Quote of the week – Hansen concedes the age of flatness

qotw_cropped

Dr. James Hansen and Reto Ruedy of NASA GISS have written a paper (non peer reviewed) with a remarkable admission in it. It is titled Global Temperature Update Through 2012.

Here is the money quote, which pretty much ends the caterwauling from naysayers about global temperature being stalled for the last decade.

The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.

Gosh, I thought Hansen had claimed that “climate forcings” had overwhelmed natural variability?

In 2003 Hansen wrote a widely distributed (but not peer reviewed) paper called Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb? in which he argues that human-caused forcings on the climate are now greater than the natural ones, and that this, over a long time period, can cause large climate changes.

As we shall see, the small forces that drove millennial climate changes are now overwhelmed by human forcings.

According to Hansen’s latest essay, apparently not. So much for “da bomb”.

Here are some other interesting excerpts from his recent essay, Bob Tisdale take note:

An update through 2012 of our global analysis reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.

The current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the facr [sic] that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions.

The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements.

That last part about 1940-1975 is telling, given that we now have a cleaner atmosphere, and less aerosols to reflect sunlight, it goes without saying that more sunlight now reaches the surface. Since GISS is all about the surface temperature, that suggests (to rational thinkers at least) that some portion of the surface temperature rise post 1975 is due to pollution controls being enacted.

But, he’s still arguing for an imbalance, even though flatness abounds. Seems like equilibrium to me…

Climate change expectations.

The continuing planetary imbalance and the rapid increase of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel  assure that global warming will continue on decadal time scales.  Moreover, our interpretation of the larger role of unforced variability in temperature change of the past decade suggests that global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably to the next El Nino phase.

Except when natural forcings overwhelm the human component of course.

About these ads
This entry was posted in James Hansen, NASA GISS and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

215 Responses to Quote of the week – Hansen concedes the age of flatness

  1. john robertson says:

    Scary when even Hansen is trying to climb down.
    I will believe it when his publisher has my bookstore move his books ,over into the poorly written fiction section.

  2. georgi says:

    why don’t we have a carbon tax based on worldwide temperature anomaly? then we can just stop arguing about who caused what and just wait and see what happens.

  3. Dave X says:

    If this seems like equilibrium to you, then where is temperature headed over the next 5 years?

  4. geran says:

    Maybe the last post on “clock of doom”, and this one, should be combined–“midnight hour for Hansen and AGWers”??

  5. cui bono says:

    Can we all go home now? ;-)

  6. Max Roberts says:

    Same place as if you had made that comment five years ago?

  7. Tom Murphy says:

    “Except when natural forcings overwhelm the human component of course,” is translated by Dr. Hansen as, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” Compartmentalization is a luxury not available to a practitioner of the scientific method – a point openly ignored by the good Doctor… repeatedly.

  8. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Jim Hansen disappoints. – gavin.

  9. pat says:

    The only ones who believe in The Weather Clown anymore are politicians. What does that say?

  10. Unfortunately, Hansen in Figure 4 continues the myth that TSI at the latest minimum was lower than at previous minima. It is now known that this is not correct, the reason being uncompensated degradation of the sensors on which PMOD is based. See http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf and more importantly the admission here:
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf slides 31-33:
    “Observed data do not support a measurable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008″

  11. Jeff L says:

    We shouldn’t be too hard on Hansen – he is taking a step in the right direction & we should be applauding that, which will hopefully encourage him & other like minded people to do the same going forward. As they say “you catch more bees with a drop of honey than you will with a gallon of vinegar”. Recognition of what the data is actually saying by the CAGW supporters will solve the true problem, which is the potential economic damage done in trying to solve the “CAGW problem” – the sooner it is generally realized that this is not a catastrophic problem, the better for society.

  12. mpainter says:

    Well, Joel Shore, your hero James Hansen needs you. Go explain to him why the globe is still warming. Explain to him how he needs to ignore ENSO. Explain to him that he is “cherry picking”.
    Explain all these things, and maybe he will hearken, but maybe he won’t.

  13. John West says:

    No Global Warming in 16 years.

    Inconceivable!

  14. oldfossil says:

    Back in 1988 it would have taken a very brave man to contradict the Beer-Lambert Law and say that global temperatures were not headed in the direction of up.

    Let’s commend Hansen’s courage in issuing this partial retraction. And I have a sneaking admiration for a man who stuck to his guns when the odds were increasingly stacked against him.

    Remember that a friend is just an enemy that you haven’t made yet!

  15. A big hand for MR. TISDALE! Let’s hear it for Bob!

  16. isylum says:

    Be advised, if pointed out he is likely to chide you for referencing a non-peer reviewed paper.

    Don’t take the bait.

  17. more soylent green! says:

    georgi says:
    January 16, 2013 at 8:17 am
    why don’t we have a carbon tax based on worldwide temperature anomaly? then we can just stop arguing about who caused what and just wait and see what happens.

    Do we really know what the worldwide temperature is supposed to be? Do we know what the worldwide temperature is? We have to know both to determine if there is an anomaly, but we don’t know. Besides, they just keep going back into time and changing the recorded temps.

  18. mpainter says:

    Jeff L says: January 16, 2013 at 8:37 am

    We shouldn’t be too hard on Hansen
    ================================
    The question is why has Hansen gone from rank propagandizing to acknowledging the temperature record. Recall, a few months ago he was the high-volume doomsayer about drought, flood, etc. disaster. Now Hansen knew better. He had the same data as the rest of us, yet he chose to peddle panic. A few months later, he has changed his tune.Why?

  19. Ron Manley says:

    For a year now I’ve been telling anyone who wants to listen that it’s not El Nino/La Nina which is leading to the long pause – it’s the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. It was in decline from 1940 to 75, when there was also a temperature pause. It was increasing from 1975 to 2005, when it fooled the models into thinking CO2 was powerful stuff. Now it’s in decline again and, as in the 1940 to 75 period, holding temperatures constant.
    For more see:
    http://www.climatedata.info/Discussions/Discussions/opinions.php

  20. arthur4563 says:

    Hansen is everything a scientist is not supposed to be : extremely loose with the facts, opinionated, and driven by what amounts to a fundamentalist brand of global warming religion.
    In fact, AGW folks behavior is almost identical to the early Puritans : Man has sinned, Man has defied God (here : Nature, same thing) and Man will pay. Repent, global deniers, or be struck down by them extreme weather events. So when do these warmists erect the tent and find their own Elmer Gantry? Gore’s much too fat (especially above the neck, or at least what passes for a neck) to be Gantry. And Tom Hanks not only is the world’s biggest bore, but incredibly plain looking. He also is quite a jerk, which Gantry was not.

  21. ColdOldMan says:

    The BBC is starting to change its position on cAGW, only slightly, but the change is noticeable.
    1) On Radio 4 they were doing a severe-weather report and they finished the item with words, to the effect that, other climate scientists state that this is all within the limits seen in natural events. Note that they finished with this not the warmists’ doom-mongering statements.
    2) There has been some research posted on ‘The Hockey Schtick’ about black carbon. Normally, if we’d linked to it one of the FEC trolls would have dissed it.
    2.1) New paper could imply IPCC climate sensitivity to CO2 is exaggerated – http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/new-paper-could-imply-ipcc-climate.html
    2.2) Climate change: Soot’s role underestimated, says study
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21033078

    Who’da thunk it? There is still quite a bit of BBC spin in their article but any sort of progress still counts as progress.

  22. John the technologist says:

    He is beginning the process of CYA (cover your a**) as he prepares to defend possible law suits and especially counter law suits .

  23. Typhoon says:

    It continues to puzzle me how one can take this stuff seriously:

    1/ Claiming to know the “global average temperature” to within +/- 0.2C back in 1880 as much of the planet was; a/ not instrumented and b/ instrumental errors associated with thermometer calibration, accuracy, drift, reproducibility. and siting were not insignificant. Such measurement issues are still a challenge today as Watt’s et al US station survey project demonstrated.

    2/ The concept of a “global average temperature” is a dubious physical concept given that the atmosphere is a open highly dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium. What one should be calculating is total heat content, if anything.

  24. Friends:

    The writing has been on the wall for the AGW-scare since the failure of the FCCC conference at Copenhagen in 2009. The present priorities are
    (a) to hasten the demise of the AGW-scare,
    (b) to resist introduction of laws and institutions based on the GW-scare, and
    (c) to inhibit introduction of whatever is the next false scare.

    Hansen is merely one of the rodents seeking a way to leave the sinkingship.

    I agree with Jeff L who says at January 16, 2013 at 8:37 am

    We shouldn’t be too hard on Hansen – he is taking a step in the right direction & we should be applauding that, which will hopefully encourage him & other like minded people to do the same going forward. As they say “you catch more bees with a drop of honey than you will with a gallon of vinegar”. Recognition of what the data is actually saying by the CAGW supporters will solve the true problem, which is the potential economic damage done in trying to solve the “CAGW problem” – the sooner it is generally realized that this is not a catastrophic problem, the better for society.

    Or, to put that into the same terms that Machiavelli explained it to the Prince:
    Enemies are a problem and they need to be utterly destroyed. But before you destroy them do all you can to turn them into friends because live friends are more useful than dead enemies.

    Richard

  25. Bruce Cobb says:

    So, does this mean the folks who bought his “Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity” fairy tale will get their money back?

  26. Bob Tisdale says:

    I enjoyed this sentence of the recent Hansen paper, “Indeed, the current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominately El Nino conditions, while the second half had predominately La Nina conditions (Nino index in Fig. 1).”

    And the period from the early 1980s to the mid-2000s were predominantly El Nino conditions with respect to surface temperatures, and those El Ninos were the only reason surface temperatures warmed.

  27. RockyRoad says:

    georgi says:
    January 16, 2013 at 8:17 am

    why don’t we have a carbon tax based on worldwide temperature anomaly? then we can just stop arguing about who caused what and just wait and see what happens.

    I’d rather you wait until we have a summer like it was when I was a kid 50 years ago and we could actually get tomatoes to ripen before the frost killed the plants. For the past three years, I’ve tried real hard to get a crop of ripe tomatoes without success, and I’d argue it has something to do with the low summer temperatures.

    But consider this, georgi–why don’t we get the government to pay us the taxes they’ve taken from us so we can mitigate for either rising or falling temperatures (for taxing life-giving CO2 just gives us less life). All they’ve done with the taxes is buy votes and give themselves raises. Now, if this is your idea of a good cause, you probably should get a full tuition refund from your institution of higher education.

    And addressing your idea that we “can just stop arguing about who caused what and just wait and see what happens” isn’t going to be any easier in the future than it is now trying to figure out who caused what. The relationships won’t be any clearer with a carbon tax than without, but I’m absolutely sure you won’t have as much money for retirement.

  28. beesaman says:

    Is this Hansen trying to protect his pension?

  29. Mark and two Cats says:

    This maybe a prelude to his taking credit for the pause in warming. His efforts are beginning to show fruit. All he and his fellow climate warriors will need is tons of money to keep the heat at bay.

  30. pochas says:

    Anthony wrote:

    “That last part about 1940-1975 is telling, given that we now have a cleaner atmosphere, and less aerosols to reflect sunlight, it goes without saying that more sunlight now reaches the surface.”

    True. Another way to look at it is the outgoing logwave spectrum. Anything that is suspended in the atmosphere will emit continuum radiation as opposed to the discrete radiation emitted by the water bands, and therefore will make the earth look more like a blackbody radiator from space. The closer the earth is to a continuum (blackbody-like) radiation spectrum the cooler it will get. A clearer atmosphere means warmer surface temperatures and all the benefits that go with it. Did the EPA cause Global Warming with its smokestack regulations?

  31. G. E. Pease says:

    Perhaps Hansen is finally being muzzled by NASA, as it slowly dawns on the government that he has significantly damaged NASA’s scientific credibility.

  32. JA says:

    Those who believe that the duplicitous, lying , POS Hansen should be applauded for admitting that global temperatures have stabilized are simply crazy.
    Hansen is merely setting himself up to cover his sorry anus if more data comes in showing he has been dead wrong for the last 10 years or so.
    This publicity hound has no intention of leaving the spotlight and just as he was touting a coming ice age years ago – and got himself famous for doing so – he intends to remain in the spotlight, with it’s attendant MONETARY BENFEFITS , in the future no matter what the actual climate is.

    Hansen should be prosecuted, literally. He was willing and ENCOURAGING to have imposed upon the citizenry onerous taxes and fees, and higher costs for energy (which would raise the prices of EVERYTHING) – basically create additional hardships on millions an millions of people – just to promote his fraudulent pseudo-religious AGW “science.”

    Frankly, he and that other phony Al “fatso” Gore should be tossed in jail FOREVER for the crap they are trying to do. Both of them have become wealthy by trying screwing over the people.

    Hansen should NOT be applauded for his latest admission; he needs to shunned, ostracized from any and all scientific positions because he, and his fellow LYSENKIANS used Stalinist tactics to demean, defame and yes, destroy, those that dared to challenge his fraudulent activities.

    Frankly, he deserves a sentence far harsher and far more “permanent” than just a prison cell.

  33. TRM says:

    “As we shall see, the small forces that drove millennial climate changes are now overwhelmed by NATURAL forcings.” – Fixed it for them.

  34. Day By Day says:

    “Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.”

    So everyone is still ignoring 1934, 1936, and 1938?

    john robertson says: Scary when even Hansen is trying to climb down.

    Hansen is not backing down at all–just re-framing it in view of the observations, he says, our interpretation of the larger role of unforced variability in temperature change of the past decade suggests that global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably to the next El Nino phase.

    Backing down?

  35. H.R. says:

    Jim said it. I believe it. That settles it.

  36. beesaman says:

    Note that he ends with a hint that more money is needed, SOS – Save Our Satellites!

  37. Theo Goodwin says:

    I cannot believe that Hansen can change his spots. I do not believe that there are people who are “born again” into scientific method. My guess is that he is the lead man in an effort by the Obama administration to back down from CAGW.

    The responses of the CAGW people to Hansen will be really interesting. Will Romm’s head explode? The tone of the responses are likely to tell us something about the larger political picture.

    The one good thing is that Natural Variability and the Null Hypothesis are now center stage and might become respectable again in the eyes of scientists. If they become respectable in the MSM then the word has gone out that the Obama administration is backing down from CAGW.

    In any case, hats off to Bob Tisdale.

  38. Jim Clarke says:

    After 25 years of strenuous denial that natural variability had any significant role in 20th and 21st Century climate change…after so many IPCC reports that proclaimed “…there is no other way [than CO2] to explain the observations”…the vast majority of ‘climate scientists’ are slowly coming around to that which has been painfully obvious from the very beginning.

    Well, Alleluia!

  39. vukcevic says:

    Never mind stand-still, in the UK for the last 18 years the CET is showning an alarming fall at 1.7 C degrees/century.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L100y.htm

  40. HankHenry says:

    Am I reading this right? Global temperatures have not risen because the temperatures in global temperature aren’t really global. Does it occur to anyone that the notion of a global temperature is out of hand?

  41. mpcraig says:

    There’s also this nugget:

    “A slower growth rate of the net climate forcing may have contributed to the standstill of global temperature in the past decade…”

    I thought skeptics got skewered for using a word like “standstill”?

  42. Doug Proctor says:

    “… a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.”

    I find this an interesting conclusion and comment. The ‘growth rate’, not the ‘rate”. So he is saying that it is the lack of ACCELERATION of heating that is the problem, not the radiative heating of CO2, because the pCO2 has been steadily rising.

    Hansen is saying that the reason observation doesn’t match models is that the models have an ACCELERATION in the cumulative effects or quantities of GHGs. Such as the reduced CH4 growth. But since CO2 is supposed to be THE dominant forcing molecule, then he is saying NOW that it is the TOTAL amount of forcing factors that give rise to higher temperatures, not principally CO2. Which means that the W/m2 forcing in the IPCC/Hansen model are less than what he has been claiming.

    The goalposts are moving all over the place. Chinese pollution and solar IR and GCR and the oceans and less CH4 are now said to be stronger than expected, enough to mask the high CO2 forcing. He is denying that CO2 is weak by claiming that the mitigators are strong – and we will be in trouble once the mitigators are gone.

    He and others are doing a bait-and-switch. It is now up to the skeptics to show that the mitigating effects of clouds and dust and oceans and soot and reduced CH4 are NOT significant in order to counter his argument.

    The argument has changed without changing.

    Brilliant.

  43. Bill Illis says:

    Hansen is going to be 72 in March.

    It is time for the gold watch so he can spend more time with his grandchildren (and continue scaring them with stories about about the future storms they will face).

  44. Kitefreak says:

    georgi says:
    January 16, 2013 at 8:17 am
    why don’t we have a carbon tax based on worldwide temperature anomaly?
    —————————————————————-
    Because they’ll design the tax so it is collected regardless of the sign of the anomaly, or the direction of its change ( I think they’re already doing that). Remember, they re-branded it from global warming to climate change for a reason.

  45. Rob Ricket says:

    I’m a bit more circumspect in sussing out Hansen’s motive for writing the paper. The recent admission by NASA that Solar variability plays a larger role in climate change than anticipated signals a policy shift towards using the JPL for Solar research requiring rocketry. No doubt, the local politicians in Houston and Orlando are onboard with the plan, as the decommissioning of the shuttle fleet has cost these localities millions of dollars. Hansen had no choice but to jump on the bandwagon, as money talks and B.S. walks. Also note, that Hansen has carefully hedged his bet…you can well believe that he will be screaming “I told you so” if a warming trend returns.

    Essentially, what some see as a “noble admission” amounts to little more than the will to survive. Oddly enough, (or perhaps not) this makes my dog and sharks no less noble than the good Dr. Hansen.

  46. KevinM says:

    beesaman,

    Yes, especially because new satellites would create another break in instrumentation type. That allows another spline in the data records… where history can be revised down by curve fit to the newer data.

  47. Richard M says:

    Excuse me! … Hansen has made millions from this scare. I’ll forgive him when he donates that money to charity and shows up on Oprah to admit his adjustments were wrong and he is sorry for costing the lives of millions. Until then he will only get my ridicule.

  48. D Cal 1987 says:

    Although he is to reticent and polite to crow, this represents a considerable victory for Dr David Whitehouse, former BBC Science Correspondent and contributor to the GWPF who for several years has been presenting excellent analyses of the recent ‘flatness’ in global temperatures. Many criticised him, some very personally, which he took with good grace believing the data would soon tell its own story. Now he has been vindicated. If ever one person took on the establishment of AGW and won its Dr Whitehouse. Hansen’s admission is a good day for science.

  49. geo says:

    It’s certainly a positive that they’re beginning to climb down on a few issues. I personally believe the aerosols issue is very important, because it makes a huge difference in the trend when you extrapolate forward. They get all bent out of shape over the 20 year trend 1980-2000. . but if that is really a 50 year trend (1950-2000), you’ve now cut it more than in 1/2.

  50. Bob Tisdale says:

    Hmm. The timing of Hansen et al 2013 is a little tight for the March 15th publication (or accepted for publication) deadline. I wonder if they’ll make it.

  51. vukcevic says:
    January 16, 2013 at 10:20 am
    for the last 18 years the CET is showing an alarming fall at 1.7 C degrees/century
    Bad statistics. Care to put an error bar on that? You cannot get a reliable slope with data from such a short interval considering the large variations of the values. What is ‘alarming’ is that somebody would even say what you just did.

  52. Resourceguy says:

    @Rob Ricket

    I agree with the assessment of survival tactics. But he goes on to profess decade by decade explanatory knowledge now, after getting it totally wrong before. I rather doubt the recent turn to more precise knowledge except for his reversion to chart science skills. There is a class of pseudo experts in finance that tell stories based on chart patterns with no underlying knowledge of the chart while claiming to know the future and attempting to make money off the sales effort.

  53. Rob Ricket says:
    January 16, 2013 at 10:40 am
    The recent admission by NASA that Solar variability plays a larger role in climate change than anticipated
    You have been had. NASA has not admitted any such thing. On the contrary, they state repeatedly that the jury is still out [but if we send more money they are willing to study the problem]

  54. David Ross says:

    I like the title. It kind of reminds of the “flat-earther” slur climate-skeptics have been repeatedly subjected to.

    One by one the ‘flat-graph-deniers’ are recanting : )

  55. A.D. Everard says:

    I wouldn’t get my hopes up. He’s been forced to admit a “pause”, meaning some facts even Hansen can’t ignore, but that does not mean he is stepping down from his long held belief/cash base. They are allowing themselves the next five years perhaps as room to breathe (and think?). If the weather then turns warmer, as they are hoping it will, we’ll be back to square one with them screaming “Global Warming, Global Warming! Look, it’s back and it’s worse than we thought!” Meanwhile, perhaps he is hoping those game enough to question the science of his belief will somehow go away.

  56. A.D. Everard says:

    Just want to add that they are using this “pause” as a reason the people should trust them for another five years of funding. They are a long way from facing reality.

  57. R Barker says:

    Are Hansen papers not peer reviewed because he has no “peers”?

  58. The Neutron count is a better proxy for “solar inactivity ” than TSI .The Oulu 23/24 count peak (Solar minimum) was about 4% higher than the 22/23 count peak(Solar Minimum) So a drop off in solar acvtivity is quite clear and significant.

  59. Robin says:

    If we combine the Research Agenda part of last week’s National Climate Assessment draft and Ehrlich’s hysterical essay that mentions what he calls the “nascent” Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere we discover that it dovetails perfectly with limiting knowledge and focusing on very generic skills of getting along and interacting with computers and databases. Social engagement and interaction for 16 or so expensive years.

    http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/hyping-catastrophe-to-eliminate-the-supposed-mismatch-between-human-minds-and-the-world-we-inhabit/ shows we are dangerously close to education and public policy globally creating minds in a majority of voters incapable of recognizing scientific reality. Couple that with the affective classroom emphasis on what people believe and feel instead of what they know and modelling rejected theories like the Meadows and Forester’s Limits to Growth and perceptions are about to trump the reality WUWT and other sites are so busy chronicling.

    It all dovetails too closely with what UNESCO is pushing elsewhere to be coincidental. But as long as education and CAGW and Cronyism are treated as separate issues when there’s a disconnect between the facts and the theory, we will all remain both sitting ducks and soon to be destitute taxpayer financiers of a very expensive State directed economy and society.

    Hansen and Mann cannot let the Gravy Train end or reality trump theory.

  60. Rob Ricket says:

    Dr. Svalgaard,
    My assertion is based on this post from earlier in the week:
    “If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/09/nasa-on-the-sun-tiny-variations-can-have-a-significant-effect-on-terrestrial-climate/#more-77253

    I can assure you that I have not been “had” by these clowns. Beyond that, any difference between us is a simple matter of nuance. Change is in the air and NASA will manage the change incrementally.

  61. Gail Combs. says:

    mpainter says: @ January 16, 2013 at 8:54 am

    The question is why has Hansen gone from rank propagandizing to acknowledging the temperature record. Recall, a few months ago he was the high-volume doomsayer about drought, flood, etc. disaster. Now Hansen knew better. He had the same data as the rest of us, yet he chose to peddle panic. A few months later, he has changed his tune.Why?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Simples, he was told to. Remember Al Gore has also just made his exit.

    The question is what is the next ‘Crisis’ the money hungry sociopaths are going after. As I mentioned before I think it is food.

    Obama got his buddies one more year of the Wind/solar power boondoggle so they can exit and leave the chumps holding the bankrupt companies. If you have any money invested in ‘Green’ get it out NOW!

  62. jorgekafkazar says:

    Theo Goodwin says: “I cannot believe that Hansen can change his spots. I do not believe that there are people who are “born again” into scientific method. My guess is that he is the lead man in an effort by the Obama administration to back down from CAGW.”

    On the one hand, Obama has a chance to back away from CAGW and the risk of eventually being revealed as either a fool or, a charlatan. On the other hand is a chance at world domination by a collectivist oligarchy. Reputation vs. a shot at world domination. The meme will continue as long as the media continue to support the leftist agenda.

  63. mpainter says:

    Gail Combs. says: January 16, 2013 at 11:30 am

    Obama got his buddies one more year of the Wind/solar power boondoggle so they can exit and leave the chumps holding the bankrupt companies. If you have any money invested in ‘Green’ get it out NOW!
    ========================
    Goodness, gracious, such cynicism! You must have been a stockbroker at one time.

  64. Rob Ricket – Check my 11.25 post for support for decline in solar activity.

  65. Dr Norman Page says:
    January 16, 2013 at 11:25 am
    The Neutron count is a better proxy for “solar inactivity ” than TSI .The Oulu 23/24 count peak (Solar minimum) was about 4% higher than the 22/23 count peak(Solar Minimum) So a drop off in solar acvtivity is quite clear and significant.
    Every odd/even minimum is higher than the previous even/odd minimum. This is a well-known and understood finding [we know why], so not surprising that 23/24 was higher than 22/23. Also, Oulu is slowly changing its geomagnetic latitude which results in a slighter higher additional count with time. Most other stations do not show that this latest minimum is different for the high-energy cosmic ray energies that might be of importance. E.g. http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg
    http://www.leif.org/research/Kiel-Cosmic-Rays-and-Solar-Cycles.png
    http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitor-Thule-Newark.png

    Rob Ricket says:
    January 16, 2013 at 11:29 am
    “If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study.
    Sounds very much like an appeal for more funding [which I, of course' fully support].

  66. “Global surface temps in 2012 was +.56 warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina.”

    2012 Reality
    4 months La Niña
    8 months El Niño of equal strength as the La Niña

    Only Hansen could wiggle that into most of the year a strong El Ninño!!

    Doesn’t anyone proofread his rantings?

  67. daviditron says:

    lol should proofread my own rants! Should have said:
    4 months of negative Nino3.4
    8 months of positive Nino3.4

    most of 2012 was neutral but twice as much >0.5C as <0.5C so Hansen is wrong in any case!

  68. david says:

    I absolutely agree with Bob Tisdale. In addition ,Hansen’s quote “despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina.” is wrong. The 2011/2012 la nina reached a max value of -1.0, which is much BELOW normal/average: the long term average +/- stdev of all La Ninas (1949-current) is -1.3 +/ 0.4, and with a median of -1.4… That’s error number 1.
    Second error is that only the first 3 months in 2012 had la nina conditions, the rest were neutral. Although the last season is not in yet; the first 11 seasons of 2012 were on average -0.1, with a median of 0.0… Not near a strong la nina, anywhere. I’d rather say 2012 was ENSO neutral.

  69. Leif – I don’t have the digital data but just putting a straight edge across the Newark ,Thule graphs you linked to shows that 23/24 counts were higher than 21/22 and 19/20. Again roughly eyeballing the Newark graph it looks like 23/24 was about 3% higher tham 19/20.

  70. MrE says:

    I wonder if the Tamino crowd will rip him for admitting it like they did with anyone else

  71. Rosco says:

    Gotta love it when they talk about decadal time scales !!

    This allows them time to ensure the up and coming generations have been well and truly indoctrinated into the “religion” whilst the older members of society with a memory of times of uncorrupted science pass away.

    Academia has a lot to answer for in allowing an unproven hypothesis to be taught as if it were indisputable fact.

    My opinion is that the hypothesis is about as likely as fairies at the bottom of the garden.

  72. Additional comment – most of the records you show in your links show higher counts for 23/24 than 21/22. Again , I say that the neutron counts are a proxy for a catchall term -“solar activity.”In the present state of our knowledge it is not a safe assumption that only the high energy cosmic rays are of significance to climate.

  73. vukcevic says:

    Cogitating about the error bars from the warm sunny California, doesn’t exactly make traction with people in England, experiencing some of the coolest and wettest summers or coldest winters or all of the above.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L100y.htm

  74. JC says:

    Leif, forgive me if you’ve stated this before (I assume you have, I’m just unaware of it) but is it your contention that solar forcing was insignificant in the temperature rise since ’75? If so, what do you predict the impact of the coming lull to be, if any?

  75. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    pat says:
    “The only ones who believe in The Weather Clown ….”

    Thanks Pat, I love this! The “Weather Bimbo”, Heidi Cullen is joined by the “Weather Clown”, James Hansen. Perfect titles! (Shame on me for enjoying such name calling!)

  76. Cardin Drake says:

    Well, I know I am not the first person to think of this, but strangely I have never seen it discussed. Since it is well-known that the energy emitted by a black body is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s temperature, isn’t that all the negative feedback that one would ever need to keep the temperature of the Earth from rising? A small increase in temperature leads to a large increase in IR radiation. You’d think temperature squared would be more than a sufficient brake…. but this is temperature to the FOURTH power. Could some of you scientists on here enlighten me as to why this is never brought up. Is there some obvious that I am overlooking?

  77. vukcevic says:
    January 16, 2013 at 12:50 pm
    traction with people in England, experiencing some of the coolest and wettest summers or coldest winters or all of the above.
    Weather is not climate and is not alarming.

    JC says:
    January 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm
    is it your contention that solar forcing was insignificant in the temperature rise since ’75? If so, what do you predict the impact of the coming lull to be, if any?
    I don’t think solar forcing was important, and don’t think it will be in the near future, either. “No ice age cometh”.

  78. John West says:

    richardscourtney says: (at 9:10 am)
    ”live friends are more useful than dead enemies”

    Truly wise words indeed, however, I don’t think I could ever trust him enough to consider him “friendly”; like the scorpion in the fable, he does what he does without (from my POV) any regard for consequences. IMHO his tarnished reputation is best kept tarnished, if we start working with him towards restoring his reputation we’ll only find ourselves needing to undo that work after the next time he jumps to a conclusion and sends the public on a crusade, and he will jump to another conclusion, that’s what he does.

  79. Garry Robertson says:

    I thought you might like to add the quote of the day (2006) to your quote of the week!

    http://www.famousdaily.com/january16.html

    Famous Quote Said On January 16
    The enhanced role of money in the re-election process has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption.
    Al Gore, 2006

  80. Robin says:

    Rosco-on academia. Yesterday the National Academy of Sciences put out a report called “The Mathematical Sciences in 2025″ urging the NSF (that funded the egregious curricula of the math wars) to spend more to change the nature of college and graduate math instruction away from the lecture exam format. That format is an impediment to certain students gaining the credentials for science or research or healthcare career. They also do not want any distinction between core mathematics and mathematical applications. All are now to be grouped as “mathematical sciences.

    Lots of attention to modelling. But the nature of the academic coursework must be changed using federal tax dollars or future debt to reflect the weaknesses of the students attending college.

    So not only is federal spending out of control, but when it is not going to cronies or to create new bureaucracies, it is being spent to corrupt what can go on in any classroom, K-12 or higher ed and increasingly private K-12 as well.

    We really are looking at only those kids whose parents pay attention and remediate and supplement having accurate factual knowledge or even logical minds experienced with abstract thinking.

    And that is the intent, not a side effect.

  81. Gunga Din says:

    richardscourtney says:
    January 16, 2013 at 9:10 am
    Friends:

    The writing has been on the wall for the AGW-scare since the failure of the FCCC conference at Copenhagen in 2009. The present priorities are
    (a) to hasten the demise of the AGW-scare,
    (b) to resist introduction of laws and institutions based on the GW-scare, and
    (c) to inhibit introduction of whatever is the next false scare.

    Hansen is merely one of the rodents seeking a way to leave the sinkingship.

    I agree with Jeff L who says at January 16, 2013 at 8:37 am

    We shouldn’t be too hard on Hansen – he is taking a step in the right direction & we should be applauding that, which will hopefully encourage him & other like minded people to do the same going forward. As they say “you catch more bees with a drop of honey than you will with a gallon of vinegar”. Recognition of what the data is actually saying by the CAGW supporters will solve the true problem, which is the potential economic damage done in trying to solve the “CAGW problem” – the sooner it is generally realized that this is not a catastrophic problem, the better for society.

    Or, to put that into the same terms that Machiavelli explained it to the Prince:
    Enemies are a problem and they need to be utterly destroyed. But before you destroy them do all you can to turn them into friends because live friends are more useful than dead enemies.

    Richard
    ========================================================================
    I hope you’re right. But if I left my wallet out and someone stole it, returned it and apologized, I might forgive him but he’d have to show I could trust him before I’d leave my wallet out again.
    He may just be positioning himself to make another projection but from a new starting point now that it’s obvious even to him (hopefully) that his original projection was so wrong.
    I’ll let the rat abandon ship as long as he don’t jump on a new one.

  82. Gunga Din says:

    mpainter says:
    January 16, 2013 at 11:42 am
    Gail Combs. says: January 16, 2013 at 11:30 am

    Obama got his buddies one more year of the Wind/solar power boondoggle so they can exit and leave the chumps holding the bankrupt companies. If you have any money invested in ‘Green’ get it out NOW!
    ========================
    mpainter: Goodness, gracious, such cynicism! You must have been a stockbroker at one time.

    =======================================================
    I think Gail has just had her eyes open and paid attention to what she’s seen.

  83. ntesdorf says:

    The scientists are beginning to recognise the facts, the politicians are the main remaining stumbling block to rational progress, as their numbers are largely drawn from obtuse unobservant lawyers.

  84. Dr Norman Page says:
    January 16, 2013 at 12:48 pm
    Additional comment – most of the records you show in your links show higher counts for 23/24 than 21/22.
    A very small increase for some would be expected because the 23/24 minimum was so low, but the differences are so small that they are insignificant [not as you say: clear and significant].

    In the present state of our knowledge it is not a safe assumption that only the high energy cosmic rays are of significance to climate.
    The people who claim that GCRs control the climate say [for good reason] that they need high-energy particles to penetrate low enough to influence cloud formation. Low energy ones don’t. In fact, In the present state of our knowledge it is not a safe assumption that cosmic rays of any energy are of significance to climate.

  85. Ian L. McQueen says:

    more soylent green! January 16, 2013 at 8:47 am wrote:
    Do we really know what the worldwide temperature is supposed to be? Do we know what the worldwide temperature is?

    Look through: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf

    IanM

  86. JC says:

    “I don’t think solar forcing was important, and don’t think it will be in the near future, either. “No ice age cometh”’

    Glad I didn’t misinterpret your views. I’ve been a lurker here for a bit and from what I’d gathered by briefly skimming a few of your posts you seem quite hostile to those suggesting solar influence is a major player in recent temperature swings (positive or negative), but that leaves me with another question; If you don’t think solar forcing to be a driver and don’t view GHGs as a substantial forcing either, what do you attribute the recent uptick to? The LIA? The MWP, the RWP? In your opinion are these all just examples of internal, poorly understood natural variability? I gather that you think the CAGW movement is based on greed, profiteering, and unjust scaremongering rather than sound science, so clearly you aren’t worried about man’s impact to any great degree.

  87. Skiphil says:

    Hansen may be nervous about the data but he is still out marching with the loony-tunes:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/01/15/179955/climate-change-activists-turn.html

    [h/t Tom Nelson]

    I loooove the photo with that article.

    Makes me want to sing ‘He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands’

    How does Hansen’s non-political NASA news conference just happen to be scheduled on the same day as the protest march, and how does he get away with the presence that he (and Gavin Schmidt) do the activism only on his own time and dollar??

  88. Skiphil says:

    Oops, that word is ‘pretence’ of course….

  89. Dr Norman Page says:
    January 16, 2013 at 12:48 pm
    Additional comment – most of the records you show in your links show higher counts for 23/24 than 21/22.
    Not so for 19/20… With the error bars there are no differences between 19/20, 21/22, and 23/24.

  90. John West says:

    @ Cardin Drake
    I often wonder the same thing.

    To increase a surface IR output starting out in the 385 W/m2 to 405 W/m2 emission range by 10 W/m2 only requires about a 1.8 K increase in temperature for surfaces between about 288 – 295 K and high emissivity.

    So that’s like 0.18 °C/W/m2 or about 0.7 °C/2XCO2 IF the surface had to increase in temperature to match its exposure, which it does not unless it’s in thermodynamic isolation.

    Seems to me like that would be the maximum possible surface warming rate from an increase in radiant exposure since that’s the hypothetical case where none of the heat convects or conducts away from the surface.

  91. Matt Skaggs says:

    “The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements.”

    Translated: we are all making the same claim, even though we have absolutely no idea whether it has any basis in fact.

  92. pat says:

    Time Magazine concedes NOTHING:

    15 Jan: Time Mag/Science: Bryan Walsh:
    Going Green
    Federal Forecast for Climate Change: It’s Getting Hot in Here
    Spring came early to Walden Pond in 2012…
    Of course, you don’t need to pore through the records at Walden Pond to know that the climate is changing…
    (MORE: 2012 Was the Hottest Year in U.S. History. And Yes — It’s Climate Change)…
    (MORE: Why Seeing Is Believing—Usually—When It Comes to Climate Change)…
    (MORE: Climate Change and Sandy: Why We Need to Prepare for a Warmer World)…
    When President Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress couldn’t push through cap and trade legislation in 2010 — see Harvard’s Theda Skocpol on the green movement’s political failures — we may have squandered the best chance in a decade to take comprehensive action against climate change. Now we can’t even agree to pay the country’s bills. It’d be nice to feel some optimism, but that’s vanishing faster than the remains of an increasingly rare snowfall in New York. Still, I suppose there’s a silver lining. Spring is just around the corner — and it’s getting closer every year.
    (FIRST COMMENT BY GeraldWilhite) I could not find a clear citation to the paper on which your article is based in your article, but I assume that you were talking about “Global Temperature Update Through 2012, 15 January 2013 by J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy”, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.
    This preliminary paper is notable because it is, to my knowledge, the first time Hansen has admitted that global warming flat-lined several years ago…
    http://science.time.com/2013/01/15/federal-forecast-for-climate-change-its-getting-hot-in-here/?iid=sl-main-mostpop2

  93. Nick in Vancouver says:

    I do no think we should let any of these alarmists of the hook. Lift em high, turn up the fossil fuels and poke em until they are done.
    It is because of idiots like Hansen that people are and will suffer fuel poverty and needless suffering and death. The UK, because of EU CO2 limits, is shutting down its coal fired plants (just like Germany) electricity prices are increasing year on year – coal prices are not – to fund “renewable energy” . Without the Channel interconnector importing (expensive) French nuclear electricity, the UK will already have suffered the same brown outs that the idiot Germans are already experiencing. The UK is at the same latitude as Labrador but snow is apparently a rare and exciting event – unless you live in Glasgow and have to choose between feeding yourself and heating your home.

    Never forget who started this BS, make them eat their words

  94. pat says:

    give thanx, subsidies are being removed:

    16 Jan: Bloomberg: Andrew Herndon/Christopher Martin: Private Equity Flees Clean Energy as Investment Falls
    Private equity companies and venture capitalists including Draper Fisher Jurvetson and Braemar Energy Ventures reduced renewable-energy investment to the lowest since 2006 as once-promising companies failed or were sold at a loss…
    The decline shows a wariness among investors who’ve been burned by losses, especially those who backed solar-panel manufacturers competing with Chinese companies. It also reflects a shrinking market as fewer entrepreneurs sought capital for clean energy startups, said Vinod Khosla, the billionaire founder of Menlo Park, California-based Khosla Ventures.
    “All the fashionable VCs have gone away from it,” Khosla said in an interview. “Even the number of businesses people are starting is smaller.”
    ***The decline is the result of waning government incentives for renewable energy and weak performance in the stock market, which made it harder for investors to extract value, said Ethan Zindler, an analyst at New Energy Finance in Washington…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-15/private-equity-flees-clean-energy-as-investment-falls-energy.html

    ——————————————————————————–

  95. JC says:
    January 16, 2013 at 2:11 pm
    what I’d gathered by briefly skimming a few of your posts you seem quite hostile to those suggesting solar influence is a major player in recent temperature swings
    ‘Hostile’ is not the right word. I point out that the evidence is weak and the theories even weaker, and they do not convince a hard skeptic like me.

    In your opinion are these all just examples of internal, poorly understood natural variability?
    That is what I would surmise.

    I gather that you think the CAGW movement is based on greed, profiteering, and unjust scaremongering rather than sound science
    In essence, yes. But there is more too it: people prefer a simple, easy theory [even if wrong] to a complicated, difficult, and poorly understood theory [even if right]. The solar aspect is part of that same syndrome.

    so clearly you aren’t worried about man’s impact to any great degree.
    There are more important things to worry about, than ‘saving the Earth’ from imagined disasters. But I am worried about the wide-spread acceptance of attempts to take us back centuries to prevent such.

  96. Kev-in-Uk says:

    oldfossil says:
    January 16, 2013 at 8:45 am

    Sorry, but that is sentimental rubbish, sir!
    Hansen should be commended? What?, for helping (nay, almost single handedly organising!) to waste BILLIONS of money on unnecessary AGW schemes and research bollocks whilst all the while millions, nay billions, don’t even have enough food or clean fresh water? Commended? Hell no!
    Courage? – my gawd – that’s even worse! If you had been a scientist – and had done all that he has done to promote and actively disseminate the fraud over the last 30+ years, causing almost innumerous ‘deaths’ as a result of fuel poverty, economic disruption, etc, etc, all based on dogmatic self perpetuation and self promotion – you(and I) might likely have the real courage and DECENCY to prove your sincerity and admit your mistake(s) and perhaps ‘do the honourable thing’ – Courage? – FFS, I’d reckon the Lion showed more courage than Hansen could muster in a billion years whilst travelling on his personal yellow (gold?) brick road!

  97. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    Mr. Watts tries to construct a contradiction between what Hansen says today and what he had said before in the essay from 2003. There is just none. The statement in the older essay by Hansen about the dominance of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings applies to a longer time scale. One can even see this from the one sentence quoted by Mr. Watts. Hansen compared anthropogenic forcings to the forcings that drove millenium scale climate change. He didn’t make a comparison about what dominates the changes in a five-year running mean of the temperature over merely a decade. I do not know any statement by Hansen from the past, or by any other climate scientist, for the matter of fact, according to which anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings supposedly overwhelmed natural unforced variability, for instance the ones related to ENSO, on any arbitrarily chosen short time scale. It has always been said that natural variability dominates the atmospheric temperature record on short time scales.

    Just the usual red herring and misrepresentation regarding what climate scientists actually say.

  98. Harry van Loon says:

    I don’t think that the Believers didn’t believe in what they said (Hansen, Mann, Gore, etc.), so let us not act arrogantly when they are proven wrong. It is now obvious that a TREND in the sun is accompanied by a trend in the global temperature, not by direct radiative influence but by affecting the circulation. The 11-year maxima have little or no influence on the global temperature.

  99. Jeremy says:

    Well activists do need work and if the current doom mongering is falling on deaf ears then perhaps it is time for Hansen to come up with a different meme – after all there are bills to pay, awards to be won, and guest speaker conferences to attend (for a fee). I’d suggest Hansen switch to Ocean Acidification to keep the gravy train going, for example

    FWIW Richard Black of x-BBC fame tweets Kudos to WUWT !

    https://twitter.com/enviroblack

  100. JohnH says:

    Hansen reminds me of Colonel Saito from “The Bridge on the River Kwai”. He’s equivocating now because he’s backed into a corner and there is no escape. Eventually he’ll have to abandon his stubborn, unreasonable belief in his own omniscience and accept reality.

    The good news is that maybe he’ll stop scaring the heck out of his grandchildren.

  101. Kirt Griffin says:

    From a piece I have nearly finished for GlobalCooler,Wordpress.com I have made the following observations:

    I love how he described the cause of the “standstill”:

    “The more important factor in the standstill is probably unforced dynamical variability, essentially climatic “noise”. ”

    Regarding CO2, he claims the “airborne fraction of fossil fuel CO2 emissions has declined.” That is quite a turnaround! With 1/3 of all the emissions ever emitted having been emitted since the 1990’s(?) and the alarmist claim of long lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere, why would he acknowledge that the fraction of airborne concentrations are declining? I see this as quite a revelation.

    He then goes on to write:
    “and the forcing per CO2 increment declines slowly as CO2 increases due to partial saturation of absorption bands, so the CO2 forcing growth rate has been steady despite the rapid growth of fossil fuel emissions.”

    This apparently acknowledges the long held position by realists that concentrations of CO2 have less effect as their concentrations grow. “Partial” and “saturation” would appear to be countering each other. As is claimed by many, 95% would not likely be referred to as “partial”. I would classify this as almost completely saturated. Clearly, Hansen’s admission implies there really is a limit to the amount of warming one could expect from CO2.

  102. Jeff Alberts says:

    Hansen: “Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.”

    Mr. Hansen, please note that the “record” isn’t even an eyeblink in geologic time. Calling such a record meaningful is like warning of a global flood when it starts to sprinkle.

  103. Jeff Alberts says:

    Harry van Loon says:
    January 16, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    I don’t think that the Believers didn’t believe in what they said (Hansen, Mann, Gore, etc.), so let us not act arrogantly when they are proven wrong. It is now obvious that a TREND in the sun is accompanied by a trend in the global temperature, not by direct radiative influence but by affecting the circulation. The 11-year maxima have little or no influence on the global temperature.

    No it isn’t obvious, because there is no “global temperature”.

  104. mpainter says:

    Gunga Din says: January 16, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    mpainter says:
    January 16, 2013 at 11:42 am
    Gail Combs. says: January 16, 2013 at 11:30 am

    Obama got his buddies one more year of the Wind/solar power boondoggle so they can exit and leave the chumps holding the bankrupt companies. If you have any money invested in ‘Green’ get it out NOW!
    ========================
    mpainter: Goodness, gracious, such cynicism! You must have been a stockbroker at one time.

    =======================================================
    Gunga Din: I think Gail has just had her eyes open and paid attention to what she’s seen.
    ================================
    Gail knows that I understand this.

  105. jcox33 says:

    “‘Hostile’ is not the right word. I point out that the evidence is weak and the theories even weaker, and they do not convince a hard skeptic like me.”

    – I was primarily referring to the ad hominems frequently attached to such rebuttals, but fair enough.

    “That is what I would surmise.”

    – I think this is honestly the reason behind much of the dogmatic “science” we are seeing in the field today. While I understand that climate science obviously has a basis in the hard sciences and should no doubt be a respected field, at least in time, I cannot help but get the sense that it is still undeniably in its infancy. This arrogant unwillingness on the part of certain key players (who shall remain nameless) to admit the abundant lack of understanding regarding baseline variability seems to drive many of them to a defensive stance where they inflate (publicly, at least) their stated knowledge of the system. I suppose it’s better for their self-esteem to say “We’re highly confident that ______” than “We really don’t have a @#!$ing clue what’s causing x, y, or z.” I find it highly analogous to religious adherents uncomfortable with an unknown, though presumably scientific, explanation of genesis. Quite ironic, indeed. Some humility, I’d imagine, could do wonders in helping prevent harsh repercussions shortly downstream.

  106. David A. Evans says:

    Dr Svalgård. You have been quite categorical in disclaiming any Solar influence on climate, including secondary influences.
    You have also expressed, to say the least, uncertainty of CO2 being a primary driver.
    Do you have an alternative hypothesis for the warming?
    In my World, I don’t know is a good answer.
    DaveE.

  107. Harry van Loon says:

    Isn’t there a global temperature (or a global mean temperature)? That’s news to me.

  108. David A. Evans says:
    January 16, 2013 at 5:36 pm
    Do you have an alternative hypothesis for the warming?
    In my World, I don’t know is a good answer.

    But it is too simplistic [implying that we know nothing], because we do know something. We know that solar variation and greenhouse gases have some effect and can actually put some numbers to that, we also know that those effects are small [although the two opposing camps claim they are major - one is to the detriment of the other]. We also know that the climate has had long cycles of hundreds or thousands of years. We do not know what caused those cycles, but complex, non-linear systems often exhibit quasi-cyclic behavior so we should not be surprised to find that in the climate system, and I’m not.

  109. D Böehm Stealey says:

    [snip ]

  110. markx says:

    Rather huge concession here by Hansen etal. The CAGW proponents usually won’t touch this issue:

    ….the forcing per CO2 increment declines slowly as CO2 increases due to partial saturation of absorption bands, so the CO2 forcing growth rate has been steady despite the rapid growth of fossil fuel emissions….

    Seems to contradict all those thousands of model runs.

  111. markx says:

    Rather huge concession here by Hansen etal. The CAGW proponents usually won’t touch this issue:

    ….the forcing per CO2 increment declines slowly as CO2 increases due to partial saturation of absorption bands, so the CO2 forcing growth rate has been steady despite the rapid growth of fossil fuel emissions….

    Seems to contradict all those thousands of model runs.

  112. William Astley says:

    Tallbloke’s comment and link is insightful. Hansen’s and others had stated that the lack of warming, was caused by the warming hiding in the deep ocean and in a few years would be measureable warming of the ocean. There is almost a decade of accurate ocean temperature measurements. The accurate ocean temperature measurements show no warming.
    There has been no warming for 16 years of the planet’s surface temperature or of planets oceans.

    Energy is conserved. There appears to be multiple errors with the IPCC modeling and other work related to the extreme AGW hypothesis.

    Obviously the planetary feedback to a forcing change is negative (resists the change rather than amplifies the change.) Planetary cloud cover in the tropics increases or decreases, to resist the forcing changes, thereby stabilizing planetary temperature. It is difficult however to explain no warming for 16 years even with negative feedback. There are likely multiple unanswered scientific questions.

    On a political note, it will be interesting to see at what point the general scientific community will acknowledge that the IPCC “climate science” was cooked, fudged, and manipulated to for political reasons.

    If there is a significant cooling this sham will abruptly come to an end.

    tallbloke says:
    January 16, 2013 at 8:16 am

    The energy imbalance isn’t in the direction Hansen fondly believes:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/

  113. Jeff Alberts says:

    Harry van Loon says:
    January 16, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    Isn’t there a global temperature (or a global mean temperature)? That’s news to me.

    Try this.

  114. mpainter says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says: January 16, 2013 at 4:31 pm
    I do not know any statement by Hansen from the past, or by any other climate scientist, for the matter of fact, according to which anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings supposedly overwhelmed natural unforced variability
    ====================
    If GHG forcings do not overcome natural climate variability, then we are not talking about much of a forcing, are we? It is time to re-think AGW theory, is it not? For instance, the GCM’s, by incorporating AGW theory as algorithms, forecast a warming trend, and now you say that such forecasts are unreliable because of the predominance of natural factors in determining climate.

  115. John West says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    “We know that solar variation and greenhouse gases have some effect and can actually put some numbers to that, we also know that those effects are small [although the two opposing camps claim they are major - one is to the detriment of the other]. We also know that the climate has had long cycles of hundreds or thousands of years. We do not know what caused those cycles, but complex, non-linear systems often exhibit quasi-cyclic behavior so we should not be surprised to find that in the climate system, and I’m not.”

    I mostly agree with that, except I’m not convinced the effects of solar variation is small just yet. There’s just so many competing influences plus system internal variations, all I can really say for sure is that we’ve still got a lot to learn.

  116. p.g.sharrow says:

    Hansen got his start as a wild eyed adherent of Man caused global Cooling that was accelerating the start of an Ice Age! and then it warmed. 30 years of warming and of coarse Man Caused Global Warming was the greatest disaster of all time, but wait! It is Cooling! Hansen is just aligning himself for the next cycle.
    30 years cooling, 30 years warming followed by 30 years cooling.Hmmmmm sounds like weather Cycles over about 60 years. This guy is a con-man as this was well known to me and he when we went to school in the 1950s Man caused weather disruption is the lead in to “Man Caused Global Cooling” the next great coming disaster that we will need to save humanity from. An Ice Age is coming, no doubt. How soon, unknown. Man caused, NOT LIKELY. pg

  117. Skiphil says:

    Jan Perlwitz,

    Take it up with Judith Curry, she finds Hansen to be saying some curious stuff:

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#more-10934

    As for me, I am grateful to Hansen for the ridiculous spectacle of such an Alarmist so-called scientist leading a march of Eco-religious activist nuts with a toy planet earth in his arms.

    That photo farce will be useful whenever I talk to people about agenda-driven scientists who let their socio-political activism overwhelm their judgment.

  118. mpainter says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says: January 16, 2013 at 4:31 pm
    I do not know any statement by Hansen from the past, or by any other climate scientist, for the matter of fact, according to which anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings supposedly overwhelmed natural unforced variability, for instance the ones related to ENSO, on any arbitrarily chosen short time scale.
    ============================
    You admit that there is not enough “forcing” to overcome short term natural variability.

    As for the long term climate variation, that is natural too, is it not? As in MWP, and LIA, right?
    So why are we to believe that your AGW will overcome the long term variation if it cannot overcome the lesser, short term fluctuations?

    But in fact, you cannot show that AGW will overwhelm any natural climate variable, neither short nor long term. Your AGW theory is a house of cards that collapses at a poke.

  119. Skiphil says:

    Mods, any chance of adding the photo of Hansen carrying beach ball saggy earth as an update on top of this thread?

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/01/15/179955/climate-change-activists-turn.html

    I just think that image is worthy of some ridicule…..

    REPLY: Copyright issues with that photo are likely

  120. TimM says:

    @pat re Time Magazine article: ” It’d be nice to feel some optimism, but that’s vanishing faster than the remains of an increasingly rare snowfall in New York. ”

    I was curious about the veracity of their statement, so thought I’d look into it more. Found stats for snowfall at Central Park from http://www.erh.noaa.gov/okx/climate/records/monthseasonsnowfall.html

    Decadal totals:
    Ending Sum
    1880 355.2
    1890 328.3
    1900 347.3
    1910 302.2
    1920 326.6
    1930 260.5
    1940 256.6
    1950 316.3
    1960 226
    1970 306.4
    1980 212.5
    1990 197.4
    2000 247.3
    2010 314.7

    I lament the demise of journalism.

  121. Mooloo says:

    Jeff Alberts says:

    No it isn’t obvious, because there is no “global temperature”.

    There isn’t a GDP either, by such logic.

    “Global temperature”, like GDP, is a statistical measure. You can argue about how it should be measured, or whether it is a useful measure (as economists do with GDP). But you can’t argue that it doesn’t exist because it is a statistical measure not a direct one.

    For sure “IQ” is not necessarily a useful measure, but it goes too far to say that just because IQ measurements aren’t useful that they don’t exist. IQ is an attempt to measure a person’s intelligence. Can I conclude that there is no such thing as a smart person or a stupid person, on the basis that measuring it precisely is tricky?

    So there is a global temperature. It isn’t a good metric, perhaps. But you just look like an argumentative fool trying to deny it merely on the basis you don’t like averages.

  122. Harry van Loon says:

    So Alberts says “there is no global mean temperature”. That means that WUWT and similar discussion pages might as well give up since we have no way to measure global cooling or warming.

  123. Theo Goodwin says:

    Jan P Perlwitz writes:
    January 16, 2013 at 4:31 pm
    “I do not know any statement by Hansen from the past, or by any other climate scientist, for the matter of fact, according to which anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings supposedly overwhelmed natural unforced variability, for instance the ones related to ENSO, on any arbitrarily chosen short time scale. It has always been said that natural variability dominates the atmospheric temperature record on short time scales.”

    You might be right. But your interpretation renders meaningless Hansen’s words:

    “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.”

    On your interpretation, that sentence reads:

    “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of [something irrelevant] and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.”

    I guess you could say that “mean global temperature” does not refer to something that “anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings” affect, but that simply drains more meaning from the quotation.

    You might be right. Hansen might have meant to write something meaningless that sounds meaningful. Now that truly would be a Red Herring on Hansen’s part. Or he might be unaware that his words are meaningless. That is my guess. I have never seen Hansen expend a moment’s effort to explain the meaning of his words. He should. He would write much less nonsense.

  124. Theo Goodwin says:

    TimM says:
    January 16, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    1927-32 is one huge slump. Five inches? What happened?

  125. Jeff Alberts says:

    Mooloo says:
    January 16, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    So there is a global temperature. It isn’t a good metric, perhaps. But you just look like an argumentative fool trying to deny it merely on the basis you don’t like averages.

    It’s got nothing to do with me not liking averages, it’s taking an average of disparate things. Averaging intensive variables doesn’t give you anything meaningful.

  126. Jeff Alberts says:

    Harry van Loon says:
    January 16, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    So Alberts says “there is no global mean temperature”. That means that WUWT and similar discussion pages might as well give up since we have no way to measure global cooling or warming.

    And I’ve mentioned just that many times. You have to measure heat content, not temperature. Here’s the link again in case you missed it.

  127. Werner Brozek says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    January 16, 2013 at 4:31 pm
    It has always been said that natural variability dominates the atmospheric temperature record on short time scales.
    I agree, but what is “short”? According to NOAA, 15 years is not short. However the average of the satellite data says there has been no warming for over 15 years. See:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/detrend:-0.0735/offset:-0.080/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend

  128. D Böehm Stealey says:

    I have to agree with Jeff Alberts here. Although there is a putative global temperature, it is largely a SWAG [Scientific Wild A$$ Guess].

  129. Jimmy Haigh says:

    JohnH says:
    January 16, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    “…The good news is that maybe he’ll stop scaring the heck out of his grandchildren.”

    To me this is one of the worst things to come out of the CAGW scam: an entire generation of school children have been brainwashed and ndoctrinated – and scared – into believing this bullshit.

  130. Harry van Loon says:

    If measured competently, it’s the best we have.

  131. Jeff Alberts says:
    January 16, 2013 at 8:40 pm
    “there is no global mean temperature”
    This is often used as an excuse for not knowing anything, but science progresses not by what is strictly true in some sense, but by how useful something or a concept is in predicting how a system behaves. An example is the effective temperature of the Sun or a star. Those entities are also not in thermodynamic equilibrium, but we can derive the very useful concept of an effective temperature as that temperature [an intrinsic variable] that would produce the amount of radiation we receive [an extensive variable] under the assumption of a radiation law [e.g. black body]. This effective temperature also does not ‘exist’ in a strict sense [there may be no part of the star that actually has that temperature], but is extremely useful for the understanding the Sun and the stars. We can also observe the Earth from space [perhaps from far away] and calculate the Earth’s effective temperature and monitor how it changes over time. The various ‘global temperatures’ quoted are approximations to that useful concept ‘effective temperature’. The only question is how good that approximation is. Most scientists would believe the approximation is good provided the network of temperature sensors is dense and regular enough. To reject the concept you have to show that the approximation is not valid. That you have not done.

  132. Bohemond says:

    “The continuing planetary imbalance and the rapid increase of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel assure that global warming will continue on decadal time scales. ”

    Have I heard this before? Oh, yes…..
    ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
    BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
    ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you’ve got no arms left.
    BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
    ARTHUR: Look!
    BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.

  133. Random Thoughts says:

    Since it appears that AGW may have been related to the drop of particulate emissions rather than CO2, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that the EPA is maybe at least partially responsible for AGW? Save the world, ban the EPA. More research funding necessary.

  134. [snip - as well as Stealy's comment spurring this one]

  135. Australis says:

    “the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions”

    In other words, the PDO cycle turned about 10 years ago. And the warming phase of 1979-98 resulted from the PDO flipping the other way in 1976.

    What happened to Occam’s Razor?

  136. jeez says:

    There’s no climb down here.

    This is the new party line:
    “The Warming is Being Concealed by the Cooling [Natural Variation].”

    It’s the same story that’s in that SS video that is circulating everywhere.

    I hesitate to link to it, but for reference here it is.

    Whether this is a coordinated propaganda campaign or not is questionable, after all these folks talk at dinner and in the bar. I’ll give JH the benefit of the doubt and believe he’s just jumping on the bandwagon, and he wasn’t assigned to write this paper during the weekly conspiracy conference call.

  137. kim says:

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Standstill. Well, catastrophic for the alarmists, anyway.
    ==================

  138. David says:

    Funny how, having reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming over the last 16/20 years, the ‘warmists’ now confidently predict that ‘it’ll all start going up again around 2017..’
    Based on – what, exactly..?

  139. Harry van Loon says:

    Tak Leif, sikken et fjols

  140. Bruce Cobb says:

    David says:
    January 17, 2013 at 5:02 am

    Funny how, having reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming over the last 16/20 years, the ‘warmists’ now confidently predict that ‘it’ll all start going up again around 2017..’
    Based on – what, exactly..?

    Fervent prayers.

  141. Ian W says:

    Typhoon says:
    January 16, 2013 at 9:05 am

    It continues to puzzle me how one can take this stuff seriously:

    1/ Claiming to know the “global average temperature” to within +/- 0.2C back in 1880 as much of the planet was; a/ not instrumented and b/ instrumental errors associated with thermometer calibration, accuracy, drift, reproducibility. and siting were not insignificant. Such measurement issues are still a challenge today as Watt’s et al US station survey project demonstrated.

    2/ The concept of a “global average temperature” is a dubious physical concept given that the atmosphere is a open highly dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium. What one should be calculating is total heat content, if anything.

    Absolutely.
    And any measurement of the atmospheric heat content should be in kilojoules per kilogram. Unfortunately, the climate scientists have managed to convince everyone that carbon dioxide traps temperature ;-) So that is what they measure.
    There are a few of us beating the enthalpy drum – but everyone still clusters around the lampost arguing about ‘average temperatures’ which can tell you nothing about heat content – but that’s difficult – come over here under the light. {sigh}

  142. It is asserted here by many that there has been “no global warming” for 16 years or “global warming stopped 16 years ago” or similar, based on the fact that the atmospheric temperature increase hasn’t been statistically significant, because some x% threshold probability over such a time wasn’t exceeded. However, this assertion is lacking scientific validity, since the failure to reject a statistical Null-hypothesis (in this case “no global warming”) doesn’t allow the conclusion that the statistical Null-hypothesis was true. Only the successful rejection of the Null-hypothesis allows a probabilistic statement as conclusion that the Null-hypothesis is false, in favor of the alternative hypothesis (in this case presence of global warming). Otherwise one could claim at any point in time that there hasn’t been any change of any statistical variable, if one just cherry picks the data sample small enough. For instance, one could split the temperature record since the mid-1970ies in small enough pieces, and then none of the temperature changes within the limits of the pieces would be statistically significant. According to the flawed reasoning applied by many here, one would have to conclude that there wasn’t any global warming in any of those limited time periods, i.e., no global warming since the mid-1970ies at all. On the other hand, the Null-hypothesis of “no global warming” in the atmospheric temperature record since the mid-1970 can be successfully rejected by doing the statistical significance test over the data from the whole time period from the mid-1970 to today. Global warming and no global warming can’t be both true at the same time. A statement and its negation can’t be both true at the same time. Thus, one of the approaches must be wrong, and it is not the one that uses the more comprehensive data set for the analysis.

    Empirical evidence for the assertion that the positive multi-decadal temperature trend since the mid-1970ies, which is statistically significant, was not intact in this century anymore has not been presented so far by the ones who claim “global warming stopped”. Such evidence could be provided, for instance, if it was shown that the temperature record of recent years statistically significantly deviated from the multi-decadal trend, or from the statistically significant positive trend in the decades up-to the point when global warming allegedly stopped. As long as such evidence has not been provided, the claims about the allegedly stopped global warming are only conjecture without scientific basis by the ones who make such a claim. Until this evidence isn’t there, I don’t see any reason to think beyond just speculation that the temperature record of recent years wasn’t anything else than just another random wobble due to unforced variability, which is going to wobble in the other direction in the near future (and then add to the trend again), like this was the case for the global atmospheric temperature record from 1980 to 1994, when the change wasn’t statistically significant either, which resolved afterward, or the upward wobble in the Arctic sea ice after at this time minimum on record in 2007, or the downward wobble in the global sea level in 2010. It’s a pattern that temporary wobbles in climate variables in the opposite direction of the trend, which are just part of the noise overlaying the trend, are being interpreted by “skeptics” as trend reversals and alleged evidence that AGW wasn’t true, every time when such a wobble appears in the record of some variable.

    If it was shown that the recent temperature record significantly deviated from the statistically significant warming trend up to the point when global warming allegedly stopped, it would be reasonable to think that the empirically data indicated something has been really different in recent years and to think about what could have caused this. Thus, show me the data and the statistical evidence.

  143. Theo Goodwin says:

    jeez says:
    January 17, 2013 at 2:21 am

    In effect, Warmists are saying that a lack of signal triggers an interest in natural variation because natural variation hides the signal. Mind you, natural variation cannot do anything else. It cannot increase the signal or cause a false increase in the signal or affect the signal in other ways than hiding it. Obviously, then, natural variation is the enemy of climate science as practiced by Hansen and his followers. I hope it is obvious to everyone that such thinking is more akin to religion than science.

    Oh, and the kicker is that Warmists now want credit for taking into account natural variation even though they studiously ignored it when developing their theory of the signal. Sorry, Warmists, but you cannot treat natural variation as something important only when it suits your purposes of supporting your particular theory.

  144. D Böehm Stealey says:

    Perlwitz says:

    “It is asserted here by many that there has been “no global warming” for 16 years or “global warming stopped 16 years ago”… However, this assertion is lacking scientific validity…”

    Wrong. It is not just “asserted”, it is a verified scientific fact: global warming has stopped.

    Perlwitz continues:

    “…show me the data and the statistical evidence.”

    With pleasure:

    click1

    click2

    click3

    click4 [10 separate data sets]

    Perlwitz refuses to accept reality: global warming has stopped.

  145. Bruce Cobb says:

    @ Jan Perlwitz; You seem to be in denial of the fact that there has been no further warming since 1997. We get that this fact is inconvenient for you Warmists, and we sympathize. Your much-ballyhooed and cherished Warmist ideology is going the way of the Dodo, and this must be very troubling. Perhaps some counseling would be in order.

  146. Harry van Loon says:

    But Jeff Alberts says that there is no global temperature, so stop all this talking.

  147. mpainter says:

    Perlwitz says: January 17, 2013 at 8:03 am
    =============================
    Jan Perlwitz does not even pretend to fool himself.

    So Jan, how much warming in the last sixteen years? Would you care to tell us?

  148. mpainter says:

    Jan Perlwitz: once again:

    Jan P Perlwitz says: January 16, 2013 at 4:31 pm
    I do not know any statement by Hansen from the past, or by any other climate scientist, for the matter of fact, according to which anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings supposedly overwhelmed natural unforced variability, for instance the ones related to ENSO, on any arbitrarily chosen short time scale.
    ==================================
    If “anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings” are submerged in short term flutuations, there is no reason to suppose that it would be otherwise in the long term climate trends, as exemplified by the MWP and LIA.

    You dismiss the temperature record of the last sixteen years as “any arbitrarily chosen short time scale.” You fool none but yourself with such statements.

  149. Ian W says:

    Mooloo says:
    January 16, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    Jeff Alberts says:

    No it isn’t obvious, because there is no “global temperature”.

    There isn’t a GDP either, by such logic.

    “Global temperature”, like GDP, is a statistical measure. You can argue about how it should be measured, or whether it is a useful measure (as economists do with GDP). But you can’t argue that it doesn’t exist because it is a statistical measure not a direct one.

    For sure “IQ” is not necessarily a useful measure, but it goes too far to say that just because IQ measurements aren’t useful that they don’t exist. IQ is an attempt to measure a person’s intelligence. Can I conclude that there is no such thing as a smart person or a stupid person, on the basis that measuring it precisely is tricky?

    So there is a global temperature. It isn’t a good metric, perhaps. But you just look like an argumentative fool trying to deny it merely on the basis you don’t like averages.

    There is an average telephone number for New York too and I am sure you could come up with a CIE average color for cars on the I-95 to compare it with a CIE average color for cars on the I-10.
    However, averaging an intensive variable is demonstration of lack of understanding of what it is we are required to measure. We should not even be measuring ‘heat content’ by using ‘atmospheric temperature’.

    But what can you expect when these people are using ad hominems like ‘climate denier’.

  150. Mr. Stealey,

    Before you continue to embarrass yourself, I recommend you make yourself familiar with some basic concepts in statistics like Null-hypothesis, statistical significance tests, error probability, and what can be concluded from the successful rejection of a Null-hypothesis, or the failure of a rejection, My request was to show with the available empirical data at hand that the atmospheric temperature record of recent years statistically significantly deviates from the multi-decadal atmospheric warming trend, which is statistically significant, for instance up-to the point when atmospheric global warming allegedly stopped. A little pointer. In this case the Null-hypothesis that must be successfully rejected is the warming trend. Your colored graphs displaying merely some temperature data from cherry picked time intervals do not provide anything of the requested. There are no significance tests there, no uncertainty ranges. Nothing. As long as there is no evidence provided that the recent atmospheric temperature record statistically significantly deviates from the multi-decadal warming trend, the statement that global atmospheric warming stopped allegedly 16 years ago or so is as scientifically meaningless as the statement that global atmospheric warming allegedly stopped last night.

    BTW: The assertion of the “stopped global warming” contains actually much more than just a statement about the global atmospheric temperature trend. It is an assertion that the physical process of heat accumulation in the whole atmosphere-ocean-land-cryosphere system due to the radiative perturbation by increasing greenhouse gases has come to a stop. The global atmospheric temperature trend is rather of secondary nature here, since more than 80% of the additional energy available due to the radiative imbalance by greenhouse gases goes into heating the oceans. The oceans heat the atmosphere, then. The heat accumulation in the oceans doesn’t show any “flat” trend since the start of this century:
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    which indicates that heat flux from the oceans to the atmosphere will continue to warm the atmosphere in coming decades, even if the increase in greenhouse gases totally stopped. Just to add an argument from physics against the unscientific assertion that global warming “stopped” to the mere statistical argument above. The accelerating melting of the ice in the polar regions of the planet also indicates the continuance of heat accumulation in the system.

  151. Bart says:

    Ian W says:
    January 17, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    The question which arises is what, exactly, does the global average temperature metric measure? It appears to me that it would essentially be putting the most weight on those areas with the greatest temperature variability, i.e., with the lowest local heat capacities. As such, it is basically a measure proportional to average heat in the desert areas of the world, by far the largest of those being the Antarctic, the Arctic, and the Sahara.

  152. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    Bruce Cobb, your reply in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1201360

    makes the thread recursive, since you only repeat the assertion that something was a “fact”, after I already had replied to this assertion. Please go back to my comment,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1201297

    where you can find my reply.

    Even the x-th repetition of an assertion that is actually just a conjecture which comes without any empirical, statistical evidence was a “fact” doesn’t make it a fact. If the request for such evidence is supposed to be a valid criterion for being “in denial”, so be it. If blind acceptance of a conjecture as a “fact” is required to lose this label, so be it. Interesting that you recommend to me to seek council because I was not willing to behave like a true “skeptical” believer who accepts any assertion as a “fact”, even if it comes without any empirical, statistical evidence, as long as it states something that allegedly refutes AGW.

    mpainter asks in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1201441

    So Jan, how much warming in the last sixteen years? Would you care to tell us?

    About 10^22 Joules accumulation of additional heat in the upper 2000 m of the world oceans according to NOAA data. This is the most important physical variable for the process of global warming, since more than 80% of the additional heat available due to the perturbation in the radiative balance by increasing greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    mpainter wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1201464

    If “anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings” are submerged in short term flutuations, there is no reason to suppose that it would be otherwise in the long term climate trends, as exemplified by the MWP and LIA.

    Your conclusion is logically a non-sequitur. The incremental change in the anthropogenic forcing is smaller from one year to the next than on a time scale of 10 years, and this one is smaller than the one on a time scale of more than a hundred years. With an increasing magnitude of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing over time, one can’t conclude that natural variability of the temperature would equally overwhelm the effect on the temperature record of an anthropogenic forcing change on longer time scales, over which it is large in magnitude, because natural variability overwhelmed the effect of an anthropogenic forcing change on arbitrarily small time scales over which it is only small. The range of natural variability over different time scales can be estimated from data. The magnitude of natural forcings can be estimated from data and calculated, within some uncertainty range. Those can be compared with the magnitude of the anthropogenic forcings. This allows conclusions on what time scales the magnitude of the anthropogenic forcing and their effect can be expected to be larger than natural forcings and their effect and larger than natural unforced variability. Natural variability hasn’t overwhelmed the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing on the global atmospheric temperature over a time scale of multiple decades since the mid-1970ies. Here you have a time scale over which anthropogenic forcings and their effect were larger. The statistically significant increase in the global atmospheric temperature since the mid-1970ies was not caused by natural variability, forced or unforced.

    You dismiss the temperature record of the last sixteen years as “any arbitrarily chosen short time scale.” You fool none but yourself with such statements.

    Just provide the requested empirical, statistical evidence, which shows that the temperature record over those 16 years was of any importance to draw a valid conclusion that global warming “stopped”. Otherwise, the time scale of 16 years is equally arbitrary and meaningless as the time scale since last night, regarding such a conclusion. One always can find a time scale, if chosen sufficiently short enough, for which a trend in a statistical variable can’t be detected with statistical significance. Arguments directed against me as a person don’t do it.

  153. ferd berple says:

    The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.
    ============
    So, now Hansen is saying that it isn’t the level of CO2 that causes warming, rather it is the rate of increase in CO2. This is entirely new science because it means that increasing CO2 is not enough to raise temperatures. You must have increasing rate of CO2 increase.

    However, the rate of increase in CO2 is not decreasing.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

    But we finally do have Hansen at least admitting that it isn’t increasing CO2 that causes warming. Rather you need the rate of increase to be increasing. If the rate of increase is level (as the Mauna Loa measurements shows) then temperatures are level.

    This is what was shown a couple of years back by as I recall an Israeli mathematicians using techniques more common in financial analysis, and picked up on by a couple of popular blogs. That temperature was not driven by CO2 levels, but rather by the rate of change of CO2. It appears that Hansen agrees.

  154. D Böehm Stealey says:

    Perlwitz says:

    “Your colored graphs displaying merely some temperature data from cherry picked time intervals…”

    Those “colored graphs” are empirical evidence. They are constructed from recognized and accepted real world data bases.

    Perlwitz is just flailing around, trying to explain why his predicted CO2=CAGW conjecture is failing. Even Hansen is now moving the goal posts, because he couldn’t score from where he had placed them. Despite te continuing rise of CO2, global warming has stopped.

    But some folks just can’t handle reality.

  155. Bruce Cobb says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    January 17, 2013 at 1:20 pm
    The assertion of the “stopped global warming” contains actually much more than just a statement about the global atmospheric temperature trend. It is an assertion that the physical process of heat accumulation in the whole atmosphere-ocean-land-cryosphere system due to the radiative perturbation by increasing greenhouse gases has come to a stop.

    You are getting closer, but not quite there yet. The physical process of AGW, although real, was never much of a player in the first place, except in the fevered imaginations and in the C02-centric GCMs of you Warmists. The warming was almost entirely natural, in other words. The fact that the warming has indeed stopped the last 16 years, despite your protestations, is just an obvious indication of the fact that man’s C02 has only a very minor effect on climate.
    Keep plugging away, though. You’ll get there eventually.

  156. Jan P Perlw1tz:

    At January 17, 2013 at 1:20 pm you say

    The accelerating melting of the ice in the polar regions of the planet also indicates the continuance of heat accumulation in the system.

    Oh! So you are moving the goal posts!

    For decades I and others have been arguing that global temperature is an undefined metric; e.g. see
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
    But while global temperature was rising you and your colleagues adamantly proclaimed that mean global temperature was what we had to worry about. Indeed, the economy of the entire world needed to be altered to avoid global temperature rising by 2.0 deg.C.

    And you made ‘adjustments’ like this
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
    to enhance those assertions.

    Now, when even the adjustments cannot show warming for 15+ years, you say we should ignore global temperature and consider “heat accumulation in the system”!

    And among all the waffle, red herrings, and obfuscation in your post, you don’t answer the clear and simple question put to you by mpainter January 17, 2013 at 11:22 am; i.e.

    So Jan, how much warming in the last sixteen years? Would you care to tell us?

    Instead of obfuscation, please answer the question.

    Richard

  157. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    Here is an illustration how one could claim no global warming in different time periods over the last three decades by applying the same flawed methodology of “skeptics” like Courtney, Stealey (who apparently doesn’t even understand any of the arguments about statistics and what would have to deliver to give statements about the allegedly stopped global warming any scientific validity) of using cherry picked time intervals from the atmospheric temperature data series to support the scientifically baseless claims about the allegedly “stopped” global warming:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1994/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1994/trend/plot/rss/from:1994/to:1997/plot/rss/from:1994/to:1997/trend:0.68/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2013/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2013/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1980/normalise/offset:0.4

    Actually, the temperature change in none of three periods is statistically significant. So according to “skeptic” reasoning there couldn’t have been any global warming in any of the three time periods. So “skeptic” way of reasoning says no global warming since 1980 at all.

    However, the atmospheric temperature increase over the whole time period is statistically significant, if one includes all the data in the analysis at once. Both can’t be true at the same time.

  158. richardscourtney wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1201639

    The accelerating melting of the ice in the polar regions of the planet also indicates the continuance of heat accumulation in the system.

    Oh! So you are moving the goal posts!

    For your accusation of applying a logical fallacy, you cherry pick one single sentence that was an additional remark, at the same time ignoring my comprehensive argumentation about the statistics of the global atmospheric temperature record. Cherry picking of a quote, a false accusation, probably for the purpose of distraction.

    At the end, important is, anyway, whether an argument is scientifically valid, not whether you like it or not depending on whether it contradicts your spin.

    For decades I and others have been arguing that global temperature is an undefined metric

    Everyone has the right to an opinion. So what?

    But while global temperature was rising you and your colleagues adamantly proclaimed that mean global temperature was what we had to worry about. Indeed, the economy of the entire world needed to be altered to avoid global temperature rising by 2.0 deg.C.

    No specific quotes, no proof of source. You are fabulating about what I allegedly said in the past, compared to what I, or any of the unspecified colleagues to which you refer, say today.

    And you made ‘adjustments’ like this
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
    to enhance those assertions.

    Some graphics, the source of which is unknown, combined with assertions and innuendo of manipulation, because of alleged sinister motives. No evidence is provided what the source of the adjustments was (for instance, whether they were done due to changes in the methodology applied by Hansen et al., or whether those changes came from the source data, which are not produced at GISS). Also, no evidence is provided that those adjustments were done for other reasons than for legitimate scientific ones. So, just the innuendo and here in the comment the open accusation, how it is typically done by “skeptics” to defame scientists, of fraudulent manipulation without evidence for the validity of the accusations.

    And your assertion that I made those adjustments seems to reflect your understanding of guilt by association.

    Now, when even the adjustments cannot show warming for 15+ years, you say we should ignore global temperature and consider “heat accumulation in the system”!

    And here come the falsehoods again. I didn’t say anywhere that the global temperature should be ignored. Instead, I made a comprehensive argument about statistical methodology, what conclusions can be validly drawn from applying such methodology to the global atmospheric temperature record, and what empirical, statistical evidence must be delivered so that a valid scientific conclusion can be drawn whether the years in the new century have been different to what had happened in the decades before. I stated clear criteria for what I would consider valid empirical, statistical evidence that would warrant thinking about what has changed and what the causes were for the change.

    Nevertheless, I also say that heat accumulation in the system, particularly in the oceans, is more important for the question of continuing global warming, since more than 80% of the additional heat due to the radiative imbalance by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans. The ocean heat anomaly has continued to build up in recent years. What is your argument against this? Do you have any? Also here, it is important whether the argument is scientifically valid, not whether you don’t like it, because it was in contradiction to your spin.

    So Jan, how much warming in the last sixteen years? Would you care to tell us?

    Instead of obfuscation, please answer the question.

    I answered this question. The question did not specify to what part of the system it refers. It is logical to take the oceans, since most of the global warming by heat amount takes place in the oceans. If you claim that my answer was “obfuscation” then this suggests you assert the global ocean heat anomaly was not relevant for the question of global warming. Are you saying the part of whole system, where most of the heat from the greenhouse gas imbalance goes, should be just ignored? Based on what argument from physics?

  159. Gunga Din says:

    richardscourtney says:
    January 17, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    …..And among all the waffle, red herrings, and obfuscation in your post, you don’t answer the clear and simple question put to you by mpainter January 17, 2013 at 11:22 am; i.e.

    So Jan, how much warming in the last sixteen years? Would you care to tell us?

    Instead of obfuscation, please answer the question.
    ===========================================================
    Gore sells out to “Big Oil”. Hansen admits, “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade”.
    So is the answer, “Enough warming to cause a warmist meltdown”?

  160. Gunga Din says:

    mpainter says:
    January 16, 2013 at 11:42 am
    ====================================
    Sorry about any mix up. Sometimes words on a page can be read two ways, like the classic job recommendation: “You’ll be lucky to get him to work for you.”
    I mistook your intent. My bad.

  161. mpainter says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says: January 17, 2013 at 2:52 pm
    ===============================
    Your link to noaa does not work

    The oceans are opaque to IR radiation (see absorbency spectrum of water), hence the GHE does not contribute to SST. [You know this, I believe.]

    Ergo: ocean heat content is due to some factor other than AGW.

    The current post-LIA warming trend will peak and reverse according to natural climate factors. We know this because, as you say, natural climate variability submerges any forcing effect from CO2
    [inconsequential effect].

    AGW is purely theoretical, with no means of testing. A laboratory vessel is not the earth’s atmosphere. Climate processes are imperfectly understood [and sometimes misunderstood] and an imperfectly understood [or misunderstood] system cannot be reliably modeled. Hence the universal failure of the models to reliably forecast.

    However, radiation physics aside, warming is entirely beneficial and is much to be preferred to cooling. Cooling is the real danger to our well-being. The hope that AGW once held for warming the globe by combustion of carbon has been dashed by the recent cooling trend.

  162. D Böehm Stealey says:

    ferd berple says:

    “So, now Hansen is saying that it isn’t the level of CO2 that causes warming, rather it is the rate of increase in CO2. This is entirely new science because it means that increasing CO2 is not enough to raise temperatures. You must have increasing rate of CO2 increase.”

    Ferd is right, as usual. The goal posts have been moved once again, this time by none other than James “Coal Trains of Death” Hansen. So now it’s official. Officially official. ☺

    • • •

    Werner Brozek brings up this point repeatedly: What, exactly, is a “short” time frame? It appears that ‘short’ is always just a little longer than it takes to finally demolish the CO2=CAGW nonsense. That is why Perlwitz never goes on record with a specific number of years. But sixteen years means that the current no-warming trend is becoming quite significant.

    [BTW, I am perfectly willing to change my mind if the current lack of warming were to change to rapid, sustained global warming. That is the central difference between CAGW believers and scientific skeptics. Skeptics listen to what Planet Earth is telling us, while CAGW believers ignore the real world in favor of their always-inaccurate GCMs.]

  163. Bart says:

    ferd berple says:
    January 17, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    “However, the rate of increase in CO2 is not decreasing.”

    You were doing well, but you took it one step too far. The rate of increase in CO2 is decreasing, in lockstep with the slowdown in the global temperature metric. Because, you see, it is the temperature driving CO2, and not the other way around.

  164. E.M.Smith says:

    Hansen is NOT doing a ‘climb down’. At a recent event at The Commonwealth Club, he was very much in favor of suing folks who were not on board with “Climate Change” for “crimes against humanity” and talked about a legal organization with which he is working, and how they were exploring that.path. He also repeatedly stressed the absolute need to “put a price on carbon”…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/sue-happy-hansen/

    Note that in the non-paper referenced above he uses a ‘5 year mean’, so he’s already hiding 5 years via averaging. Spots not changed on this spotted skunk, IMHO.

  165. Jan P Perlw1tz:

    I take severe exception to your untrue, offensive and evasive post at January 17, 2013 at 6:58 pm.

    My post addressed to you at January 17, 2013 at 4:14 pm was clear, provided links (because I know your excuses from old), and asked for specific responses.

    Your reply (at January 17, 2013 at 6:58 pm) was typical of you. It was obscurantist and evasive, told blatant lies, and replaced evidence with insult.

    People can read your diatribe to see all your behaviour for themselves: I cite only one example because it demonstrates your misdemeanours and the reason for them.

    I pointed out that you had evaded the question to you from mpainter and I posed it again, saying it was

    So Jan, how much warming in the last sixteen years? Would you care to tell us?

    I added

    Instead of obfuscation, please answer the question.

    You have replied saying in total

    I answered this question. The question did not specify to what part of the system it refers. It is logical to take the oceans, since most of the global warming by heat amount takes place in the oceans. If you claim that my answer was “obfuscation” then this suggests you assert the global ocean heat anomaly was not relevant for the question of global warming. Are you saying the part of whole system, where most of the heat from the greenhouse gas imbalance goes, should be just ignored? Based on what argument from physics?

    No! You state a blatant lie when you claim to have “answered this question”.

    Your obscurantist evasion – n.b. NOT an answer – was in your post at January 17, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    About 10^22 Joules accumulation of additional heat in the upper 2000 m of the world oceans according to NOAA data. This is the most important physical variable for the process of global warming, since more than 80% of the additional heat available due to the perturbation in the radiative balance by increasing greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    mpainter asked about warming and – in context – it is clear he meant global warming.
    You have answered by talking about ocean heat content.

    The two subjects are completely different!
    It is as though mpainter had asked about the colour of the sky and you had answered that the Moon is in the sky and is made of rock.

    Warming consists of increase to temperature.
    Increase to ocean heat content can occur without change to temperature (e.g. by variation in polar ice). Similarly, as you well know, heat added to a glass containing ice and water will increase the heat in the contents of the glass but will not warm those contents.

    And the remainder of your reply to mpainter is similar obscurantism. You were not asked about “the most important physical variable for the process of global warming”: you were asked “how much warming in the last sixteen years”.

    And your answer to me uses the omission of the word “global” in the question although that was implicit. Your answer to me says; “The question did not specify to what part of the system it refers.”

    The question was about the globe and NOT any “part of the system”. And you then talk about ocean heat content. That is an insult to the reader because it assumes the reader is too stupid to know what the question was about.

    Indeed, the importance of “the last sixteen years” must be known to you because you are a climate modeller. NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 said of model simulations of global temperature:

    Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    And that is why you refuse to answer the question from mpainter.

    The global temperature trend has been indistinguishable from zero at 95% confidence for more than 15 years whether or not one removes the 1998 ENSO peak. This falsifies your models.

    Simply, you are evading the question, obfuscating the issue, and throwing insults because the answer to the question says your modelling work is plain wrong.

    Richard

  166. Aanthanur says:

    “But, he’s still arguing for an imbalance, even though flatness abounds. Seems like equilibrium to me…”

    So you are serously implying that one can determine the energy balance being in equilibrium from the Surface temperature? what about the continued increase in oceanic heat content? and continued warming of the troposphere and stratospheric cooling?

  167. Lance of BC says:

    Isn’t Hansen getting close to retirement?

    He’s just saving face like James Lovelock did in his last few years, a sense that all you’ve been hypothesising/working on for your whole life has been a pile of BS(bad science) but are willing to admit that you maybe wrong. Leaving your legacy enticed and epitaph cleansed for scrutiny.
    In reality you’ve pushed scientific discovery back a 100 years and created(or helped to create) a generation of PHD holding scientific illiterates, computer modellers who have completely destroyed scientific method and analytical/rational thinking and feed a wasteland of CAGW bureaucratic/NGO environmental parasites.
    I’d still have respect for Lovelock even if he had not step down from his silly GAIA theory and exaggerated doom and gloom soothsayer predictions, this is science and being wrong is part of discovering the truth.

    Hansen on the other hand altered real data and is a criminal in my eyes and no matter how much he steps down that doesn’t change the fact that he has been manipulated data from the past to guide this farce from the beginning. He has single handily set back progress in helping out the poor and hungry in this world by redirecting trillions of dollars to a LIE/imaginary problem. Think about all those trillions of dollars going for helping create energy, healthcare and feeding of poor countries, it would be a better world.

    Hansen should be in jail for crimes against humanity.

  168. policycritic says:

    Where is that quote you cite, Anthony, from Hansen’s paper?

    The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.

    All I can find is this. Didn’t he change it?

    The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade. It should be noted that the “standstill” temperature is at a much higher level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that “global warming has stopped”. Examination of this matter requires consideration of the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability.

  169. John Whitman says:

    NASA’s GISS as led by Hansen now has a role as a bureaucratic handmaiden serving obediently to provide the arguments needed to support an ideology. It bends scientific processes and data to further a belief based on that ideology. Hansen holds the belief above what unadjusted reality shows, so he righteously adjusts systematically what reality shows.

    I recommend not letting up on Hansen. Keep on doing many more severe critiques of Hansen. What Hansen has done needs much much more exposure, lest in the future some other government paid charlatan in a scientific costume tries the same pseudo-scientific advocacy of ideology.

    What is Hansen’s underling Gavin Schmidt’s excuse? Is it that he was just following ideological orders from above? That he carried out the orders, but did not agree with them?

    John

  170. Werner Brozek says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    January 17, 2013 at 6:58 pm
    The ocean heat anomaly has continued to build up in recent years. What is your argument against this? Do you have any? 
    Sea surface temperatures have not changed since March 1997 or 15 years, 10 months (goes to December)
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend
    So are you suggesting the deep ocean gets warmer without the surface getting warmer?

  171. FrankTrades says:

    Truth cannot be hidden forever. Where I sit here in New England, writing this comment, was, just 12,000 years ago, under 5,000 feet of glacial ice. Now that’s global warming.

  172. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    mpainter wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1201737

    Your link to noaa does not work

    This one?

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    I have no idea why it isn’t working for you. I just have tested it again, also in my previous comments. It works for me.

    The oceans are opaque to IR radiation (see absorbency spectrum of water), hence the GHE does not contribute to SST. [You know this, I believe.]

    Ergo: ocean heat content is due to some factor other than AGW.

    Neither the first statement, nor the conclusion are correct.

    High opaqueness means that the water is highly absorbing in the infrared part of the radiation spectrum. You asserting that an increase in the downward flux of photons of longwave radiation, which are being absorbed at the surface skin of the ocean would not have any effect on the energy budget and the temperature of the oceans. Well, were is all the additional energy going then, which is being absorbed at the ocean skin? Is it just vanishing?

    The heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere, which cools the ocean, depends on the temperature gradient in the ocean skin layer. What happens is that the additionally absorbed longwave radiation, e.g., by a radiative perturbation coming from increased greenhouse gases, decreases the temperature gradient in the skin layer, decreasing the heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere. With a given amount of incident solar radiation, which warms the ocean mixed layer, more heat is retained in the mixed layer. The mixed layer is warming until a new equilibrium has been reached.

    Or here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/

    Deeper ocean layers are warmed by advection of excess heat to those layers, then.

    The current post-LIA warming trend will peak and reverse according to natural climate factors.

    What climate factors are these, supposedly? What are the supposed physical processes behind the “current post-LIA warming trend”?

    We know this because, as you say, natural climate variability submerges any forcing effect from CO2

    I did not say that natural climate variability “submerges” any forcing effect from CO2. It is not knowledge that this was the case. Neither our, nor yours. This is only your assertion. What is your scientific evidence for your assertion, according to which any CO2 forcing, whatever the magnitude, would be overwhelmed by natural climate variability on a time-scale from decades to hundreds of years?

    AGW is purely theoretical, with no means of testing.

    If this was true then any of the explanations for climate change, in which you believe, would be purely “theoretical” (I suppose you actually mean “hypothetical”), with no means of testing, as well.

    Every aspect of the theory that explains climate and what drives it changes is being tested, including the effect of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

    Climate processes are imperfectly understood [and sometimes misunderstood] and an imperfectly understood [or misunderstood] system cannot be reliably modeled.

    Nothing in Nature, about which scientific theories are being formulated, in any field of science is perfectly understood. Therefore, nothing could be reliably modeled according to you. You have raised the bar infinitely high here. Consequently you would have to reject all of science, if perfect understanding is your criterion for accepting a scientific theory as providing a valid explanation for a phenomenon in Nature.

    Hence the universal failure of the models to reliably forecast.

    Your generalizing assertion about an alleged “universal failure of the models” with respect to everything that is being predicted with the models is based on what evidence?

    However, radiation physics aside, warming is entirely beneficial and is much to be preferred to cooling.

    Any warming? Whatever the magnitude? And on what evidence is this assertion founded?

    Cooling is the real danger to our well-being. The hope that AGW once held for warming the globe by combustion of carbon has been dashed by the recent cooling trend.

    What “recent cooling trend”? And where? Please point me to the data from which one could draw a scientifically valid conclusion that there had been a cooling trend, recently.

  173. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    richardscourtney in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1201914

    Your replye (at January 17, 2013 at 6:58 pm) was typical of you. It was obscurantist and evasive, told blatant lies, and replaced evidence with insult.

    None of your assertions is true. You are lying.

    No! You state a blatant lie when you claim to have “answered this question”.

    I have answered this question. You just don’t like the answer, because it contradicts your spin, and you can’t refute the answer. Therefore, you are trying to dismiss my answer as invalid.

    mpainter asked about warming and – in context – it is clear he meant global warming.
    You have answered by talking about ocean heat content.

    The two subjects are completely different!

    When the oceans are accumulating more and more energy, the component of the climate system that is most important for the global energy budget due to the enormous heat capacity of the oceans, and the oceans are the major energy source for the heating up of the atmosphere, then you asserting that the ocean warming has nothing to do with global warming. Really!

    And the oceans have accumulated a large amount of excess energy since the mid of the last century. If this energy from the ocean heat anomaly was instantaneously released into the lower 10 km of the atmosphere (which comprise about 75% of the atmospheric mass) then this atmospheric layer would warm by whopping 36 K.
    (Levitus et al., GRL, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051106)

    Warming consists of increase to temperature.

    So your objection reduces to that I didn’t use temperature units for my answer. Divide the change in the ocean heat content by the mass of the water and the specific heat capacity, and you get a number in temperature units. This can be done without problems here, particularly since the change in the ocean heat content is derived from the temperature change. Using temperature units is just another way of expressing the same here.

    And the remainder of your reply to mpainter is similar obscurantism. You were not asked about “the most important physical variable for the process of global warming”: you were asked “how much warming in the last sixteen years”.

    And I answered this question for the ocean component, more specifically for the part of the ocean for which measurements are available.

    The question was about the globe and NOT any “part of the system”. And you then talk about ocean heat content.

    Are you sure the question was about the whole of the ocean-land-cryosphere-entire atmosphere system? This is not obvious for me from the discussion. How would you know, that mpainter meant this? Or are you and mpainter one and the same person?

    When all those components are taken into consideration for the answer, how would it be possible to make a meaningful statement about the amount of warming by using temperature as a variable, although the physical properties of the components are very different from each other, e.g., the large differences in the heat capacities? The same magnitude of the temperature increase for instance of the oceans and of the atmosphere mean something very different with respect to the energy budget, because of the large difference of the heat capacities. Shouldn’t the answer be meaningful from the point of view of physics?

    Or maybe you mean something totally different, when you say “globe” and “global”, since you also assert that the ocean heat content change had nothing to do with “global” warming? Please explain your definition of the words “globe” and “global” then, so that I understand what you are talking about.

    Indeed, the importance of “the last sixteen years” must be known to you because you are a climate modeller. NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 said of model simulations of global temperature:

    Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    You present this quote as a statement in the report about the global temperature. You conveniently have not quoted the immediately preceding sentence,

    ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b).

    The quote is really about the global mean atmospheric temperature after adjusting for ENSO, i.e., after the contribution to the temperature variability coming from ENSO has been subtracted from the temperature records. By your way of quoting, you can give the impression to readers, who don’t pay attention and don’t check the source, that the quote as cited by you was a statement about the global atmospheric temperature without adjusting for ENSO, and that the statement said, if there was a Zero trend in the observed temperature record of 15 years or more, it would be valid to conclude a discrepancy between model prediction and observations. I wonder whether this was intended by you, whether you deliberately try to mislead the readers here. Besides, the topic of the discussion here wasn’t whether the observed temperature record was in discrepancy to predictions from climate models. Instead, the topic was whether the observed global atmospheric temperature record provides the empirical, statistical evidence that the assertion according to which global warming “stopped” was scientifically valid. I haven’t discussed models at all in this context here.

    The global temperature trend has been indistinguishable from zero at 95% confidence for more than 15 years

    What was the Null-hypothesis that was tested as basis for this statement? Anyway, nothing can be scientifically concluded from this for the question whether global warming “stopped”. A successful rejection of the Null-hypothesis “Zero-trend” would falsify the Null-hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis (“global atmospheric warming”) for the chosen probability to err. However, a failure to reject the Null-hypothesis does not falsify the alternative hypothesis. It just leaves the matter inconclusive. To refute global warming you must switch the hypotheses. The Null-hypothesis in this case would be a positive warming trend, e.g., the one in the decades up to the point when global warming allegedly “stopped”. The successful rejection of this warming trend by applying a statistical significance test with this chosen Null-hypotheses would falsify it with whatever probability to err is chosen, in favor of the alternative hypothesis. So far, no one has delivered.

    whether or not one removes the 1998 ENSO peak. This falsifies your models.

    So you asserting, even when ENSO variability is being subtracted, the trend was indistinguishable from Zero over a time period of more than 15 years. And this has be shown by whom and published where? I am going to accuse you of spreading a deliberate falsehood here, if you don’t provide the scientific source for your assertion. Like you very likely just had intentionally made up your claim in a previous thread that all three limited decades from 1971-1980, 1981-1990, and 1991-2000 showed a statistically significant warming with 90% probability within the time limits of the decades.

  174. D Böehm Stealey says:

    Perlwitz says of Richard Courtney:

    “You are lying.”

    Don’t let it bother you, Richard. That is just Perlwitz engaging in his usual psychological Projection. His world is caving in, and he is lashing out at folks who tell the truth: global warming has been on hold for the past decade and a half.

    The Met Office and GISS both admit that now. Even James Hansen has been forced to climb down! That says it all.

  175. Werner Brozek says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    January 18, 2013 at 1:59 pm
    If this energy from the ocean heat anomaly was instantaneously released into the lower 10 km of the atmosphere (which comprise about 75% of the atmospheric mass) then this atmospheric layer would warm by whopping 36 K.
    So let us pretend for discussion sake that the deep ocean warmed from 3.0 C to 3.2 C. By what physical mechanism would the oceans cool back to 3.0 while making air warm from 14 C to 50 C?
    As I have shown at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1202274
    the surface of the ocean has not been warming for almost 16 years.

  176. mpainter says:

    The link works now.
    Strange that OHC increases even though SST has not for over fifteen years. Wonder how that happened. What you have done is introduce a new source of suspect data. James Hansen, your hero and convicted adulterator of temperature data (see above post) has his allies at NOAA. Data that shows increasing OHC when SST stopped warming fifteen years ago is hard to accept. It is difficult to see how OHC increases when SST does not.

    Concerning IR radiation caught on the surface of the ocean: IR cannot warm water. This is incontrovertible fact. SST is due to insolation, not GHE. I think that you know this.

    The IR is caught on the surface and there the heat resides briefly before it converts into latent heat of evaporation. The higher air T, the more rapid the rate of evaporation. IR cannot heat water. I think you know this. So no, the heat does not vanish, but converts to latent heat which is transferred aloft by convection and radiated into space.

    There is the argument that somehow CO2 lowers the ocean/atm temperature gradient and thereby warms the ocean. Does not compute. This is merely specious and unsupported argument. It is also incorrect.

    Concerning the “climate factors” that caused the MWP, the LIA, and other Holocene climate variations, no one knows what they are. One thing is certain: it was not CO2. Post-LIA warming is due similarly to natural “climate factors” in which posited CO2 forcing is not apparent.

    Concerning the modeling of imperfectly understood and misunderstood systems, you say that “You have raised the bar infinitely high here”. Actually, no; the entire modeling confraternity of the various engineering professions is with me on this one, and not with you. In these professions, “impossibly” high standards are enforced by the results. No such standards apply to climate modeling.

    You say: “Consequently you would have to reject all of science”

    Quite an extravagant statement you make there, Jan, and yes, I have high standards and I am right proud of it.

    You say: “Your generalizing assertion about an alleged “universal failure of the models” with respect to everything that is being predicted with the models is based on what evidence?”

    You want evidence that the models have failed? Jan, you are a true believer. Indeed, you are a faith healer who thinks to cleanse the globe of CO2. Evidence:

    The models have forecast a warming trend. The globe has not warmed for sixteen years and the last ten have seen a definite cooling trend.
    The models have forecast increasing atm humidity. Humidity has declined.
    The so called upper atmosphere “hot spot” forecast over the tropics has not appeared.

    Jan, the truth is this: global climate models are contrivances that are designed to project an indefinite warming trend. This they do very well, but they can do nothing else. These incorporate all the principles of physics that comprise AGW theory and hence no possibility is allowed for any climate variability, but warming only. You have to have the faith of a zealot to believe in them. Well, you are the zealot, not I.
    You know that the GCM’s cannot furnish valid forecasts. Hence, these are no more than tinkerings that should not be given any weight in policy considerations. They certainly do not meet the standards of the engineering professions where standards prohibit frivolous results.

    Concerning the cooling trend of the last ten years, it’s in the temperature record. I think you know this. Ten years is enough to discern the beginning of a trend, and it is reasonable to assume that the trend will not soon reverse. A continuation of this trend would be most unfortunate, because a warmer world is a better world. It would be a happy thing if you could show that this cooling trend will soon reverse, but of course you can’t.

    Now, let’s talk about the benefits of a warmer world.
    A warmer world means milder winters, not hotter summers. Surely you do not need the benefits of milder winters explained.
    A warmer world means higher humidity, more rainfall, less drought, a shrinking of deserts. Go study the Climatic Optimum, it will show you that this is so. Theory (guess whose) supports this notion, too.
    A warmer world means a longer growing season, an increase in rainfall, expansion of arable land and therefore increased food production, which is important for a world where population is expected to double and redouble this century.

  177. Jan P Perlwitz:

    I am responding to your bloviation at January 18, 2013 at 1:59 pm which attempts to mislead about my demolition of your outrageous obfuscation, evasion and deliberate falsehoods.

    I posted that demolition in this thread at January 18, 2013 at 2:28 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1201914

    The facts are clear.
    1.
    mpainter asked you how much [global] warming has happened over the last 16 years.
    2.
    You have refused to answer the question while repeatedly stating the lie that you have answered it.
    3.
    You have repeatedly attempted to discuss ocean heat content as an excuse to evade answering the question.
    4.
    I explained that your excuse is an evasion.
    5.
    I cited (with a link) the 2008 NOAA falsification criterion for the climate models which says of global warming trends;
    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
    6.
    The climate models are now falsified according to that criterion by the recent 16 years of a zero trend in global warming (at 95% confidence).
    7.
    You – a climate modeller – are throwing out lies, insults and obfuscations as a method to ‘hide the decline’ in the credibility of climate models.
    8.
    I understand why you are trying to keep your – now known to be worthless – job, but I am appalled at the disgraceful method you are using to do it.

    Richard

  178. richardscourtney wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1203044

    a repetition of previous lies combined with attacks against my person, but no answers to any specific matter of disccussion, which I raised or asked in my previous comment,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1202564 ,

    in response to previous statements by you.

    You are not able to refute anything specific I wrote in my previous comment. Totally fine with me.

    Only one point, I want to address once more:

    5.
    I cited (with a link) the 2008 NOAA falsification criterion for the climate models which says of global warming trends;
    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
    6.
    The climate models are now falsified according to that criterion by the recent 16 years of a zero trend in global warming (at 95% confidence).

    After I already had shown in my previous comment that this criterion refers to an analysis of modeled and observed temperature record after adjusting for ENSO variability, this indeed seems to be a deliberate attempt by you to deceive the audience, since you just repeat the same falsehood again. You are using a distorted quote that give the false impression, by conveniently omitting to cite the immediately preceding sentence in the quote, that it applied to data without adjusting for ENSO variability. The purpose of this deception is to assert the falsehood according to which this “falsification criterion” had been fulfilled now.

    Here is the same quote from the NOAA report again, including the sentence that is crucial for understanding what the quote is about:

    ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    Everyone can check for him/herself in the NOAA report whether I am right about this, and form his/her own opinion who is lying here and who is not.

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    The quote can be found on page 23.

  179. mpainter wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1202973

    Strange that OHC increases even though SST has not for over fifteen years. Wonder how that happened. What you have done is introduce a new source of suspect data. James Hansen, your hero and convicted adulterator of temperature data (see above post) has his allies at NOAA. Data that shows increasing OHC when SST stopped warming fifteen years ago is hard to accept.

    Typical “Skeptic” response. If the data don’t confirm the preconceived views, the data can’t be right.

    It is difficult to see how OHC increases when SST does not.

    It’s a complex, nonlinear system. Things don’t happen linearly. Meehl et al., Nature (2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1229, give an explanation, according to which at those times, when there is a hiatus of the sea surface temperature increase, despite an increase in ocean heat content in the upper ocean layers, the heat is transported into deeper ocean levels.

    Concerning IR radiation caught on the surface of the ocean: IR cannot warm water. This is incontrovertible fact. SST is due to insolation, not GHE. I think that you know this.

    Argument by assertion.

    There is the argument that somehow CO2 lowers the ocean/atm temperature gradient and thereby warms the ocean. Does not compute. This is merely specious and unsupported argument. It is also incorrect.

    I have given you a link to an essay written by a scientist who works on this stuff. There he also points to experiments, where those things are actually measured. In contrast, what do you have to support your dismissal of all of this? Nothing.

    Concerning the “climate factors” that caused the MWP, the LIA, and other Holocene climate variations, no one knows what they are. One thing is certain: it was not CO2. Post-LIA warming is due similarly to natural “climate factors” in which posited CO2 forcing is not apparent.

    Argument by assertion.

    Quite an extravagant statement you make there, Jan, and yes, I have high standards and I am right proud of it.

    So, you say.

    You want evidence that the models have failed? Jan, you are a true believer. Indeed, you are a faith healer who thinks to cleanse the globe of CO2. Evidence:

    The models have forecast a warming trend. The globe has not warmed for sixteen years and the last ten have seen a definite cooling trend.

    I already have asked you to show me the data and statistical evidence, on which your assertion about the alleged cooling trend is based. What do you do? You just repeat the assertion. High standards?

    As for the allegedly failed model prediction of the temperature. Again, argument by assertion by you. To draw a scientifically valid conclusion about a discrepancy between model predictions and observed temperature, you would have to show that this discrepancy is statistically significant. If you do this then we can talk about what could have caused such a discrepancy (e.g., lack of model capabilities to simulate the temperature record, or differences in the forcings in the experiments compared to the changes in the forcings in the real world).

    The models have forecast increasing atm humidity. Humidity has declined.

    Your assertion is not a fact. There is empirical evidence for a multi-decadal water vapor increase in the troposphere, particularly in the tropical mid and upper troposphere, from the mid-1970 in the data coming from four out of five reanalysis data sets. Only the older NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data show a decline. The NCEP/NCAR reanalysis do not assimilate more modern measurements from satellites, in contrast to the other four. (Dessler and Davis, JGR, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JD01419). The empirical evidence is consistent with the model predictions of a specific humidity increase and a positive water vapor feedback.

    The so called upper atmosphere “hot spot” forecast over the tropics has not appeared.

    Argument by assertion again.

    Jan, the truth is this: global climate models are contrivances that are designed to project an indefinite warming trend. This they do very well, but they can do nothing else. These incorporate all the principles of physics that comprise AGW theory and hence no possibility is allowed for any climate variability, but warming only. You have to have the faith of a zealot to believe in them. Well, you are the zealot, not I.

    Am I? I am the one who can support my statements with references to empirical data and scientific research. What have you delivered so far? A lot of noise, an assembly of arguments by assertion, and, as one can see here, ad hominem arguments. So much for your high standards? But I am the zealot?

  180. Jan P Perlw1tz:

    You continue your egregious behaviour in your post at January 19, 2013 at 5:44 am.

    Firstly, I made no “lies” and you cite none.

    Secondly, I was able to – and did – refute all your supposed “specific comments” by explaining they are irrelevant obfuscation: you waffle about “ocean heat content” as a method to avoid the question concerning “global warming over the last 16 years”.

    Thirdly, I made no “attacks against [your] person” unless you wish to claim that my pointing out you are a climate modeller is such an “attack”. Or that it was an “attack” to state the obvious truth that you are trying to defend your – now known to be worthless – job. But I can and do understand why being named as being a ‘climate modeller’ could be thought to be offensive.

    Fourthly, you make a fallacious claim that I have misrepresented the NOAA falsification criterion because in my brief summation of our discussion I did not mention ENSO. But when I raised that issue (and provided the link to the pertinent NOAA paper) at January 18, 2013 at 2:28 am I wrote

    The global temperature trend has been indistinguishable from zero at 95% confidence for more than 15 years whether or not one removes the 1998 ENSO peak. This falsifies your models.

    Fifthly, and most importantly, YOU HAVE STILL AVOIDED ANSWERING THE QUESTION. And your attacks of me do not conceal that fact, so I will repeat it.
    What has been the global warming over the last 16 years?

    I anticipate your next post that will continue your obfuscations, evasions and falsehoods in attempt to protect your wortless job by avoiding the question.

    Richard

  181. Mike Murphy says:

    Check out the standard from a global warming advocate when even the slightest criticism is given. You will need to scroll down to Mike Murphys comment.

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151428419947323&set=o.274330505796&type=1&comment_id=10148690

    This is the sort of ad hominem attack that substitutes for debate by these zealots.

  182. mpainter says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says: January 19, 2013 at 6:42 am

    “Argument by assertion.”
    “Argument by assertion.”
    “Argument by assertion again.”
    “A lot of noise, an assembly of arguments by assertion,”

    ===================================
    Perhaps you hoped for argument by “non-assertion”. Strange that you made no attempt to refute these “assertions” with counter “assertions.”

    As for myself, I am content with the exchange and happy to have the issue judged on your reply.

    My advice: stay away from James Hansen- he is a bad influence, and he makes all kinds of “assertions”, especially about the future.

  183. Gunga Din says:

    richardscourtney says:
    January 19, 2013 at 6:56 am

    (To Jan) Fifthly, and most importantly, YOU HAVE STILL AVOIDED ANSWERING THE QUESTION. And your attacks of me do not conceal that fact, so I will repeat it.
    What has been the global warming over the last 16 years?
    =================================================================

    Perhaps we need to rephrase the question.
    Was Hansen wrong when he predicted …er… “projected” temps would rise as CO2 levels rose or was he wrong when he said, “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade”?

  184. Gunga Din:

    re the suggestion in your post at January 19, 2013 at 10:14 am.

    I understand your rephrasing of the question and the reason for it, but – with respect – I think it best to retain the original question. The miscreant has used every method he can to avoid the existing question and may use a rephrasing to further obfuscate.

    Richard

  185. Gunga Din says:

    Agreed. But an actual answer to either would be welcome.
    So, Jan, “What has been the global warming over the last 16 years?”
    To quote part of the message sent to Admiral Halsey, “The world wonders”.

  186. Henry Galt says:

    Perlwitz here displays psychology at work, NOT science.

    His avoidance borders the psychotic. Screeds of excuses when all that is needed is to….

    Answer the question.

    Feel free to surround the word ‘question’ in the previous sentence with Anglo-Saxon profanities.

  187. Gail Combs says:

    Harry van Loon says:
    January 16, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    So Alberts says “there is no global mean temperature”. That means that WUWT and similar discussion pages might as well give up since we have no way to measure global cooling or warming.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    There are other ways
    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/322068/Koppen-climate-classification

    example

  188. Gail Combs says:

    David says:
    January 17, 2013 at 5:02 am

    Funny how, having reluctantly admitted that there has been no global warming over the last 16/20 years, the ‘warmists’ now confidently predict that ‘it’ll all start going up again around 2017..’
    Based on – what, exactly..?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The election of a Republican US president. /snark>

  189. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    Gunga Din wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1203296

    Perhaps we need to rephrase the question.
    Was Hansen wrong when he predicted …er… “projected” temps would rise as CO2 levels rose or was he wrong when he said, “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade”?

    I suspect, you want to assert here that there was a contradiction between Hansen predictions in the past, and his recent statement about the surface temperature behavior in the most recent decade. I won’t answer your question, if you don’t provide specific quotes by Hansen with actual predictions he made in the past, and a reference to the original source, where he made these statements.

    Gunga Din wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1203347

    So, Jan, “What has been the global warming over the last 16 years?”

    As long as Courtney refuses to explain to what this question refers, I can’t answer this question. He refuses to give a definition for his use of “global”. He rejected my answer about the warming of the oceans, because the oceans were only a part of the systems. I only know that he wants an answer in temperature units. But then he also refuses to explain, how one can give a number in temperature units for the whole system that includes ocean, cryosphere, land, atmosphere, which have very different physical properties.

    So, in short, I can’t give you an answer, because I don’t know the number.

    But, if you know how much the system warmed for the last 16 years, expressed in temperature units, tell me, what the number is, please. And please tell me also, on what data this number is based.

  190. D Böehm Stealey says:

    Perlwitz says:

    “I am the one who can support my statements with references to empirical data and scientific research.”

    What a bunch of self-serving horse manure. Perlwits is far from the ‘only one’. Literally dozens of charts have been posted by Werner Brozek, and me, and others, showing clear empirical evidence that contradicts Perlwitz’ false beliefs and baseless assertions.

    Perlwitz is pushing his global warming/CAGW nonsense because he is feeding at the public trough. But even so, he should have more ethics than to claim runaway global warming when there is none.

  191. Jan P Perlw1tz:

    In your reply to Gunga Din at January 19, 2013 at 3:00 pm you write

    So, Jan, “What has been the global warming over the last 16 years?”

    As long as Courtney refuses to explain to what this question refers, I can’t answer this question. He refuses to give a definition for his use of “global”. He rejected my answer about the warming of the oceans, because the oceans were only a part of the systems. I only know that he wants an answer in temperature units. But then he also refuses to explain, how one can give a number in temperature units for the whole system that includes ocean, cryosphere, land, atmosphere, which have very different physical properties.

    So, in short, I can’t give you an answer, because I don’t know the number.

    But, if you know how much the system warmed for the last 16 years, expressed in temperature units, tell me, what the number is, please. And please tell me also, on what data this number is based.

    Congratulations!
    I did not think it was possible for you to provide a larger stinking mess of self-serving bovine excrement than your earlier posts in this thread, but the quotation I provide here has managed to do it.

    Firstly, YOU DISCUSSED THE NUMBER which gives “temperature units for the whole system that includes ocean, cryosphere, land, atmosphere” when you repeatedly discussed the NOAA falsification criterion. Now you claim you don’t know what it is!

    Secondly, I don’t give a “definition” for global temperature. Indeed, as you well know I dispute that such a unique definition exists because I have repeatedly referred you to
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    But my arguments about that are not relevant to this discussion, so you are providing a ‘red herring’ by demanding that I say what I think it is. At issue is the rise in global temperature over the last 16 years according to the time series of global temperature provided by e.g. RSS, UAH, HadCRUTn, and your organisation NASA GISS.

    The question you are evading merely calls upon you to cite the global temperature trend (at 95% confidence) over the last 16 years according to whichever of the pertinent data sets you choose and for you to explain your choice.

    You are making yourself look even more foolish with every excuse you make for avoiding the very simple question. Frankly, if your behaviour here is example of scientists in the employ of US government agencies then I think US taxpayers should be asking for their money back. I would have been sacked for behaving as you are doing when I was employed by a UK government agency.

    Richard

  192. D Böehm Stealey says:

    Perlwitz sounds just like Hansen. They’ve both gone off the deep end.

  193. richardscourtney wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1203557

    Firstly, YOU DISCUSSED THE NUMBER which gives “temperature units for the whole system that includes ocean, cryosphere, land, atmosphere” when you repeatedly discussed the NOAA falsification criterion. Now you claim you don’t know what it is!

    And here we have the next blatant falsehood disseminated by you. I did not discus any “NOAA falsification criterion” in the context of the “whole system” and “how much global warming” question at all.

    You were the one who introduced the “NOAA falsification criterion” in your comment at January 18, 2013 at 2:28 am, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1201914 .

    In reply to that, I just commented your attempt of deception, which was committed by you by omitting the information that the “NOAA falsification criterion” applies to the ENSO-adjusted global atmospheric temperature data, but not to the observed global atmospheric temperature data without adjustment. I even stated explicitly that this issue didn’t have anything to do with what I had discussed before. I wrote:

    …Besides, the topic of the discussion here wasn’t whether the observed temperature record was in discrepancy to predictions from climate models. Instead, the topic was whether the observed global atmospheric temperature record provides the empirical, statistical evidence that the assertion according to which global warming “stopped” was scientifically valid. I haven’t discussed models at all in this context here.
    (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1202564)

    At issue is the rise in global temperature over the last 16 years according to the time series of global temperature provided by e.g. RSS, UAH, HadCRUTn, and your organisation NASA GISS.

    So, at last! Finally, after long winding, you make clear that you are referring to the troposphere and the surface, and that I was supposed to give the number for the tropospheric and surface warming. Oh, stop! Your statements are self-contradictory! When I provided a number for the ocean warming, you rejected the answer with following reply:

    The question was about the globe and NOT any “part of the system”. And you then talk about ocean heat content. That is an insult to the reader because it assumes the reader is too stupid to know what the question was about.

    (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1201914)

    So, on one hand, you rejected my previous answer, when I gave it for the ocean, because it was only about a part of the system, but not about the globe, and now you are claiming the question was about the tropospheric and surface warming, and my question what you mean with “globe” and “global” was a “red herring”. But the troposphere and surface are nothing else than only parts of the system. They are not “the globe”. The globe consists of more than just the atmosphere. And the troposphere and surface are not the most important parts, with respect to the total energy budget of the globe and its variability.

    Yes, I am having fun. Thank you for giving me the opportunity.

    But OK, the failure of logic in your “arguments” aside, I can give you an answer for the tropospheric and surface warming for the last 16 year:

    A statistically significant warming trend can not be detected in the observed global tropospheric and surface temperature data for the time period of the last 16 years for any of the four data sets named by you, when applying a significance threshold of 2-sigma.

    For the question what scientifically valid conclusions can be drawn from this, and what conclusions can’t be drawn, I refer to following of my previous comments in the same thread here, where I had already elaborated about those questions:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1201297

  194. Jan P Perlwitz:

    I have read your post at January 19, 2013 at 8:48 pm which – as anybody can see – is full of blatant falsehoods.

    But it forgets to answer the question (and my post January 19, 2013 at 4:11 pm) gave a simple explanation of all that is required for you to answer it. I remind that the question is:

    What has been the global warming over the last 16 years?

    I – and others – still await your answer.

    Richard

  195. Gunga Din says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    January 19, 2013 at 3:00 pm
    ============================================================
    Thank you for responding to my comment even though, while you said stuff, you didn’t actually answer either question.

  196. richardscourtney wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1203837

    I have read your post at January 19, 2013 at 8:48 pm which – as anybody can see – is full of blatant falsehoods.

    as anybody can see – Asserting the alleged truth of your assertion by applying the logical fallacy of appeal to majority.

    But it forgets to answer the question (and my post January 19, 2013 at 4:11 pm) gave a simple explanation of all that is required for you to answer it. I remind that the question is:

    What has been the global warming over the last 16 years?

    You said with respect to that, I quote:

    At issue is the rise in global temperature over the last 16 years according to the time series of global temperature provided by e.g. RSS, UAH, HadCRUTn, and your organisation NASA GISS.
    (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1203557)

    Who said this? Didn’t you say that?

    The datasets that you named represent the global temperature record of the troposphere and at the surface that is the lower boundary of the atmosphere.

    How have I not answered this question? My answer to this question was and is, I quote,

    A statistically significant warming trend can not be detected in the observed global tropospheric and surface temperature data for the time period of the last 16 years for any of the four data sets named by you, when applying a significance threshold of 2-sigma.
    (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1203684)

    This is the scientifically correct answer. What is wrong with this answer so that you dismiss also this answer?

    I can add following second part to the answer, which is scientifically correct as well:
    A Zero-trend or a negative trend, which is statistically significantly different from the statistically significant warming trend between mid-1970 and today, or from the statistically significant warming trend between mid-1970 and (today minus 16 years), can’t be detected either in the global troposphere and surface temperature data over the last 16 years, when applying a significance threshold of 2-sigma.

    Or if you want an answer that uses actual numbers. The statistical global warming trend values over the last 16 years (1997 to 2012 inclusive) for different tropospheric and surface datasets, representing a part of the whole Earth system, are following and can’t be statistically significantly distinguished from any of the also listed trend values within specific ranges, when applying 2-sigma as criterion for statistical significance:

    All in Kelvin/decade.

    GISSTEMP:+0.085; not distinguishable from trend values between -0.047 and 0.217
    NOAA: +0.044; not distinguishable from trend values between -0.079 and 0.167
    HADCRUT4:+0.049; not distinguishable from trend values between -0.077 and 0.175
    RSS: -0.003; not distinguishable from trend values between -0.232 and 0.226
    UAH: +0.090; not distinguishable from trend values between -0.142 and 0.322

    The broadness of the ranges of trend values that are not statistically significantly distinguishable from the center values, applying a 2-sigma criterion, comes from the large magnitude of the year-to-year variability over such a short time-scale of 16 years.

  197. Gunga Din wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1203898

    Thank you for responding to my comment even though, while you said stuff, you didn’t actually answer either question.

    You are asking about the correctness of some alleged prediction by Hansen, but you refuse – as it is apparent now – to provide a specific statement by Hansen with the alleged predication and you refuse to provide a proof of source. Well, I guess that is the “Skeptic” standard for an argument and for asking a question in science. I am not answering a question that comes with such low standards. I have higher standards.

    [ What a perfect example of condescension. - mod]

  198. Jan P Perlw1tz:

    Thankyou for your post at January 20, 2013 at 6:15 am which contains much irrelevant waffle but provides at its end the answer to the question!

    Your answer says that according to GISSTEMP, NOAA, HADCRUT4, RSS and UAH
    there has been no rise in global temperature (discernible at 95% confidence) for the last 16 years.

    Now, that was not so hard, was it?
    Clearly, you would have avoided much bother if you had answered the question when first asked.

    Of course, the direct values (which you state) don’t violate the NOAA falsification criterion for climate models because the models fail to emulate ENSO and, therefore, effects of ENSO need to be deleted from the trend(s). However, the trend in global temperature remains indistinguishable from zero (at 95% confidence) if one extrapolates back across the 1998 ENSO peak or if one interpolates across the peak and this zero trend does falsify the NOAA falsification criterion for climate models.

    In other words, the trend of global temperature over the last 16 years falsifies the climate models according to the NOAA falsification criterion; viz.

    ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    As I have repeatedly said in this thread, I recognise that this falsification threatens your work and, therefore, your job. And I also recognise that this threat explains your behaviour in this thread: were it not for that recognition I would have been much less tolerant of that behaviour.

    You have my sincere sympathy for your predicament. I feel sure you have put genuine effort into your modelling work and a threat to one’s employment is always distressing. In such circumstances it is best to have friends to help with the predicament. Refusing to face the predicament and lashing out at those who state the predicament only reduces the number of your possible friends.

    There are many people on WUWT who would be willing to help you consider ‘where to go from here’ in attempt to get your modelling work ‘back on track’. This would help to maintain your work and your job. But many of those same people are likely to campaign to have your work – and thus your job – scrapped if you attack those who point out that – at present – the climate models are useless for predicting global temperature.

    Richard

  199. richardscourtney wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1203962

    Your answer says that according to GISSTEMP, NOAA, HADCRUT4, RSS and UAH
    there has been no rise in global temperature (discernible at 95% confidence) for the last 16 years.

    Then, the data equally say, that there has been no “standstill” and no “global warming stop” in the global tropospheric and surface temperature (discernible at 95% confidence) for the last 16 years, compared to the statistically significant multi-decadal trend from mid-1970 to today or compared to the statistically significant trend from mid-1970 to (today – 16 years). Not only the Zero-trend, also those trends are within the 2-sigma range for the statistical estimate of the temperature trend over the last 16 years.

    Of course, the direct values (which you state) don’t violate the NOAA falsification criterion for climate models because the models fail to emulate ENSO and, therefore, effects of ENSO need to be deleted from the trend(s).

    This assertion is not true for all models. There are models that simulate ENSO-variability.

    However, the trend in global temperature remains indistinguishable from zero (at 95% confidence) if one extrapolates back across the 1998 ENSO peak or if one interpolates across the peak and this zero trend does falsify the NOAA falsification criterion for climate models.

    Argument by assertion. You are totally making this up. Like you made up your assertion in previous threads that the trends for the individual three decades from 1971 to 2000 were all statistically significant, for the case of applying a significance threshold of 90%.

    As I have repeatedly said in this thread, I recognise that this falsification threatens your work and, therefore, your job. And I also recognise that this threat explains your behaviour in this thread: were it not for that recognition I would have been much less tolerant of that behaviour.

    You have my sincere sympathy for your predicament. I feel sure you have put genuine effort into your modelling work and a threat to one’s employment is always distressing. In such circumstances it is best to have friends to help with the predicament. Refusing to face the predicament and lashing out at those who state the predicament only reduces the number of your possible friends.

    Don’t worry about me. You are not competent to make an informed statement about this, since you lack the professional qualification for this. I have come to this conclusion after reading the garbage written by you that can be found under the link you provided,

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    which you fantasize to be a scientific paper that provided “proof” about something, but which was allegedly “blocked” from publication by a conspiracy of evil climate scientist, just because your nonsense didn’t have any chance to be published in a serious scientific journal of the field.

    But there is always Energy&Environment. Why didn’t you publish your “paper” there?

    I am also satisfied that your attempt to sabotage climate science and to sabotage the high standards for publishing in a peer review specialist journal of the field through political channels was an utter failure.

    Your believe that my job was threatened because there wouldn’t be any theoretical climate modeling work in the future for me is nothing else than just wishful thinking at your side. Are you really as delusional to believe that Earth system modeling is going to be abandoned in climate science? The opposite is happening. The work on the models is alive and well. Every time when the models prove to be deficient in skill with respect to some feature of the climate system, it is motivation to revise and to improve the models, and it provides justification to apply for additional funding for our work. The models, including the Earth system model at GISS, are permanently further developed toward even more complexity and capabilities to simulate the behavior of the Earth system, and the available computing resources necessary to do this become also better and better. Our small research group is also working on new and exciting specific stuff in this broader context. This is not going to end tomorrow, next year, or in any foreseeable future. You would have to overthrow this type of society and transform it into one that abandons science and reason and that prosecutes scientists to end this. From my observation of the comments in many threads here, there are actually many here in the crowd, who apparently dream of such a change in society, though.

  200. Gunga Din says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    January 20, 2013 at 6:32 am
    Gunga Din wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1203898

    Thank you for responding to my comment even though, while you said stuff, you didn’t actually answer either question.

    You are asking about the correctness of some alleged prediction by Hansen, but you refuse – as it is apparent now – to provide a specific statement by Hansen with the alleged predication and you refuse to provide a proof of source. Well, I guess that is the “Skeptic” standard for an argument and for asking a question in science. I am not answering a question that comes with such low standards. I have higher standards.
    ==============================================================
    I’m not a climate scientist and I’m thankful that it’s not the norm for put the abbreviation for the only degree I have behind my name. (With my tendency toward typoes I’d likely give the opposite impression I intended if I tried to abbreviate “Associate”.8-) But, while I know I am ignorant of a great many things, I know I’m not stupid. (My high school entrance exam reported my IQ. I know I’m not a genius but I know I scored above average.)
    So, a question that comes from my “low standards”.
    You mean Hansen never said that as CO2 rises temperatures will rise? He never said, implied, testified about that before Congress? You are unaware of the charts and graphs he presented at the time? Because I don’t link to a quote or a chart you get to pretend it never happened? He did recently say what I quoted, “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade”. Of course he added a bit of spin to justify, excuse, explain (take your pick) what he had previously claimed, predicted, projected (take your pick) would happen hasn’t happened. (If he never said that as CO2 rises temperatures would rise, then why all the fuss about CAGW to begin with?)
    Is that it hasn’t happened the reason you won’t answer that simple question, “What has been the global warming over the last 16 years?”

  201. Jan P Perlw1tz:

    Clearly, you have lost control of your senses.

    My post at January 20, 2013 at 7:08 am had two final paragraphs which offered advice and help to you Your post at January 20, 2013 at 10:26 am replies with bombast and stupidity.

    It is a fact – which you have at last admitted – that global warming is not discernibly different from zero (at 95% confidence) over the last 16 years. Of course that does not mean global temperature has not risen or has not fallen by some indiscernible and insignificant amount over the period.

    It means that according to the NOAA falsification criterion the climate models are useless for projecting global temperature.

    Your ranting, lies and insults do not change that.

    I offered to help return your toys to your pram, and you have replied by throwing more toys. Provide a sensible post when your temper tantrum is over.

    Richard

  202. Gunga Din says:

    richardscourtney says:
    January 20, 2013 at 7:08 am
    Jan P Perlw1tz:

    Thankyou for your post at January 20, 2013 at 6:15 am which contains much irrelevant waffle but provides at its end the answer to the question!

    ====================================================
    I didn’t see that when I put my last comment so please disregard my repeating the question.

  203. Gail Combs says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    January 20, 2013 at 10:26 am

    ….You would have to overthrow this type of society and transform it into one that abandons science and reason and that prosecutes scientists to end this. From my observation of the comments in many threads here, there are actually many here in the crowd, who apparently dream of such a change in society, though.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    But isn’t that exactly what has ALREADY happened?
    The Age of Enlightenment, when the Scientific Method was developed and the root of the US Constitution has now been replaced by “postmodernism”, “secular humanism” “moral relativism” and all the rest of the “Counter-Enlightenment” movements that deny objective reality and science.

    Along with this is the prosecution of scientists [Example] who do not support “The Cause” and the use of flaky science to justify dodgy politics .In other words Academics who prides themselves as being ‘lofty socialists’ untainted by plebeian capitalism are KNOWINGLY selling the rest of the human race into the sefdom designed by the bankers and corporate elite called Agenda 21. Even some socialist have finally figured that part out. link

    There are plenty of statements floating around the web to support this:
    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
    ~ Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” ~ Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” ~ Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” ~ Daniel Botkin emeritus professor Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

    The Bankers, CEOs, Academics, and Politicians know exactly what they are doing, and that is the complete gutting of western civilization for profit. The lament “it is for our future children” has to be the vilest lie they have ever told since their actions really sell those children into slavery. This is a propaganda war and always has been. It was never about science which is why although the skeptics are right they keep losing.

    The IPCC mandate states:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    Humans were tried and found guilty BEFORE the IPCC ever looked at the first scientific fact. The IPCC mandate is not to figure out what factors effect the climate but to dig up the facts needed to hang the human race.

    WHY? So the rich can use another method to shear the sheeple, literally bankrupt the general population into serfdom.

    World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
    The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020

  204. Gunga Din says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    January 20, 2013 at 10:26 am
    ………….You are not competent to make an informed statement about this, since you lack the professional qualification for this.
    ============================================================
    Richard, doesn’t this statement remind you of Acts 4:13?
    I’ve always been reluctant to quote scripture in relation to something that doesn’t relate directly to the Gospel but, here is the same pride of Man displayed.

  205. Gunga Din says:

    Gunga Din says:
    January 20, 2013 at 12:11 pm
    =========================================
    I should add that, in the context, despite what was staring them in the face, they still tried to suppress it.

  206. Gunga Din:

    re your question to me at January 20, 2013 at 12:11 pm.

    Sadly, yes, the analogy is precise.
    But in return I give you a quotation: Judge not lest ye be judged.

    The man is clearly distressed. His life’s work is shown to be rubbish and he is struggling to come to terms with recognising that. Clearly, his behaviour thoughout this thread has been disgraceful in several ways, but we are not in his distress.

    He is flailing about throwing insults and lies while doing all he can to pretend that those who see the problem with his work are somehow not capable of seeing it (which is as silly as claiming a non-golfer is incapable of seeing when a putt misses a hole). In compassion the best one can do is to not respond to that behaviour.

    We are not in his distress. I commend that if one wants to quote scripture then one needs to have some compassion.

    Richard

  207. Gunga Din says:

    Gail Combs says:
    January 20, 2013 at 12:01 pm
    … WHY? So the rich can use another method to shear the sheeple, literally bankrupt the general population into serfdom.
    World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
    The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020
    =======================================================
    Yes, and I know that you know that the price of hot air is measured in more than dollars.

  208. Gunga Din wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1204105

    But, while I know I am ignorant of a great many things, I know I’m not stupid. (My high school entrance exam reported my IQ. I know I’m not a genius but I know I scored above average.)
    So, a question that comes from my “low standards”.

    I did not attack you as a person, nor said I anything toward your intellect. I commented your low standards you apply in a discussion, since you think obviously it was sufficient in a discussion to make assertions about what someone allegedly said without backing your assertions up with specific quotes and proof of source for the quotes. I may be the fact that you are among many like minded ones here that makes you lazy. You can be sure to get applause, anyhow, like anything presented here is loudly applauded by the crowd, as long as it is in agreement with the prevalent preconceived views (“AGW is a lie!”) and directed against the “right ones” (the evil representatives of the AGW-“hoax” conspiracy), whatever little substance it has, whatever lack of logic it shows, and whatever evidence for the asserted is missing.

    You mean Hansen never said that as CO2 rises temperatures will rise? He never said, implied, testified about that before Congress?

    Here is the problem with not providing any specific quotes and proof of source. What exactly do you mean with that? Are you asking whether Hansen ever stated a relationship between rising CO2 and rising temperatures on average for the medium and long-term? Or are you asking whether he stated CO2 made the temperature rising all the time?

    Hansen never claimed that CO2 was the only factor in the climate system, which had an effect on the temperature. He never claimed that the temperature must rise all the time, when CO2 rises. He never said there was a linear relationship between CO2-change in the real world and observed temperature change. He never said that others factors that cause temperature variability did not exist. But I suspect you want to assert that Hansen had said all these things. Actually, I don’t know any climate scientist who would believe such things, and I don’t know any scientific publications were something like this had been stated.

  209. richardscourtney wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1204114

    It is a fact – which you have at last admitted – that global warming is not discernibly different from zero (at 95% confidence) over the last 16 years.

    You are making the thread recursive by simply repeating the same statement, after I already had replied to it. I wrote in reply to this statement:

    Then, the data equally say, that there has been no “standstill” and no “global warming stop” in the global tropospheric and surface temperature (discernible at 95% confidence) for the last 16 years, compared to the statistically significant multi-decadal trend from mid-1970 to today or compared to the statistically significant trend from mid-1970 to (today – 16 years). Not only the Zero-trend, also those trends are within the 2-sigma range for the statistical estimate of the temperature trend over the last 16 years.
    (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1204080)

    Not that you knew how to refute this.

    It means that according to the NOAA falsification criterion the climate models are useless for projecting global temperature.

    Whatever the number of times is you are repeating your lie, it doesn’t make it true.

    The “NOAA falsification criterion” still refers to the ENSO adjusted temperatures, not to the observed ones as is. Therefore, nothing follows from the fact that a trend, which is statistically significantly different from a Zero-trend, can’t be detected in the observed temperatures as is for the recent 16-year period.

    BTW: The “NOAA falsification criterion” doesn’t say anything about a falsification of the models. Also this is purely made up by you. This is an interpretation that is only in your head. It’s something you are only projecting into the quote. Instead, the NOAA report formulates a criterion for when it is correct to speak about a discrepancy between observed and simulated temperatures. This isn’t the same statement as the one you are projecting into the quote.

    And as for your “offer”. Thanks, but I am totally fine. You are utterly delusional with your fantasies about my job being threatened and about my alleged emotional state about this, because of the alleged reasons you are claiming. I am going to do my scientific work in general, and my modeling work in particular, like we have done it so far, also in the future. Your wish to put scientists like me out of their jobs for doing our work and publishing results you don’t like, because they are in contradiction to your political and ideological agenda, Mr. Coal-Magazine editor, is not going to become reality. As I said, you would have to overthrow the current type of society first, and replace it with an order of society, in which there is no freedom of science. Dream on.

  210. Gunga Din says:

    richardscourtney says:
    January 20, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    Gunga Din:

    re your question to me at January 20, 2013 at 12:11 pm.

    Sadly, yes, the analogy is precise.
    But in return I give you a quotation: Judge not lest ye be judged……. I commend that if one wants to quote scripture then one needs to have some compassion.
    ===========================================================
    Thanks for the reminder. Proverbs 27:17

  211. Jan P Perlw1tz:

    I see you are still throwing toys out of your pram in your reply to me at January 20, 2013 at 5:40 pm.

    You are fooling nobody – except perhaps yourself – by misrepresenting what I said.

    It seems you think I am your nemesis so you have a notion that your problem will end if you can make a successful attack of me. Please remember that Nemesis followed Hubris. Your problem is not me, the truths I have stated, and/or my temerity in stating them. Your problem is your overbearing arrogance which is preventing you from accepting the reality of your situation. Indeed, the final paragraph of your post is a clear and unequivocal statement that you are ‘burying your head in the sand’ instead of facing the reality of your situation.

    In your post I am answering, you make a blatant attempt to pretend that I misrepresented the NOAA falsification criterion, that I did not mention ENSO and – most ridiculous of all – your assertion that

    “The “NOAA falsification criterion doesn’t say anything about a falsification of the models

    All those assertions are plain wrong as anybody can see by reading my post at January 20, 2013 at 7:08 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1203962

    You are being plain silly when you are assert that a “discrepancy” between the model “simulations” and the “present day warming rate” shows the “present day warming rate” is wrong. Well, NO! Go back to your first-year lessons on science in Secondary School and start to learn the basics of the scientific method.

    Jan, seriously, you need to learn the First Rule Of Holes.

    Richard

  212. Gunga Din says:

    Jan, the only actual transcript I could find was her.
    http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf
    I can see why you’d say that he didn’t say only CO2 was the culprit. He does mention “trace gases” though he never says what they are. He does name CO2 prominantly. (Of course today he talks about “Coal Trains of Death” and not “Cattle Cars of Methane”.)
    He also references a “Fig. 4″ which is not in this scan.
    Can you direct me to the original “Fig. 4″ or a more complete actual transcript?
    If not, that’s OK. I won’t hold it against you in any way.

  213. Gunga Din wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/quote-of-the-week-hansen-concedes-the-age-of-flatness/#comment-1205328

    Jan, the only actual transcript I could find was her.
    http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf
    I can see why you’d say that he didn’t say only CO2 was the culprit. He does mention “trace gases” though he never says what they are. He does name CO2 prominantly. (Of course today he talks about “Coal Trains of Death” and not “Cattle Cars of Methane”.)

    Firstly, thanks for providing an original source with statements by James Hansen. I appreciate that. No, I don’t have Figure 4.

    The presentation was about anthropogenic influence on climate from greenhouse gas emission. So, it’s clear he emphasizes the effect of greenhouse gases. But it is also clear that he doesn’t believe these were the only influence on climate, when he says in his statement:

    … In all of these cases, the signal is as best just beginning to emerge, and we need more data. Some of these details, such as the northern hemisphere high latitude temperature trends, do not look exactly like the greenhouse effect, but that is expected. There are certainly other climate change factors involved in addition to the greenhouse effect.

    He also didn’t think back then there had been a full understanding of climate, and he didn’t think climate models were perfect tools:

    Finally, I would like to stress that there is a need for improving these global climate models, and there is a need for global observations if we’re going to obtain a full understanding of these phenomena.

    May I point you to an original scientific publication by James Hansen as lead author. It’s

    Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, D. Koch, I. Tegen, T. Hall, D. Shindell, B. Santer, P. Stone, T. Novakov, L. Thomason, R. Wang, Y. Wang, D. Jacob, S. Hollandsworth, L. Bishop, J. Logan, A. Thompson, R. Stolarski, J. Lean, R. Willson, S. Levitus, J. Antonov, N. Rayner, D. Parker, and J. Christy, 2002: Climate forcings in Goddard Institute for Space Studies SI2000 simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4347, doi:10.1029/2001JD001143.
    (http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JD001143)

    Here the forcings on climate by different factors, which also vary in time, ar studied, compared to the changing greenhouse gas forcing. Those other forcings considered in the study are stratospheric aerosols, solar irradiance, ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and tropospheric aerosols.

    This should be evidence enough that James Hansen doesn’t believe CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) was the only factor that had an effect on climate.

  214. mpainter says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says: January 22, 2013 at 7:57 am
    ===================
    You seem to portray Hansen as a reasonable scientist who gives proper weight to all considerations, yet how that portrait contrasts with his panic mongering style and doomsday climate proclamations. He is an obvious exhibitionist that relishes his role as a global-warmer guru. Also, has Hansen ever responded to the criticisms of his Venus greenhouse atmosphere assertions? One gets the impression that he is happy to let that particular myth propagate.

    You might understand that we have our own ideas as to whether a scientist should be a political propagandist.

Comments are closed.