Zhang, 2007 and Thompson, 2002.

  238. richardscourtney says:

    Douglas Hollis:

    re your post at November 30, 2012 at 12:51 pm.

    Your knit-picking about the Arctic has no relevance, The IPCC prediction was for accelerated warming (with associated ice loss) in BOTH polar regions. The Antarctic is warming and had record ice this year: i.e. the opposite of the IPCC prediction.

    So, the prediction of accelerated polar warming has resulted in being plain wrong (whatever you care to say about the Arctic).

    Indeed, no prediction based on the AGW-hypothesis has turned out to be correct; none, zilch, nada.
    The AGW-hypothesis is a busted flush. Live with it.

    Richard

  239. HenryP says:

    Henry@Douglas

    I have shown you (before) what the global trend is for the past decade

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend

    yet you keep on claiming that we are warming…over a longer term…

    I told that it is not going to get any warmer because I have also analysed some 650000 daily data of maxima from 47 weather stations going back to 1974
    the results are disturbing, to say the least.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    yet you keep on claiming that we are warming…

    If you count back 90 years, we are in 1922.
    here is the report of the arctic ice back then (from Norway/USA)
    (do take the time to read it, it sounds so familiar)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

    Your quoted arctic graph (related to arctic mean temperature) actually corresponds well with the sine wave which we are in, if you trend up from around 1920. Before that, we really do not have a “global record” to speak of. They could hardly build cars back then, let alone calibrate a thermometer to better than 0.5 degrees C.

    But I am ready for a challenge. Show me a calibration certificate of a thermometer from before 1920?

    Future projections show only one reality – consistent COOLING, on a scale faster than anywhere else on the planet. By 1945 all that arctic ice reported lost in 1922 was back. By 2035 all that ice that is now “lost” will be also back. Mark my words. The bad winters will only start rolling in from now. You guys have no idea what is going to come.
    You remind me of Nero. Can we have some fiddling music in the back round of Skeptical Science when we go and visit there?

  240. richardscourtney says:

    Douglas Hollis:

    I don’t know how you managed to answer my post at November 30, 2012 at 1:27 pm before I made it. Your answer at November 30, 2012 at 1:17 pm (i.e. 10 minutes before my post) shows you have a talent the IPCC needs: they have yet to make a successful forecast.

    Anyway, your cherry-picking of NASA data is more of your usual irrelevance.

    Please explain how your claim of “a warming Southern Ocean” equates with your admission of the “expansion of sea ice”.

    There has NOT been accelerated polar warming at anything like the rates predicted in the IPCC FAR.

    Richard

  241. Douglas Hollis says:

    HenryP: “…we are more worried about natural cooling.”

    Well, this is a new one for me. We’ve just come out of by far the warmest decade on record (it also featured the single largest jump in terms of decadal temperature anomalies). 2010 was the hottest year ever, this despite a “perfect storm” of low TSI, a strong La Nina and high aerosol emissions. Come 2012, we saw how, in the US, disaster areas were declared in 1,692 counties across 36 states after one of the most severe droughts in decades, hot on the heels of one of the most scorching and prolonged heat waves (which shattered 15,272 day and night-time records across the US). The combination of heat and drought induced a 45% corn crop failure across the US. And you’re worried about the cold?

    Incidentally, a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) has found that extreme heatwaves have increased worldwide by a factor of 50 over just the past 30 years. How do you square that with global cooling?

    There are at least two additional points that deserve to be made. One is that the raw data of the primary temperature datasets (GISS, HadCRU, NCDC, RSS and UAH) all show continued warming (albeit at a smaller than anticipated rate) since 1998. This is especially apparent when removing the noise of ENSO’s, solar and volcanic activity, etc – the result is a near-linear progression of global temperatures. Have a look here:

    The second point is this – the IPCC 2007 report bears a compelling graph I think every person interested in the topic should see. Climate models were used to simulate the global temperature rise of the last century, taking into account a) all forcings, whether anthropogenic or natural, and b) natural forcings only. The results were overlayed onto the actual historical temperature data, and guess what? Those simulations that rely on natural forcings only (ie IGNORING the manmade forcings such as CO2 emissions, sulphate aerosols, tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes etc) show, from 1960 onwards, a DISTINCT divergence from the observed temperature data, towards the COOLING side. Curiously, the models that DO take the anthopogenic forcings into account indicate a nearly perfect match. What’s more, no combination of natural forcings has been found that could reproduce the historical global temperature record. See here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html

    Do you understand the implications of this?? It’s tantamount to dusting off a set of fingerprints at a crime scene. You could of course say, with a predictably dismissive air, that the numbers were ‘fudged’. I suppose it’s all part of the ‘conspiracy’. But whatever you do say, I’d appreciate some substance to your claims.

  242. Douglas Hollis says:

    richardscourtney,

    I have just pointed you to an actual graph showing accelerated land ice loss in the Antarctic. Please explain why you would call this cherrypicking or irrelevant. Thank you in advance.

    Btw, I already explained it (high level) in my previous post. You’re welcome to do more reading on the subject here:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037524.shtml

    Short excerpt: “The autumn increase in the Ross Sea sector is primarily a result of stronger cyclonic atmospheric flow over the Amundsen Sea. Model experiments suggest that the trend towards stronger cyclonic circulation is mainly a result of stratospheric ozone depletion, which has strengthened autumn wind speeds around the continent, deepening the Amundsen Sea Low through flow separation around the high coastal orography. However, statistics derived from a climate model control run suggest that the observed sea ice increase might still be within the range of natural climate variability.”

  243. RACookPE1978 says:

    Douglas Hollis says:
    November 30, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Hmmmn.

    So the expansion of Antarctic sea ice to record levels between latitude 61 and 62 south reflects more sunlight and reduces evaporation from the southern ocean surface, thus yielding more cooling – an accelerated cooling force that you blame (somehow) on hotter waters around the Antarctic sea ice.
    But the reduction of Arctic sea ice at the same time in mid-September at the same equinox increases evaporative cooling from the Arctic, and since the sun is less 8 degrees above the horizon at that time, does NOT result in any increased absorption of heat energy from the sun.

    Net?
    Less ice in the Arctic at the equinox at 82 north latitude? -> More global cooling.
    More ice in the Antarctic at the equinox at 61 degrees latitude? Even more cooling! .

  244. D Böehm says:

    Douglas Hollis,

    You are the captive of false propaganda. The truth is that Antarctic ice cover has been increasing.

    Current Antarctic sea ice is greater than normal. You only believe that alarmist nonsense because you are emotionally ruled by the “carbon” scare.

    Instead of being a sucker for alarmist lies, try to think objectively.

    The entire catastrophic AGW scare is based on the beliefs of credulous fools. Don’t be one of them. Think for yourself.

  245. Gail Combs says:

    Douglas Hollis says:….
    __________________________________________
    Doug, has it ever occurred to you that Canada, Russia and China are not on the CAGW bandwagon, not because they are “right wing” but because they are far enough north that a cooling climate is very dangerous for them and they know it?

    If we are headed into a cooling cycle, whether it is a Bond Event or a Maunder Minimum it will drastically effect food production especially in these northern countries. Warming is a molehill compared to the devastation caused by cooling.

    A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates
    ABSTRACT
    Evidence from North Atlantic deep sea cores reveals that abrupt shifts punctuated what is conventionally thought to have been a relatively stable Holocene climate. During each of these episodes, cool, ice-bearing waters from north of Iceland were advected as far south as the latitude of Britain. At about the same times, the atmospheric circulation above Greenland changed abruptly. Pacings of the Holocene events and of abrupt climate shifts during the last glaciation are statistically the same; together, they make up a series of climate shifts with a cyclicity close to 1470 ± 500 years. The Holocene events, therefore, appear to be the most recent manifestation of a pervasive millennial-scale climate cycle operating independently of the glacial-interglacial climate state.

    Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
    Many paleoclimatic data reveal a ∼1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

    Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
    Many palaeoclimate records from the North Atlantic region show a pattern of rapid climate oscillations, the so-called Dansgaard–Oeschger events, with a quasi-periodicity of 1,470 years for the late glacial period1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Various hypotheses have been suggested to explain these rapid temperature shifts, including internal oscillations in the climate system and external forcing, possibly from the Sun7. But whereas pronounced solar cycles of 87 and 210 years are well known8, 9, 10, 11, 12, a 1,470-year solar cycle has not been detected8. Here we show that an intermediate-complexity climate model with glacial climate conditions simulates rapid climate shifts similar to the Dansgaard–Oeschger events with a spacing of 1,470 years when forced by periodic freshwater input into the North Atlantic Ocean in cycles of 87 and 210 years. We attribute the robust 1,470-year response time to the superposition of the two shorter cycles, together with strongly nonlinear dynamics and the long characteristic timescale of the thermohaline circulation. For Holocene conditions, similar events do not occur. We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle.

    The cycles continue into the Holocene.

    Holocene temperature records show millennial-scale periodicity

    Abstract:
    Past studies have detected an ~1500-year climate cycle in various types of Pleistocene geologic or ice deposits. It has been proposed that a 1470-year cycle fits the Pleistocene Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) oscillations and can be explained by a threshold model with forcing. We used nine temperature reconstructions to see if this cycle exists during the Holocene. All these data sets, except Greenland Holocene data, can be fit by models close to a 1470-year period or are compatible to such a model, or can be fit by cycles near 1200years, both of which can be related to solar forcing. These results lend support to the nonlinear threshold model for initiation of Pleistocene DO events and suggest that this periodic climate signal has continued into the Holocene, but with reduced magnitude.

    This is what we are seeing in the Arctic.

    Timing of Millennial-Scale Climate Change in Antarctica and Greenland During the Last Glacial Period
    A precise relative chronology for Greenland and West Antarctic paleotemperature is extended to 90,000 years ago, based on correlation of atmospheric methane records from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 and Byrd ice cores. Over this period, the onset of seven major millennial-scale warmings in Antarctica preceded the onset of Greenland warmings by 1500 to 3000 years. In general, Antarctic temperatures increased gradually while Greenland temperatures were decreasing or constant, and the termination of Antarctic warming was apparently coincident with the onset of rapid warming in Greenland. This pattern provides further evidence for the operation of a “bipolar see-saw” in air temperatures and an oceanic teleconnection between the hemispheres on millennial time scales.

    ChiefIO (E. M. Smith) has done a lot of looking into Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) oscillations/Bond events and what happen to human civilization. I hope like heck he is wrong but if he is not we are in for a really rough time especially if politicians succeed in shutting down coal without replacing it with (Thorium) Nuclear.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/8-2-kiloyear-event-and-you/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/8-2-kiloyear-event-and-you/

  246. richardscourtney says:

    Douglas Hollis:
    At November 30, 2012 at 2:10 pm you ask

    The second point is this – the IPCC 2007 report bears a compelling graph I think every person interested in the topic should see. Climate models were used to simulate the global temperature rise of the last century, taking into account a) all forcings, whether anthropogenic or natural, and b) natural forcings only. The results were overlayed onto the actual historical temperature data, and guess what? Those simulations that rely on natural forcings only (ie IGNORING the manmade forcings such as CO2 emissions, sulphate aerosols, tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes etc) show, from 1960 onwards, a DISTINCT divergence from the observed temperature data, towards the COOLING side. Curiously, the models that DO take the anthopogenic forcings into account indicate a nearly perfect match. What’s more, no combination of natural forcings has been found that could reproduce the historical global temperature record. See here:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html .

    Do you understand the implications of this??

    Yes, I do: it is bollocks.
    The agreement is fudged by adjusting the assumed ‘aerosol forcing’ to create the agreement.

    You need to look at Figure 9.1. of the IPCC AR4 at

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html

    It is titled
    Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
    (a) solar forcing,
    (b) volcanoes,
    (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases,
    (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
    (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
    (f) the sum of all forcings.
    Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).

    The big red blob in (c) and (f) is the so-called ‘hot spot’. It shows that the models predict that in the tropics the warming from “well-mixed greenhouse gases “ is between 2 and 3 times the rate at the surface.

    Only plot (c) for ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ and (f) for ‘the sum of all forcings’ show the ‘hot spot’. And the reason (f) shows it is because the effect of ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ is so great that it overwhelms the effects of all the other forcings.

    The modelled period is for 1890 to 1999 but the increase to ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ is greatest near the end of the period. Hence, radiosonde data from weather balloons (from 1958) and MSU data from satellites (from 1979) should show the ‘hot spot’ more clearly than the plot if the model is correct. And please note the severity of the ‘hot spot’: it is a factor of between 2 and 3 times the warming at altitude as is observed at the surface. This should be very clearly observed in both the radiosonde and the satellite data. It is not seen in either data set.

    In other words, either there has been no global warming from ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ or there has been no global warming of the kind modeled and reported by the IPCC AR4.

    That effectively destroys all projections of global warming according to the models. The models do not project warming of the past so they can’t project warming of the future.

    Richard

  247. HenryP says:

    Did you all notice the “unusual” cold weather sweeping Russia. I don’t think the world is prepared for what is coming in the next ten years. Anyway I did my best.

  248. HenryP says:

    Letter to Time Magazine (again)
    Bryan Walsh continues to stir false alarm, this time claiming that “as the globe continues to warm”,
    … “there is no way just how much man-made climate change might have amplified Sandy”.
    Time Magazine (Dec. 3 2012)
    Can I just point out again to him and your readers that there has not been any global warming in over 15 years now?
    In fact, the trend over the past 10 years has been negative, i.e. global cooling:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend

    According to my own analysis of 47 weather stations, this global cooling will continue:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    and indeed it is this global cooling that is generally causing more rain, more snow and cooler weather, globally, on average.

    (Remember also that when water vapor in the atmosphere cools more, you get more clouds and more precipitation, at certain places).

    As the farmers in Anchorage have noted,

    http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html

    the cooling is so bad there that they do not get much of any harvests.

    And it seems NOBODY is telling them there that it is not going to get any better. The cooling will last until 2030-2040. See here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/

    The sad story is, that as we enter 2013, and where the world should prepare itself for climate change due to (natural) global cooling,

    for example, by initiating more agricultural schemes at lower latitudes (FOOD!),

    and providing more protection against more precipitation at certain places (FLOODS!),

    the media and the powers-that-be are twiddling with their thumbs, not listening to the real scientists,

    e.g. those not making any money and nice journeys out of the gravy train that “global warming” has become.

  249. Douglas Hollis says:

    Henry: “Can I just point out again to him and your readers that there has not been any global warming in over 15 years now? In fact, the trend over the past 10 years has been negative, i.e. global cooling…”

    Nice fantasy you’re living in. Take the average global temperature measurements for the years 1990-1999, then compare that to those for 2000-2009. What do you find? A negative trend? I think not. As has been conceded before on this thread, the temperatures have not started cooling, but instead the rate of warming has been less than expected. There’s a difference, and I’ll call you on your dishonesty, if no one else will.

    1998 is a great starting point for denialists, a real anomaly having seen the most potent El Nino of the century. When you filter out the effect hereof, you’ll see that 5-6 of the following years got as hot as 1998 or even hotter, without El Nino’s of nearly the same potency to amplify it. Interesting, no?

    Now there were two El Nino’s of moderate strength (2002 and 2009) and three weak ones (2004 and 2006). But nothing nearly like 1998. We’ve also had La Nina’s, and some really strong ones too…curiously, though, each successive La Nina year has seen higher global temperatures. For a handy visual of the ENSO intensities since 1950, see here:

    http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

    Clearly it’s premature to speculate about a ‘cooling’ Earth. But by all means, continue to grab onto those straws. All the scientists are wrong, it’s all a conspiracy, they fudged the numbers, etc. History, I believe, will judge the contrarians harshly.

  250. HenryP says:

    Douglas Hollis says
    Nice fantasy you’re living in. Take the average global temperature measurements for the years 1990-1999, then compare that to those for 2000-2009. What do you find? A negative trend? I think not. As has been conceded before on this thread, the temperatures have not started cooling, but instead the rate of warming has been less than expected. There’s a difference, and I’ll call you on your dishonesty, if no one else will.

    Henry says
    the minimum amount of years to compare should include at least one completed solar cycle, i.e. ca. 12 years.
    But I have done all that, as I was initially more interested in the ratio between maxima, means and minima. This proved to me that warming in the past was natural. (maxima pushing up means, and not minima pushing up means)
    To prove my honesty, if you are interested, I can provide you with my tables as reported here:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/04/23/global-cooling-is-here/

    (all results of 47 weather stations analysed)
    to quote from the above report:

    We note from my 3 tables below that Maxima, Means and Minima have all turned negative (from warming to cooling) between 12 and 22 years ago. The change in signal is best observed in that of the Maxima where we can see a gradual decline of the maximum temperatures from +0.036 degrees C per annum (over the last 38 years) to -0.016 (when taken over the last 12 years).

    If we plot the global measurements for the change in Maxima, Means and Minima against the relevant time periods, it can be shown that the best fit for each of the curves is given by a polynominal of the 2nd order (parabolic fit).

    Namely, for maxima it is

    y= -0.00006 X2+ 0.00480X -0.06393

    r²= 0.997

    Update

    I have added a few more stations, (including Washington DC) which ramped up my r²= 0.998

    The speed of warming/cooling for maxima now is 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years).

    If you understand anything at all of statistics you would not call me dishonest.

    RSS and Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4 all show a negative trend from 2002, a fall of ca. 0.1 degree C. My own dataset shows we fell almost 0.2 degrees C since 2000.

    Hopefully the polynomial quoted above, even though it has unbelievable high correlation, is still incorrect. Let us hope it is rather this sine wave:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    which seems very likely, if I look at the results from Anchorage ( shown a bit below the global sine wave in blog quoted above).

    We are cooling. And my tables say the speed of this cooling is at its highest rate, just about now. We will like drop now by as much as maxima are dropping because earth’s energy stores are depleted now. We changed sign in 1995. We will drop 8 x 0.035 = ca. 0.3 degrees C globally by 2020. Mark my words.
    The world is not ready for it, because there are still too many people like you.

Comments are closed.