The Unraveling of Global Warming is Accelerating

Uh oh, somebody in Germany in a position to influence others in the Green movement has started thinking for himself, shrugging off suggestions from a climate scientist that “its all in his head”.

Pierre Gosselin reports about a story by lefty journalist Harald Martenstein of Die Zeit:

“I was ready to open my home to the Schröders as soon as they would no longer be able to take the 60°C heat in the shade. But instead it got colder and colder. At Uckermark in the wintertime it was -20°C for weeks.”

Martenstein also noticed that Britain had endured its coldest winter in 30 years, Florida got covered by icicles, and the cold seemed to be spreading everywhere. So he pleaded that people should emit more CO2 – so that he could stay warm.

His plea, however, prompted an invitation from a “scientist at a very nice climate institute“:

He showed me tables and graphs that clearly depicted it was getting warmer. He believed that I was just a victim of my own subjective imagination. Memory can fool you. One thinks that during childhood it was warm from May to September, but in reality its was warm only 3 days, and it is those 3 days that one remembers intensively. The tables from climate scientists, on the other hand, do not lie.”

Martenstein then recounts the past winter and how it seemed to him as being the longest and hardest he could remember, but telling himself that it was probably just his warped subjectivity acting up again. He writes:

But suddenly I read in the paper that a number of climate scientists had changed their minds. Now they were saying it is not going to get warmer, but colder, at least in Europe. Whatever happened to the tables I now ask myself.”

This kind of science would never fly in biology or physics, Martenstein writes. ”But with climate science it seems they are allowed to get away with everything.”

Read it all here:

Mother Of German Green Weeklies, Die Zeit, Shocks Readers…Now Casts Doubt On Global Warming!

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News. Bookmark the permalink.

296 Responses to The Unraveling of Global Warming is Accelerating

  1. Harold Ambler says:

    I’ve wondered how journalistic institutions that have staked their reputations on AGW dogma will climb down. I wrote about it here: http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/what-will-the-climb-down-look-like/

    (I see the linked image is missing; note to self!)

  2. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Mark Serreze got it right – although he wasn’t talking about the right thing. He should have been talking about the CAGW scam when he said: “In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly”.

  3. “We have always been at war with Eurasia.”

  4. ZootCadillac says:

    forget about the long term trend, it’s all about the rate of change ;) ( of opinion, in this case )

  5. Chris @NJSnowFan says:

    Off topic some but Perfect example of why you can not use temperature readings from present city locations and compared to the past. Urban heat islands growing around old temperature gauge locations. https://mobile.twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/325244638355140609

  6. “So he pleaded that people should emit more CO2 – so that he could stay warm”.
    —————————
    Then he still doesn’t get it.

  7. JackT says:

    Reversing the perceptions of AGW is a journey, not a destination. It took the alarmists years to make “global warming” a household term. Even with facts and observations on the side of the skeptics, TRUE science will have a hard time overcoming the religion of the AGW crowd. That being said, We may be starting to see a chink or two in their armor.

  8. DirkH says:

    The fun thing is Die Zeit is the social-democrat Leitorgan, SPD ex chancellor Helmut Schmidt is publisher. Die Zeit has been a leading alarmist medium, now that guy tries a climbdown, coated in slightly satirical language. He gets ravaged by his readers of course; making fun of the State Religion is strictly verboten.

  9. DirkH says:

    And related, SPD is dropping below 20% in approval rating of their contendor for the chancellor office, Steinbrück, for the elections in autumn. Look what you’ve done cursed AGW, I’m melting, melting!

  10. I have made a number of comments lately suggesting that once the dam breaks the flood will begin. It has started! Hoo-Rah. It must be very uncomfortabe being a warmist scientist or politician They’re suffering the heat they dreamed we would.

  11. I don’t think that the AGW dogma will ever be explicitly withdrawn. It will simply be quietly buried under the next big crisis (e.g. the total collapse of the global economy). But we shall still be told that we have to surrender to an unelected world government. Whatever the problem, the solution never varies.

  12. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    My belief in computer models tells me that it is getting warmer.

    My real life experience tells me it is getting colder.

    Gradually, beliefs yield to the dictates of reality

  13. ktwop says:

    1.AGW journalists will not have much difficulty finding exit strategies. After all they only “objectively and dispassionately report on the consensus of the time”! It will hardly be their fault if the fickle scientific community changes its mind.
    2. Scientists who change their minds will take credit for their openness and skepticism and for having the “courage” to change.
    3. Die-hard doom-sayers will continue with their doom-saying but push it out into the future beyond their lifetimes such that the predictions of doom cannot be tested.

  14. Eric Simpson says:

    I’ve noticed that Pierre Gosselin & notrickszone.com is a good blog. “Climate news from Germany in English.” It seems to highlight central stuff that really cuts to the heart of the agw bs. Interesting, in this case, Martenstein bought a home in northern Germany in anticipation of it getting warmer, instead it just got “colder and colder.” Kind of like someone buying desert property in California thinking soon it will be valuable beachfront property. Of course, in 5 decades, based on then and now personal observations by California people alive then and now, there has been NO sea level rise in California. In 50 years at least, no sea rise. Look at Malibu where the $20 million celebrity beachfront homes stand in front of a beach and sea that is exactly the same as it was circa 1970. Exactly. No sea level change. None. Forget the “data.”

  15. Luther Wu says:

    Rating points are the cobblestones on the road to hell.

    Without a discussion thread about this extraordinary change to WUWT commentary format, I’ve nowhere else to comment.

  16. tgmccoy says:

    But wait! Here is a well know American politician who blames the Boston Bombings on-
    Ready.-Wait.-Climate.-Change.

    http://politicker.com/2013/04/governor-cuomo-says-boston-bombing-part-of-new-normal/

  17. Jimbo says:

    Not only has it been cold this German winter but they have now just had 5 very in a row! Cold and snow. It’s also been the darkest winter in 43 years. Now read here about their predictions for milder, less snowy winters for Germany and Europe.

  18. arthur4563 says:

    when they’re not pushing a agenda, the MSM is pushing the nee for “diversity,” of everything.
    Except diversity of opinions about one of their many sacred cows. The MSM apparently doesn’t even read its own garbage.

  19. pokerguy says:

    “Then he still doesn’t get it.”
    It’s called irony.

  20. jc says:

    If this publication, and this writer, really are at the heart of Orthodoxy and its promotion in Germany, this really is The End.

    This has passed through any doubts and uncertainty to open mockery.

    It really is extraordinary when, as Stan Stendera above puts it, the “dam breaks”, how rapidly this spreads.

    It is indicative of a long gestation of doubts which have not been allowed to be expressed through obligation to social conformity.

    Where it is present to the degree shown by this writer, and allowed to be published in this journal, it is certain that there are a multitude of people on the edge of complete capitulation to reality.

  21. vukcevic says:

    Now they were saying it is not going to get warmer, but colder, at least in Europe.

    I think the European winters and early spring (I hope it isn’t rest of the year) may be entering new colder climate regime, which is noticeable on this graph I produced only yesterday (some of you may have seen already)

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-daily.htm

    Just compare first 3 months of 2012 and 2013, and you can see what I mean. In 2012 there was a short cold spell, but then the temperatures return to establish a trend of about 1.3C below average. In the early months of this year that distance is increasing; looks as a new even colder ‘regime’ may be on the cards, I hope not, it is cold enough as it is.
    .

  22. Tom in icicle free Florida says:

    “Florida got covered by icicles”

    Well that certainly isn’t true. It seems that warmers can’t get it right even when they are trying to get it right.

  23. pat says:

    Ever notice how the gullible politicians are the last to understand the obvious?

  24. beng says:

    ***
    Luther Wu says:
    April 19, 2013 at 8:58 am

    Rating points are the cobblestones on the road to hell.
    ***

    If you use Firefox, NoScript stops it.

  25. Jimbo says:

    The crazy resurgence of colder winters has been an embarrassing lesson for climate scientists. If they could get it so wrong for milder winters then how much confidence should we place on the IPCC’s thermageddon projections? It’s also diverging badly from reality yet I am the denialist. Sheesh!

  26. Luther Wu says:
    April 19, 2013 at 8:58 am

    Rating points are the cobblestones on the road to hell.

    The most significant difference I have noticed when they have been implemented on other sites is a general reduction in the number of comments. It appears to me that, when rating systems are introduced, people tend to use them instead of commenting. This might be considered by some to be a good thing but I’d prefer it not be there. I’d rather read people’s thoughts than learn that “five people rated this comment as good.”

    Regarding the OP: Announcements of the imminent death of AGW are frequent and have been so for a number of years now. Sadly, I believe they are premature. It took decades to undermine the Scientific Method to the extent it has been in Climatology. It will take almost as long to rebuild.

  27. DirkH says:

    jc says:
    April 19, 2013 at 9:14 am
    “If this publication, and this writer, really are at the heart of Orthodoxy and its promotion in Germany, this really is The End.”

    Nah.. See, they can fire the guy. Der Spiegel for instance just fired its editors. Not for angering the green gods but for failure of improving the bottom line.

    But most predominantly, there’s a sticker on every second gadget or machine in Germany telling you how ecologically friendly it is. The trains I use carry such messages. I can opt to pay a little more for my train tickets and get transported by 100% renewable energy (wonder how they do that. Didn’t notice the second set of wires and motors.)

    Germans are very stubborn once they have chosen their political religion; even when CO2AGW is long forgotten they will still pay the 20 bn EUR extra for wind and solar electricity a year without even thinking about it – at the same time blaming price increases on greedy capitalist energy companies.

    Really I’m not kidding. Cognitive dissonance is a national sport.

  28. [Martenstein] ends his piece:
    The polar bears are not dying off, no. They are moving to Uckermark. I’m not a climate skeptic, I’m just disappointed.”

    Eyes opening, Martenstein cannot yet bring himself to say that he is now skeptical {or even sceptical ;-) } He is disappointed, but in what? His real estate choice? In Nature? Or in the people he believed?

    The very beginning of the P. Gosselin’s piece is bloody enlightening:

    After a foray in a cult, one of the first steps on the path back to reality is the process of deprogramming.

    Cultists in need of deprogramming. ….. In charge of the asylum.

    Greenpeace, WWF playing the part of Jim Jones offering the world a VAT of Cool-Aid flavored poisonous tyranny.

  29. TheInquirer says:

    AGW unravels faster as a result of colder than average winters in some places?

    That’s what counts as good science at WUWT?

    This stuff only discredits your site. More.

  30. jones says:

    The Monster (@SumErgoMonstro) says:

    April 19, 2013 at 8:22 am

    “We have always been at war with Eurasia.”

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    No, it’s oceania……………………

  31. TheInquirer:

    Thankyou for your post at April 19, 2013 at 9:43 am.

    More of the same, please. I enjoy seeing a warmunist being hurt by reality.

    Perhaps, as with Martenstein, if reality hurts you enough then you will start to question your cult.

    Richard

  32. Tilo Reber says:

    The good news is that I’m developing some nice back muscles shoveling all the April snow in Denver.

  33. jorgekafkazar says:

    tgmccoy says: “But wait! Here is a well know American politician who blames the Boston Bombings on- Ready.-Wait.-Climate.-Change.
    http://politicker.com/2013/04/governor-cuomo-says-boston-bombing-part-of-new-normal/

    No, he just described both using the same phrase, “the new normal.” No connection. But Cuomo is part of the new stupid.

  34. Gunga Din says:

    “So he pleaded that people should emit more CO2 – so that he could stay warm”.

    =====================================================================
    Now I’m really confused. Hansen said burning coal would release CO2 which would make Earth like Venus in awhile. He called coal trains “Coal Trains of Death”. Then he explained the lack of warming from the increase in CO2 by blaming it on the burning of coal. (Soot or something.)
    Now we need to accelerate the rate of rise in CO2 levels even greater to prevent us from freezing because the rise in CO2 levels was causing us to warm which, of course, explains all the cold spells?
    So, is burning coal for power good or bad?

  35. Monroe says:

    A few years ago I got excited about global warming because I live in Canada. We bought some hybrid grape vines and planted them with great expectations.
    They died.

  36. @Gunga Din, Re: Hansen “Death Trains”
    So, is burning coal for power good or bad?
    I don’t know if Hansen would agree that burning coal is good in the short-run, but he would most certainly agree that burning coal is doubleplusungood for the future.

    @jorgekafkazar: But Cuomo is part of the new stupid.
    Doubleplusfunny.

  37. Bruce Cobb says:

    “I’m not a climate skeptic, I’m just disappointed.” His disappointment is certainly understandable. The CAGW cult/quasi-religion had a lot going for it for its adherents. I mean, what’s not to like about “saving the planet”? And those nasty, evil, oil-funded d—ers aka us, made perfect foils, and easy to hate, because obviously, all we cared about was money.
    Their disappointment will turn to rage in due time. It’s a process.

  38. Pointman says:

    “Around the world, the whole global warming scare is imploding and it’s happening at an increasing pace. We skeptics played a supporting role in that, but it is the economics of hard times, rather than us bit players, that is actually killing it off.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-difficult-kind/

    Pointman

  39. jc says:

    @TheInquirer says:
    April 19, 2013 at 9:43 am

    Someone might interpret your comment as your inability here to distinguish between science and perceptions of science or fact and public opinion. And that this was just a mistake in this case.

    But it is not a mistake at all! Science is public opinion and commentary to you! You don’t know the difference!

    So “good science” is what you want people to think! And this is BAD science isn’t it?

    What constitutes mental process for those like you is fearsome. How do you function?

    You must be congratulated on your name. The Inquirer.

    A lifetime spent on a daily – hourly – basis beseeching: What? What? Whats going on?

    WHATS GOING ON? HELP ME!

  40. john robertson says:

    @Pointman exactly my sentiments.
    The internet never forgets, unless we let these same people censor it.

  41. jorgekafkazar says:

    Tilo Reber says: “The good news is that I’m developing some nice back muscles shoveling all the April snow in Denver.”

    Heck, Tilo, it snowed in June when I lived there ~1974. Get used to it. Hum “I’m Dreaming of a White Cinco de Mayo” while you work.

  42. jc says:

    @ DirkH says:
    April 19, 2013 at 9:38 am

    They might fire him, but he can’t have come from nowhere. I don’t now how he is seen or what the general mindset is in Germany so obviously I defer to your knowledge. But if all the people he mixes with, and he wants to feel a commonality with, think what he has said is a dire offense, would he write such a thing?

    As to stickers and exhortations to comply I suspect they are everywhere – they are maybe the closest Greens have ever to any process that involves physical reality that actually works.

    I get the impression – here and in other comments – that you are determined to not let yourself be beguiled by false hope, only to be disappointed. Is it possible that, in not believing change is occurring until you see direct evidence of a tangible nature in front of your own two eyes, that you have become a prisoner in your own way – as heretic with no expectations of the mad being sane – of AGW? Understandable if so!

  43. jorgekafkazar says:

    jc says: “You must be congratulated on your name. The Inquirer.”

    More like THINquirer, jc, since the amount of genuine enquiring he/she does is microscopic compared to the holes in AGW “science.”

  44. Jimbo says:

    Tom in icicle free Florida says:
    April 19, 2013 at 9:16 am

    “Florida got covered by icicles”

    Well that certainly isn’t true. It seems that warmers can’t get it right even when they are trying to get it right.

    Unless he was referring to January 2012 when there were indeed “icicles“. :-)

  45. Mike Jonas says:

    TheInquirer says: “AGW unravels faster as a result of colder than average winters in some places?
    That’s what counts as good science at WUWT

    It’s linked to the NOAA 2008 statement that 15 or more years of non-warming would cause a “discrepancy” in the models. The run of very cold winters in the N hemisphere give people more confidence in the claims that the 15-year benchmark has been reached.

  46. Resourceguy says:

    The comment where he says “Where are the tables?” is really the most pathetic part of all. They need to ask themselves if this excuse for science has any basis for checking accuracy. And is this seen by politicos and journalists as just a form of teenager debate with no social or budgetary cost trade-offs involved and no validation! There is one other realm where this goes on routinely and it takes place in courtrooms with win-the-day tactics by lawyers spinning tales with only perception and short-term decision making involved.

  47. G P Hanner says:

    Where I live, in eastern Nebraska, just south of Omaha, we just had a pretty intense low pass over us, and that low hit the upper Mississippi Valley pretty hard with snow and cold. But I can recall worse. We had a two day blizzard in the third week of April in (if I recall correctly) 1987. When I lived in western South Dakota, we lived through what became known as “The Mothers Day Blizzard.” In fact, the latest I can recall it snowing in western South Dakota is June 7.

    I have never believed the AGW hypothesis. That a certain number of “scientists” chose to believe it says something about the psychology of that group. That politicians climbed aboard that bandwagon simply says that, as always, most politicians are opportunists. As for the true believers, well they are just ignorant and gullible. They probably have never seen Mother Nature in a real tantrum.

  48. jc says:

    @jorgekafkazar says:
    April 19, 2013 at 11:13 am

    With holes that big, this personage has reason to fear stumbling into them and vanishing.

  49. Allen says:

    It’s been four years since Climategate when I was introduced to the pseudoscience behind the AGW hypothesis. I’ll believe that the pseudoscience is well and truly dead when all the funding for those engaging in non-empirical research-by-computer-model is gone.

  50. NoAstronomer says:

    “I’ve wondered how journalistic institutions that have staked their reputations on AGW dogma will climb down.”

    Journalists never climb down. They just find (other) people to pin the blame on.

    Mike.

  51. Don says:

    jorgekafkazar says:
    April 19, 2013 at 11:05 am

    Tilo Reber says: “The good news is that I’m developing some nice back muscles shoveling all the April snow in Denver.”

    Heck, Tilo, it snowed in June when I lived there ~1974. Get used to it. Hum “I’m Dreaming of a White Cinco de Mayo” while you work.

    Heh, heh… Jorge, I remember that storm clearly. I was camping in the mountains (Creedmore Lakes) when it occurred. It began snowing in the evening (to our amusement), and by morning I was wearing my collapsed tent under 15 inches of wet stuff. Our group was evacuated by sheriff’s 4wd trucks with all-around tire chains. Quite an adventure. Thanks for the memory!

  52. richard verney says:

    Eric Simpson says:
    April 19, 2013 at 8:54 am
    ////////////////////////////////////
    Weren’t many of those homes built in the Hollywood heydays? If so, perhaps there has been no sea level rise for more like 70 years.

  53. William Astley says:

    Scientist Vs AGW Climate Paradigm Pusher
    A scientist would look at the following graph of Antarctic Sea ice and look for an explanation as to why it is getting colder in the Antarctic. (Hint look up ‘polar see-saw’, the name climatologists have given to the observation that cyclically the Greenland Ice sheet warms and the Antarctic ice sheet cools and vice versa, then look up Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.)

    It is interesting to note that the Antarctic sea extent for 2012 and 2013 is greater than the 1979 to 2000 year average for the entire year.

    The AGW climate paradigm pusher on the other hand, must come up with an explanation that continues to push ‘global’ warming and stated that melting of the Antarctic ice sheet (they provide no evidence that there is any melting of the Antarctic ice) is creating more pools of fresh water around the ice sheet which freeze easier than salt water. There is a gem of a possible explanation if the Antarctic ice sheet was melting which it is not. Ignoring the lack of ice sheet melting there is more sea ice for every month of the year.

    Logically that indicates it is colder for every month of the year to create more sea ice. In addition, as 2013 sea ice extent is significantly greater than 2012, it appears it is getting colder, in the Antarctic region. I see Arctic temperatures North of 80 degrees have cooled, are back to the normal compared to the average. If I understand the mechanisms and we have entered the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, there will be significant cooling in the Arctic.

    Assuming there is cooling, who will be the first major climate paradigm pusher to break ranks and announce global cooling and to question the foundation of the AGW theory?

    P.S. The AGW climate paradigm pushers have not considered the possibility that the planet is and will significantly cool at which point the public and media will be looking for explanations (scientific as opposed to hand waving stories) and later as the cooling intensifies scapegoats.

  54. Steven Sullivan says:

    This article, if you can call it that, is shallow thinking at best. You have missed the big picture. Global warming is not just the surface temperature that you experience. You forgot about the other atmospheric layers and how the play a role in the extreme weather patterns that we have seen such as 70 degrees in Feb wherein extreme highs and lows will be the norm going forward as the globe warms and as the Ice melts the slugs of cold water will interfere with the warm water flows of the oceans from the equator and in the winter Virginia Beach shipping will be ice locked due to the lack of warm waters flows and then you will claim SEE THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING LOOK AT THE ICE. You have a lack of understanding of complex systems and the role that they play. There is direct evidence that the sun is the biggest driver for the earths’ weather in that within one hour the energy output of the sun that reaches earth is equal to all of the energy that humans use in an entire year. You need to consider the scope of your claims and don’t forget the big picture.
    I have to say you are WRONG, Global warming exist and the cost associated with sea level rise will be immeasurable.

  55. Richard M says:

    I can’t wait to see the Hollywood elites stammering when asked about their support of AGW. James Cameron comes to mind as one of the worst.

  56. Louis says:

    Why are modern scientists so reluctant to learn from the wisdom of the past?

    It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
    — Arthur Conan Doyle (“Sherlock Holmes”)

    The real purpose of (the) scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn’t misled you into thinking you know something that you actually don’t.
    — Robert Pirsig

    One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike – and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
    — Albert Einstein

  57. DirkH says:

    jc says:
    April 19, 2013 at 11:09 am
    “I get the impression – here and in other comments – that you are determined to not let yourself be beguiled by false hope, only to be disappointed. Is it possible that, in not believing change is occurring until you see direct evidence of a tangible nature in front of your own two eyes, that you have become a prisoner in your own way – as heretic with no expectations of the mad being sane – of AGW? Understandable if so!”

    See, Germans really do listen when I explain the CO2 greenhouse effect to them. Even though they are warmists they don’t know the first thing about it. The reason is that they get all their information from public TV. Unfortunately there is no Fox News-like TV in Germany; our private TV stations concentrate on realitiy TV etc.

    Read up on Popper’s concept of fallibility – that everything you believe could be wrong. This concept applies to the German public at large. I do not see a change here. Amazingly people still love the public TV, I never owned one.

    So I have a completely different perspective. I have no reason to change. I’m just telling you how it is.

    We pay about 8 bn EUR a year for our public media (we are forced to). Per head this is at least 3 times as much as the Brits are forced to fork over to the BBC.

    Combine this with the fact that most Germans never read English language news so they trust the gatekeepers, the journos that do the translation and filtering.

    What you have is an insular culture with about 100 million people with its very own misconceptions (and granted, in some cases superior concepts).

  58. Jimbo says:

    One sign of the climbdown will be seen in the decreased frequency of the use of the word ‘denier’ and an increase in the use of the word ‘sceptics’.

    Over at Notrickszone’s related thread I read the question we have all been asking with nice numbers.

    …..2) The Mauna Loa measurement shows that the CO2 in the last 17 years increased by 31.23 ppm. From 1959 to 2012 the CO2 increase was 77.85 ppm. How can about 40% of CO2 increase in just about 31% of Mauna Loa measured years have no impact on the temperature?

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/18/part-2-thomas-stocker-interview-luning-ipcc-increasingly-unable-to-maneuver-detached-from-reality/#comment-459199

  59. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    This is funny! I’ll explain:

    Harald Martenstein writes a weekly column in the lifestyle section of Die Zeit. And he does this in the format of satirical causerie.

    The blogspot Klimazwiebel picks up on this and concludes (I think correctly so) that Harald is no climate sceptic, but Klimazwiebel hopes that a satire can do more hurt to climate scientists than a criticism in the science part of a magazine and that criticism of climate science has arrived in the “middle of society”. Well, you can hope!

    Then notrickszone picks it up after that and in the process declares Die Zeit as the mother of German green weeklies! Die Zeit? Mother of German green weeklies? Wtf? All of a sudden Harald is made to be a “leading lefty journalist”. Nice spin! There are some more exaggerations. And errors. Errors that get propagated (also here). I”ll mention 2:

    Original: “ein sehr netter Klimaforscher in sein Institut”
    Notrickszone: “scientist at a very nice climate institute“
    Should be: “a very nice climate scientist at his institute”

    Original: “in Florida gab es Eiszapfen”
    Notrickszone: “Florida got covered by icicles”
    Should be: “there were icicles in Florida”

    And thus Watts declares “The Unraveling of Global Warming is Accelerating” and “somebody in Germany in a position to influence others in the Green movement has started thinking for himself, shrugging off suggestions from a climate scientist that “its all in his head””. Really? Because of one satirical column? Did he read the original column? You know, checking sources and all that…

    Meanwhile Lawrence Salomon (over at the financial post) didn’t check how the Magazine name is spelled but declares “German newsmagazine, Der Zeit, joins list of climate skeptics” and “Der Zeit and its top columnist Harald Martenstein, join the list of newly skeptical global warming journalists”. Because of one satirical column! Hilarious! It isn’t an opinion piece, and it isn’t the opinion of Die Zeit.

    I guess Harald Martenstein is having a a very good time at the moment and I will definitely look for his column next week to see if he has picked up this worldwide attention in “sceptical” circles.

  60. Stan W. says:

    Come the next El Nino, the heat accumulating in the ocean is going to lead to a temperature spike on the surface. It will be interesting when the shoe is on the other foot.

  61. Arthur Peacock said: “Whatever the problem, the solution never varies.”
    A neat variation on the Einstein dictum,
    “madness is to go on repeating the same experiment expecting different results.”

  62. adrianvance says:

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 80 times as many molecules capturing 560 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    See The Two Minute Conservative at: http://tinyurl.com/7jgh7wv and when you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.

  63. RockyRoad says:

    This reminds me of how the Berlin Wall fell. If you look at the details of that episode, it all began as an offhand comment at a news conference that people took seriously, then Eastern authorities got caught behind the curve as people thronged to the Wall and began celebrating. Wall guards figured there must have been an authoritative edict and even joined the celebration, and it all went south from there. Hence no shots were fired but there were a lot of red-faced authorities afterwards.

    Some commenters above are trying to discount the impact of this but the East Germans who lost the Berlin Wall would tell you that big changes can happen from seemingly small mistakes.

  64. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    Hi RockyRoad,

    Not sure why a fictional satirical column of some German author reminds you of the fall of the Berlin Wall. However, I think there might be quite some (former East-) Germans that would take your description of the Fall of the Berlin Wall as seriously lacking in scope. You leave out all mass demonstrations and fleeing out of the former DDR (often with risk of live). The offhand remark you refer to is by Schabowski at a press conference explaining the lifting of travel restrictions. The lifting of travel restrictions had already been decided. The only thing offhand was that he declared the lifting coming into effect immediately. However it was popular protest that put the pressure on the authorities to allow travel. As said, I see no parallel between this offhand remark and a satirical column.

    See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall#The_Fall

  65. jc says:

    @ Stan W. says:
    April 19, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    Surprising to you perhaps, but it seems many people here are not scared of the weather.

    As to your expectation that shoes must only be available for one foot, a lot of people seem to wear two as a matter of course, and are able to maintain balance because of it. Try it.

  66. Paul Vaughan says:

    @Pointman (April 19, 2013 at 10:45 am)

    May I recommend a replacement for S Crow? …

    “I’m gonna keep it frozen here forever,
    [...] I’m making the night mine until the day I die”
    — Krewella – Alive

  67. jc says:

    @ DirkH says:
    April 19, 2013 at 12:06 pm

    You make the prospects seem very gloomy. Hopefully that is part of a German cultural cliche!

    I do take your point, supported by Reich.Eschhaus above, that this should not be taken as being indicative of a wider movement in opinion. Beyond any established mindset anywhere, insularity does seem to be something for which conditions are ripe in many countries, so this may – being linked as you have previously said – tend to re-inforce thinking (is it that?) on AGW.

    But some activity where there was none can only be an advantage.

  68. Stan W. says:

    @jc: You can be sure that when the next El Nino happens and surface temperatures spike upward, contrarians will be yelling “natural variability!” while conveniently forgetting they dismissed it now. Count on it.

  69. thingodonta says:

    The animals would rather have been warmer and had less statistics.

  70. Lady in Red says:

    This is a comment by “Pragmatist” in response to a editorial by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who I like, very much, about the failures to understand economic science:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100024122/debunking-austerity-claims-makes-no-difference-to-europes-monks-and-zealots/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Carlyle’s use of “dismal science” to describe economics does not quite mean what many people using the adjective “dismal” intend today. However, I shall go along with current usage.

    Economics, whether applied at the micro or macro level, is an exalted “science”. The leading proponents of its different sects (sorry I meant schools) have the ear of governments just as once astrologers buzzed around monarchs.

    Economics is not a science in the sense that Karl Popper would have understood. Indeed, Popper (see “Poverty of Historicism”) was merciless in his damnation of disciplines that claimed the mantle of science in order to obfuscate their shortcomings. Economics is not a science because it does not, for the most part, engage in the hypothetico-deductive process.

    Stating that an activity is not a science need not be a condemnation. Rather, it is setting limits on its epistemological prowess. Economics is not a science. Moreover, it is impossible that it could be one because there is little, if any, scope for experiments to test theoretical predictions.

    The best economists can do is fourfold. First, observe historical trends and draw deductions (these not being testable.) Second, examine the way people interact as in markets; aspects of this (zero sum games and such like) are testable on real people but not in real markets. Third, construct narrative theories based on observations and on such parts of human interactions as can be tested. Fourth, construct predictive econometric models.

    Unfortunately, econometric model predictions are no more testable than climate change predictions and equally controversial. However, just as with climate models, they have their charm: few grasp their inner workings and thus cannot gainsay them; being mathematical in nature they have an aura of precision; and they fit squarely in what lay people regard as “science”.

    It is arguable that econometric models used by financial institutions with respect to some of the markets in which they deal bear a share of the blame for recent financial catastrophes; perhaps, more correctly the blame lies with greedy senior management all too readily convinced by the overpaid econometric charlatans they employ.

    Continuing the analogy with climate divination there are economic models run on computers which are akin to weather forecast software. Weather forecasting is based on a number of sound physical principles; it is capable of making useful short-term predictions. When these are consistently correct they give confidence in the quality of the assumptions and data encapsulated by the model. Yet, it seems that the mathematical phenomenon of chaos imposes a practical time limit on weather forecasting; it is plausible that a limit would apply to economic models even if their bases were sound.

    The UK Treasury Model is an example of “weather forecasting”. How far forward is it trustable, if trustworthy at all? To what extent are attempts to place error bars around predictions justified? – that query arises from deep suspicion of non-frequentist use of probabilities lacking empirical estimates.

    So to Reinhart-Rogoff and the University of Massachusetts economists. Where do they fit in the “dismal” picture?

    From what has been reported in the press it appears that both teams were working at the observational end of economics. That is helpful because the data-handling errors of the first team were easily exposed. Yet whoever is “correct” in such circumstances has but tenuous claim to prescribe economic policies. They, or those proselytising such analyses, are merely expressing an opinion based on a few historical data points. Doubtless, reputable economists such as those mentioned here would not lay claim to a cause and effect relationship; the best they can do is argue its plausibility.

    The conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing is that the complexity of economics (also bear in mind that there is not just one consensus view) obscures the paucity of its achievements; its accomplishments should be matched by proportional modesty from those who trumpet the discipline’s worth.

    Think on it – schools of economics cannot agree on the conceptual basis of non-barter means of exchange e.g. money. So, why should a ramshackle edifice erected on an uncertain foundation be trusted?

  71. Stan W.:

    At April 19, 2013 at 3:41 pm you say

    @jc: You can be sure that when the next El Nino happens and surface temperatures spike upward, contrarians will be yelling “natural variability!” while conveniently forgetting they dismissed it now. Count on it.

    I don’t know about “contrarians”, but I can guarantee that we realists will certainly be saying that.

    In the 1970s when alarmists were saying the cooling could be the onset of another ice age we said, “Well, it could be but it is probably natural variability”.

    In the 1980s and 1990s when alarmists were saying the warming was AGW we said
    “Well, some of it could be but if so then AGW is too small for it to be discernible from natural variability”.

    In this century when alarmists are saying global warming is hiding under the bed or in the ocean deeps or somewhere we say,
    “No, the stasis in global temperature is natural variability and it disproves assertions of significant AGW”.

    When the next El Nino happens and surface temperatures spike upward we will say,
    “El Nino is natural so the rise in temperature is natural variability”.

    See, StanW., we realists are very predictable. And alarmists are, too: they will and do proclaim any natural variation as being a sign of imminent disaster.

    Richard

  72. William Astley says:

    DirkH says:
    April 19, 2013 at 9:38 am
    Germans are very stubborn once they have chosen their political religion; even when CO2AGW is long forgotten they will still pay the 20 bn EUR extra for wind and solar electricity a year without even thinking about it – at the same time blaming price increases on greedy capitalist energy companies.
    Really I’m not kidding. Cognitive dissonance is a national sport.

    William:
    Germans are rational, although slow to change. (The first love of my life was Heide Richter.) In the end no free population will support a lie. It is not possible regardless of what is stated on television to hide global cooling. As the planet cools the severity of weather increases rather decreases.

    Blizzard of 1977

    Blizzard of 1978

    The American panic concerning global cooling in the 1970s was in reaction to the effects of global cooling.

    The majority of the population does not understand how climate has changed in the glacial/interglacial cycle and have not understand how the Northern Hemisphere climate has changed during the current interglacial. The fact that there are Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles in this interglacial period and the cause of the D-O cycles (there are cosmogenic isotope changes at each and every D-O cycle. The late Gerald Bond was able to track 23 D-O cycles through the interglacial period into the glacial period. The D-O have periodicity of 1450 years plus or minus 500 years.)

    http://www.climate4you.com/images

    /GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

    I suppose that most people are not aware that it appears the solar cycle has been interrupted. The observed sunspot groups are composed of pores, tiny sunspots, that are the result of the magnetic ropes that create sunspots being torn up as they rise through the solar convection zone. The count of sunspots ignores the fact that what is being counted is pores, not sunspots. The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly which indicates the magnetic field strength of the magnetic ropes that rise up through the solar convection zone to form sunspots on the surface of the sun are also decaying linearly. To survive the trip through the turbulent convection zone the magnetic ropes require a field strength of around 100,000 gauss based on Eugene Parker’s calculations. (The field strength of a sunspot on the surface of the sun is much less, around 3000 to 5000 gauss as the sunspot expands and losses field strength in the transition.)

    Oh well, let’s leave the discussion of global cooling to when there is unequivocal observational evidence of global cooling as opposed to a stall in warming. If and when there is unequivocal global cooling people will be more receptive to a discussion of the mechanisms. I persist with mentioning the subject as a prediction enables a foot to be put in the door of the mind.

    I am curious, what is the German public’s knowledge concerning biofuels?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22127123

    Biofuels: ‘Irrational’ and ‘worse than fossil fuels’
    There are also worries that taking EU land out of production to grow rapeseed oil in particular is creating more climate problems than it solves. The more fuel of this type that is put into cars the bigger the deficit created in the edible oils market. This had lead to increased imports of palm oil from Indonesia, often produced on deforested land.

    “Once you take into account these indirect effects, biofuels made from vegetable oils actually result worldwide in more emissions than you would get from using diesel in the first place,” said Rob Bailey.

    “Plus you are asking motorists to pay more for the fuel – it makes no sense, it is a completely irrational strategy.”

    Under EU law, biofuels are set to make up 5% of the UK’s transport fuel from today.
    But research carried out for Chatham House says that reaching the 5% level means that UK motorists will have to pay an extra £460m a year because of the higher cost of fuel at the pump and from filling up more often as biofuels have a lower energy content.
    As the UK hits the 5% of liquid fuels mark, the government faces some difficult decisions on how to move forward on this issue as it faces tripling the costs for motorists by 2020.
    Insiders suggest its preference would be to try and get agreement in Brussels on the impacts of indirect costs which might constrain what counts as biofuel. However getting agreement from countries with powerful agricultural sectors who benefit from the current arrangement will be difficult.

    “When you have a lobby which includes the agricultural sector and the oil sector it is very hard for Governments to make a U-turn,” said Rob Bailey

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402

    Biofuels ‘crime against humanity’
    Massive production of biofuels is “a crime against humanity” because of its impact on global food prices, a UN official has told German radio. “Producing biofuels today is a crime against humanity,” UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told Bayerischer Runfunk radio. Many observers have warned that using arable land to produce crops for biofuels has reduced surfaces available to grow food. Mr Ziegler called on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to change its policies on agricultural subsidies and to stop supporting only programs aimed at debt reduction. He says agriculture should also be subsidised in regions where it ensures the survival of local populations. Meanwhile, in response to a call by the IMF and World Bank over the weekend to a food crisis that is stoking violence and political instability, German Foreign Minister Peer Steinbrueck gave his tacit backing.

    http://news.yahoo.com/prime-indonesian-jungle-cleared-palm-oil-065556710.html

    Prime Indonesian jungle to be cleared for palm oil
    Their former hero recently gave a palm oil company a permit to develop land in one of the few places on earth where orangutans, tigers and bears still can be found living side-by-side — violating Indonesia’s new moratorium on concessions in primary forests and peatlands.

  73. Horse says:

    Louis says:
    April 19, 2013 at 12:01 pm
    Why are modern scientists so reluctant to learn from the wisdom of the past?

    The real purpose of (the) scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn’t misled you into thinking you know something that you actually don’t.
    — Robert Pirsig
    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    I’m currently reading ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ for the 4th or 5th time and had been reflecting on the relevance of chapters 9 and 10 to current climate ‘science’. It’s 70 years since the teenage Pirsig figured this out, 100 years since Einstein made the comments Pirsig refers to.

  74. Steve Lohr says:

    Here is the problem. Look at this message sent to me via e-mail from a guy named Bryce Carter of the Sierra Club.

    “How has climate change impacted you? President Obama has asked the country to have a dialogue on climate change and we’ve taken up the task.

    Join us for a Climate Legacy Roundtable on April 30 to hear from a variety of public stakeholders from the government, business, utility, and other perspectives discussing the issue and path to solutions in Colorado for climate change.

    Colorado is on the frontlines of climate disruption, and we’re feeling the heat. Come hear how Coloradoans are impacted and what they’re doing about it.”

    Several big name organizations have been making a killing on climate fear mongering. They have relentlessly pumped the “problem” for all the money they can get by taking advantage of the concerns raised by people, like the President, who should be exercising much more caution than they have. My personal reaction to this message is that Colorado has been on the front lines of the disinformation about the climate. I don’t know how long it will take for this crime to be unravled but I think it will eventually, and when it does, I hope the reaction is brutal for everyone who benefited from it.

  75. Stan W. says:

    @richardscourtney: Funny how you seem think to the only time natural variabilty isn’t acting is now.

  76. Stan W. says:

    @richardcourtney:
    an exercise for you:
    take the last 16 yrs (say) of surface temperatures;
    take out the el ninos and la ninas;
    say, use instead the 30 yr average for those months;
    recalculate the trend for the last 16 yrs;
    what do you get?

  77. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @jc

    “I do take your point, supported by Reich.Eschhaus above, that this should not be taken as being indicative of a wider movement in opinion. Beyond any established mindset anywhere, insularity does seem to be something for which conditions are ripe in many countries, so this may – being linked as you have previously said – tend to re-inforce thinking (is it that?) on AGW.”

    It may well be I agree with DirkH that this satirical fiction column is not indicative of anything. Otherwise I don’t think I agree with much more that DirkH has written here. Describing Germany as insular is totally wrong in my opinion. It has at least 9 bordering countries (correct me if I’m wrong) and lies in the heart of the European Union. The media there surely pay attention to what happens in the countries around Germany and the in the wider world (but of course Germany has it own set of preoccupations that influence discourse).

    But when DirkH mention further up the comment stream that

    “The fun thing is Die Zeit is the social-democrat Leitorgan, SPD ex chancellor Helmut Schmidt is publisher. Die Zeit has been a leading alarmist medium, now that guy tries a climbdown, coated in slightly satirical language. He gets ravaged by his readers of course; making fun of the State Religion is strictly verboten.”

    then I agree about Schmidt as well, but need to add that the SPD (social democratic political party) has a strong basis in the (former) coal miners, which is not green at all. Further, DirkH oversees that all columns of Harald Martenstein in Die Zeit are satirical, not “disguised in slightly satirical language”. Harald’s readers know this, he is not ravaged by them, as I type this there are 10 comments in total! This includes one comment linking to this page with the title “Martenstein is becoming the star of the sceptic’s scene”. Ha! To see what I mean read more of his columns here:

    http://www.zeit.de/serie/martenstein

    It is not serious journalism, simply satirical humorous light fiction. The mention of him being fired is funny. If he would get fired it would be because he did not get enough reactions on his article!

    Then DirkH writes:

    “And related, SPD is dropping below 20% in approval rating of their contender for the chancellor office, Steinbrück, for the elections in autumn. Look what you’ve done cursed AGW, I’m melting, melting!”

    This has nothing to do with AGW, there are other reasons (EURO crisis?). More importantly, the polls looked totally different a year ago and they might look different again in autumn. I stress this because DirkH later says that “Germans are very stubborn once they have chosen their political religion”. In my opinion the Germans are getting more politically volatile with each year that passes (doing away with voting for the same party at each election).

    But this is too long already and partially off topic as well. But concluding I find this from DirkH very funny: “Cognitive dissonance is a national sport.” I know Germans are happy discussing things, and they are not necessarily easily persuaded by discussions with others. However there exists a broad spectrum of opinion in Germany. DirkH however thinks that cognitive dissonance is at work throughout the nation, but doesn’t consider the option that he himself could be wrong.

  78. Eric Webb says:

    Although I do believe that the AGW theory is crumbling, it will take time for this to diminish, it will not be a quick and swift victory for skeptics, it will be a long & slow process, but eventually AGW should die (even so, there still will be a few remnants left over). I hope it will (continue to be) a very slow & painful death for AGW, as it will make the alarmists suffer as much as possible.

  79. DirkH says:

    jc says:
    April 19, 2013 at 3:25 pm
    “You make the prospects seem very gloomy. Hopefully that is part of a German cultural cliche!”

    We are right 50 % of the time.

    “But some activity where there was none can only be an advantage.”

    Agreed. Let’s see. But don’t forget, the EU is not a democratic institutions – opinions in nations states count for nothing in Europe, (they might get critized by the UN, though)

  80. RockyRoad says:

    Reich.Eschhaus says:
    April 19, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    …but doesn’t consider the option that he himself could be wrong.

    And that from someone with the handle of “Reich”? I’d say your opinion that everybody is wrong except you should actually apply to yourself.

  81. u.k.(us) says:

    “The polar bears are not dying off, no. They are moving to Uckermark. I’m not a climate skeptic, I’m just disappointed.”
    ==============
    “disappointed” is a lovers word, or so it seems:

    http://freefalldrifter.blogspot.com/2005/04/disappointed-is-lovers-word.html

  82. DirkH says:

    Reich.Eschhaus says:
    April 19, 2013 at 4:57 pm
    “funny: “Cognitive dissonance is a national sport.” I know Germans are happy discussing things, and they are not necessarily easily persuaded by discussions with others. However there exists a broad spectrum of opinion in Germany. DirkH however thinks that cognitive dissonance is at work throughout the nation, but doesn’t consider the option that he himself could be wrong.”

    I am a German, live in Germany, work in Germany, talk to Germans, and dismantle their (public TV delivered pseudo) arguments in an instant. Could I be wrong? Sure. But for now, I have found no resistance. This is a populacve hypnotized by the dummy box. (They don’t even know the term)

  83. kim says:

    R.E explains the joke. It needed explaining, because this oceans boiling bit has never been a laughing matter before. Something new in the culture.
    ============

  84. Luther Wu says:

    Derek Sorensen says:
    April 19, 2013 at 9:38 am

    Luther Wu says:
    April 19, 2013 at 8:58 am

    Rating points are the cobblestones on the road to hell.

    The most significant difference I have noticed when they have been implemented on other sites is a general reduction in the number of comments. It appears to me that, when rating systems are introduced, people tend to use them instead of commenting. This might be considered by some to be a good thing but I’d prefer it not be there. I’d rather read people’s thoughts than learn that “five people rated this comment as good.”
    __________________
    Thanks for the reply.
    Comment rating systems have been and are being actively used in the blog world as a tool to stifle debate and honest dissent. Many people know this, as there is a well- known political blog which put a similar plan (karma points) in place and then quickly descended into one of the most partisan halls of twisted logic and distorted truth on the web.
    To be fair, that “other blog” also uses other methods to promote their world views, none of which appear here, except as comments about the tools employed by those promoting the ideas against which we raise our voices.

    Those who know me by my history here at WUWT (hopefully) realize that I intend no disrespect to Anthony, the moderators, readers or contributors of any stripe, by making known my cautionary opinion on this matter.

  85. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @RockyRoad

    “And that from someone with the handle of “Reich”? I’d say your opinion that everybody is wrong except you should actually apply to yourself.”

    Is that all?

    OK! The handle thing. You don’t know where it is coming from and I ain’t gonna tell you. However “reich” in German means ‘rich’ on the one hand and ‘empire’ (loosely translated) on the other. So what is your point?

    The “everybody is wrong except you”. Where did I say that? Seriously? Let me quote DirkH:

    “We are right 50 % of the time.”

    Did you get annoyed with me not agreeing on your Berlin Wall comparison? Or why are you getting so snappy?

  86. David A. Evans says:

    DirkH.

    I would suggest that what holds for Germany in general holds for the English. Nor so much perhaps for the Scots, Welsh & Irish.

    I hope AfD gets some hold even though they’re not yet EuroSceptic.

    DaveE.

  87. Luther Wu says:

    Luther Wu says:
    April 19, 2013 at 8:58 am

    Rating points are the cobblestones on the road to hell.

    Without a discussion thread about this extraordinary change to WUWT commentary format, I’ve nowhere else to comment.

    11(+) 16(-) Rate This
    __________________
    Alright, here’s a quick follow- up… My original post at 8:58 am was immediately published. That has never happened to me before the implementation of this new plan, so I can assume:

    a) the instant publish was an artifact of having no previous score
    b) a mod was sitting on top of the blog at the time and ok’d the post

    If choice a), then since the ratings now show me in negative territory:
    ___________
    Luther Wu says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    April 19, 2013 at 5:27 pm
    __________
    becomes somewhat disconcerting… “what if” my points continue to decline? Do I ( and obviously others) get moved further towards Coventry? Do we lose our voices?
    If so, is my point not made?

  88. David A. Evans says:

    The terminology gets confusing. By EuroSceptic, I meant EUSceptic. I know they’re anti Euro.

    DaveE.

  89. Wamron says:

    Well Ich sprache sehr wegen Deutsch and am only learning one phrase at a time.So I cant read the original. But my hunch is that this is ALL irony, not aimed at the CAGW idea but for its own sake in the context of defusing doubts among believers.

    I dont as yet see any evidence of the CAGW meme losing its hold in the foreseeable future. Saying its happening over something like this is dangerously complacent.

    Most of those of us here will in all ikelihood be dead and buried before CAGW dogma bites the dust.

  90. David A. Evans says:

    Luther Wu says:
    April 19, 2013 at 5:42 pm

    As I understand it, the site is now effectively moderation free except for a few key words which go to moderation.

    These will give you the awaiting moderation message as you had before.

    Then there are posts which fall foul of WordPress which appear to disappear until the mods dredge the spam bin.

    I think that is how it works.

    Having said that, I am also against the popularity contest that is the thumbs up/down

    DaveE.

  91. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    “I am a German, live in Germany, work in Germany, talk to Germans,”

    OK, that’s settled then!

    “and dismantle their (public TV delivered pseudo) arguments in an instant. ”

    Which arguments? By whom? All powered by public TV? Btw I can go argue in any country you like, and demolish arguments brought forth by a subsection of the population in an instant on many subjects I know something about. What’s your point? Are you unhappy that they don’t agree with you?

    “Could I be wrong? Sure. But for now, I have found no resistance. ”

    You are definitely wrong! (so am I). But what I like to know is what this national self delusion is that you think you have recognized. What is it about? How did it came to be? That is the interesting part! Is it only about global warming? Or is it a more general mind set? Be explicit and extensive. I like to know.

    “This is a populacve hypnotized by the dummy box. (They don’t even know the term)”

    What’s a dummy box?

  92. Luther Wu says:

    David A. Evans says:
    April 19, 2013 at 5:51 pm
    ______________
    Thanks, Dave- you are quick!!!
    You beat me to my apologetic world tour of this thread… I went back in time and read what’s up with all this… I get it now. That’ll teach me to take a few days off and go fishing!

    I would like to think that we are all wired up in such a way as to immediately rise and defend against injustice, or “wrongness”, which is why Anthony’s efforts have turned into such a long fight. Those true believers who are out to save the planet believe fervently that they are on the side of righteousness, but unfortunately have been so blinded by belief that no amount of truth has been able to move them, to date.

  93. ferdberple says:

    love the economy of words in this post:. reposted from

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/19/mother-of-german-green-weeklies-die-zeit-shocks-readers-now-casts-doubt-on-global-warming/

    =============
    Lloyd Martin Hendaye
    19. April 2013 at 18:04

    There are those who warned from Day One against according such extreme-reactionary Luddite sociopaths any credibility.

    Acting from ill-will, in bad faith under false pretenses, Klimat Kultists’ truly vicious sabotage of global coal-oil-nuclear economies has condemed untold tens-of-millions to impoverishment, misery, even frigid death.

    Layman or cognoscenti, no individual with critical faculties intact accommodates Warmists’ anti-human agitprop a moment. Massive fraud clothed in ridiculous pseudo-scientific jargon is their sole stock-in-trade. Rene Blondlot, J.B. Rhine, Trofim Lysenko, Immanuel Velikovsky, have nothing on the Green Gang of Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann,Trenberth and their ilk.

    Anyone not familiar with these names should review decades of proctocratic screeds by Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Keith Farnish, Kentti Linkola, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber. How these coprophagic sycophants fastened on Big Government to siphon off tens-of-billions in grant monies is major question.

  94. MikeEE says:

    In Maryland we’ve had the coolest winter/spring in a fairly long time – I haven’t heard much talk of that. My electric bill always has the average temperature for the reporting period for the previous two it was 5 degrees cooler than last year. this reporting period it was 11 degrees cooler.

    MikeEE

  95. Bill H says:

    Reich.Eschhaus says:
    April 19, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    “This is a populacve hypnotized by the dummy box. (They don’t even know the term)”

    What’s a dummy box?
    ============================================

    My parents used to call it the Idiot box.. The longer you watch the stupider you become… i cant believe im over 50.. And now the populace is more concerned about who is on American Idol than they are the liberals dead set on removing Americas freedoms and enslaving them to trillions of debt..

    Dummy Box indeed!

  96. Wamron says:

    .”Reich” guy says:
    ..”OK! The handle thing. You don’t know where it is coming from and I ain’t gonna tell you [in-joke with an audience of one] . However “reich” in German means ‘rich’ on the one hand and ‘empire’ (loosely translated) on the other….”………and to the rest of us means being bombed, shot at and having ones relatives exterminated in death camps.

    So whose being disingenuous?

  97. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    Hi Bill!

    “My parents used to call it the Idiot box.. The longer you watch the stupider you become… i cant believe im over 50.. And now the populace is more concerned about who is on American Idol than they are the liberals dead set on removing Americas freedoms and enslaving them to trillions of debt..”

    Me asking what a dummy box is was in jest!

    “more concerned about who is on American Idol than they are the liberals dead set on removing Americas freedoms and enslaving them to trillions of debt..”

    The debt comes from the banks! Got liberals in your neighborhood trying to enslave you? Call the police! Who is dead set on removing Americas freedom? Is american freedom different from other peoples’ freedom? well, I don’t know…

  98. Wamron says:

    Rocky Road…Berlin Wall….I think you’ll find Ronald Reagan, the immense might of the USA, Margaret Thatcher, her determination to deploy GLCMs in the UK, and a war in Afghanistan all had rather more to do with the fall of the Berlin wall than anyone’s off-hand remarks ofany kind.

    Where are the analagous influences now?

    They all support the CAGW status quo.

    No, we aint losing our Berlin wall for a long time yet.

  99. ferd berple says:

    Steven Sullivan says:
    April 19, 2013 at 11:56 am
    I have to say you are WRONG, Global warming exist and the cost associated with sea level rise will be immeasurable.
    ==========
    immeasurable = too small to measure.

    Climate scientists have been telling us for years that sea level has risen 7 inches over the past century. And they’ve been telling telling their wives and mistresses that |—————————| this is 7 inches.

  100. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    “So whose being disingenuous?”
    You are!
    When have you ever been close to the Berlin Wall?

  101. Theo Goodwin says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 19, 2013 at 4:44 pm
    @richardscourtney: Funny how you seem think to the only time natural variabilty isn’t acting is now.

    You haven’t been paying attention to this site. We have been asking and challenging Alarmists to take into account natural variability and we have been doing it for years. They adamantly refused to do that until now. We continue to take natural variability into account. Read Bob Tisdale on the the natural variability found in ENSO, PDO, AMO and a score of other complicated natural processes that Alarmists continue to refuse to discuss. What Alarmists want is to pull natural variability out of a hat, rabbit like, as an excuse for the failure of their models. Not one of them will utter or write the phrase “natural regularity” and follow it with a name like ENSO. That would take them away from their models and into empirical science. They dare not go there.

  102. Niff says:

    Christopher Monckton was immensely magnanimous in his article http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/25/bethlehem-and-the-rat-hole-problem/
    but then he is religiously christian.

    Personally the accountability of those who have knowingly promulgated the scam and benefited from it at the expense of so many is more important than speeding the demise of the whole thing.

    I suspect the ‘many’ will turn on them without prompting at some point. And frankly I doubt that any magnanimity or reasonableness on the part of sceptics will count for much at that point. Probably won’t be long.

  103. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Not to worry….the hardcore climate zealots, like John Holdren (White House science advisor) have it covered under the term “climate disruption.” They won’t go away that easily, see his presentation slides for the Grand Challenges Summit in Chicago, 2010 here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/jph-chicago-04212010.pdf

  104. Janice Moore says:

    Q. “How can about 40% of CO2 increase in just about 31% of Mauna Loa measured years have no impact on the temperature?” [Jimbo around 12:15 on 4/19/13]
    A. All of us without our head in the sands of the AGW Desert would say, apparently, it cooled it! [Nice point, Jimbo]
    **********************************************************************************888ate!

    “…water vapor … making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it [and ONLY ABOUT 3% OF CO2 IS EMITTED BY HUMANS and the % of that 3% that is due to all our WONDERFUL U.S. products such as the Corvette is .0000???? % –> For this we should destroy our economy?” [Adrian Vance around 1:30PM on 4/19/13] [Another nice point!]

    **********************************************************************************888again!

    @ Mr. Wu, while Dave Evans has a good theory (and is based on facts), yours has not been disproven. What word or words sent you to Spam Purgatory? It couldn’t have been “hell,” for that appeared from the get-go. Hmm. Was it “Anthony?” “stripe” “cautionary” WHO KNOWS?

    I am still mildly disconcerted, especially since the moderator did not apologize for nor explain the mysterious delay in posting your 5:27PM (4/19/13) post. I KNOW that the highly vigilant regular bloggers here will report any similar events of any significance, however, thus, until more evidence comes in, I’m not going to worry about it.

    No need to apologize! Your concerns were reasonable and the explanation you posited was plausible.

  105. Janice Moore says:

    WOW! My 9:19 comment is now “waiting moderation!” Still not worried, though. What, me? {:)]

  106. Janice Moore says:

    9 – sixteen PM comment.

    [Yes, all of your comments are displayed. Mod]

  107. What’s a dummy box?

    A boob tube.

  108. Brian H says:

    Mark and two Cats says:
    April 19, 2013 at 8:39 am

    “So he pleaded that people should emit more CO2 – so that he could stay warm”.
    —————————
    Then he still doesn’t get it.

    You’re the one who doesn’t get it. It was irony.

  109. papiertigre says:

    I agree with what Roger Knights says: @
    April 19, 2013 at 9:40 pm.

    I also pushed the thumbs up.

  110. DirkH says:

    Reich.Eschhaus says:
    April 19, 2013 at 5:51 pm
    “You are definitely wrong! (so am I). But what I like to know is what this national self delusion is that you think you have recognized. What is it about? How did it came to be? That is the interesting part! Is it only about global warming? Or is it a more general mind set? Be explicit and extensive. I like to know.”

    Ask yourself one question, whose national identity needed to be destroyed after WW II, and you get the answer to why the Germans pay 3 times as much as the Brits for their public media apparatus.

  111. Stan W.:

    I write to ask you a question because I would not want to hurt the afflicted if tempted to reply to a future post.

    At April 19, 2013 at 3:53 pm I wrote

    In this century when alarmists are saying global warming is hiding under the bed or in the ocean deeps or somewhere we say,
    “No, the stasis in global temperature is natural variability and it disproves assertions of significant AGW”.

    April 19, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    @richardscourtney: Funny how you seem think to the only time natural variabilty isn’t acting is now.

    So, my question is:
    Does your reply indicate
    You are dyslexic
    or
    You cannot read
    or
    You are an idiot
    or
    You are a warmunist so you tell lies?

    Richard

  112. TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:

    Godwin.

  113. Stan W.:

    At April 19, 2013 at 4:53 pm you ask me

    @richardcourtney:
    an exercise for you:
    take the last 16 yrs (say) of surface temperatures;
    take out the el ninos and la ninas;
    say, use instead the 30 yr average for those months;
    recalculate the trend for the last 16 yrs;
    what do you get?

    I answer:
    IT CANNOT BE DONE AND WOULD PROVIDE NONSENSE.

    Stan W., I will explain this in language simple enough for a 10-year old in hope it will be simple enough for a warmunist.

    Stan W., there are methods called ‘mathematics’ and ‘statistics’.
    They have rules which have to be followed.
    (This is like football. You get a mess if you break the rules).

    What you have suggested breaks lots of rules of mathematics and statistics.

    Firstly, you cannot take the “30 year average for months” and from that “get the trend for the last 16 yrs”. (Now, this next bit will be a little hard for you, Stan W., but I will really, really try to keep it simple enough for a warmunist.)

    1.
    You need at least 30 years to get a “30 year average”.
    2.
    16 years is only a little more than half of 30 years.
    3.
    So, there is no “30 years average” for the months of “the last 16 years”.

    So, StanW.,
    we already cannot do what your “exercise”: it is mathematically impossible.
    But it gets worse.
    4.
    El Ninos and La Ninas are natural effects which are not understood.
    5.
    Because El Ninos and La Ninas are not understood there is no valid way to “take out” their effects: any way you try will be a reflection of your prejudices concerning how they behave.
    6.
    But El Ninos and La Ninas are natural effects which are part of global climate.
    7.
    So, if it were possible to “take out” their effects from the data then the altered data would be a distorted indication of reality.

    Stan W., do you now understand that you have suggested impossible nonsense which – if it were possible – would provide a distorted indication of reality.

    There are various data sets of global temperature time series.
    Depending on which data set is considered there has been no discernible trend (i.e. warming or cooling at 95% confidence) in global temperature for more than the most recent 16 years or the most recent 23 years.

    Richard

  114. Wamron says:

    @Reich.Eschhaus:

    “So whose being disingenuous?”
    You are!
    When have you ever been close to the Berlin Wall?”

    Whenever Im in Potsdamer Platz (theres a set concrete prefab elements there and a line marked along the ground where the wall ran). No I dont hang around with the tourists at the “East Side Gallery” but I have been at Meurpark although to use the flohmarkt rather than look at bits of wall. It just so happens my Berlin location has mostly been East of Marzhan. But speaking of second hand goods and the wall a sense of what it was like can be had by visiting the used department store at Friedrichshain, Frankfurter Tor is frighteningly redolent of Communism.

    So in essence, the answer to your dumbass rhetorical question is quite frequently. But what kind of fool makes an assumption like yours about someone you know nothing about. How often have you worked in Berlin?

    But it IS a rhetorical question only an idiot would pose: what do millions of tourists learn about the DDR by looking at remains of the wall? Conversely we dont need to visit the geographical locus of every hostorical event to know the history.

    You’re an idiot “Reich” guy. Oh, and you dont know the difference between “disingenuous” (what I said ) and ingenuous (what you thought).

  115. Joe Shaw says:

    In the absence of a dedicated thread to discuss the merits of the rating buttons I’ll echo the negative comments of several earlier posters. I encourage Anthony to add a separate thread to discuss the merits / demerits of this change. WUWT is clearly his blog and I respect his right to run it as he sees fit. However, the popularity of the site has a great deal to do with the open nature of the discussion and quality of the arguments. I don’t believe rating posts contributes to either. Ratings are purely about popularity and consensus – the antithesis of what WUWT is about.

    I think the likely long term result will be to discourage posting of unpopular views and encourage a greater level of self-censorship. I think this would be unfortunate, in part because I have learned a great deal from watching the experts here dismantle inaccurate and poorly constructed arguments.

  116. Gary Pearse says:

    You know you hear the ridiculous statement by networks saying “The most trusted anchor blah blah…etc.

    Well now we have a very objective measure: the order in which news folks reject the global warming meme. Martenstein, being a green socialist, should be listed as the most trusted in the world. Others, like the economist are high on the list. Perhaps we should measure the same metric in scientific journals and institutions. How long will they hold out. Should we have a contest?

  117. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @Wamron

    OK, you’re right, it was an idiotic rhetorical question. So I deserved that. Shouldn’t have posed it, mea culpa.

    However, diverting attention in a discussion to someone’s handle, as started by RockyRoad and continued by you, I do not call “ingenuous” in any case. FYI, my user name has nothing to do with the 3rd reich.

  118. jc says:

    @ Wamron says:
    April 19, 2013 at 7:27 pm

    “They all support the CAGW status quo.” [Govts, politicians]

    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    True. But that is what I find the most interesting thing. And the most pertinent thing for how this will unfold.

    They all support the banks too. They support loosely or tightly integrated systems existing within and extending beyond their own countries, with some variation but general consensus (!) that these are satisfactory in substance if not in detail.

    The main characteristics of these is that they are remote from the understanding, oversight, and integration with the DAILY lives of all who are either not structurally associated with them or take a specific keen interest.

    Thus, even a devotee of CAGW, unless inserted structurally, has little or no real contact or even understanding of how and why decisions are made, or what causes “positions” on “the science” to be modified or repackaged, for example as “extreme weather”. Almost everyone is remote from all this.

    The point of all this, to cut to the chase, is that there is an observable dimunition of confidence in the general population with these “parallel universes”, where it is becoming more and more apparent that the interests of these structures exist largely independently of the interests of the population. This is very clearly happening in politics and politicians now as they fail – whilst continuing on the whole to maintain structures they are reliant on and benefit from, and allowing them to prosper, at least in relative terms.

    So whilst current structures and occupants may appear immutable, this I would suggest will be in itself the reason for dramatic changes in the not to distant future. What and how things happen in any one area is open to question. But when an issue and associated structures such as CAGW cannot be separated from these things it will find itself turned on its head if any significant change occurs.

    I think, that AGW will be a major catalyst for this. It is the essence of simplicity. There can be nowhere to hide, and no plausible arcane “technical” explanations offered to obscure the truth if this fails. And every person in the world has confidence in their ability to comprehend “the weather”. If its “getting colder”, no amount of manipulation will have an impact. To realize they have been deceived, at huge cost, about such a simple thing, will galvanize people. So I don’t think current structures are an impediment, in fact I think they are cutting their own throats.

    And I will say “public support” for this on a “personal” level is vastly overstated – intentionally of course – and that for most -who are not generally even the majority now, this is a matter of social conformity which if undermined, will evaporate.

    There are times when there is seismic change. This is one of them.

  119. Stan W. says:

    @richardcourtney: my exercise can be done (obviously), and has been done (Foster and Rahmstorf ERL 2011); i was just trying to illustrate it for you in a simpler way.

    when one accounts for the influences of ENSOs, the underlying increase due to GHGs is still clearly there. co2 didn’t suddenly stop being a greenhouse gas.

  120. Stan W. says:

    @theo — there are times when natural variablity (esp ocean cycles) adds to greenhouse warming (~1975-2000), and times when it acts against it (~2000-present).

  121. Stan W.:

    I am offering some advice concerning your post at April 20, 2013 at 11:17 am.

    Learn the first rule of holes.

    Your post I am answering says

    @richardcourtney: my exercise can be done (obviously), and has been done (Foster and Rahmstorf ERL 2011); i was just trying to illustrate it for you in a simpler way.

    when one accounts for the influences of ENSOs, the underlying increase due to GHGs is still clearly there. co2 didn’t suddenly stop being a greenhouse gas.

    Nobody has and nobody can obtain a “30 year average” for “16 years of data”.
    I tried to to tell you that is impossible in the simplest way I could in my post at April 20, 2013 at 2:05 am. You have not understood my explanation (obviously).

    Nobody “can account for the effects of ENSO” except as a reflection of their prejudice. I explained this to you but -0 alas – it seems that was also beyond your comprehension.

    Let me assure you that CO2 certainly is a greenhouse gas and it cannot stop being one.
    You will have to take my word for that because, clearly, I have no hope of explaining radiative physics to you when you are incapable of understanding that a 30-year average cannot be obtained from 16 years of data.

    But so what?
    At present atmospheric CO2 concentration there is no possibility of an increase to CO2 concentration having a discernible effect on global temperature. I will explain this for the benefit of onlookers because your series of posts in this thread demonstrate there is no possibility of explaining reality to you.

    The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be too small to discern. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity obtained by Idso, by Lindzen&Choi, etc..

    In other words, the man-made global warming from man’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) would be much smaller than natural fluctuations in global temperature so it would be physically impossible to detect the man-made global warming.

    Of course, human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. For example, cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.

    Similarly, the global warming from man’s GHG emissions would be too small to be detected. Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

    I hold this view because I am an empiricist so I accept whatever is indicated by data obtained from observation of the real world.

    Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf

    and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

    and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

    Climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and, therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has observable effects.

    Richard

  122. Stan W. says:

    @richardcourtney — you have clearly not understood the algorithm.

    it is this; for months when an el nino or la nina is underway, substitute for the observed surface temperature the average temperature of the previous 360 months.

    or choose your own baseline — a year, a decade, whatever. some number that represents the typical temperature outside of an enso.

    recalculate the trend for the last 16 yrs. you will find that the presence of ENSOs influences it heavily.

    or just go read foster & rahmstorf, who did this in a more sophisticated way with multiple regression.

  123. Stan W.:

    Your post at April 20, 2013 at 1:35 pm shows you did not head my advice to stop digging.

    You say

    @richardcourtney — you have clearly not understood the algorithm.

    You did not state, cite and/or explain any algorithm.
    Clearly, I did not understand what was in your mind and you had not mentioned.
    However, had you mentioned it then I may have failed to understand it because the delusions of warmunists usually perplex me.

    You then go on to provide an imperfect description of a methodology use by Foster & Rahmstorf which you do not cite, reference or quote.

    I assume you were thinking of the rubbish paper titled ‘Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011′ which can be read here

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article#erl439749bib6

    It is good that I know more about this stuff than you, Sam W., or I and others would not have any clue about which paper you were displaying your ignorance.

    I have already explained to you why any removal of ENSO from a temperature time series is erroneous in principle. But the method you seem to be promoting is complete twaddle. It was considered in detail on WUWT. Anybody wanting to see that consideration can find it at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/28/mythbusting-rahmstorf-and-foster/

    I repeat my friendly advice, Sam W,. Learn the first rule of holes.

    Richard

  124. M Courtney says:

    Stan W – Please explain the justification for The Algorithm.
    El Nino is natural variability. Excluding natural variability is “fiddling the figures”. To have a reason to do that you need to understand El Nino: cause and effects (perfectly understand each and every El Nino cause and effect). How else do you justify the changes?
    But…
    No-one has that knowledge without also having divinity.

    So Foster & Rahmstorf have created sophisticated choreography for angels on a pinhead. No more and no less.
    Well, not until they have 30 years without an El Nino for a baseline (if they know why they have those 30 years, of course).
    Unless you can explain The Algorithm and all El Ninos?

  125. Stan W. says:

    @richardcourtney:
    it is certainly not erroreous to ask how the influence of ENSOs might be removed from a temperature time series.

    i have merely suggested one way to do it, that is not that sophisticated. there are other ways (ie Foster & Rahmstorf)

    it’s curious you keep avoiding the calculation.

  126. Stan W. says:

    @M Courtney: climate is influenced by both natural and manmade factors.
    how to separate them?
    i have proposed one very simple way. there are better ways.

    it is not “fiddling the figures” to ask about the separate influence of n.v. and how it can be accounted for in a world where the greenhouse effect is increasing but still (so far) at about the same decadal rate that n.v. can induce.

  127. M Courtney:

    re your post at April 20, 2013 at 2:13 pm.

    Indeed so. I had already explained those matters – but in less detail – to Stan W. in my above post at April 20, 2013 at 2:05 am.

    But, like all trolls, Stan W. is not interested in exploring information: his purpose is to lislead the uninformed (of whom he is clearly one).

  128. Stan W. says:

    @richardcourtney —
    1) is it possible to change numbers in a temperature time series?
    2) if yes, substitute the surface temperature for ENSO months with a number more characteristic of nonENSO surface temperature
    3) recalculate trend.

  129. Janice Moore says:

    Tune in next time, boys and girls, for the next round, when, once again, it is… COURTNEY v. W aaaaaaaaaaand DIRK v. REICH (not the third).

    Advice to Stan W.: Much of the above debate seems to be due to a communication problem (as it stands, as far as I can tell, I am far more in agreement with what Courtney is saying). Try slowing down (or get someone to help you with your English useage) a bit and, perhaps, with clearer language, you can have a debate instead of a quarrel. Courtney’s frustration is completely understandable.

    How does that old saw go? (something like) “I KNOW YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU THINK I MEANT, HOWEVER, I DO NOT THINK YOU REALIZE THAT WHAT I MEANT IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK I SAID.” (???)

  130. Stan W.:

    There could be no more clear example of trolling than your offensive and untrue post at April 20, 2013 at 2:18 pm.

    It says:

    @richardcourtney:
    it is certainly not erroreous to ask how the influence of ENSOs might be removed from a temperature time series.

    i have merely suggested one way to do it, that is not that sophisticated. there are other ways (ie Foster & Rahmstorf)

    it’s curious you keep avoiding the calculation.

    I DID NOT AVOID THE CALCULATION.
    My post addressed to you at post at April 20, 2013 at 2:05 am explained why the “exercise” which you set me and you now call a “calculation” is A MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

    You have now had three explanations – two of them from me – as to why removing ENSO is mistaken in principle and not possible to conduct correctly in practice.

    You raised the work of Foster & Rahmstorf but did not cite it or reference it. I linked to it and also to a complete rebuttal of it.

    I understand that reality is refuting your cherished belief in the AGW-scare.
    And I recognise that this is hurting you so you are having a tantrum.
    But your behaviour is not acceptable.

    You have ignored and misrepresented every response to your nonsense.
    Stop it. Grow up. You are making a fool of yourself.

    Richard

  131. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @Janice

    “REICH (not the third)”

    Made me smile! :)

  132. Janice Moore says:

    On second thought… after reading what was posted above my 1435 post,

    @ Stan W. — go sober up. Then come back and try to have a debate. All you are managing to prove is that you are either: 1) drunk; 2) having a psychotic break; or 3) a contemptible clown.

    At first, I wondered if you did not speak English well. I have seen many fine comments on this site, however, that are completely rational and manage to communicate accurately enough to be understood, even though it is clear that English is not the writer’s first language. You appear to have no excuse (much less a justification such as dyslexia) for your botched communication.

  133. To the left of centre says:

    @richardscourtney you seem to suggest in your comment dated April 20 2013 (Julian Day JD 2456402.500000) at time 2.39 pm that Stan W’s suggestion that one could replace surface temperatures associated with El Ninos or La Nina with some kind of average surface temperature is a MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. Maybe my mathematics degrees was different to yours, but as far as I am aware it is MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE to replace to replace one number with another. It may not be physically justified, but it I think it is MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE.

  134. Janice Moore says:

    @ (shudder) Reich — please forgive my expressing my distaste about your given name, but, I’m sorry, Mr. E., that word has such horrid connotations!

    Thanks for the affirmation above.

    I want to compliment you. Although I disagree with much of what you say, you (and Dirk, too) have an admirably fine command of the English language which I am assuming is not your first language. Good for you to post on an English language blog! For a German (I’m sorry, but I have so much personal anecdotal evidence that I’m a bit prejudiced), you have very good sense of humor.

    And, good for you to persevere in posting, despite much opposition, here.

    Ich spreche keine Deutsche, ist tut (?) mir lied (?). Aw shucks! Auf wiedersehn.

  135. Stan W. says:

    @richardcourtney —
    please stop the name calling and insinuations. it is rude.

    clearly, obviously, it is possible to substitute one number for another in a time series.

    hence, for months when an ENSO occurs (use a 6-mth lag if you want), which skews average surface temperature, substitute in a number more typical of the long-term (decades) temperature.

    that’s all. recalculate the trend.

  136. Janice Moore says:

    Re: leftofcenter and Stan and Whoa! A troll invasion. Not going to dignify their gas with a response.

  137. Stan W. says:

    @janice — please stop the name calling; you are being rude.

  138. To the left of centre says:

    @Janice Moore I’ll happily acknowledge that I was somewhat mocking richardscourtney’s typical style of engagement, but if he can’t take it he shouldn’t dish it out. Not sure how that makes it a troll invasion. Happy to engage politely, if that is what you would prefer.

  139. Werner Brozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 20, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    it is certainly not erroneous to ask how the influence of ENSOs might be removed from a temperature time series. I have merely suggested one way to do it, that is not that sophisticated. there are other ways
    OK, I will play your game. Of course the biggest El Nino is from 1998 and people are excited when a trend is started right before this El Nino. But what people do not seem to realize is that there are deep La Ninas on either side of that El Nino and they cancel each other out. Check out the following and note that the slope is essentially 0, both for 16 years and 4 months which includes the 1998 El Nino and for 13 years and 2 months that does not include this El Nino.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:2000.08/trend

  140. Stan W. says:

    @werner — yes, but your period includes two la ninas in the last few years, one of them large, that temporarily cool the surface.

  141. Stan W. says:

    also werner, i wonder why you choose RSS data.

    It differs significantly from UAH in recent years, and given the history of the whole MSU saga it is not clear either of these time series are accurately capturing LT temperatures.

  142. Wamron says:

    @Reich.Esterhaus.. “Fair Play” as we say over here, seldom do we see such a straight admission. we all make mistakes on these chat threads. Well I do anyway. Getting caught up in that digression was as you say a mistake on my part also.

  143. To the left of centre:

    Your post at April 20, 2013 at 2:53 pm says to me (and says nothing else) April 20, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    @richardscourtney you seem to suggest in your comment dated April 20 2013 (Julian Day JD 2456402.500000) at time 2.39 pm that Stan W’s suggestion that one could replace surface temperatures associated with El Ninos or La Nina with some kind of average surface temperature is a MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

    I did NOT say, suggest or imply any such thing.
    I said that I had explained (at April 20, 2013 at 2:05 am) the “exercise” Stan W. set for me to conduct is a mathematical impossibility. IT IS AND I DID.

    Not content with that blatant falsehood, at April 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm you follow it with this

    @Janice Moore I’ll happily acknowledge that I was somewhat mocking richardscourtney’s typical style of engagement, but if he can’t take it he shouldn’t dish it out.

    Absolutely false! I never, not ever, misrepresent what others say.
    I quote it and I address it. Your suggestion is untrue and defamatory.

    Richard

  144. To the left of centre says:

    @richardscourtney Just to clarify; my mocking of your style was based on your use of CAPS (for example) and in no way was I suggesting that you misrepresent what others say. Not quite sure how you interpreted it in that way. Guilty conscience?

    By the way, I thought you were intending to respond to any future comments of mine by saying “noted and laughed at” or had you forgotten that?

  145. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @Janice Moore

    “that word has such horrid connotations!”

    ‘Das Dritte Reich’ has horrid connotations. Reich is still a perfectly normal word even in German.

    “I want to compliment you.”

    Well, thanks!

    ” Although I disagree with much of what you say, you (and Dirk, too) have an admirably fine command of the English language which I am assuming is not your first language.”

    Indeed, it is not my native tongue.

    ” Good for you to post on an English language blog!”

    Oh! That’s easy!

    ” For a German (I’m sorry, but I have so much personal anecdotal evidence that I’m a bit prejudiced), you have very good sense of humor.”

    I am not the one to lift your prejudices since I am not German and German is not my first language. However, I do know quite some Germans with an excellent sense of humor (and some who seem to be bereft of humor). Germans as well as citizens of the USA could however learn something from the UK when it comes to irony and being ironic about themselves (I am not from the UK btw!). You should read the article in Die Zeit where this is all about to experience a German who is funny in his writing! After all that was all it was, a satirical fictional piece, not at all having the importance that Watts is giving it in his posting. That is what makes this all extra funny!

    Ah! Good try on German. I’ll take away the minor mistakes (hope you don’t mind, not trying to pedantic or so): Ich spreche kein Deutsch, Es tut mir leid. Auf Wiedersehen.

  146. Stan W.:

    I see you are trolling again in your post at April 20, 2013 at 3:13 pm where you say to Werner Brozek

    also werner, i wonder why you choose RSS data.

    It differs significantly from UAH in recent years, and given the history of the whole MSU saga it is not clear either of these time series are accurately capturing LT temperatures.

    The MSU data provided as the RSS and UAH data sets are the only global measurements of global temperature. Hence, either is the ‘best’ data to cite.

    Also, the surface data sets are constantly ‘adjusted’ (almost every month) for no published, known or justifiable reason. For example, try to explain these changes to GISS for measurements made decades ago

    Anyway, none of that changes the point made by Werner Brozek which is that the recent ENSO effects negate each other so they have no discernible effect on the global temperature trend.

    Now it is nearly midnight so I shall go to bed and leave you trolls to continue your attempts to mislead the public.

    Richard

    PS I have NOT called you names. I cannot do that here because there are ladies present so I cannot use the appropriate names.

  147. Stan W. says:

    @richardcourtney — of course it isn’t impossible.

    let your 500-month surface temperature time series be Y={T1,T2, …,T500}

    suppose an El Nino occurs in the months 361, 362, … 372.

    obtain a new time series Z={T1,T2,…,T360,S361,S362,…S372,T373,T374…T500} where S361=S362=S363=…=S372=(T1+T2+…+T360)/360

    recalculate the 16yr trend for Z, and compare it to the trend for Y for months > 372.

    clearly this is possible.

  148. Stan W. says:

    @richardcourtney: yes, you called me a “troll”

  149. Stan W. says:

    “Anyway, none of that changes the point made by Werner Brozek which is that the recent ENSO effects negate each other so they have no discernible effect on the global temperature trend.”

    no, he did not make that point — it only negates over certain time intervals, but not others.

  150. To the left of centre:

    Your post at April 20, 2013 at 3:23 pm is another falsehood. I did not “misunderstand”. I quoted your words which were clear and unambiguous. You lied, and your claim that you did not is another lie.

    Strewth! Trolls are despicable!

  151. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @Wamron

    Yeah, I was annoyed by being taking up on my name instead of the thread subject and let that comment slip through. Should have waited 10 minutes before posting ;)

    Thanks for your reply. No hard feelings! Maybe we’ll cross (s)words again one day!

  152. Stan W.:

    I really need to get to bed but you have replied to two of my posts so I will stay to answer.

    Yes the ENSO effects only negate each other over a specific period started by Werner Brozek; i.e. the recent 16 years of stasis which disprove the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models.

    And I did not call you names. I said you were a troll. Clearly you are. I did not say you were a man because your pseudonym is not sufficient information to know that.

    Richard

  153. Stan W. says:

    @richardcourtney – i am not a troll. i am asking legitimate questions in a polite manner, and it is unfair for you to characterize me in a pejorative way just because you do not like the questions themselves. please stop being rude.

  154. Stan W. says:

    @richardcourtney – the last 16 years certainly not do disprove AGW.

    there are multiple, nonexclusive reasons why such a “hiatus” could exist: natural variablity, particularly ENSOs and the PDO; an increase in Chinese aerosols; an underestimation of LT trends by UAH and RSS, incorrect forcings in climate models (especially for aerosols, particularly the indirect effects), the modeling of clouds, etc etc etc.

    blaming it all on an incorrect forcing attributed to CO2 is scientifically inaccurate. some of the best physics resides in the treatment of the GHGs.

  155. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Mr. R. Eschhaus,

    Thank you for kindly correcting my flaying attempt at Deutsche. I would not label your politely correcting me as “pedantic” (overly picky, usually in an attempt to demonstrate supposed superiority of intellect). Your ability to speak at least 3 languages is impressive.

    Yes, I read the English translation of the Die Zeit article (and I have noted that, per above posts, there were some mistakes in the translation). Even if translated flawlessly into English, however, I think it loses much of the humor it has for someone who can speak German well. Yes, it was somewhat humorous to me, but, weak, very weak (to me, I mean, a one-language American). The irony was too subtly expressed (assuming it is really in there). The explicit humor was too simple. I will try to remember to not judge one German (as I try not to judge anyone) based on the actions of other Germans and give them all the benefit of the doubt as to their sense of humor.

    Yes, indeed, the British do seem to have a genetic predisposition for wit and humor. I find, though, that while I can laugh heartily at most British humor, [oh, boy, this thread is REALLY unravelling, now!], I don’t always “get” it (and I don’t think that’s always due to my IQ). American comedians (I wonder why (eye roll)), such as Dennis Miller, are far and away my favorites. We who believe in free markets and truth in science are, nevertheless, in agreement on what matters most.

    To paraphrase Melanchthon: “In essentials, unity. In [humor or humour] liberty. In all things, charity.”

    Janice

  156. Chad Wozniak says:

    In re the articole in Die Zeit:

    The problem is that the Obamas and the Gina McCarthys have too much invested politically and financially in AGW for them to retreat from it. They can be counted on to hang on to it even long after it finally explodes in the media. They certainly, definitely, absolutely, incontrovertibly know it is a lie but that doesn’t stop people of their moral character from pursuing it – in typical leftist fashion, the truth is irrelevant, and they have no compunction about using lies to gratify their lust for power and their personal financial greed. They will keep going with it until they are stopped by superior force.

    Unfortunately, they are capable of doing tremendous harm before they are stopped and brought to account – fleecing the middle class, crippling the economy, and making people freeze and starve to death.

    I believe that there are no unintended consequences of actions by government. If harm is done, harm was intended to be done. The AGW crowd, and its toadies in the government, do know that what they are doing will impoverish, injure and kill people, and they do mean to do that.

    The Alarmist-Judge-Jury-and-Executioner-in-Chief and the Self-Appointed Congress of the United States (McCarthy, that is) talk about a “level playing field,” but what they mean by that is that everyone (that is, except themselves, their corrupt crony capitalist friends, and the “researchers” feeding at the public trough) shall be reduced to Third World living standards. Oh, but the Third World has such bounteous supplies of excrement for cooking food!

    It’s an odd kind of playing field where those who produce must give to those who don’t. That would seem to rank those who do nothing above those who do something – not very level if you ask me.

    Kleptocracy rules!

  157. Stan W. says:

    @chad — how exactly would changing our production of energy from fossil fuel sources to renewable sources kill anybody? electricity will still be there in the wall socket.

  158. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @Janice

    Hi Janice!

    First let me be overly pedantic with myself! (being pedantic with oneself is a good thing, being pedantic with others not necessarily so). Before “Es” there is a comma not a period, therefore it should be “es”. Small matter you may think, but post the whole sentence on some German comment thread and you may be called out for it! (People who call others out for such things are called Grammar Nazis btw, which is an example of German humor ;) )

    “Yes, I read the English translation of the Die Zeit article (and I have noted that, per above posts, there were some mistakes in the translation).”

    Do you have a link to an English translation? Or did you use google translate or a similar service?

    ” Even if translated flawlessly into English, however, I think it loses much of the humor it has for someone who can speak German well. ”

    Yes! This is a general problem. Lost in translation…

    ” Yes, it was somewhat humorous to me, but, weak, very weak (to me, I mean, a one-language American). The irony was too subtly expressed (assuming it is really in there). The explicit humor was too simple.”

    It wasn’t his best piece, pretty lame actually. But there we are back to the point. Read all his weekly columns and you know they are not serious. They are not describing any true opinion. Polar bears in the Uckermark? :D

    “Yes, indeed, the British do seem to have a genetic predisposition for wit and humor.”

    I prefer the explanation that they culturally grew up with it! Otherwise there is no hope for the rest of us.

    “We who believe in free markets and truth in science”

    Markets are regulated everywhere. When they are not regulated (drugs), war is declared on them. Science works by review and replication of results (not by releasing data and having someone do the same analysis on it)

  159. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @DirkH

    “Ask yourself one question, whose national identity needed to be destroyed after WW II, and you get the answer to why the Germans pay 3 times as much as the Brits for their public media apparatus.”

    What are you alluding to?
    you pay too much or Germans are not NAZI enough?

    Enlighten me!

  160. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    Moderators? Awaiting moderation? because I mention Nazis? What?

    [Reply: "Nazi" automatically diverts your comment into the Spam folder. — mod.]

  161. Werner Brozek says:

    Stan W. says:

    With respect to UAH, even Dr. Spencer says his data is not perfect.
    From Dr. Spencer on January 3, 2012:
    “I’m making very good progress on the Version 6 of the global temperature dataset, and it looks like the new diurnal drift correction method is working for AMSU. Next is to apply the new AMSU-based corrections to the older (pre-August 1998) MSU data.”

    As far as the latest La Ninas are concerned, if the rate of global warming were even close to what the models predict or project, then a strong La Nina after 15 years should not make that much difference. And furthermore, the 1998 mark should have been beaten by now on the two satellite data sets, but 1998 still holds the record on both sets.
    RSS: 1 {1998, 0.549},
    2 {2010, 0.475},
    UAH: 1. 1998 0.419
    2. 2010 0.394

  162. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 20, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    no, he did not make that point — it only negates over certain time intervals, but not others

    Fair enough. I showed earlier that they negate at the start. Now I will show that they also negate at the end. At the end, there was a strong El Nino in 2010, but La Ninas before and after. So if we take the period from December 1996 to May, 2008, a period of 11 years and 6 months, the slope is again virtually 0. Of course I cannot negate El Ninos and La Ninas and still have at least 15 years as per NOAA’s criteria for casting significant doubt on their models. See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2008.4/trend

  163. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 20, 2013 at 3:51 pm
    there are multiple, nonexclusive reasons why such a “hiatus” could exist

    That may well be true, but it is unfortunate for certain people that we were not told about these reasons before the hiatus reached 16 years. At this point, they either have to move the goal posts or admit CAGW is false.

  164. Txomin says:

    It has not been a colder winter everywhere. Here in Japan, it has been unusually warmer. It doesn’t mean a thing but, nonetheless, now you guys know.

  165. Stan W. says:

    @werner — people like Ben Santer have been talking about climate noise for a long time, but this surface hiatus has made some people think harder about natural variability. that’s a good thing — an advancement of the science — and in no way a disproof of AGW.

    (i don’t know what the “C” in “CAGW” is supposed to mean — it’s not a scientific term, but one of values.)

  166. Stan W. says:

    @werner: you are **always** going to be able to slice up time series to find intervals where the short-term trend is flat, or up, or down, or anything. so i don’t see the point of it — it doesn’t tell you anything about climate change, but about weather and natural internal oscillations in the climate system. ENSOs and the PDO and AMO and such will sometimes increase the underlying GHG trend, sometimes,decrease it, sometimes flatten it, and it will depend on if you choose X yrs and Y months or N yrs and M months.

    so what is the point?

  167. Stan W. says:

    werner: “As far as the latest La Ninas are concerned, if the rate of global warming were even close to what the models predict or project, then a strong La Nina after 15 years should not make that much difference.”

    not true at all, and i notice you didn’t offer any proof of this.

    strong ENSOs can cause a fluctuation of 0.2-0.3 C in a year. that’s enough to swamp a current GHG trend of about 0.2 C/decade.

    for UAH LT the 15yr trend was negative in 1994-5. but warming didn’t end then, and it isn’t ending now.

    there is significant noise in 15 yrs.

  168. Janice Moore says:

    Hi, R. Eschhaus,

    Well, I am COMPLETELY violating the etiquette of posting (keep to the topic), but, oh, well. “Grammar N-z-i’s” [thanks for the heads up, Mod.!] is the perfect description for anyone who would be pedantic about writing in German. Given the (what appears to me, anyway) super-complexity of Deutsche grammar, their criticizing those who come reasonably close to the mark is like saying, “Oh, yes, Horowitz played that Rachmaninoff piece beautifully, but he played pp where it should have been p and he played mf where it should have been mp.” Well, Grammar N’s like lots of rules, just like all good little socialists.

    Re: free markets, I won’t debate that topic here, for I can see that you and I simply disagree about the benefits (to me it would be the costs) of (and the extent of) government regulation and such a debate is MUCH better done in conversation (debate by written correspondence is fraught with endless frustration — oh, that reminds me, to be pedantic about myself, the word should have been “flailing” (as in flailing about for an answer), oops). I’ll just say that I’m with Milton Friedman all the way. Re: “drugs,” they ARE regulated in the U.S.; the law makes their sale or possession illegal. This creates a black market which may or may not be the best of bad alternatives for some noxious substances. Again, not the place to debate that topic, either!

    A thought about being pedantic about oneself v. others. Yes, it is loving one’s neighbor, usually, to refrain from criticism, but, always remember, we are to “love your neighbor as yourself.” [Lev. 19:18] One can’t love one’s neighbor and not love oneself. Perfectionism (not meaning the striving for excellence which is good) is a disease! I know, I have a touch of it!

    Perhaps, you are right about the British being more witty because it is a part of their culture, but that sort of begs the question… how did it become such a big part of their culture? :) —– I just deleted (yes, really!) several sentences — I started to attempt a debate in writing! It’s easy to get hooked into that!

    You and Dirk ought to get together once a week (in reality) and have friendly discussions. He might be able to persuade you of a few things (heh, heh [;)] or vice versa, you would be quite justified in saying).

    Take care, wherever you are, and be kind to yourself. Auf wiedersehen and gute (?) nacht.

    Janice

  169. Werner Brozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 20, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    and in no way a disproof of AGW.
    (i don’t know what the “C” in “CAGW” is supposed to mean — it’s not a scientific term, but one of values.)

    Few people are denying a small amount of AGW. It is the C or “catastrophic” warming that divides most people. And it is due to the supposed catastrophic warming that some governments want to spend billions to avoid it.

  170. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 20, 2013 at 8:29 pm
    @werner: you are **always** going to be able to slice up time series to find intervals where the short-term trend is flat, or up, or down, or anything. ….so what is the point?

    The point is that I can show a flat trend for 16 years on three data sets. NOAA says the following:
    ”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
    To verify this for yourself, see page 23 at:

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

  171. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 20, 2013 at 8:35 pm
    that’s enough to swamp a current GHG trend of about 0.2 C/decade.
    for UAH LT the 15yr trend was negative in 1994-5. but warming didn’t end then, and it isn’t ending now.

    The current trend for UAH since 1979 is 0.14/decade and this is not catastrophic. How can you be sure warming is not ending now? There is every indication that climate is following a 60 year sine wave and that we are just over the peak. See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2005/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/to:2004/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2004/trend

    and:

  172. To the left of centre says:

    @richardscourtney re your post at 3.37pm. I’m going to try and reply in a polite and pleasant way, just to see if it is actually possible to have a discussion with you that doesn’t involve calling others “trolls” and claiming that they are “lying”.

    For starters, I don’t know how you can claim that I lied. I really didn’t make any statements. I simply suggested that changing one number for another was mathematically possible. I accept that my post was somewhat mocking your style, but given that you spend a significant fraction of your posts accusing others of being “trolls”, “lying”, “making false claims”, amongst many other unpleasant accusations, I assumed that you could take a little ribbing.

    I have read what StanW was suggesting and it has to be mathematically possible because all he is suggesting is that one removes the values associated with El Ninos and La Ninas and replace them with another set of numbers that represent what one might expect if these El Ninos and La Ninas didn’t happen. As far as I’m aware, this has actually been done (Foster & Rahmstorf). This has to be mathematically possible. To claim otherwise is extremely odd. It might not be physically justified and one could argue about whether or not it is appropriate, but it is mathematically possible.

  173. Obnoxious troll posting as Stan W.:

    At April 20, 2013 at 3:43 pm I wrote to you saying

    Yes the ENSO effects only negate each other over a specific period started by Werner Brozek; i.e. the recent 16 years of stasis which disprove the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models.

    At April 20, 2013 at 3:51 pm you reply with a trolling response which is typical of your posts in this thread.
    1. Your post provides a falsehood
    2. Your post iterates a previously refuted point
    3. Your post misrepresents what was said and addresses a ‘straw man’.

    This is the totality of the egregious post which is one of your series of similarly egregious trolling posts.

    @richardcourtney – the last 16 years certainly not do disprove AGW.

    there are multiple, nonexclusive reasons why such a “hiatus” could exist: natural variablity, particularly ENSOs and the PDO; an increase in Chinese aerosols; an underestimation of LT trends by UAH and RSS, incorrect forcings in climate models (especially for aerosols, particularly the indirect effects), the modeling of clouds, etc etc etc.

    blaming it all on an incorrect forcing attributed to CO2 is scientifically inaccurate. some of the best physics resides in the treatment of the GHGs.

    1. DELIBERATE FALSEHOOD

    I did not dispute the physics of GHGs. In fact, I addressed that and explained why it is irrelevant in my post to you at April 20, 2013 at 12:04 pm where my explanation began saying

    Let me assure you that CO2 certainly is a greenhouse gas and it cannot stop being one.

    Your implication that I said or implied otherwise is a blatant falsehood intended to mislead onlookers. In short, it is classic trolling.

    2. ITERATION OF A PREVIOUSLY REFUTED POINT

    The assertion that I ignore natural variation is ignoring my series of posts which said to you exactly the opposite. Indeed, my first response to YOU (at April 19, 2013 at 3:53 pm) stated the dominance of natural variation. Importantly, my post to YOU (at April 20, 2013 at 12:04 pm) explained – with references and links – why natural variation is so dominant that any possible AGW would be too small for it to be discernible.

    Your assertion that I ignore natural variability is an iteration of your assertion which I have repeatedly refuted. The iteration is clearly intended to mislead onlookers. In short, it is classic trolling.

    3. USE OF THE ‘STRAW MAN’ LOGICAL FALLACY

    This is the most egregious example of your disgraceful trolling in the post I am answering. It is clearly intended to mislead onlookers.

    I wrote

    Yes the ENSO effects only negate each other over a specific period started by Werner Brozek; i.e. the recent 16 years of stasis which disprove the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models.

    Your reply talks about

    the last 16 years certainly not do disprove AGW

    NOTE:
    I stated “the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models”.
    Your reply talks about “AGW” and discusses a list of issues other than emulations of climate models.

    And my statement is correct according to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

    It says there

    The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

    In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.

    This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

    So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.

    Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).

    I add that the disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.

    Richard

  174. Obnoxious troll posting as To the left of centre:

    I am replying to your post at April 20, 2013 at 10:25 pm .

    You lied.
    In my post at April 20, 2013 at 3:17 pm I quoted your lie and refuted it .

    At April 20, 2013 at 3:23 pm you added another lie and I objected to that at April 20, 2013 at 3:37 pm.

    Your post I am answering adds more lies and claims you are being polite!
    It says

    I have read what StanW was suggesting and it has to be mathematically possible because all he is suggesting is that one removes the values associated with El Ninos and La Ninas and replace them with another set of numbers that represent what one might expect if these El Ninos and La Ninas didn’t happen

    That is NOT what your partner in trolling suggested.
    What he suggested is in his post at April 19, 2013 at 4:53 pm.
    I quoted it verbatim in my post at April 20, 2013 at 2:05 am and I there explained

    1.
    You need at least 30 years to get a “30 year average”.
    2.
    16 years is only a little more than half of 30 years.
    3.
    So, there is no “30 years average” for the months of “the last 16 years”.

    So, StanW.,
    we already cannot do your “exercise”: it is mathematically impossible.

    Lies are not polite. And your lies have the clear and unambiguous purposes of disrupting the thread, flaming, and misleading onlookers; i.e. they are extreme trolling.

    Richard

  175. To the left of centre says:

    @richardscourtney Oh well, I tried. It is clearly not possible to have pleasant scientific discussion with you (or, at least, it seems that I can’t). I did not lie about anything. I made a comment that suggested something.

    I find it rather ironic that you say “Lies are not polite” while calling me an “obnoxious troll”. My comments are not “extreme trolling”. They are simply comments on a blog. Your responses, however, are – in my opinion – very extreme and if anyone is acting to disrupt and mislead, it is not me. Feel free to respond to this, but don’t expect me to engage further. The only thing that I can learn from you is how not to engage in a decent and honest scientific discussion, and I think I have now learned all that I need to know about that.

  176. Icarus62 says:

    @To the left of centre: The poster called ‘richardscourtney’ has been warned about his behaviour by the moderators before; it’s probably best to just ignore him when he gets like that (can’t be good for his health anyway).

  177. Obnoxious troll posting as To the left of centre:

    At April 21, 2013 at 12:32 am you say

    don’t expect me to engage further.

    Well, one can only hope that is true, but I will believe it when I see it.

    Your posts in this thread have only contained blatant falsehoods, so I see no reason to believe anything you say. And trolls tend to keep coming back.

    Richard

  178. Phil. says:

    wbrozek says:
    April 20, 2013 at 9:41 pm
    Stan W. says:
    April 20, 2013 at 8:29 pm
    @werner: you are **always** going to be able to slice up time series to find intervals where the short-term trend is flat, or up, or down, or anything. ….so what is the point?

    The point is that I can show a flat trend for 16 years on three data sets. NOAA says the following:
    ”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    As has been pointed out to you and others here that statement refers to simulations which exclude ENSO and only apply to such conditions. Your continued denial of the basis for the NOAA statement does you no credit.

  179. Phil.:

    Stan W., To the left of centre, Icarus62, and now you.
    What is it about this thread which is attracting known and egregious trolls? Could the attraction be fear induced by the subject of this thread; i.e. how reality is refuting the beliefs of your cult?

    At April 21, 2013 at 4:11 am concerning the NOAA falsification criterion, you write to Werner Brozek

    As has been pointed out to you and others here that statement refers to simulations which exclude ENSO and only apply to such conditions. Your continued denial of the basis for the NOAA statement does you no credit.

    At April 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm – n.b. before he mentioned the NOAA falsification criterion – he explained that your point is irrelevant because the trend is unaffected by the net effect of ENSO over the period.
    Werner Brozek then wrote to the member of your tag team posting as Stan W.

    OK, I will play your game. Of course the biggest El Nino is from 1998 and people are excited when a trend is started right before this El Nino. But what people do not seem to realize is that there are deep La Ninas on either side of that El Nino and they cancel each other out. Check out the following and note that the slope is essentially 0, both for 16 years and 4 months which includes the 1998 El Nino and for 13 years and 2 months that does not include this El Nino.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:2000.08/trend

    Your misrepresentation of the statements of Werner Brozek is consistent with your history of egregious posts.

    Richard

  180. Werner Brozek says:

    Phil. says:
    April 21, 2013 at 4:11 am

    As has been pointed out to you and others here that statement refers to simulations which exclude ENSO and only apply to such conditions. Your continued denial of the basis for the NOAA statement does you no credit.

    On two separate posts on this thread, I have shown that both at the start and end of the 16 year period, the ENSO affects cancel out. However whether or not you accept my arguments as valid is a different question. But while I am writing about this, we are rapidly approaching Santer’s 17 years. Does he also mention ENSO or does he assume anything other than CO2 is just noise?

  181. Stan W. says:

    werner: “On two separate posts on this thread, I have shown that both at the start and end of the 16 year period, the ENSO affects cancel out.”

    maybe they do or maybe they don’t, but if so that’s exactly my point — you have to slice and dice the time interval to get a cancellation. other short time intervals will give other trends, which makes short term trends meaningless.

    and your result relies on using RSS data, which differs significantly from UAH data and from surface datasets.

  182. Stan W. says:

    @richardcourtney — i agree with others above — your rudeness and unpleasantness is out of bounds. i won’t engage with such a person.

  183. Bruce Cobb says:

    Stan W, and his apologists: here ya go: http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p182/Brocke1964/hwtglobalwarming.jpg
    The fact is that the warming has indeed stopped, which is baffling, and frightening to Warmist “scientists”. No surprise. Their entire raison d’etre is vanishing, along with their visions of future climadollars. They are back-pedaling and grasping at straws furiously, as are you. It’s amusing to watch, actually.

  184. Stan W. says:

    werner — “The current trend for UAH since 1979 is 0.14/decade and this is not catastrophic. How can you be sure warming is not ending now?”

    again, “catastropic” is not a scientific term, it’s a word about values. until you define it it’s hard to know what it means in this contect.

    by my thinking such a warming rate could well be “catastropic” for some if it continues for a century or two.

    of course one cannot be sure about anything in the future, but CO2 and CH4 will not stop being greenhouse gases, so physics says their warming must continue and it must get larger as their abundance increases. the manmade aerosol effects could well suppress some of this warming. at times internal cycles will work to suppress this warming, or augment this warming.

    you are making unscientific choices about time intervals, and ignoring other effects that contribute to surface temperature over short time intervals.

    you’re also completely ignoring ocean warming.

  185. Stan W.:

    At April 21, 2013 at 7:09 am you say to me

    your rudeness and unpleasantness is out of bounds. i won’t engage with such a person.

    No! YOUR rudeness and unpleasantness are out of bounds.
    And I have responded to them by using evidence, references and logical argument to wipe the floor with you. After all, that is the appropriate thing to do with dirty rags that have no other use.

    I can only hope that you will do as you say and run away with your tail between your legs.
    But I suspect that – like all bad pennies – you will be back.

    Please note that in this post I have tried – but probably failed – to display the degree of my contempt.

    Richard

  186. Stan W. says:

    @bruce — your graph is a classic cherry pick, depending on end point effects, and unscientific.

    also, since it doesn’t go past 2008 it is misleading, especially for sea level rise and ice melt.

  187. Obnoxious troll posting as Stan W.:

    At April 21, 2013 at 7:21 am in classic ‘Big Lie’ technique, you again repeat refuted nonsense when you write

    CO2 and CH4 will not stop being greenhouse gases, so physics says their warming must continue and it must get larger as their abundance increases.

    My post at April 20, 2013 at 12:04 pm caste some of the pearls I have spread before you.

    I then explained that although CO2 and CH4 will not stop being greenhouse gases physics says that does NOT mean there would be discernible global warming if their atmospheric CO2 concentration were to increase.

    I provided references and links to papers which provide direct empirical evidence of what the physics actually says.

    Please do as you promised and not “engage” on this thread. You are wasting space on the thread.

    Richard

  188. Bruce Cobb says:

    Stan W, the FACT that global warming has stopped is undeniable: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg
    Warmist “scientists” are struggling to explain why (and failing miserably), while you are still stuck in the d*n+@l phase.
    When Reality comes up against Belief, eventually Belief fails. But there’s an even bigger reality here, and that is that, try as they might, Warmists have NEVER been able to show a link between modern warming and man’s C02 emissions. The reason, which is becoming increasingly clear, is that there never was one.

  189. Stan W. says:

    @bruce — again, why didn’t your graph include data since 2008?

    thre are several reasons why surface temperatures may be flat for a decade or even two — manmade aerosols, natural variability like ENSOs, PDO, AMO, NAO, etc, satellites underestimating warming.

    the conclusion that it falsifies CO2 warming is simply unscientific and incorrect.

  190. Bruce Cobb says:

    Stan W- are your CAGW goggles that thick that you can’t see that the graph I just posted goes thru 2012? Once again, you keep dancing around the FACT that warming has indeed stopped for some 16 years. You can paste on any “explainations” you like afterwards. It, by itself doesn’t falsify your “C02 warming”, nor does it need to. You are simply spinning your wheels, digging yourself in deeper. Typical troll, in other words.

  191. Friends:

    At April 21, 2013 at 8:39 am the troll posting as Stan W. says:

    the conclusion that it falsifies CO2 warming is simply unscientific and incorrect.

    Clearly, the troll has secret information available to nobody else. He/she/they needs to read my post at April 21, 2013 at 12:02 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/19/the-unraveling-of-global-warming-is-accelerating/#comment-1282099

    then inform the IPCC of why they are wrong. The IPCC needs the information for the AR5.

    Richard

  192. Stan W. says:

    @bruce — your earlier graph stops at 2008. why offer it as evidence when it excludes almost 5 years of data?

    it is not “dancing” to recognize that climate is determined by several factors, not just CO2. it is unscientific *not* to do so.

  193. Bruce Cobb:

    I offer some friendly advice.

    The troll ignores each and every piece of information, changes tack when shown to be wrong, and returns to restate the refuted assertion later in the thread. Check the thread and you will see the troll has done this several times.

    The troll claimed to Werner Brozek that

    CO2 and CH4 will not stop being greenhouse gases, so physics says their warming must continue and it must get larger as their abundance increases.

    he has repeatedly ignored my pointing out that such warming would be too small to be discernible but says to you

    it is not “dancing” to recognize that climate is determined by several factors, not just CO2. it is unscientific *not* to do so.

    It is not possible to debate with such wriggling: it is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

    After half a dozen of the troll’s posts I got angry with its behaviour.

    So, I suggest that it is best to walk away and leave the troll to its mental masturbation.

    Richard

  194. Werner Brozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 21, 2013 at 7:07 am

    and your result relies on using RSS data, which differs significantly from UAH data and from surface data sets

    It is true that it differs from UAH, but Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2 both have around 16 years of no warming as well. I am sure I can get the ENSO parts to cancel, but then I would have a shorter interval, but what is the point when you will respond as follows:
    other short time intervals will give other trends, which makes short term trends meaningless

    That reminds me of the time we were challenged to prove there was no warming for 15 years. I did that and was accused of cherry picking a start time before the 1998 El Nino. Some one else used a shorter time and was accused of using less than 15 years!

  195. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 21, 2013 at 7:21 am

    you’re also completely ignoring ocean warming

    The surface has not warmed since March, 1997. See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend

    So are you suggesting the deeper ocean warmed without warming the surface? Perhaps it happened, but who really cares if the deep ocean went from 3.0 C to 3.2 C? It is not as if this heat will somehow warm air that is at 15 C. Heat flows from a higher temperature to a lower one so it will be a long time before the deep ocean gets to 15 C.

  196. TomR,Worc,MA says:

    Why, oh, why do you people insist on engaging the trolls?

  197. Stan W. says:

    @werner — really, posting SST for “ocean warming?” tsk tsk

    it would matter a great deal if, as you wrote, “the deep ocean went from 3.0 C to 3.2 C,” because it would indicate an energy imbalance — more energy into the Earth system than leaving it. That’s *is* global warming, and if the ocean is warming, the surface will too over the long-term. (90% of the extra energy goes into the oceans).

    besides, 0.2 C in the deep ocean is a HUGE amount of heat. do the math.

  198. Stan W. says:

    @werner – HadCRUT3 is known to underestimate arctic warming. it has been supersceeded by a better series, HadCRUT4. but feel free to use less than the best science if it’s the only way you can maintain your position.

  199. Stan W. says:

    @werner — as i noted before but you ignored, there have been previous 15yr intervals where the short-term trend was zero, and even one of about 30 yrs where it was zero (1945-1975), held down probably by manmade aerosols and some n.v. from the AMO. and there will be more such intervals in the future, since the increase in CO2 forcing over a decade is right now only about one-fourth of a watt per meter-squared. (use your favorite value of climate sensitivity to convert that to a temperature.)

  200. Stan W. says:

    @TomR,Worc,MA — it is rude to call anyone who thinks differently from you a name. either engage in the science or leave alone those who are.

  201. Werner Brozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 21, 2013 at 6:02 pm
    besides, 0.2 C in the deep ocean is a HUGE amount of heat. do the math

    I did the math and it is huge. IF all that heat went into the atmosphere, it would warm by 0.2 x 1100 = 220 C. But the point I was making is that this is not going to happen, at least for thousands of years until the ocean warms up to 15 C. So why should we worry if the oceans are for all intents and purposes and infinite heat sink which prevents the atmosphere from over heating?

  202. Stan W. says:

    @werner — you’re really asking who cares if we alter the oceans for thousands of years? have you ever heard the term “thermal inertia?”

    the oceans absorb about 90% of the energy imbalance, not 100%. in addition, heat moves around and can come out of the ocean, like the big 1997-98 el nino, from which atmospheric temperatures have never recovered.

  203. Werner Brozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 21, 2013 at 6:05 pm
    @werner – HadCRUT3 is known to underestimate arctic warming. it has been supersceeded by a better series, HadCRUT4. but feel free to use less than the best science if it’s the only way you can maintain your position.
    The statistics for Hadcrut4 are: the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to February)
    And as far as statistically significant warming is concerned, for Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995.
    So Hadcrut4, while giving a shorter time than Hadcrut3, still is not a ringing endorsement of the IPCC models.
    Also see:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/the-mail-on-sunday-takes-on-the-ccc/

  204. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 21, 2013 at 6:10 pm
    @werner — as i noted before but you ignored, there have been previous 15yr intervals where the short-term trend was zero, and even one of about 30 yrs where it was zero (1945-1975), held down probably by manmade aerosols….
    “Aerosols” seem to be the latest culprit to blame if temperatures do not rise as predicted. I suppose it could be true, however it could just as likely be the fact that CO2 is just not the driver many people thought it was. Until we know for sure, we should not spend billions on carbon capture, etc.

  205. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 21, 2013 at 8:36 pm
    @werner — you’re really asking who cares if we alter the oceans for thousands of years? have you ever heard the term “thermal inertia?”
    Not quite. I said: “this is not going to happen, at least for thousands of years“
    In other words, it will be thousands of years before the heated deep ocean could become a problem. However we do not have exact data here and I used 0.2 for discussion sake. Perhaps that was a mistake since Dr. Spencer says this:
    “Because of the immense heat capacity of the deep ocean, the magnitude of deep warming in Scenario 3 might only be thousandths of a degree. Whether we can measure such tiny levels of warming on the time scales of decades or longer is very questionable, and the new study co-authored by Trenberth is not entirely based upon observations, anyway.”
    See:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/more-on-trenberths-missing-heat/

  206. Egregious and oboxious troll posting as Stan W.:

    At April 21, 2013 at 6:12 pm you write

    @TomR,Worc,MA — it is rude to call anyone who thinks differently from you a name. either engage in the science or leave alone those who are.

    DO THAT.
    Stan W., clear off and leave discussion to those who can, want to, and do discuss the science.

    Those who discuss the science do NOT do as you do, They address the science: they
    (a) Cite reference and quote it
    (d) Know it
    (c) Understand it
    (e) Consider information put to them.
    (f) Don’t pretend they know the unknowable
    (g) Don’t pretend the science which refutes their arguments has not been put to them
    (h) Don’t pretend distortions of the science are truth
    (i) Don’t ‘cut & paste’ nonsense from warmunist web sites
    (j) Don’t use mutually exclusive arguments as and when it suites.

    Your egregious attack on science is an affront to the human race. Do as you suggest: leave the thread to those who want to discuss the science.

    Richard

  207. Bruce Cobb says:

    You gotta hand it to Stan the Troll. He’s polite at least. And amazingly persistent. So how about a big round of applause for his performance? Or, at least a big bronx cheer.

  208. Phil. says:

    richardscourtney says:
    April 21, 2013 at 5:39 am
    Phil.:

    Stan W., To the left of centre, Icarus62, and now you.
    What is it about this thread which is attracting known and egregious trolls?

    Indeed,I had noticed that you had returned after a brief hiatus. I don’t know why you keep coming back with your ad hominem attacks and labeling everyone who doesn’t share your views as ‘trolls”.

    Could the attraction be fear induced by the subject of this thread; i.e. how reality is refuting the beliefs of your cult?

    Reality is not on your side, which appears to be the reason for your vituperation. In a couple of years time when the Arctic sea ice disappears in the fall it will be interesting to see how you spin that.

    At April 21, 2013 at 4:11 am concerning the NOAA falsification criterion, you write to Werner Brozek

    “As has been pointed out to you and others here that statement refers to simulations which exclude ENSO and only apply to such conditions. Your continued denial of the basis for the NOAA statement does you no credit.”

    At April 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm – n.b. before he mentioned the NOAA falsification criterion – he explained that your point is irrelevant because the trend is unaffected by the net effect of ENSO over the period.

    He asserted it without any supporting data and neglected to mention the most recent La Niñas, a proper analysis of the data which accounts for ENSO shows that there is an statistically significant underlying positive slope. Werner’s cancelling out of Niño and Niña is a myth!

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

    Werner Brozek then wrote to the member of your tag team posting as Stan W.

    Since I have no ‘tag team’, this is more of your ad hominem nonsense.

    OK, I will play your game. Of course the biggest El Nino is from 1998 and people are excited when a trend is started right before this El Nino. But what people do not seem to realize is that there are deep La Ninas on either side of that El Nino and they cancel each other out. Check out the following and note that the slope is essentially 0, both for 16 years and 4 months which includes the 1998 El Nino and for 13 years and 2 months that does not include this El Nino.

    But both periods include the recent La Niñas, a fact that isn’t mentioned in Werner’s handwaving!

    Your misrepresentation of the statements of Werner Brozek is consistent with your history of egregious posts.

    My accurate representation of Werner’s statements is consistent with my history of correcting such mis-statements. Your posts attacking anyone who doesn’t agree with you is consistent with your posting history. Both Werner and you have used the NOAA quotation without including the caveat that it applies to model results which don’t include ENSO, and then mislead by applying it to data which does include ENSO, when you do that I will continue to call you on it.

  209. Stan W. says:

    @werner — the CO2 forcing is among the best known pieces of climate change. simple analyses like foster & rahmstorf show it is still there, as basic physics says it must be.

    again, aerosols are not the only possible reason why the surface is flat for a decade — and by the way, there is absolutely nothing in the science that says that can’t happen. surface temperature simply does not increase monotonically with CO2 level.

    other possible reasons include natural variability, especially ENSOs and longer ocean cycles, a slightly cooler sun lately, a possible low-bias of the satellite data (not at all impossible given how much RSS and UAH diverge recently, and the checkered history of UAH data), an uptick in ocean warming (observed).

    the big macroindicators show the Earth is still in energy imbalance: sea level rise, sea ice melt, glacier melt. (recent data shows that sea level rise may even be accelerating now.)

  210. Werner Brozek says:

    Phil. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 7:06 am

    He asserted it without any supporting data and neglected to mention the most recent La Niñas,

    I assume you do not agree the following graph addresses this concern?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.75/plot/rss/from:1996.75/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.75/to:2008.4/trend

    OK. Fair enough. That is a judgement call. However your concern about negating El Ninos and La Ninas is something that did not seem to be a concern in 1998. Please correct me if I am wrong as I did not follow climate in 1998, but did not Al Gore and Michael Mann play up the 1998 super El Nino of the century for all they could? Or did they say it is not fair to count 1998?

  211. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 8:47 am
    @werner — the CO2 forcing is among the best known pieces of climate change. simple analyses like foster & rahmstorf show it is still there, as basic physics says it must be.
    However basic physics also says that the effect is logarithmic and some have suggested that the effect of carbon dioxide is almost saturated now. If anyone thinks that man can influence climate, perhaps they should pick on things that are not over the hill in terms of affecting climate.

  212. Phil. says:

    Werner Brozek says:
    April 22, 2013 at 9:33 am
    Phil. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 7:06 am

    He asserted it without any supporting data and neglected to mention the most recent La Niñas,

    I assume you do not agree the following graph addresses this concern?
    OK. Fair enough. That is a judgement call.

    No it doesn’t address the recent occurrence of La Ninas.

    The Foster & Rahmstorf paper does address them and shows significant underlying temperature increase.
    However your concern about negating El Ninos and La Ninas is something that did not seem to be a concern in 1998. Please correct me if I am wrong as I did not follow climate in 1998, but did not Al Gore and Michael Mann play up the 1998 super El Nino of the century for all they could? Or did they say it is not fair to count 1998?

    It was referred to as an El Nino event at the time, however it’s your analysis that I’m addressing.

    wbrozek says:
    April 22, 2013 at 9:41 am
    Stan W. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 8:47 am
    @werner — the CO2 forcing is among the best known pieces of climate change. simple analyses like foster & rahmstorf show it is still there, as basic physics says it must be.
    However basic physics also says that the effect is logarithmic and some have suggested that the effect of carbon dioxide is almost saturated now.

    In which case the same basic physics says we should expect a transition to a square root dependence, i.e. stronger than logarithmic.

    If anyone thinks that man can influence climate, perhaps they should pick on things that are not over the hill in terms of affecting climate.

    Perhaps you should understand the physics better before you make such pronouncements?

  213. Phil.:

    Trolls (e.g. you) act to deliberately disrupt threads by posting falsehoods and by flaming other posters with false accusations (e.g. of accusing them of saying all who oppose them are trolls).

    There are countless examples that you are posting falsehoods and making untrue defamations when (at April 22, 2013 at 7:06 am) you write of me

    your ad hominem attacks and labeling everyone who doesn’t share your views as ‘trolls”.

    I do NOT say everybody who disagrees with me is a troll. I say people who troll are trolls.

    For example, for a decade Ferdinand Engelbeen and I have been conducting a raging disagreement about the cause(s) of atmospheric CO2 rise: the most recent round is on a current thread of WUWT. But I tell anybody that Ferdinand is extremely knowledgeable on the subject and I commend his web site as the best ‘starting point’ for information on the subject. But I strongly refute his arguments, and he is certainly NOT a troll.

    And either you don’t know what an ad hom. is or you are trolling when you say I use ad homs.. Pointing out that somebody has lied is not an ad hom. when they did lie and when the lie is pertinent to the debate. Similarly, it is not an ad hom. to state that a person is egregious and obnoxious when that person’s egregious and obnoxious behaviour has tainted the debate.

    You have a long history of trolling. And your comment which I am replying is pure trolling.

    I don’t like trolls. Indeed, I disdain them. That is why I ‘call them out’.

    Richard

  214. Werner Brozek says:

    Phil. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 10:33 am

    The Foster & Rahmstorf paper does address them and shows significant underlying temperature increase.

    It does not look like Bob Tisdale agrees. See:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/02/tisdale-takes-on-taminos-foster-rahmstorf-2011/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/14/tisdale-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-take-2/

    In which case the same basic physics says we should expect a transition to a square root dependence, i.e. stronger than logarithmic.

    This makes no logical sense at all. It is as if we say the force of gravity varies inversely as the square of the distance and to then say if we get far enough away from Earth, the relationship changes. I can certainly appreciate that the relationship is not logarithmic for under 100 ppm or so, but to say it gets stronger than logarithmic above a certain point seems odd. On the other hand, how much stronger are we talking about? For example, if we assume the Earth would warm up by 1.0 C if CO2 went from 400 to 800 ppm using the log relationship, how much would the temperature go up if we used the square root dependence?

  215. Stan W. says:

    @werner — the 1998 el nino was 15 years ago — that’s a long time.

    so some people have come to a better understanding of natural variability since then. that’s hardly a crime — science advances with new knowledge.

    a better question is, why have temperatures not *fallen* since the 1998 el nino?

    yes, i know you want to believe CO2 isn’t a culprit, but the hard scientific truth is there are many explanations for a flat decade on the surface, and not understanding CO2 is very far down the list.

  216. Stan W. says:

    @werner — why do you continue to show graphs of RSS data but not UAH data? is it because one supports your thesis and the other does not?

  217. Stan W. says:

    werner: “However basic physics also says that the effect is logarithmic and some have suggested that the effect of carbon dioxide is almost saturated now.”

    the effect is logarithmic, but CO2 emissions and levels are increasing exponentially.

    CO2 is not near saturation (even on Venus). saturation is a myth, a mistake by Angstrom that some people still still find useful. both theory and experiment support this.

  218. Stan W. says:

    @phil — stay strong. name-calling, insinuations and bullying are how some people try to suppress points of view other than their own.

  219. Stan W. says:

    @werner — the logarithmic dependence only holds in a certain range. i don’t know if it eventually becomes a square root (i’d like to know more about where that’s shown), but i’ve seen forcing equations, like in Hansen 1988, that go like ln(aC+bC^2+cC^3) where a,b and c are constants and C=CO2 level. The deviation can be 10% or more for C ~1000 ppm.

  220. Egregious and obnoxious troll posting as Stan W.:

    Ignoring information and changing arguments at a whim is how egregious and obnoxious trolls deliberately destroy rational debate.

    People who enjoy debate (e.g. me) like to clash with ideas different from their own: that is how we learn. But egregious and obnoxious trolls try to prevent anybody learning and, instead, they promote their agenda by use of whatever is convenient at the moment.

    For example, one egregious and obnoxious troll (i.e. you) recently posted this

    CO2 is not near saturation (even on Venus). saturation is a myth, a mistake by Angstrom that some people still still find useful. both theory and experiment support this.

    Actually, CO2 in the lower atmosphere is so near to saturation that its major absorbtion band (15 micron) is saturated across its width and CO2 achieves absorbtion by band broadening.

    But claiming “saturation is a myth (even on Venus). saturation is a myth” is useful to egregious and obnoxious trolls when promoting their agenda.

    Richard

  221. Stan W. says:

    @phil – also, my recommendation is for you to completely ignore richard. that seems to bother him more than anything.

  222. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Richard Courtney, Werner Brozek, and Bruce Cobb, you are truth tellers par excellence!

    You are SUPER-cool.

    What a valiant attempt you made to rescue the brainwashed. Your side CLEARLY won the debate. The other side didn’t make even one point.

    Certainly, v. a v. the three clowns above, your pearls of knowledge and wisdom were cast “before swine.” HOWEVER, in case some of their more noble, open-minded, brothers or sisters were standing in the shadows, listening carefully, IT WAS WORTH THE EFFORT, for them. You may have saved someone from the Cult, or, at least, started them on the road out of the darkness and into the light.

    Personally, though, for the FUTURE, and as noble as I regard your above attempt, I think one ought to avoid dignifying such twisted logic and stubborn resistance to facts with a response.

    There are plenty of devil’s advocates and principled debaters here (and some honest inquirers, too) with whom debate (or education) will not only be more sane, but more productive.

    Trolls thrive on creating strife — it gets them attention and that is ALL they care about.

  223. Phil. says:

    Werner Brozek says:
    April 22, 2013 at 12:48 pm
    Phil. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 10:33 am

    The Foster & Rahmstorf paper does address them and shows significant underlying temperature increase.

    It does not look like Bob Tisdale agrees. See:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/02/tisdale-takes-on-taminos-foster-rahmstorf-2011/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/14/tisdale-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-take-2/

    Still a suitable method for removing the effects of ENSO needs to be used if you wish to use the NOAA statement in your argument. If you can’t properly do so then you can’t make use of the statement.

    “In which case the same basic physics says we should expect a transition to a square root dependence, i.e. stronger than logarithmic.”

    This makes no logical sense at all. It is as if we say the force of gravity varies inversely as the square of the distance and to then say if we get far enough away from Earth, the relationship changes. I can certainly appreciate that the relationship is not logarithmic for under 100 ppm or so, but to say it gets stronger than logarithmic above a certain point seems odd.

    Logic has nothing to do with it! We’re not talking about an inverse square law, we’re talking about the absorption of light in lines which are broadened as the concentration of the absorber increases. Astronomers refer to the result as the ‘Curve of Growth’. It starts off as a linear dependence for weak absorption, transitions through logarithmic to square root for strong absorption.

    See for example:

    http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/lattimer/PHY521/atmos6.pdf

  224. Werner Brozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    @werner — the 1998 el nino was 15 years ago — that’s a long time.

    a better question is, why have temperatures not *fallen* since the 1998 el nino?

    Yes, that is a long time. And I think a still better question is why the 1998 mark has not been beaten on 4 data sets.

  225. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 1:01 pm
    @werner — why do you continue to show graphs of RSS data but not UAH data? is it because one supports your thesis and the other does not?
    Is UAH reliable? From Dr. Spencer on January 3, 2012:
    “I’m making very good progress on the Version 6 of the global temperature dataset, and it looks like the new diurnal drift correction method is working for AMSU. Next is to apply the new AMSU-based corrections to the older (pre-August 1998) MSU data.”

  226. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    the effect is logarithmic, but CO2 emissions and levels are increasing exponentially

    That was true decades ago, but not lately. In the last 16 or 17 years when temperatures have flattened on several data sets, the rise in CO2 is no longer accelerating. See the slopes below. They are virtually identical over the last 17 years as over the last 9 years.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2004/trend

  227. wbrozek says:

    Phil. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 5:13 pm
    It starts off as a linear dependence for weak absorption, transitions through logarithmic to square root for strong absorption.

    Stan W. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 1:10 pm
    The deviation can be 10% or more for C ~1000 ppm.

    Over the last 16 years, the effect has been 0 on three data sets. And 10% of 0 is still 0.

    (P.S. Thank you Janice!)

  228. Stan W. says:

    @werner — is RSS reliable? How do you know?

  229. Stan W. says:

    @werner — have you really never heard of the “Keeling curve?” it is increasing exponentially.

    over any small interval, an exponential can be approximated by a linear term. but only over small intervals, which you seem to rely on for all your so-called conclusions.

    an exponential is a much better fit to the long-term data.

  230. Stan W. says:

    @werner – are you aware that in the last 5 yrs 10 months RSS has an upward trend of 0.18 C/decade?

    that’s it’s 0.26 C/decade over the last 5 yrs 4 months?

  231. Stan W. says:

    werner–
    “Yes, that is a long time. And I think a still better question is why the 1998 mark has not been beaten on 4 data sets.”

    so you don’t have an answer to why temperatures haven’t fallen back after that largest el nino on record? that’s telling.

    this, combined with the strong ocean warming and ice melting and sea level rise, is a good sign the earth is still undergoing an energy imbalance.

  232. philincalifornia says:

    Do you think you’re convincing anyone out there of anything Stan? Other than the fact that you’re a f**king idiot.

    References:

    1) See, example “so you don’t have an answer to why temperatures haven’t fallen back after that largest el nino on record? that’s telling”.

    Carry on.

  233. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 6:55 pm
    @werner — is RSS reliable? How do you know?
    RSS and UAH have their differences, but both are unanimous that the climate models are crap and not reliable. See:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

  234. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 6:59 pm
    @werner — have you really never heard of the “Keeling curve?” it is increasing exponentially.
    over any small interval, an exponential can be approximated by a linear term.

    Neither NOAA nor Ben Santer nor I consider 17 years a “small interval”. Even a warmist with whom I had a conversation three years ago implied that while 8 years means nothing, 15 years is nothing to sneeze at when we were discussing Phil Jones’ interview. But if you consider 17 years small, that is your prerogative.

  235. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 7:03 pm
    @werner – are you aware that in the last 5 yrs 10 months RSS has an upward trend of 0.18 C/decade?
    that’s it’s 0.26 C/decade over the last 5 yrs 4 months?

    Stan W. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    over any small interval
    What you said about RSS is due to the fact that 2008 had a strong La Nina and over a very short interval like 6 years, a strong La Nina at the start has a huge influence.

    But what time interval do you consider long enough to be significant? You talk about 5 years and 4 or 10 months as if that had some significance, but 17 years is a “small interval” that is not even worth considering?

  236. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 7:06 pm

    so you don’t have an answer to why temperatures haven’t fallen back after that largest el nino on record? that’s telling

    On three data sets, the slope is negative since August 1997, or for 15 years and 8 months. I will admit the obvious that these points are very well cherry picked. However the significance for me is that I am even able to cherry pick points for a period of over 15 years where the slope is negative. From quotes by others, Trenberth and Jones are not happy that I am even able to do this.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.58/plot/rss/from:1997.58/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.58/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.58/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.58/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.58/trend

    (P.S. I will not be available for the next 15 hours, but keep the questions coming.)

  237. Janice Moore says:

    Werner, you are very welcome. You are still batting 1.000.

    Werner, Courtney, et. al. 711 – opponents, zip (except, they are still in the ballpark, enjoying what little ATTENTION they are getting from the few fans left sitting in the stands).

  238. jc says:

    @ Stan W. and @ Phil.

    Do either of you currently, or have you previously, or do you hope or expect to, receive any financial advantage at all from the application of policy derived from an acceptance of AGW as requiring such, or from investment or business effected by such, or from association with any organization (s) that in part or whole are or could be advantaged by such a perception?

    Or is anyone you are closely associated with likely to benefit in the manner described above?

    Lies or evasion may prove very unwise . This will be a matter of record.

  239. Werner Brozek:

    I am enjoying this. The floor is beginning to shine from the polishing it is getting as a result of your wiping it with the troll.

    I write to help onlookers understand how hard you are smashing the troll across the floor by providing a reminder and an observation.

    The troll claims the cessation of warming over the last 16 years is not sufficient time to mean anything.

    Global temperature has been rising from the LIA for ~300 years but the rise has not been constant.

    Global temperature has been calculated from surface measurements since ~1880. That record shows global temperature
    fell from ~1880 to ~1910
    rose from ~1910 to ~1940
    fell from ~1940 to ~1970.
    rose from ~1970 to ~2000
    has not risen since.

    The rate of rise was the same for the two warming periods (n.b. one before 1940 and the other after 1940) but more than 80% of human greenhouse gas emissions were after 1940. There has been no warming for the most recent 16 years which is more than half of each of the two warming periods.

    Be assured that if the troll reverts to dirty tricks I will again stomp on him/her/them/it.

    As for now, I am enjoying the show. Thankyou, Werner.

    Richard

  240. Stan W. says:

    werner:
    “I will admit the obvious that these points are very well cherry picked.”

    finally!

    now, please, stop making assertions based on unscientific methods.

  241. Stan W. says:

    @jc — do you have a financial stake in a sceptical view of anthropogenic global warming?

    is someone paying you to counter the consensus view? if so, who?

    please be honest, since you are anonymous.

  242. Stan W. says:

    werner:
    “But what time interval do you consider long enough to be significant? You talk about 5 years and 4 or 10 months as if that had some significance, but 17 years is a “small interval” that is not even worth considering?”

    so then you agree that the surface has warmed up sharply in the last 5-6 years, even by the RSS data, despite the occurrence of two La Ninas?

  243. dbstealey says:

    Stan W.,

    The ‘surface’ is not the globe, is it? You have to take UHI into account when looking at land data.

    Globally, RSS data does not show that “the surface has warmed sharply”.

  244. jc says:

    @Stan W. says:
    April 23, 2013 at 10:56 am

    “@jc — do you have a financial stake in a sceptical view of anthropogenic global warming?

    is someone paying you to counter the consensus view? if so, who?

    please be honest, since you are anonymous.”

    ——————————————————————————————————————-

    Thank you for responding, even if inadequately, which was not unexpected.

    A very simple question evaded. This in itself is useful, being obliquely to the point of the implications of the question.

    I suspect you think you are displaying verve, or something that sets you a-quiver which you translate as that, by responding as you did, but if so transmitting this to others will not be successfully achieved by what comes across as the pose of a miscreant boy, known to be of poor stock and devious character, caught in the act of some offense to the neighborhood.

    You apparently cannot comprehend that I expressed no opinion on AGW, and that, rather my interest is exclusively YOU in this query and exchange. It is telling that you automatically react to this query as being a threat, saying as it does that you desire your position to be secret, and that to have it revealed will show you in a compromising light.

    I readily admit I have a “financial stake” in what you describe as a sceptical view of AGW, in the same way that every human not getting or seeking benefit from its affirmation has – the ability to myself exist in a viable manner, and to not live in a world torn asunder by adherence to this, resulting in wide-scale deaths and relentless poverty, with all the attendant risk of disintegration leading to wars and general barbarism – but not any more than that.

    So no, as you clumsily repeat yourself in what you would, I think, like to be seen as evidence of substance in your response but which communicates the exact opposite, no -one (or no organization, which you did not have the wit to include) is paying me to counter anything, even a mythical consensus.

    I hadn’t realized that I was dealing with an internationally known personage. Stan W. Are you a DJ? A rap artist? Royalty? It doesn’t ring any bells for me I’m afraid and to be honest (as requested) I am not immediately impressed with a sense of style or pizazz. Or dignity. Or gravitas. Nothing really. New agent needed perhaps? A makeover? Whatever product line you are part of will surely – if that line has any current viability at all – give guidance as to what might resonate. Respectfully, you need a “lift”, a refresh.

    But this is not about your personal marketing issues – if they don’t touch on the issue at hand: Stan W.? Appealing to what market segment of the AGW fraternity? – it is about you and your role here at WUWT.

    Broadly, your level of culpability. In itself, (dis)honesty and (lack of) intellectual function are not what I am interested in here, these being displayed elsewhere – although you do here show a level of both that is consistent with previous contributions and is damning. I am seeking to establish direct links – or otherwise of course – to the primaevally venal as motivation for you to bring to bear those attributes.

    So please answer the question.

  245. jc says:

    Where is that other one – Phil.? PHIL!

    Please answer the question. It is really just a survey at this point – I assure you – and any future issues relating to accountability do not require the information now, when required this can be established independently, which you must surely be aware of.

  246. Werner Brozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 23, 2013 at 10:54 am
    werner:
    “I will admit the obvious that these points are very well cherry picked.”
    finally!
    now, please, stop making assertions based on unscientific methods.

    Was your 5 years and 4 months not cherry picked? Let us be honest and admit we both cherry picked. But if you cherry pick a small interval of under 6 years, the error bars are huge, so the conclusions are not very scientific. When going over 15 years like I did, my error bars are 1.239/0.227 = 5.5 times smaller.

    For the last 5 years and 4 months according to http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
    we get this slope and error bars for RSS:
    0.251 ±1.239 °C/decade (2σ)
    This translates to a range of +1.49 to -0.988. So roughly, we can only be about 60% certain that it is really warming over this period. By convention, anything under 95% is not significant in climate science.

    For the last 15 years and 8 months we get this slope and error bars for RSS:
    -0.039 ±0.227 °C/decade (2σ) This translates to a range of +0.188 to -0.266. So despite the cherry picked time, it can be seen that the upper limit of 0.188 is still below the slope value of 0.251 for your very short time.

    (P.S. Thank you Richard!)

  247. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 23, 2013 at 10:58 am

    so then you agree that the surface has warmed up sharply in the last 5-6 years, even by the RSS data, despite the occurrence of two La Ninas?

    Yes, but with huge error bars as shown above. So there is still a 40% chance that cooling occurred on RSS during the last 5 years and 4 months.

  248. Stan W. says:

    @werner — of course my interval was cherry picked.

    it’s my way of showing you that two can play that game — cherry picking can give you any answer you want, depending on how you slice and dice the time intervals.

    that’s why it’s considered unscientific, yet you still seem to do it a lot.

  249. Stan W. says:

    @dbstealey — how do you know the RSS measurements are accurate?

    lately it differs significantly from UAH, which has had its own problems in the past.

    and both differ from surface datasets.

  250. Stan W. says:

    @jc — my interest is good science, for which no one pays me a cent.

    though i realize people like you like to insinuate otherwise, as a substitute for actual scientific arguments.

  251. Egregious troll posting as Stan W.:

    Your post at April 23, 2013 at 2:47 pm says

    @jc — my interest is good science, for which no one pays me a cent.

    though i realize people like you like to insinuate otherwise, as a substitute for actual scientific arguments.

    You fool nobody with that because you have studiously ignored each and every scientific argument in
    the thread.

    And nobody doubts that you are not payed anything for “good science” because you have shown no understanding of what that is. The question you are evading is whether you are being payed to troll with your attacks on science.

    Personally, I don’t think you are a payed troll. I think you are a deluded cultist acting in desperate defence of your cult as reality refutes your cherished beliefs.

    Richard

  252. Friends:

    The egregious troll is wriggling by pretending the MSU data are not reliable but the surface data sets are.

    I remind that one of the previous wriggles of the troll was to ignore my post at April 20, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/19/the-unraveling-of-global-warming-is-accelerating/#comment-1281726

    which said to the troll

    Also, the surface data sets are constantly ‘adjusted’ (almost every month) for no published, known or justifiable reason. For example, try to explain these changes to GISS for measurements made decades ago
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif

    Click on the link and see if you can understand why the troll has ignored it.

    Richard

  253. fredd says:

    If global warming is unraveling, shouldn’t the evidence be in new journal articles or major science organizations revising their positions? Rather than declarations by a “lefty journalist”?

  254. Phil. says:

    jc says:
    April 22, 2013 at 11:00 pm
    @ Stan W. and @ Phil.

    Do either of you currently, or have you previously, or do you hope or expect to, receive any financial advantage at all from the application of policy derived from an acceptance of AGW as requiring such, or from investment or business effected by such, or from association with any organization (s) that in part or whole are or could be advantaged by such a perception?

    Or is anyone you are closely associated with likely to benefit in the manner described above?

    Lies or evasion may prove very unwise . This will be a matter of record.

    Forgive me but I’m disinclined to answer such a survey conducted by an anonymous poster, particularly one with such a threatening tone which is only addressed to two posters! Perhaps you should do a wider survey covering every poster here?

  255. fredd:

    You pose a good question in your post at April 23, 2013 at 3:33 pm when you ask

    If global warming is unraveling, shouldn’t the evidence be in new journal articles or major science organizations revising their positions? Rather than declarations by a “lefty journalist”?

    Sadly, no, the journals will be among the last places to see the unravelling.

    The issue began in 1980 in the UK as a political issue. And it has always been primarily a political issue.

    It grew until it was halted at Copenhagen in late 2009. The rejection of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol then stopped the bandwagon and politicians have been climbing off the wagon ever since.

    But politicians cannot do a public U-turn because that would cost votes. So they will continue to fund climastrology because that maintains the appearance of continuing the issue, Meanwhile they will continue to use AGW as an excuse for taxation in various forms. But – as Germany is showing – retreat from mad energy policies will be slow and assured. And the priority given to AGW policies will slowly reduce until, eventually, it ceases.

    Finally, nobody will remember the AGW-scare unless reminded of it. Similarly, nobody now remembers the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s unless reminded of it, but nobody declared that scare was over.

    As with ‘acid rain’ the science journals will be the last place to notice the end of the AGW-scare because that is where the results of climastrology funding are seen. And those funds will only slowly reduce until they almost stop.

    Richard

  256. Werner Brozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    cherry picking can give you any answer you want

    Please show me which dates will give me Santer’s 17 years of zero warming on RSS.

  257. Stan W. says:

    @fredd — good question. it will likely go unanswered. sites like this are working to construct an alternative reality that is independent of anything appearing in the published literature, or that appear at conferences, or that is held by scientific societies etc.

  258. Stan W. says:

    @werner — why are you insistent on using RSS?

    of course, i know why — it gives you the results you want.

    but it differs significantly from the 4 other datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, UAH).

    its difference with UAH has also changed significantly in recent years.

    these make it suspicious.

  259. Stan W. says:

    @werner — where did you ever get the idea that “17 years” is some kind of natural law?

    that is a result from modeling studies. i thought “sceptics” don’t accept results from models because they believe them fundamentally flawed.

    or do you believe them only when they support your positions?

  260. Stan W. says:

    @fredd — of course, the reason why no one remembers the acid rain scare is that COUNTRIES TOOK STEPS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

    in the US the solution adopted, offered by conservatives of the time, was a market solution — cap and trade.

  261. fredd says:

    Stan, it was richardscourtney, not me, who brought up acid rain. He seems to think it was a fake scare, but I’ve seen what one smelter can do.

  262. dbstealey says:

    Stan W. says:

    “@dbstealey — how do you know the RSS measurements are accurate?”

    I posted the Wood For Trees database observations. No one else argues that WFT is inaccurate. You just don’t like it because it destroyed your RSS argument.

    And you continue to denigrate Werner Brozek, who is a professor of physics.

    What is your C.V., Stan? Post it here.

  263. Stan W. says:

    @dbstealey — WFT merely reproduces the RSS data.

    again, how do you know the RSS data is accurate?

    it differs significantly from all the other datasets. so how do you know it is accurate?

    i haven’t denigrated werner in the least — merely asked him some questions. strange you would classify mere questions in that manner.

  264. Stan W. says:

    @dbstealey — where is werner a professor?

    where can i read his research?

  265. dbstealey says:

    Stan W.,

    You are avoiding my question:

    What is your C.V.?

    Post it here.

    And RSS does not ‘differ significantly from all the other datasets’. Where are you getting your misinformation from?

  266. Stan W. says:

    @werner — let me remind you to please read carefully.

    here is what Santer et al wrote: “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract

    do you see the words “at least”?
    do you understand that they do not mean “equal to”?
    do you understand the concept of a lower bound?

  267. Stan W. says:

    @dbstealey — do you know how to calculate trends?

    if so, please post here the 15-yr trends for GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, UAH, and RSS.

    compare and discuss.

  268. Stan W. says:

    @dbstealey — where is werner a professor? google shows nothing.

    where can i read about his research?

  269. Werner Brozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 23, 2013 at 5:16 pm

    but it differs significantly from the 4 other datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, UAH)

    I noticed that you left out Hadsst2 and Hadcrut3, both of which show 16 years of no warming. (GISS and Hadcrut4 show over 12 years of no warming which is not too bad either.)

  270. jc says:

    @ Stan W. says:
    April 23, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    “@jc — my interest is good science, for which no one pays me a cent.

    though i realize people like you like to insinuate otherwise, as a substitute for actual scientific arguments.”

    ————————————————————————————————————————

    Do you think you are cunning? It doesn’t really matter; if you do then your capacity to judge effectiveness of actions on reality is confirmed, and quite possibly your normal circle would view this as a breathtaking achievement, and so your confidence is configured accordingly.

    I fully accept that no-one would pay you anything at all to attempt to PRODUCE good science or even to IDENTIFY good science. That would be absurd.

    As to having an “interest” in an unspecified way, whatever that might mean given your apparent capacities, this could just as likely be in DISCREDITING good science as anything else. Since your adherence generally to an irrational position and on review of your mechanisms provides evidence for that, that must be the conclusion.

    I have tried to communicate that my query does not relate to any “actual scientific arguments”. I really do think it is impossible that anyone with the “brain function” to read and “get” the meaning can have missed that, with all the allowance possible to one operating at the bare minimum level.
    So I take it that this is just evidence of dishonesty.

    Try again. The question was about “financial advantage” not “pay”, and not limited to any peculiarity of yours that describes your relationship with “science”. It’s about money, or things of material advantage. It is a standard technique of evasion to try to pretend to answer a question by dishonestly limiting the parameters. Ask any Criminal lawyer or Judge. Or perhaps you don’t need to.

    So any “financial advantage”. Called whatever it is.

    Incremental disclosure is never effective. It just confirms the whole nature of what is hidden and the person hiding it. Better to come clean.

  271. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 23, 2013 at 5:17 pm
    @werner — where did you ever get the idea that “17 years” is some kind of natural law?
    I never suggested it was some kind of a law. It is strictly from Santer’s comment. See:http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml
    “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.“

  272. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 23, 2013 at 6:04 pm
    i haven’t denigrated werner in the least — merely asked him some questions. 

    I agree that you simply asked questions.

    Stan W. says:
    April 23, 2013 at 6:12 pm
    @dbstealey — where is werner a professor?

    I never was a professor, however after obtaining my engineering degree over 40 years ago, I taught physics and chemistry at the high school level and have proofread high school physics texts for Pearson. So I have decades of experience answering questions.

  273. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 23, 2013 at 6:41 pm

    do you see the words “at least”?
    do you understand that they do not mean “equal to”?
    do you understand the concept of a lower bound?

    Yes, I see that. So are you suggesting I have to wait for 17 years and 1 month before saying models are wrong? Then of course this is only according to Santer. Others have shown the models are wrong in other ways as has been shown above. For example see:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

  274. jc says:

    Phil. says:
    April 23, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    “Forgive me but I’m disinclined to answer such a survey conducted by an anonymous poster, particularly one with such a threatening tone which is only addressed to two posters! Perhaps you should do a wider survey covering every poster here?”

    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    Your concern about being asked a question by an “anonymous” person is strange on a site dedicated to dispassionate appraisal. Clearly your conception of objectivity is predicated and formed by your personal relationships and that defines your relationship with reality. This is certainly a characteristic of a particular type of being, possibly prevalent “where you live”, clearly dominant in the common or garden devotee, but I ask you to try to put that to one side for this purpose. Try to transcend that.

    I can’t see why you would translate this as having a “threatening tone”. There can be no “threat” to anyone who is honest and of sincere intent, no matter what their opinions, manner of articulating them, or personal life and financial circumstances are. If someone has income from a particular activity or source this does not in itself invalidate their opinions of even introduce their motives as an issue necessarily. It depends whether they are honest. And do not hide things.
    To find this threatening is indicative of a failure in that way.

    As to being only two posters – well! I must deal with what is there (called reality) and on this thread, this seems to be the available sample size at the moment. I welcome participation from others displaying the requisite characteristics. The problem is, as I am becoming increasingly aware, that there are actually not large numbers of those who qualify. Although the impression given by the media – under encouragement – is of a multitude, this is simply not true. Ultimately this is of advantage in accountability, since the numbers involved are manageable within Court processes.

    Surveying every poster here is obviously nonsensical, since this is concerned to identify – not personally at this stage, that can come later – those who are culpable in the deaths of many thousands of humans and to estimate the number and nature of operations of those, which in the first instance requires identification of deceit, general dishonesty, and pursuit of financial advantage.

    This forum, along with others on the internet is invaluable as a record of evidence, with of course the authorities being in a position to identify contributors if required regardless of whether that is volunteered at the time, or whether it is intentionally obscured for reasons that become obvious. There is no disadvantage – and every advantage to those who might otherwise be considered worthy of attention – to be open and honest on this issue.

    So I await your reconsidered response

  275. dbstealey says:

    wbrozek,

    Please excuse me for the misunderstanding. But here, teaching physics is a professor’s job. In any case, your experience far surpasses the average [and I am still waiting for Stan's C.V.].

    Teaching physics for forty years provides a basic understanding of the subject; an understanding sadly lacking in the average commentators’ posts.

  276. fredd:

    At April 23, 2013 at 5:36 pm you say to the other troll

    Stan, it was richardscourtney, not me, who brought up acid rain. He seems to think it was a fake scare, but I’ve seen what one smelter can do.

    That is a classic ‘red herring’.
    1.
    You posed the mistaken assertion that the end of the scare would be seen in journals.
    2.
    I explained how and why journals would be the last place to see it.
    3.
    I cited ‘acid rain’ as an example of where journals were the last place to see evidence of a fading scare.
    4.
    Your response to having had your suggestion disproved is to try to change the subject; i.e, standard trolling.

    Richard

    PS, I did work on that fake scare so if I were the kind who grabbed at red herrings then I would have grabbed yours.

  277. Stan W. says:

    @dbstealey — keep waiting;
    my c.v. is none of your business.
    this is about scientific arguments, not personal accusations.

  278. Stan W. says:

    werner:
    “So are you suggesting I have to wait for 17 years and 1 month before saying models are wrong?”

    is that what i said? no.
    is that what Santer said? no.
    you seem determined to mangle the science into saying something it doesn’t say. that raises questions about your objectivity.

  279. Stan W. says:

    @werner — i too have decades of experience answering questions.
    so what?
    especially if your answers are of the quality given here, which do not present an objective view of the science.

  280. wbrozek says:

    Stan W. says:
    April 24, 2013 at 8:29 am
    you seem determined to mangle the science into saying something it doesn’t say

    I know what it says. Now I want your interpretation of it. Specifically, for how many years and months does the slope have to be 0 on any data set before we conclude that models are wrong?

  281. Troll posting as Stan W.:

    At April 24, 2013 at 8:30 am you say

    @werner — i too have decades of experience answering questions.

    Nobody doubts that but what everybody wants to know is if you ever gave an honest answer to any of them. And on the basis of your performance in this thread nobody can know an answer to that whatever you say.

    Richard

  282. dbstealey says:

    Stan W says:

    “i too have decades of experience answering dodging questions.”

    There. Fixed it for you.

    Here is a good example of Stan’s dodging and evading a question asked repeatedly:

    Stan says: “my c.v. is none of your business.”

    Conclusion: Stan is trolling, pretending to be knowledgeable about the subject. If Stan possessed any kind of background that qualified him to be the least bit expert, he would have proudly posted it here.

    Werner and others are destroying every one of Stan’s really lame arguments, all of which amount to Stan’s assertions, nothing more.

    Prove me wrong, Stan. Post your mythical C.V. We want to see if you have any credibility at all.

  283. Phil. says:

    jc says:
    April 23, 2013 at 8:54 pm
    I can’t see why you would translate this as having a “threatening tone”. There can be no “threat” to anyone who is honest and of sincere intent, no matter what their opinions, manner of articulating them, or personal life and financial circumstances are.

    And yet you appear to want to gather evidence to be used in some sort of future court proceedings:
    this is concerned to identify – not personally at this stage, that can come later – those who are culpable in the deaths of many thousands of humans

    It’s unclear to me how pointing out scientific errors by another poster could lead to such a proceeding, or how one’s financial interests would be relevant, I have not falsified anything and supported my statements with scientific papers.
    Also your implication that posting science that supports the concept of global warming leads to “culpability in the deaths of many thousands of humans”. If the IPCC projections come to pass would you propose a similar tribunal for those who oppose the adoption of a reduction in the use of fossil fuels? What if the weather shift this winter in the UK is the result of melting sea ice due to CO2 then who would you suggest are culpable in the excess deaths there?
    If financial disclosure was required for posting on this site I’m sure many might reconsider posting here, your insinuation that those who post a contrary position on here are being dishonest and are motivated by financial interests is offensive, just as it is when it’s suggested that Anthony is in the pay of Big Oil!

  284. Phil. says:

    dbstealey says:
    April 24, 2013 at 9:28 am

    “i too have decades of experience dodging questions.”

    Indeed you do!

    Prove me wrong, Stan. Post your mythical C.V. We want to see if you have any credibility at all.

    Why don’t you lead the way and post your CV, your credibility is frequently called into question?
    For someone who once maintained a dual identity on this site you have some nerve

  285. Werner Brozek says:

    I am having a hard time reconciling statements by NOAA and Santer and need some help here in light of discussions on this post. To recap, NOAA says:

    “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 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    So for discussion sake, let us ignore for the moment whether or not this condition has been met. However I do believe we all agree that if certain conditions are met for 15 years, we can be 95% certain the models are wrong. Is that correct?

    Santer says:

    “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.“

    So if the conditions are met that would cause NOAA to say there is a 95% chance the models are faulty, Santer would say that 15 years of no change do not mean anything at all since if it is under 17 years, no conclusions can be drawn. Is this correct? If so, is there a total contradiction between Santer and NOAA? And if Santer gives only a lower bound and not an upper bound as Stan W. says, then what was the purpose of Santer’s statement? Even 50 years of no warming would be consistent with Santer’s statement, or am I wrong?

  286. jc says:

    Phil. says:
    April 24, 2013 at 10:06 am

    jc says:
    April 23, 2013 at 8:54 pm
    I can’t see why you would translate this as having a “threatening tone”. There can be no “threat” to anyone who is honest and of sincere intent, no matter what their opinions, manner of articulating them, or personal life and financial circumstances are.

    And yet you appear to want to gather evidence to be used in some sort of future court proceedings:
    this is concerned to identify – not personally at this stage, that can come later – those who are culpable in the deaths of many thousands of humans

    It’s unclear to me how pointing out scientific errors by another poster could lead to such a proceeding, or how one’s financial interests would be relevant, I have not falsified anything and supported my statements with scientific papers.
    Also your implication that posting science that supports the concept of global warming leads to “culpability in the deaths of many thousands of humans”. If the IPCC projections come to pass would you propose a similar tribunal for those who oppose the adoption of a reduction in the use of fossil fuels? What if the weather shift this winter in the UK is the result of melting sea ice due to CO2 then who would you suggest are culpable in the excess deaths there?
    If financial disclosure was required for posting on this site I’m sure many might reconsider posting here, your insinuation that those who post a contrary position on here are being dishonest and are motivated by financial interests is offensive, just as it is when it’s suggested that Anthony is in the pay of Big Oil!

    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    I have only recently started to separate out those who are of sincere intent, and honesty in claims and responses, from those who are not. There is the question of degree to consider, and responsiveness to being challenged when transgressing which shows to what extent this is an ingrained characteristic and a deliberate strategy, rather than to some extent a lapse.

    Also there are the factors of intellectual capacity and mental health, both of which may come into consideration as mitigation.

    Consequently, I have been exercising care, expressed as a rigorous identification of faults in claims and the manner in which they are presented, and seeking to isolate and therefore test patterns of responses that can illustrate distinctions between (dis)honesty, (lack of) intellectual capacity, (in)sanity. Knowledge of financial advantage can be established as concrete fact and so exists outside this process of evaluation.

    The mechanisms and techniques demonstrated whilst undertaking the above have to a significant degree a – tiresome – predictability. These are easy to identify and are readily understood by anyone of average capacity, since of course they are derived from or mirror what occurs in interactions over a broad spectrum, and here they are highlighted by the abnormal level of commitment to adherence. You demonstrate that here.

    Firstly I must acknowledge a mistake, which you have in a sense seized on. To do so in this manner is completely predictable for those of a certain type – you amongst them as is self-evidently established – and shows the abuse of human interaction that is the defining character of those such as you.

    My point that there should be no implication of “threat”, although more than adequately elaborated on in the very paragraph you quote, you choose to make seem as if general, and you implicitly do this because you “smell” what you think is room to manouver based on my generosity in the first sentence in saying that you personally should in effect have no reason to interpret anything as a “threat”, on the assumption that you are not culpable in the manner being dealt with. Such abuse of necessary human confidence and trust is the very definition and heart of the entire AGW process and is relentlessly deployed by the active proponents of it such as you. This process, by establishing facts as to the manner of dealings and motivations, will undoubtably be translated as a threat to those implicated. If that’s you, it’s you.

    Although, in plain text, this was a mistake, I was fully aware of this at the time of writing, and saw no damage in extending this possibility to you, and, as expected, it was not wasted in that your response is illustrative in the breach.

    As I have said, techniques employed are tiresomely predictable, such as your reference to legitimate rebuttal, financial status – snuck in amongst these mock protestations of integrity – and compliance with standards of honesty and scientific protocols, when you are fully aware that where these are evident, there is no incorporation of the protagonist into this process of accountability and judgement. Despite as yet having an undetermined level of intellectual function, you do have sufficient to comprehend this. This deployment is both degraded and degrading.

    Your attempted equivalence between those who seek to have inadequacies in AGW as a basis for public policy acknowledged, and those who promote it is repellant. Repulsive.

    Your statement as to the innocuous “posting of science that supports the concept of global warming” being all that is done by the implied well-intentioned and pure in execution is false – and YOU know very well that it is a lie. It is grotesque. Your twisting is sickening.

    If the IPCC speculations come to pass in 50 or 100 years, then humanity will adjust. As has always been the case. In a world dominated by human values and capacities rather than by the antithesis and repudiation of these represented by YOU, there will be no deaths.

    To even contemplate you to enable me to write these words is making me feel physically sick.

    The temperature extremes in the UK or anywhere else, whatever their cause and to whatever degree they vary over time, are mitigated by the availability and use of energy. And the cost.

    Those who have perverted this are responsible. Whether by mindless support which might – might – exonerate them in a formal sense but condemns them morally, or the more active and dishonest, self-advancing, only nominally human. One way or the other, YOU are responsible.

    Your blythe dismissal as an abstraction of the slaughter of thousands because of policy that you have actively pursued reveals you and defines you as a thing beyond the pale. How many peoples parents, grandparents, friends and neighbors have you been part of killing? Just in the UK? Do you live there – that is, YOU alive THEM dead – and pass people in the street who loved ones have been “disposed of” in this way? You wouldn’t give them a moments thought.

    Your further rubbish in the last paragraph, returning to the standard techniques of pretending to address an issue that has been raised when it hasn’t, and in this case was specified as such is contemptible.

    So lets hear it.

    How and by how much and for how long have you been filling your pockets by rifling the corpses of the dead.

  287. Phil. says:

    Werner Brozek says:
    April 24, 2013 at 11:49 am
    I am having a hard time reconciling statements by NOAA and Santer and need some help here in light of discussions on this post. To recap, NOAA says:

    “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 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    So for discussion sake, let us ignore for the moment whether or not this condition has been met. However I do believe we all agree that if certain conditions are met for 15 years, we can be 95% certain the models are wrong. Is that correct?

    Those models, since they don’t include ENSO, can’t describe the actual temperature history. In order to make use of the model findings the actual data needs to have the effects of ENSO accurately removed. If that is done and shows a 15 year hiatus then either the models or the removal methods are questionable. So far this doesn’t seem to be the case.

    Santer says:

    “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.“

    So if the conditions are met that would cause NOAA to say there is a 95% chance the models are faulty, Santer would say that 15 years of no change do not mean anything at all since if it is under 17 years, no conclusions can be drawn. Is this correct? If so, is there a total contradiction between Santer and NOAA? And if Santer gives only a lower bound and not an upper bound as Stan W. says, then what was the purpose of Santer’s statement? Even 50 years of no warming would be consistent with Santer’s statement, or am I wrong?

    There’s no indication that the NOAA condition has been breached, so I don’t see a contradiction. I don’t know the context of the Santer remark, he may be factoring in ENSO for example.

  288. jc says:

    @ Stan W.

    YOU! COWARD!

    Show your real face!

    You have been lurking around here and have left your droppings.

    Lets hear how much a human life is worth to you.

  289. Phil. says:

    jc says:
    April 24, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    So lets hear it.

    How and by how much and for how long have you been filling your pockets by rifling the corpses of the dead.

    Mods
    Comments of this nature should be subject to moderation!

  290. Werner Brozek:

    I am responding to your post at April 24, 2013 at 11:49 am.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/19/the-unraveling-of-global-warming-is-accelerating/#comment-1286237

    It asks several questions. And they all seem to focus on what you perceive as a disagreement between the statements of NOAA and Santer. I see no disagreement because – as I understand it – they relate to different issues.

    Firstly, you say

    NOAA says:

    “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 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    So for discussion sake, let us ignore for the moment whether or not this condition has been met. However I do believe we all agree that if certain conditions are met for 15 years, we can be 95% certain the models are wrong. Is that correct?

    That is not my understanding of what the quoted NOAA satatement says.

    It refers to “ENSO-adjusted warming”. However, this is not pertinent when considering the most recent 16 years because ENSO effects cancel over the period; i.e. ENSO adjusts for itself over that period.

    Then it says of the indications of the models,
    “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.”

    That can only mean the models indicate periods of 10 or less years duration when the indicated temperature change is close to zero and may be negative. Also, the sentence says these periods of “near-zero” trends result from “the model’s internal climate variability”; i.e. model variability.

    The next sentence has been subject of dispute. I accept what it says but Shore and Perlw1tz have tried to spin its meaning. I will state both views.

    The sentence is in two parts and the first part is the subject of the dispute. In total it says,
    “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    The first part says,
    “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more,”

    I understand this to mean that “zero trends” for periods of 15 or more years do not occur in the model simulations; i.e. the simulations “rule out” “zero trends” for periods of 15 or more years. And this is because the “the model’s internal climate variability” is not sufficient to generate “zero trends” for 15 or more years although – as the previous sentence says – the “the model’s internal climate variability” often generates “zero trends” for 10 or less years.

    Importantly, when the sentence says “(at the 95% level) zero trends” it defines “zero trends” as being trends which are not discernibly different from zero at 95% confidence.
    THIS IS THE POINT OF DISAGREEMENT.
    I fail to understand how the sentence can reasonably be understood as meaning other than I have said. Any other understanding leaves “zero trends” undefined. Clearly, it cannot mean 0.000deg.C per decade when the previous sentence describes ““Near-zero and even negative trends”.
    BUT
    Shore and Perlw1tz argue that “(at the 95% level) zero trends” means 5% of model simulations provide “zero trends”. Of course, they may be right but – if so – then the NOAA statement is meaningless because “zero trends” is not defined.

    The final clause of the sentence says,
    “suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    According to me, this says a “discrepancy” between the model simulations and “the expected present-day warming rate” would occur if for 15 or more years reality exhibited a “(at the 95% level) zero trend”.
    In other words, the model behaviour would be observed to disagree with real climate behaviour if the real climate exhibited a trend not discernibly different from zero at 95% confidence for a period of 15 or more years.
    This has happened because “(at the 95% level) zero trend” has existed for the most recent 16 years.

    The alternative Shore & Perlw1tz interpretation says the models do not disagree with reality because the model simulations provide a 5% chance of such a “zero trend” for such a time.

    In my opinion, the Shore & Perlw1tz interpretation is a nonsensical excuse which pretends reality has not shown the model simulations to be a false indication of reality.

    However, you say

    So for discussion sake, let us ignore for the moment whether or not this condition has been met. However I do believe we all agree that if certain conditions are met for 15 years, we can be 95% certain the models are wrong. Is that correct?

    That is an additional interpretation and I do not understand it.

    If the nature of “the model’s internal climate variability” means their simulations “rule out” 15 year long zero trends then the model says such periods don’t happen. So, a 15 year long zero trend happening in reality provides a “discrepancy” which shows the model simulations do not emulate real climate behaviour: i.e. the model simulations are wrong and there is no way to know how wrong.

    If you accept the Shore and Perlw1tz interpretation then the “discrepancy” means nothing because 5% of model simulations show the discrepancy.

    But you say the discrepancy provides a 95% probability that the model simulations are wrong. Huh?

    Your post continues saying

    Santer says:

    “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.“

    I understand this to be saying that it is not possible to discern an anthropogenic effect on global temperature by considering periods of less than 17 years.

    This is a completely different matter from the statement of NOAA.
    1.
    Santer is talking about observing an anthropogenic effect in global temperature records.
    2,
    NOAA is talking about the ability of climate models to emulate global temperature.

    You conclude your post asking

    So if the conditions are met that would cause NOAA to say there is a 95% chance the models are faulty, Santer would say that 15 years of no change do not mean anything at all since if it is under 17 years, no conclusions can be drawn. Is this correct? If so, is there a total contradiction between Santer and NOAA? And if Santer gives only a lower bound and not an upper bound as Stan W. says, then what was the purpose of Santer’s statement? Even 50 years of no warming would be consistent with Santer’s statement, or am I wrong?

    I think not.

    Either,
    As I say,
    The NOAA statement says the models have been falsified by there being more than 15 years of ‘stasis’
    OR as Shore and Perlw1tz say
    The NOAA statement says nothing (which poses the question as to why NOAA published it).

    The Santer statement says that a period of at least 17 years is needed to see an anthropogenic effect. It is a political statement because “at least 17 years” could be any length of time longer than 17 years. It is not a scientific statement because it is not falsifiable.

    However, if the Santer statement is claimed to be a scientific statement then any period longer than 17 years would indicate an anthropogenic effect. So, a 17-year period of no discernible global warming would indicate no anthropogenic global warming.

    In my opinion, Santer made a political statement so it should be answered with a political response: i.e. it should be insisted that he said 17 years of no global warming means no anthropogenic global warming because any anthropogenic effect would have been observed.

    Santer made his petard and he should be hoisted on it.

    Richard

  291. jc says:

    @ Paul.

    You’re here. You’ve had time.

    Ignoring as evasion?

    How many will die before you respond?

  292. jc says:

    @ Paul

    Squirming to hide under a process I now see.

    There is nowhere to hide.

    Show yourself for what you are.

  293. Anthony Watts says:

    Kinda tired of jc, and all the others in this mudslinging fest between anonymous cowards. Comments closed.

Comments are closed.