Nuccitelli gets a bruising by the factual hand of Monckton

Cook “the books” is wrong to slam Roy Spencerjosh_scooter_nuccitelli

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Anyone who has met Roy Spencer knows him to be a careful, thoughtful, unpolemical scientist of formidable skill and knowledge. With John Christy he presents the monthly real-world data from the microwave sounding unit satellites that provide the least inaccurate global temperature record we have.

The satellites reveal the inconvenient truth that there has been no global warming for approaching two decades.

However, John Cook, the cartoonist turned warming fanatic who runs the misleadingly-named Skeptical Science website, has just posted a piece by his still more fanatical sidekick, Dana Nuccitelli, attacking Roy Spencer’s recent verbatim interview with the Catholic Online website.

Cook “the books” has a favorite small-boy yah-boo tactic. He condemns anyone who raises any question about “global warming”, however sensible, as perpetrating or perpetuating what he calls “climate myths”.

Sure enough, his latest characteristically malevolent hatchet-job is entitled “Roy Spencer’s Catholic Online Climate Myths”. It appears next to a sidebar headed “Most-Used Climate Myths”. You will also find plenty of other alleged “Myths” at Cook The Books’ website, including Monckton Myths.

Nuccitelli begins by condemning Roy Spencer for saying, “No one knows whether it is currently warming, because we only see warming in the rear-view mirror, after it has occurred.” This truism is characteristic of Roy, who gently nudges the language of climate science in the direction of greater rigor. One cannot measure that it is warming, only that it has warmed. 

Yet Nuccitelli, in a fine illustration of that blind faith that TH Huxley denounced in 1860 as “the one unpardonable sin”, asserts that “We absolutely do know that the planet is currently warming”.

He references this assertion by a link to another page of Skeptical Science that provides multiple lines of evidence for the proposition, agreed – as St. Vincent of Lerins used to put it, fere omnibus (by very nearly everyone) that the planet has been warming. But not that it currently is warming.

Nuccitelli adds, “We know that the planet will continue to warm as long as we continue to increase the greenhouse effect.” Again, he would have benefited from a more careful use of language. We know that adding CO2 or other greenhouse gases to the air will cause warming, but that cannot prevent natural factors from causing a countervailing cooling from time to time, which is why we have had the 17-year “pause” in global warming that Railroad Engineer Pachauri has now admitted. Spencer 1, Nuccitelli 0.

Next, Nuccitelli attacks Roy Spencer for having said it was entirely possible that summer sea-ice melt was no worse now than it had been in the 1920s and 1930s, when explorers had reported unprecedented warming and loss of sea ice in the Arctic.

Yet he fails to admit that the reports – for instance, an often-quoted report from 1922 about the unprecedented Arctic warming and loss of sea ice observed by meteorologists – support what Roy Spencer says and are inconsistent with the largely speculative results in the various papers suggesting sea ice extent scarcely changed until it began to decline in the 1970s.

He also fails to explain how the global warming from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940, which occurred at exactly the same rate as the warming from 1976-2001, did not cause any loss of sea-ice extent. Spencer 2, Nuccitelli 0.

Nuccitelli then turns to the embarrassing increase in Antarctic sea-ice extent mentioned by Roy Spencer, and produces various papers saying more sea-ice in Antarctica is what we should expect from global warming.

However, he very carefully fails to mention that Antarctica has been cooling during the 33 years of satellite observation. Warming during the satellite era has not been global, suggesting, as recent papers have confirmed, that a naturally-occurring change in advection of warmth from the tropics to the Arctic – but not to the Antarctic – is the chief cause of melting Arctic sea ice. Spencer 3, Nuccitelli 0.

Onward to superstorms. Roy Spencer had said there has been no increase in superstorms, which happen every year. Sandy was unusual only in that it happened over a built-up area. Nuccitelli cites Kerry Emanuel’s paper of 2005 showing an increase in hurricane strength over previous decades.

He is culpably silent on Dr. Ryan Maue’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy index, which shows that since 2005 the combined frequency, intensity, and duration of all tropical cyclones, hurricanes, and typhoons worldwide, expressed as a 24-month running sum, shows the least activity in the entire satellite record. Spencer 4, Nuccitelli 0.

Nuccitelli moves on to condemn Roy Spencer for saying, “The consensus is only that humans are contributing to warming,” and to announce (blind faith again) that “Humans are Causing Global Warming”.

He cites various papers asserting that human greenhouse-gas emissions are the dominant cause of the global warming over the past 50-100 years. However, he fails to take account of the startling absence of correlation between the rate of increase in CO2 concentration and the rate of increase in temperature.

Like many true-believers, he is insufficiently trained in logic to know that absence of correlation between two datasets necessarily indicates absence of causation between them. The sharp fluctuations in global temperature in phase with the 60-year cycles of the ocean oscillations are not correlated with the monotonic changes in CO2 concentration.

Since the rate of warming from 1976-2001, to which we could in theory have contributed, is statistically indistinguishable in the rates from 1860-1880 and from 1910-1940, to which we could not, Roy Spencer was right to say we cannot easily disentangle the anthropogenic from the natural contributions to warming. Spencer 5, Nuccitelli 0.

On to the biggest scare of them all: sea-level rise. Here, Roy Spencer concedes that “Sea levels have indeed increased, which probably is a sign of warming.” However, he goes on to say, “It is difficult to attribute the current rate of rise to humans when we don’t know how much of the rise is natural.”

Nuccitelli’s answer to this unexceptionable and temperately-expressed statement is that sea level rises chiefly through thermal expansion and melting land ice, so it is all our fault. However, it ought to have been obvious even to Nuccitelli thermal expansion and land-ice melt happen whether Man or nature is the cause.

Also, as Peltier (2009) points out, the GRACE gravitational-anomaly record indicates that sea level has actually fallen in recent years. The raw data from the Envisat satellite from 2004-2012 show sea level rising at a rate equivalent to an unalarming 3.2 cm/century:

clip_image001

Professor Niklas Mörner, who was told in 2004 by a sea-level specialist at the University of Colorado that the data from the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason satellites were tilted to create an artificial impression of a rate of sea-level rise that is not in fact occurring, says his central estimate is that sea level will rise this century by 5 ± 15cm, or 2 ± 6 inches. Spencer 6, Nuccitelli 0.

Next, Nuccitelli takes Roy Spencer to task for daring to suggest that there has been very little research into the natural causes of climate change. Anyone who has seen the video of the Fellows of the Royal Society baying and howling with rent-seeking fury when Dr. Henrik Svensmark gently explained his cosmic-ray displacement theory of cloud nucleation to them will swiftly realize that an overwhelming and undue emphasis in climate research and funding over recent decades has been on anthropogenic and not natural influences. Spencer 7, Nuccitelli 0.

Nuccitelli blows it altogether when he says Roy Spencer’s closing remark that “The warming has been only 50% of what the consensus of climate models says it should be” is “just flat-out ridiculously wrong.”

Well, here are the facts. The IPCC said in 1990, at page xii, “Under the IPCC business-as-usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be about 0.2-0.5 Cº/decade.” The observed warming rate from 1990-2013, according to HadCRUt, is about half that.

Nuccitelli may like to look at the second-order draft of the IPCC’s 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, to which I have added the trend-line through the real-world observed temperature change since 1990:

clip_image002

All four of the IPCC’s Assessment Reports have flagrantly 0ver-predicted the rate of global warming that should have occurred by now. On this central question, the “consensus” has been wrong not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times out of four, and is about to be wrong a fifth time. Nuccitelli’s blind faith in the IPCC’s capacity to predict temperature change seems misplaced. Spencer 8, Nuccitelli 0.

Nuccitelli ends by saying, “Overall, Spencer made very few factually correct statements in this interview.” On any other subject but this, where true-believers such as Nuccitelli now routinely get away with outrageous falsehoods that smear the reputations of any scientists bold enough to raise even the mildest questions about the New Religion, that remark would have led to a libel suit.

Here is why. Below I have enumerated the 60 factually correct statements in Roy Spencer’s interview. There are no factually incorrect statements.

1: Roy Spencer has a PhD in meteorology. 2: Roy Spencer has been doing climate research for over 20 years. 3: His research has been mostly under contract to NASA, NOAA, and DOE. 4: He has testified in Congress several times on the general subject of climate change. 5: He has published two popular books on the global warming issue.

6: He has have an amateur interest in basic economics. 7: He has self-published a small book which is now used in a college economics cours. 8: His research has always been supported 100% by the US Government. 9: No one knows whether it is currently warming. 10: Warming seems to have stopped about 15 years ago.

11: There is some evidence that the deep ocean has continued to warm by hundredths of a degree. 12: The world has warmed for 50-100 years. 13: We started satellite monitoring of sea ice in 1979 after an extended cold period in the Arctic. 14: It is possible that sea-ice melt now is no worse than in the 1920s-1930s. 15: Humans could not have been responsible for warming in the 1920s-1930s.

16: We cannot know the extent to which we are responsible for Arctic sea-ice melt. 17: Since 1979, Antarctic sea ice has increased. 18: There has been no increase in superstorms or tornadoes. 19: Sandy-class storms occur every year. 20: Sandy-class storms do not usually hit high-density urban areas. 20: Sea levels have increased.

21: The increase in sea level is probably an indication of warming. 22: Sea levels were rising well before 1900. 23: We could not have been to blame for sea level rise before 1900. 24: The rate of sea-level rise is slow. 25: It is difficult to attribute the current rate of rise to us.

26: We do not know how much of the sea-level rise is natural. 27: It is possible that the ocean is absorbing more heat than was expected. 28: The oceans are big enough to absorb all of the warming caused by increasing CO2 with a temperature rise of just 0.1 Cº. 29: We have no means of knowing whether the oceans are absorbing all of the warming caused by us. 30: We have no means of knowing whether the oceans will continue to absorb all of the warming caused by us.

31: The CO2-induced reduction in the Earth’s capacity to cool to space has fallen by only 1%. 32: The CO2-induced reduction in the Earth’s cooling capacity is a very weak forcing of the climate system. 33: The deep ocean has warmed by only 0.2% since the 1950s. 34: The warming of the deep ocean has been very small. 35: Current solar and wind technologies are expensive.

36: Wind and solar are unreliable. 37: They can only replace a small fraction of our energy need. 38: Today’s economy runs on inexpensive energy. 39: To grow the economy we will need to use fossil fuels to generate extra wealth. 40: We will need to burn more fossil fuels to find replacements for fossil fuels.

41: The consensus is only that humans are contributing to warming. 42: Roy Spencer agrees with that consensus. 43: Only a small number of scientists know enough about climate sensitivity to have an informed opinion. 44: Only a few of us work on the question how sensitive is the climate system. 45: Only a few of us know how much uncertainty there is.

46: Most climate researchers simply assume recent warming is manmade. 47: Human causation is only one possible explanation out of several. 48: It is theoretically possible that Al Gore is correct. 49: The subject of global warming has become politicized. 50: There are financial winners and losers from policy outcomes.

51: Climate science has become hopelessly corrupted. 52: Roy Spencer and others have told Congress we need a “red team”, where a small fraction of climate research funding is put towards studying natural causes of climate change. 53: There is very little research into natural causes of climate change.

54: Roy Spencer has been wrong many times. 55: In research, we are usually wrong with our initial opinions. 55: It is much easier to be wrong than right.

56: There are many potential explanations for what we see in nature. 57: Roy Spencer usually determines in a matter of days, weeks, or months that he was wrong. 58: He has seen nothing to change my view that we have no way of knowing how much of our current warmth is human-caused. 59: Even if it is 100% human-caused, the warming has been only 50% of what the consensus of climate models says it should be. 60: If the consensus changes to reflect real-world outcomes, we shall have twice as much time to solve the climate problem. Spencer 60, Nuccitelli 0

Above all, there is a striking contrast between the careful, measured, balanced tone of Roy Spencer’s facts, which I have summarized above, and the intemperate, hate-filled Gish gallop of cherry-picked citations, half-truths, and outright falsehoods of which Nuccitelli is – yet again – guilty.

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

99 Responses to Nuccitelli gets a bruising by the factual hand of Monckton

  1. sunsettommy says:

    Only 60-0?

    It should be 100% Spencer to 0% Nuccitelli

    I gave up on him and Cook a while ago because they are not going to be honest or rational.

  2. William Martin in NZ says:

    Sir,I had the very great privilege to meet and talk to you in New Plymouth NZ on your recent tour.A really fantastic night.Thank you.

  3. Janice Moore says:

    Excellent defense!

    And no Warrior for Truth is more deserving than Dr. Spencer of the championing of as stellar an advocate as you are, Christopher Monckton.

    Roy Spencer shines out so brilliantly in the universe of scientists, that it’s like opening the curtains and letting in the mid-day sun into a room lit only by a 40 watt bulb when one compares him with Nuccatelli the Dim.

    *********************
    Nice cartoon, Josh! “RRRRrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRmmmm,… put, put, putta,…RRRRRrrrrrrrrrRRRmm!

    Nuccatelli pretending his cycle is real.

  4. jorgekafkazar says:

    I believe the reference is to Nils-Axel Mörner.

  5. Anthony Watts says:

    I think Dana got knocked off his scooter

  6. MJ says:

    A 60-0 score demands that we bring out the second, third, fourth, fifth string teams, water boys, cheerleaders, and the nuns onto the field so that Cook’s team can get a point. The problem is, I don’t think they will even be able to since the best they put out there probably are in locker room and done for the game. Oh well.

  7. And you Anthony object to me calling a spade a spade!

  8. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Take the bones out of that then Nutty.

  9. “Guess Who Holds Patent for Carbon-trading Plan”….the title of a World Net Daily article by Dr Jerome Corsi, June 18, 2010. None other than “former Clinton and Obama budget adviser Franklin Raines….developed as CEO of the government sponsored mortgage giant Fannie Mae….an Enron-like accounting scandal enabled Rains to earn $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004″.

    We now know that the derivative mortgage fraud, with Fannie Mae direction, cost taxpayers trillions in TARP 1 & 2, and that these were structured bankruptcies, just like the half trillion S & L crisis and the Resolution Trust Corporation bailout of the eighties. This same reckless speculation has continued in every market available. When the Wall Street traders (traitors) ran out of legitimate commodities to sell, they hit on the idea to create NEW commodities. Carbon climate forcing was created to FORCE Carbon commodity markets. While two-wheeled Nutty might not yet see the big picture, other left wing echo chambers have caught on to the monopoly money scam. This weeks Rolling Stone article, “Everything is Rigged, the Biggest Financial Scandal Yet” projects the total derivative market debt at 780 trillion dollars.

    Seventeen years of NON warming is enough to shelve any further discussion of rising CO2 relationship to temperature. We should suspend ALL FUNDING of any Carbon forcing research. Since the start of the Holocene, polar ice caps that were miles thick have melted, oceans have risen 440 feet and Earth has warmed 27F….all with no human or CO2 related causes. There’s a chance that the $100 billion wasted on Carbon endangerment findings might have produced some useful benefit if spent on cold fusion, Thorium reactors, super conductors, or even better water treatment methods. It is obvious that feeding the “Wall Street Vampire Squid” has not benefitted humanity. Nice that Nutty wears a helmet on his scooter, but really….if he can’t think past the AGW scam….what can that helmet protect ?

  10. pat says:

    given rear-view-mirror is in the post, this might fit here!

    1 May: Yahoo Finance: Electric car maker Coda files for bankruptcy
    Green car startup Coda Holdings Inc filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Wednesday after selling just 100 of its all-electric sedans, another example of battery-powered vehicles’ failure to break into the mass market…
    Just three years ago Coda was one of an emerging crop of California startups including Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA.O) seeking to build emission-free electric cars to appeal to mass-market consumers.
    Investors poured money into the sector, and Coda raised $300 million in equity from backers including Aeris Capital, Limited Brands Chief Executive Les Wexner, and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The company, however, in 2012 withdrew its request for $334 million in federal loans like the ones Fisker and Tesla received.
    As the allure of EVs faded, Coda struggled to secure new private funding. Last year, Coda sought to raise $150 million but clinched just $22 million, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission…
    Tesla has put thousands of cars on the road, but Fisker is considering a bankruptcy filing. Fisker’s lithium-ion battery maker, A123 Systems Inc, filed for bankruptcy late last year.
    General Motors (GM.N) and Nissan Motor Co also invested heavily in electric vehicles, but sales have lagged hopes.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/electric-car-maker-coda-files-071841713.html

  11. jc says:

    This Nuccitelli seems to function entirely as a propagandist.

    Or perhaps, insofar as it is possible to be considered a propagandist – being a completely one-sided advocate on behalf of an agenda calculated to impose the will of one group on another – as being honest in both conviction and declarations, something more than that.

    It seems from the above that not only does he have no regard at all to maintain any relationship with truth in his own statements, his position and function is to actively and knowingly suppress truth altogether. That is, he is in effect, a declared enemy of truth.

    He cannot fail to be aware of the implications of policy actions relating to this issue. That is, destruction and deaths that have already occurred, and the certainty that these must continue to occur if the agenda he advocates and seeks to advance by suppressing the truth prevails.

    This makes him, and those like him directly complicit.

  12. ferd berple says:

    On this central question, the “consensus” has been wrong not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times out of four, and is about to be wrong a fifth time.
    ==================
    the odds of this being coincidental are 3^5 = 243 to 1.

  13. John F. Hultquist says:

    Sir Christopher,

    You could have finished with: “But bless his little heart.”

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bless+your+heart
    1. This is a term used by the people of the southern United States particularly near the Gulf of Mexico to express to someone that they are an idiot without saying such harsh words.

  14. Franz Dullaart says:

    Nuccitelli ~ Nutticelli, a new kind of silly hockeystick shaped pasta?

  15. vukcevic says:

    Warming?! Not here, it’s official from the BBC agriculture report: spring in the UK this year is 4-5 weeks late, as confirmed by the CET daily max temperatures
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Dmax.htm

  16. Larry Logan says:

    jorgekafkazar, it is indeed Nils-Axel (“Niklas”) Mörner, and his emails are signed ‘Niklas.’ Owing to familiarity, Christopher’s reference as Niklas.

  17. Barry Woods says:

    Sadly Dana gets to reproduce this sillyness in The Guardian..
    his and John Abraham’s new blog.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/01/roy-spencer-wrong-fossil-fuels-expensive

  18. David Jones says:

    vukcevic says:
    May 1, 2013 at 11:29 pm
    “Warming?! Not here, it’s official from the BBC agriculture report: spring in the UK this year is 4-5 weeks late, as confirmed by the CET daily max temperatures
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Dmax.htm

    Where I live in SE England, 40 miles NW of London, we currently have Blackthorn (Prunus Spinosa) in flower. It is a plant that flowers on bare wood before leaf-break. It normally flowers here in late February – early March. It is a full TWO MONTHS later than “normal.”

  19. dalyplanet says:

    SkS is in a world of worry over the reality of Dr Spencer’s comments looking at their post.

    Thank you for this interesting post Lord Monkton.

  20. M Courtney says:

    Nuccitelli is just troll-bait for the Guardian.
    The title of his column is “the 97%”. Why choose such a dubious name except to cause disgust and responses? Either people know it refers to a junk survey using junk statistics or they think the column is telling them what they already know – well 97% of people already know.

    The Guardian needs hits and comments to boost ad sales. That is Nuccitelli’s function. He generates heat rather than light and stirs up lots of responses.
    If Nuccitelli was competent people would be reluctant to go up against him. That would defeat the point.

    In showbiz terms, he is a clown.

  21. Man Bearpig says:

    But they will still cling on to their belief like scarab beetles do to camel dung.

  22. Stephen Richards says:

    Roy Spencer was right to say we cannot easily disentangle the anthropogenic from the natural contributions to warming.

    In which case he cannot logically state that anthropogenic warming is real. He is merely guessing. Natural warming exists and AGW may well be real but it remains an educated guess until someone finds a method of separating their signals..

  23. Stephen Richards says:

    pat says:

    May 1, 2013 at 10:38 pm
    given rear-view-mirror is in the post, this might fit here!

    Pat, if you can get UK TV, BBC SW spotlight, a local news program, have been driving a tiny electric car across the sw of UK. Started last night and had to recharge once at a house and second time in a parking spot (wasn’t clear where or cost etc deliberately I suspect). They are due to finish the slot this evening. Should be interesting to see haw the BBC report this one.

  24. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks, Christopher. As always, this was a pleasure to read.

    Regards

  25. thingodonta says:

    Agree.

    I tried to find one of the 8 Nuccitelli points you mention that I agreed with, and couldn’t.

    I then tried to find one of the 60 points from Roy Spencer you mentioned that I disagreed with, and couldn’t, (but I pushed one or two).

    Nuccitelli’s own statements show that not only does he not understand the field of global warming all that well, they also show that he isn’t very intelligent in the first place, and totally out of his depth. This kind of thing-substandard logic- will come back to haunt the climate science community in future, regardless of how the models turn out. (One can see such things more easily if one is on the outside, which includes from hindsight).

    The truism of “No one knows whether it is currently warming, because we only see warming in the rear-view mirror, after it has occurred’ is a good example-it’s too subtle for the average climate researcher to understand, which isn’t saying much. (I also think that trends and rates are two things that are amongst the most misunderstood and misused in all of human knowledge).

  26. steveta_uk says:

    15: Humans could not have been responsible for warming in the 1920s-1930s.

    This, and the ice-melt reports in the 1920′s, are areas where there is possible disagreement. The effects of black carbon (soot) on albedo are still being argued about, so if someone were to show that the pretty dirty industries of the northern hemisphere in the early 20th century did in fact have some effect on artic conditions, I wouldn’t be too surprised.

  27. garymount says:

    steveta_uk says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:48 am
    - – -
    What about naturally occurring forest fires. How would the millions of hectares that burn every year compare to human emissions in those years?

  28. richard verney says:

    David Jones says: May 2, 2013 at 12:06 am

    vukcevic says: May 1, 2013 at 11:29 pm
    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    It has been cold throughout most of Europe, not just the UK.

    Here in Spain, I usually go swimming at Easter (say late March/earlyApril). I have not yet been swimming this year. Just a couple of days ago my pool was only about 15.5degC, today it is up to 18.5degC. Normally at this time of year it would be not less than 25degC. That is a hefty, about 7.5 to 10 degC colder than usual.

    I don’t like swimming unless it is around 25degC and looking at the forecast (the next 10 days are sunny), it is unlikely that my pool will be waarm enough to go swimming before the middle of May earliest, and perhaps not even then.

    We have had no Spring (apart from a few days in early January and the end of January/beginning of February when it was about 25degC it has been cold these first 4 mionths). Temperatures are at least 6 to 7 weeks behind the norm. I hope that this is not a trend to come because it has been very misserable. I for one do not wish to see a return of the climate we had in the 1960s and 70s.

    Glad that I have not been in the UK which, according to CET, has seen a staggering drop of about 1.5deg C in winter temperatures (combined 3 month winter figure) since 2000. Whilst weather is not climate, if CO2 is such a powerful driver, it is counter intuitive that so many record colds should still be set even after 70 years of ‘significant’ manmade CO2 emissions.

    Warming may have paused globally, but as far as the UK is concerned the temperatures are falling. Yearly average down by about 0.5degC from 2000, and winter average down by about 1.5 degC, and yet the government is doing nothing to address the forthcoming energy problems that beset the UK. Spare a thought for them since if the next couple of winters are also cold, they could experience brown outs. May be that is the only way for the politicians to wake up and smell the coffee and get on with shale and stop decommissioning perfectly functioning conventionally powered generators.

  29. Keitho says:

    Thanks Christopher Monckton, this is what is needed.

  30. johnmarshall says:

    One thing we can be certain about, from empirical evidence, is that the presence of so called GHG’s in the atmosphere cools the surface. This is why rainforests are much cooler than deserts of the same latitude. The presence of the GHG water vapour ensures a cooler surface due to reducing insolation and latent heat use in converting liquid water to water vapour.

  31. Henry Galt says:

    Barry Woods says:
    May 1, 2013 at 11:58 pm

    Yeah, about that….

    I can’t go back there (high/angry blood pressure issues) but I lurked for a day and watched the projection, misdirection and insults flow.

    During that time someone posted a back-of-the-envelope calc to show that the claims of “… the heat of 4 Hiroshima bombs a second into the deep ocean… ” fear-mongering would result in 0.00015C per century or such. Now, it may have been per decade, it may have been more, or less zeros after the 0. but still, not a lot to scare anyone with.

  32. negrum says:

    “Also, as Peltier (2009) points out, the GRACE gravitational-anomaly record indicates that sea level has actually fallen in recent years. ”

    Should that not be ” … that sea level rate of rise has actually fallen …” ?

  33. philjourdan says:

    Life is too short to make all the mistakes necessary to learn. The Nuccitellis are necessary to make them for the rest of us, so we can learn from his mistakes. Since his record of mistakes appears to be perfect, not much effort is needed to see that whatever he says, it is bound to be wrong.

  34. RockyRoad says:

    Stephen Richards says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:29 am

    Roy Spencer was right to say we cannot easily disentangle the anthropogenic from the natural contributions to warming.

    In which case he cannot logically state that anthropogenic warming is real. He is merely guessing. Natural warming exists and AGW may well be real but it remains an educated guess until someone finds a method of separating their signals..

    Except recent temperature variations (when they exist) pale in comparison to natural, non-anthropogenic temperature gyrations over the past several glacial cycles. What are the odds that natural cycles flat-lined recently so your precious AGW-inspired warming could be manifest?

    Next to zero would be my educated guess, but it trumps your guess.

  35. HenryP says:

    Richard says
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/01/nuccitelli-gets-a-bruising-by-the-factual-hand-of-monckton/#comment-1294420

    Henry says

    I think most skeptics here on this side, like Lord M. and others are still being nice by claiming a pause in warming. Actually it has been cooling for the past 12 years and IMHO things are not going to get back to warming for quite some time.
    I make this warning here:
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

    Anyway, can I ask you all here a big favor? Could anyone of you please have a look at the above log?

    I want to use this as a communication to all (specifically) religious (e.g Christian & Judaic) media
    (which is why I added some biblical references – never mind those, I just added that in as an aside)
    but I would prefer to first hear all WUWT opinions about it.
    It would be much appreciated if I could have your (honest) opinion about it.
    Thanks!

  36. Stephen Skinner says:

    “31: The CO2-induced reduction in the Earth’s capacity to cool to space has fallen by only 1%”

    If CO2 has increased from around 300ppm to 400ppm then the reduction in capacity to cool is only 100ppm which is 1% of 1% or 0.01%?

  37. Phil Ford says:

    As ever, Christopher Monckton lays out his case eloquently and with incredible clarity. No wonder not one – not even one – of his indoctrinaire warmist critics would dare, ever, to take to a debating platform with him. No wonder the media pretends he doesn’t exist; how swiftly he’d demolish their fragile CAGW house of cards!

    Bravo, Lord Monckton, bravo.

  38. PNik says:

    [snip - stupid, insulting, irrelevant - mod]

  39. I have made this comment before on WUWT, but here I go again. I bow to no man as my Lord, but I bow to Lord Monckton.

    To expand on my brief comment above; In the UK warmists have killed many people from energy poverty. Yet you, Anthony, will not allow me to call the idiots out in the harshest terms. They are KILLING old people and babies. No words or insult I could possibly use are unjustified. They are murderers.

  40. Frank K. says:

    Dana Nuccitelli…[yawwwwwwwwwwwwn]

    Meanwhile…it is May 2, 2013 and…

    Historic Snowstorm Potential for Omaha to Minneapolis
    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/snowstorm-potential-for-omaha/11404310

    (For Dana Nuccitelli – Historic Snowstorm = Record Snow in May = Unprecedented)

  41. C.M. Carmichael says:

    The quickest way to gather a concensus is to appeal to the left hand side of the IQ bell curve. The right side tends to look for and properly evaluate facts. To para phrase the late, great George Carlin, Think about how dumb the average person is about climate issues, now remember half of them are dumber than that.

  42. Bill Illis says:

    It is interesting that people become very popular in the climate science field, the more they distort the facts in order to further the storyline.

    Nuccitelli is just the latest flavor.

    We’ve had Mann, John Cook, Tamino, early Revkin, Chris Mooney, Lewandowsky, Peter Gleick, Joe Romm, William Connolley etc. These people have even received substantial cash awards for their efforts (and the funds would originally come from taxpayers).

    If they spent more time trying to figure out what is really happening instead of 100% of the effort going into just trying to support the storyline, it would be far more productive.

    Billions of dollars and billions of normally-high-functioning braincells wasted.

  43. pottereaton says:

    Like Mark Steyn who is currently fighting the good fight against Michael Mann, Lord Monckton is a polemicist par excellence with a talent for exposing fraud, delusion and buffoonery. A pleasure to read. Spencer/Monckton, 60— pseudoscience, 0

  44. DirkH says:

    People like Nuccitelli and other writers in leftist organs just deliver a pseudoscientific backing for the Malthusian ideology of the left; the readers of these organs are more interested in smashing the banks – or alternatively at least a shop window here and there – , destroying “capitalism” or what goes for it in the West and stealing from “the rich” i.e. working people; they wouldn’t know the difference between IR and the IRA if their life depended on it.

    So Nucci has exactly the right audience. Only problem is that most of them seem to be already on NHS death watches:
    http://ukhousebubble.blogspot.de/2011/09/how-long-can-guardian-survive.html
    (circulation of the guardian; reverse hockeystick)

  45. mpainter says:

    DirkH says: May 2, 2013 at 8:05 am

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Here, with his finger, DirkH touches the nux of the problem. Nuccitelli is more interested in being a “fist” of the revolution than in being regarded as a serious scientist. He fools only the faithful or the gullible, i.e., readers of the Guardian.

  46. PNik says:

    Oh, it is “irrelevant” and “insulting” to point out that the “careful, thoughtful, unpolemical scientist” just so happens to draw his conclusions about climate change from his religious belief that God created us and thus would not allow for dangerous change we could inflict on ourselves? How quaint.

  47. j ferguson says:

    Christopher Monckton:

    Thank you so much for compiling this very useful list.

    best regards,

    john

  48. J. Bob says:

    Some time ago, after reading a number of “green” items on http://www.catholic.org/
    I challenged Marshall Connelly to get the opinion of a real climate scientist, such as Dr. Spencer. Prior to this, there had been sparring on both sides of the AGW issue. Also a number of “facts” from various news organizations, or “scientists”, who had little expertise in climate sciences.

    To my surprise, & Marshall’s credit, he took me up and published a interview with Dr. Spencer..

    Gotta love skeptic science (?) getting involved.

  49. vukcevic says:

    The Guardian objects to having ‘educated and intelligent readers’.
    I put this graph
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Dmax.htm
    on the Nuccitelli’s Guardian blog with this comment:
    “Readers of this blog are educated and intelligent people, so they can make their own mind.”
    Few hours later this note appeared:
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted.

  50. pottereaton says:

    Skeptics like Lord Monckton only have to prove plausible doubt about the AGW hypothesis, while the proponents have to prove something like high probability. Their claims of high probability are exposed as mistaken or miscalculated time and time again on websites like this one and ClimateAudit. Monckton and others are continuing to prove that their doubts are solid and well-founded. That’s why the debate is shifting imperceptibly but most assuredly in the direction of falsification of most of the theory, and in particular the parts that phrophesize catastrophe. I say “prophesize” and not “predict” for good reason since it’s becoming increasingly clear that many of the predictions were based on gut instinct and, dare I say it?, wishful thinking.

  51. Keitho says:

    What is your point? Are you saying that someone who is religious cannot have valid contributions to make in the science debate? Everybody has belief systems of one sort or another but they hold no water in debate about actual facts. Believe or don’t believe but do bring data. Trying to ridicule someones argument on things that don’t form part of the argument is stupid.

    You do realise how absurd you sound don’t you?

  52. Keitho says:

    My comment at 8.44am was directed at PNik by the way.

  53. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Facts trumping beliefs as usual. Dana is deranged if he thinks he can carry on with this/his stupid beliefs much longer. At some stage, surely (?) – these blinkered zealots will have to accept that we simply do not know everything and their precious models are flawed……in the meantime, the squawking and kicking beinf raised by the likes of him and other warmists is kind of like watching the death throes of some snake devouring its own body!

  54. HenryP says:

    J. Bob says
    Gotta love skeptic science (?) getting involved.
    henry says
    True. It is important. And we have to get involved because a cooling future could be a bit of a challenge.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/01/nuccitelli-gets-a-bruising-by-the-factual-hand-of-monckton/#comment-1294522

  55. Michael Snow says:

    Great take away quote from Dr. Spencer on scientists and ‘consensus’: “…a very small number of those scientists know enough about such a detailed subject to have an informed opinion on the subject. Only a few of us actively working on questions “how sensitive is the climate system?” know the dirty details of this business and how much uncertainty there is.”

    And then, of course, there is the Nuticelli with no Ph.D. in anything.

  56. higley7 says:

    “We know that adding CO2 or other greenhouse gases to the air will cause warming,”

    Νο, we do NOT know this at all.
    1) CO2 has a very small IR-absorption band and thus only absorbs a little energy.

    2) Our atmosphere is not a greenhouse and there is no such thing as “trapped” energy. In like fashion “greenhouse gases” do not exist.

    3) The CO2 and water vapor that they claim is warming the Earth’s surface (and then the climate by conduction) is in the upper troposphere which is at -17 deg C. The Earth’s surface averages 15 deg C. Simple, rock-solid basic thermodynamics clearly indicates that a cold object CANNOT warm a hot object. It is simply impossible for radiative energy from the cold energy levels of the upper tropospheric gases to find similar empty energy levels at the Earth’s surface; these energy levels are full and the radiation from altitude will be reflected back to space.

    4) IR radiation passing through the atmosphere is not temperature and it is only in the thin upper atmosphere that Raleigh scattering allows some of the outgoing radiation to be scattered downward. Not only is this gas too thin, but it is too cold to do what they say. It would have to be in the 1000s of deg C to have enough energy to heat the surface at all. -17 deg C does not make the cut.

    5) Computer models that indicate that CO2 causes warming are built to show this and also do not model a planet with night-time, during which CO2 and water vapor, if they act as efficiently as they claim, would actively cool the planet, unimpeded by incoming solar radiation. During the day, these gases would be working at cross-purposes, both absorbing and emitting IR radiation. Thus, during the day, CO2 would be a wash and have no effect.

    6) These same computer models ignore the huge, global heat engine of the water cycle which carries as much as 85% of the energy budget (Trenberth’s missing heat) to altitude where water’s latent heat is released and emitted to space. This is a massive negative feedback mechanism and one that simply cannot be ignored without losing all scientific integrity.

    Thus, the quote at the top is an unbiased assumption that may be a fun discussion question, but it is far from true. CO2 has been much higher than now (as high as 550 ppm, only 398 ppm now) during three periods of the last 200 years and warming was not a problem, except that warming preceded CO2 rises.

  57. Ed_B says:

    HenryP says:
    “Anyway, can I ask you all here a big favor? Could anyone of you please have a look at the above log?”

    I very much liked your global warming essay. I was skeptical about biblical references right away, but yours were apt. All in all, your essay should help open millions of minds if promulgated in church literature. I wish you the best of luck.

  58. Johanus says:

    Looks like Nuccitelli has been nuked by his Lordship!

  59. Gail Combs says:

    M Courtney says:
    May 2, 2013 at 12:15 am

    Nuccitelli is just troll-bait for the Guardian…. In showbiz terms, he is a clown.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Nuccitelli is a clown? Send him over here to Red Neck country and we will teach him how to be a REAL Glo-Bull Warming Clown PHOTO (Hope he runs fast or he weren’t no fun t’all.)

  60. Janice Moore says:

    Re: Higley7 @0951, 5/2/13 — “’We know that adding CO2 or other greenhouse gases to the air will cause warming,’ [quoting Monckton]

    Νο, we do NOT know this at all. … .”

    I was glad to read your well-written post, Higley. I shook my head at that one, too, but, refrained from mentioning it, for it would have taken me a very long time to have come up with a refutation (and it would not have been nearly as good as yours). That I didn’t address what to me was an odd (anomalous, I’d say!), gross, mis-statement from the author, bugged me. So glad you did!

  61. Janice Moore says:

    @ J. Bob re: 0841, 5/2/13, Way to go! We CAN make a difference, each one of us, as he or she has opportunity. THAT was encouraging.

  62. tonyb says:

    Stephen Richards said

    “Pat, if you can get UK TV, BBC SW spotlight, a local news program, have been driving a tiny electric car across the sw of UK. Started last night and had to recharge once at a house and second time in a parking spot (wasn’t clear where or cost etc deliberately I suspect). They are due to finish the slot this evening. Should be interesting to see haw the BBC report this one.”

    By one of lifes great coincidences we were passing the electric car at exactly the time it was being plugged in by-it must be said-a somewhat sceptical ‘spotlight’ presenter.

    It was done outside the ODE cafe here in my home village of Shaldon South Devon. It then had to go up a very steep hill in order to get out of the village and the order of the day were no lights, wipers, heaters, radio etc

    Tonyb

  63. mpcraig says:

    That Dana1981 is a real piece of work. Here’s my own bruising on one particular point. In the SKS article, dana1981 states: “While we didn’t have satellites monitoring Arctic sea ice in the 1920s or 1930s or 1940s, all available data indicate that Arctic sea ice was much, much more extensive during that timeframe than today.”

    That statement is flat out false and can easily be refuted with one post here by somebody named Tony Brown who digs into a fair amount of research about this very question: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

  64. Bart says:

    FTA: “Like many true-believers, he is insufficiently trained in logic to know that absence of correlation between two datasets necessarily indicates absence of causation between them. The sharp fluctuations in global temperature in phase with the 60-year cycles of the ocean oscillations are not correlated with the monotonic changes in CO2 concentration.”

    But, the fluctuations in CO2 concentration are correlated with the global temperature. Which means that the temperature is driving the CO2, and not the reverse.

  65. Just to confirm, in response to one or two comments: Peltier’s 2009 paper does indeed say that the GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites show sea level as having fallen: “Insofar as the raw data are concerned … over the entire area of the global ocean not only is no increase in mass inferred to be occurring, but the mass contained within these basins is actually inferred to be decreasing.”

  66. M Courtney says:

    Gail Combs says:

    May 2, 2013 at 11:16 am
    Amusing but that clown looks more aware of the real world around him than the clowns I meant.

  67. Tonyb says:

    Mpcraig

    Thanks for your reference to my article on arctic ice 1920 to 1940

    Due to space constraints the article was severely pruned. In due course I shall put out the complete version which has approx another 50 science papers. People also send me stuff and provide new references which I shall be following up.

    The official sea ice record for the period needs substantial revision as the ice estimates are way overstated. I think a lot of this can be put down to a general reluctance of scientists to look at older papers, in this case those from 1930 and 1940, a greater availability today of material not available when the sea ice records were created, generally the 1970′s, and an apparent reluctance to use Russian research Of the time due to the ‘cold’ war?

    Tonyb

  68. Phil. says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    Just to confirm, in response to one or two comments: Peltier’s 2009 paper does indeed say that the GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites show sea level as having fallen: “Insofar as the raw data are concerned … over the entire area of the global ocean not only is no increase in mass inferred to be occurring, but the mass contained within these basins is actually inferred to be decreasing.”

    Indeed, but subsequent data shows that there has been significant increase since the minimum in 2010.
    http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/OceanEvents/GRACE_2010-11_GMSL_ENSO_Oct2012

    Which continues:
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

  69. Margaret Smith says:

    There are two 20s and two 55s so there are 62 points made.
    Roy Spencer is a very honest scientist (a quite rare breed) but when dealing with corrupt and dishonest people this can be a great disadvantage – he allows for all the uncertainty but his opponents claim only absolute certainty.

  70. richard says:

    sea-ice melt was no worse now than it had been in the 1920s and 1930s, when explorers had reported unprecedented warming and loss of sea ice in the Arctic.

    we know from ships logs from 1818 – 1856 that the arctic sea ice was about the same as today.

    http://seagrant.uaf.edu/nosb/2005/resources/arctic-explorers.pdf

  71. Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
    This is a very good article!

  72. The Galileo Movement held John Cook accountable by asking him for empirical scientific evidence that HUMAN CO2 caused Earth’s latest modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended in 1998.

    His response? Jokes to avoid answering.

    No one at Skeptical ‘Science’ could provide any empirical scientific evidence of human warming.

    He no longer posts on TGM FaceBook. No fun.

  73. Adrian O says:

    GUARDIAN LIMITS or
    SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF AGW FEAR

    I went recently, after a two year break, to see and comment in the climate section of The Guardian.
    I took my PhD at Warwick U, UK and I used to read it.

    The Guardian has a brand new section called 97% and lead by Dana Nucitelli from “skeptical science”.

    I will let you guess whether the idea is whether climate science should be a matter of debate like modern science

    Or whether, like in medieval times, people should accept the opinions of 97% of a group of 72 fellows, who answered yes when asked a vague question like “do you believe in global warming” a few years back.

    The point of the blog is that the lack of warming is in fact an accelerated warming over the last 15 years

    But that all the heat decided in 1998 to go in the deep ocean, where measurements are scarce

    Nothing was observed between 0-700 m depth, making you wonder how and why that heat made it there, warming fish by 0.01C

    *

    There is some progress.

    Two years ago, even linking to NOAA showing data put you on a probation list, virtually taking you out of the discussion.

    Now any data and opinions related to climate are OK.

    The thing which, as I found out, gets you eliminated for good is the slightest connection between AGW and the doubling of energy costs needed to fight it.

    There is nothing to it!

    As said the CEO of 2 renewables firms who lead the inquiry into the leaked emails,

    When he decided for expediency not to look at those emails.

    No Siree!

  74. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    “We know that adding CO2 or other greenhouse gases to the air will cause warming, but that cannot prevent natural factors from causing a countervailing cooling from time to time”

    Eh? So you agree with Nuccitelli?

    “Next, Nuccitelli attacks Roy Spencer for having said it was entirely possible that summer sea-ice melt was no worse now than it had been in the 1920s and 1930s, when explorers had reported unprecedented warming and loss of sea ice in the Arctic.

    Yet he fails to admit that the reports – for instance, an often-quoted report from 1922 about the unprecedented Arctic warming and loss of sea ice observed by meteorologists – support what Roy Spencer says and are inconsistent with the largely speculative results in the various papers suggesting sea ice extent scarcely changed until it began to decline in the 1970s.”

    So how many of those explorers of the 20s and 30s made it through the east and west arctic routes to Asia that are now being explored regularly (and there is a growing shipping lane north of Russia)?

    “Nuccitelli then turns to the embarrassing increase in Antarctic sea-ice extent mentioned by Roy Spencer, and produces various papers saying more sea-ice in Antarctica is what we should expect from global warming”

    Yes, by referring to a paper from 1992! So much for climate science not being able to predict anything….

    Btw, I am not going to discuss 60 points, I leave that to the sceptical audience here. They will see each point critically though fair, I am sure! Need some sleep now.

  75. Janice Moore says:

    Glad to see you are back, R. Eschhaus. Sleep well.

  76. You are playing hard to get Janice. I hope you are having as much fun with this online “romance” as I am. Just to tell you where I am coming from, I have made a point of showing my significant other the thread from a few days ago. She would like to meet you too. Good! Maybe she is worried. Worried women provide better sex.

    If the above doesn’t get me snipped I’ll try again. The greens kill people. The ban of DDT has killed something like 20 to 200 million ( depends on which estimate you believe) African children. Helpless children. The carnage is so severe that a number of badly functioning African governments have reinstituted the use of DDT. No name I can call these so called people (the greenies) is vile enough

  77. Brian H says:

    Illustrating how loudly fools spout nonsense if they feel the crowd is on their side. Gut-churning to observe, much less analyse. You have a strong stomach, Chris!

  78. jdseanjd says:

    Thank you Christopher Monckton of Brenchley for a most enjoyable & informative post.
    The comments, as usual, were equally good. My hat’s off to you all.

    Stan Stendera hi.
    I’ve been keeping that DDT hate in my back pocket, thanks for bringing it out, because at bottom this global warming/climate change scam is a ploy aimed at establishing one world govt & slashing world population numbers: Wildavsky, Aaron. But is it true? A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994 (or 1995). pages 55-80 deal with DDT. My calculations show ~51 million deaths since 1972. H/T Michael Crichton, his novel: State of Fear. p 579, a great start for a non scientist like myself to learn about global warming.

    These “Green” eco-marxists are murderous people.

    The CO2 producers they’re after is us.

    Regarding The Guardian Newspaper, I can’t get a remark posted on there.
    A severe aversion to reality?

  79. mpcraig says:

    Tonyb says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    I kinda feel like a heel now for my wording “some guy named Tony Brown”. My intent was that it doesn’t matter who did the research, the work stands on it’s own.

  80. Janice Moore says:

    Mr. Stendera,

    Please tell your lovely lady that she has nothing to worry about.

    The avoidable genocide of the DDT lie is a heinous tragedy. Millions of African babies dying needlessly does not move the politicians, most now members of the Cult of Climatology. Their consciences are seared and they have sold their souls for money and power. I don’t think there is an organized conspiracy. I think the perpetrators are a bunch of fools all infected with the same disease.

    Janice

  81. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    Good to see you again Janice!

    Is Stan correct and you are playing hard to get?

    Kisses ;)

  82. jdseanjd says:

    Janice Moore hi.

    I do see an organised conspiracy, & it’s called UN Agenda 21.

    This was born out of 1970′s ‘we’re all doomed publications’ such as “A Blueprint for Survival”, which I read in 1972 as a 19 year old student. “….the industrial way of life….is unsustainable.” is part of it’s unforgettable opening first sentence. This booklet built upon the fraudulent work of Rachel Carson in her 1962 book “A Silent Spring”. That gave birth to the Malthusian Club of Rome, & it’s Eugenicist enthusiasts such as Sir Julian Huxley.

    Not an unfortunate tragedy, a planned genocide.

    Google agenda 21 for dummies, a good place to start.

  83. Kajajuk says:

    60 to 0; really?
    so Nutty was contrary to all 60.

    I did enjoy the article, exaggeration aside.

  84. Margaret Hardman says:

    [snip - off topic and irrelevant -mod]

  85. Margaret Hardman says:

    Can I use this article as a written version of the Gish Gallop to show my critical thinking students how enough lies, exaggerations and falsehoods crammed into a small enough space is taken by some to be sufficient evidence of winning an argument?

    REPLY: Sure, but be careful, some of your students might also learn something in the process (i.e. that their teacher is biased) – Anthony

  86. Kajajuk:

    Your post at May 4, 2013 at 2:28 pm says in total

    60 to 0; really?
    so Nutty was contrary to all 60.

    I did enjoy the article, exaggeration aside.

    “Exaggeration”? Really? What would that be then?

    Unless of course you see ‘Nutty’ was demolished on all 60 points and the hint at some unspecified “exaggeration” was the best damage limitation you could imagine?

    Richard

  87. HenryP says:

    Seeing as that Dana and his friends censored (i.e. deleted) my comments on their Guarded website I just wanted to get a final word of warning in here.

    I determined in three different ways that the beginning of (a part of ) warming (cycle) started around 1951 and the cooling part of that cycle started around 1995. This is looking at energy-in.
    Average temp. on earth will lag a bit. But, clearly you can see that the trend is negative for the past 12 years, see here

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    From the above simple compilation of linear trends in these 4 major global data sets, you can also see that before 2000 we were still warming and that after 2000 we started cooling….

    The results of my investigations
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
    suggest that this cooling will continue. Among a number of different of solar cycles, we are also in a 88 year solar / weather cycle, namely the Gleissberg cycle. To calculate where we are on that cycle is quite simple: 2013 – 88 = 1925.

    Now I said, and I quote: “So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.”
    I remembered something of the 1930′s dust bowls and looked it up for you. We are not that many years away from this. Check this study:

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
    To quote from the above study:
    “The Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West”
    end quote

    That looks pretty serious to me. Now I never said things will become as catastrophic as that, but due to the droughts it could become a bit challenging in the years ahead. Better to know these things beforehand. However, do remember that this climate change that is coming will be due to natural global cooling, not global warming. Mark my words.

  88. Margaret Hardman says:

    Antony, in reply to my earlier comment, my students might learn something but of course I don’t have to tell them what it is. They can make up their own minds. We all have biases after all. The true act of humility is to acknowledge one’s own.

    By the way, my first, deleted (sorry, in words used here, censored) comment was, of course, relevant. Roy Spencer supports intelligent design and therefore gives an indication of his ability to handle and understand scientific information. I realise that wasn’t obvious so I have made it so.

  89. Margaret Hardman:

    In your post at May 5, 2013 at 2:28 pm you say

    Roy Spencer supports intelligent design and therefore gives an indication of his ability to handle and understand scientific information. I realise that wasn’t obvious so I have made it so.

    No, it is not obvious because it is not true.
    His religious beliefs have no relevance of any kind to his ability to handle and understand scientific information.

    Your statement only demonstrates your inability to understand that there is more than one way to process information: religion and science are not the same thing. That you may confuse them is not a justification for your asserting that he does (and he does not).

    I suggest that you learn about logical fallacies taking especial note of ‘Straw Man’ and ‘Tu Quoque’.

    Richard

  90. Margaret Hardman says:

    I understood that those that believe in intelligent design claim that it is science. Therefore my point remains valid. If you wish to believe that it is a religious viewpoint, Richard, then you are totally in agreement with the scientific consensus. I know the logical fallacies you remind me of, however, having read of Spencer’s views on many things I feel my point remains valid. His judgement of scientific matters, especially when outside his own field, is flawed.

  91. Margaret Hardman:

    Thankyou for your reply to me at May 6, 2013 at 4:35 am.

    Climate science IS Roy Spencer’s “own field”.

    I strongly suggest to you that you would be wise to take note of the warning to you by Anthony Watts at May 5, 2013 at 1:09 am. Your students would not reveal to you if that were their immediate learning, and many will recognise the truth of it after having left education and joined the ‘real world’.

    Your bias screams from your every post in this thread. I commend you to consider if it is showing in your other activities. Sadly, I suspect your bias is so great that it may prevent you making such a consideration.

    Richard

  92. Margaret Hardman says:

    Richard

    I accept I am wrong in my comment about Dr Spencer being outside his field.

    In answer to the accusations of bias, of course I am. Perhaps that is a failing but since one apparently only ever sees bias in others then my road to Damascus moment makes me weak, not strong. However, I have a lengthy personal history in scepticism, going back more than 20 years on a number of subjects. I am also pedagogically aware enough to know that I don’t tell my students what I believe because they have a right to make up their own minds. It is called critical thinking. I think my students will pick up that Monckton’s points 9 and 10 are mutually exclusive (unless “seems” means something different to the established consensus meaning of the word).

    I don’t tell my students my political inclinations or religious affiliations. I don’t tell them my football team or favourite singer. I trust them to use the skills I aim to impart to them to make their own decisions. They don’t always agree with me but if they can show good and consistent use of the cognitive skills They have been taught then I have succeeded in my task.

  93. Margaret Hardman:

    Thankyou for your post addressed to me at May 6, 2013 at 11:08 am.

    I was especially pleased to read your having written so all – not merely me – can see

    I don’t tell my students my political inclinations or religious affiliations. I don’t tell them my football team or favourite singer. I trust them to use the skills I aim to impart to them to make their own decisions. They don’t always agree with me but if they can show good and consistent use of the cognitive skills They have been taught then I have succeeded in my task.

    Indeed, that is the essence of education.

    My only knowledge of you is what you have revealed in your posts in this thread. And I remain with two concerns.

    In your post I am answering you say

    I am also pedagogically aware enough to know that I don’t tell my students what I believe because they have a right to make up their own minds. It is called critical thinking. I think my students will pick up that Monckton’s points 9 and 10 are mutually exclusive (unless “seems” means something different to the established consensus meaning of the word).

    But your claim of “points 9 and 10 are mutually exclusive” refutes your claim “critical thinking” because they are consistent and NOT mutually exclusive.

    Those points are

    9: No one knows whether it is currently warming.
    10: Warming seems to have stopped about 15 years ago.

    Point 10 is understated because there has been no global warming or global cooling discernible at 95% confidence for at least the last 16 years according to all the pertinent data sets. In plain language, that means global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.

    And Monckton explains how and why that is completely consistent with his point 9 when he writes

    Nuccitelli begins by condemning Roy Spencer for saying, “No one knows whether it is currently warming, because we only see warming in the rear-view mirror, after it has occurred.” This truism is characteristic of Roy, who gently nudges the language of climate science in the direction of greater rigor. One cannot measure that it is warming, only that it has warmed.

    So, (point 9) “no one knows whether it is currently warming” because it is not possible to know that.
    however,
    (point 10) “warming seems to have stopped about 15 years ago” is also true because there has been no discernible global warming (at 95% confidence) for the last 15 years but there was previously.

    And this brings me to my other concern which is the subject of your first posts here. In them you smeared Roy Spencer. That touched a nerve because what you wrote echoed an email I had received from a character called John O’Sullivan. He, too, falsely accused Monckton of appealing to authority in the form of Spencer, and he also smeared Spencer, and he – like you – made no other refutation of Monckton’s arguments.

    The coincidence in time and the similarity of your post and his email raised my hackles. I replied to his email and he gave a scurrilous reply which I have copied to Roy Spencer, Christopher Monckton and Anthony Watts together with my response to it.

    In that response I pointed out to O’Sullivan that smears of me are unpleasant but smears of people I admire are intolerable. And I pointed out that I had deliberately ignored his cowardly demand that his email not be copied.

    Perhaps your posts here were not developmental on the circular email from O’Sullivan, but I find them to be equally distasteful.

    Richard

  94. Margaret Hardman says:

    Richard

    For the sake of clarity, I have no connection with John O’Sullivan. I have not heard of him or anything about an email. I thought I was raising a valid point about scientific credibility supported by the fact that Dr Spencer signed an evangelical declaration on climate change, thereby making his religious views part of his climate science.

    As for points 9 and 10, I could use the analogy of a car accelerating to point out that your defence of point 9 is semantic. I expect we shall not agree on that point so I shall leave it there. You are free to have the last word if you wish.

  95. Kajajuk says:

    steveta_uk says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:48 am
    15: Humans could not have been responsible for warming in the 1920s-1930s.

    This, and the ice-melt reports in the 1920′s, are areas where there is possible disagreement. The effects of black carbon (soot) on albedo are still being argued about, so if someone were to show that the pretty dirty industries of the northern hemisphere in the early 20th century did in fact have some effect on artic conditions, I wouldn’t be too surprised.
    ————————————-
    Nor i, how long was coal a steaming, WW I a rockin’?
    \————————————
    20: Sea levels have increased.
    => thinks sea levels have decreased; no kidding

    54: Roy Spencer has been wrong many times.
    => righty right be Roy many a time

    29: We have no means of knowing whether the oceans are absorbing all of the warming caused by us. 30: We have no means of knowing whether the oceans will continue to absorb all of the warming caused by us.
    =?^2
    41: The consensus is only that humans are contributing to warming
    =>Nutty is of the contrary, really…

    Nah Nah a boo boo!

Comments are closed.