Guest essay by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Weatherbell Analytics
National Academies of Science defines a scientific theory as
“a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
Dr Richard Feynman, Cornell Physicist in a lecture explained how theorys that failed the test of data or experiment are falsified (“wrong”) and must be discarded.
Global Warming Theory Has Failed
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming. The upward trends since 1979 continues.
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing. Fires have declined.
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.
(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years
(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.
(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998
(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” – is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.
(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.
Given the failures of global warming science, just a few mentioned here, the most disreputable alarmists like Oreskes, Cook and Trenberth and the demagogue party have tried to convince the uniformed by using the consensus argument. See the latest failed attempt here. It was also described on Forbes here.
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology
Related articles
- Benchmarking IPCC’s warming predictions (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Schellnhuber Slips, Confirms Ocean Cycles Do Play A Major Role, Yet Hasn’t Added Them To Climate Models (notrickszone.com)
- To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here (forbes.com)
Said this before but worth repeating here: “A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.” Martin Luther King If you have the proper science, you can mould consensus, if you don’t you simply rely on whatever “public’ consensus exist with all its biases, prejudices, misinformation, and systemic beliefs.
Any wonder that Al Gore and Michael Mann won’t debate!
Great work Joseph. Thank you for putting this together.
Please check this sentence for meaning:
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer.
Please check typo of the word “the” in #20
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP
Here is a quote descibing many a “scientist” that still supports global warming. “He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts…for support rather than illumination.”
– Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
We must take care not to do the same as some of our skeptics have this propensity as well.
Reblogged this on danmillerinpanama and commented:
An excellent summary of the man-made global warming fiasco. President Obama and friends are charter members of the brave new consensus club demanding that “deniers” be held accountable. This is how Organizing for Action’s Climate change Day of Action report I received recently begins:
Oh well.
Science is the cover for the real agenda. Control the flow of energy. Reward your supporters and punish your enemies.
Science is based on the explanation of processes involved in the production of experimental evidence. From the very beginning, this was a “solution” to a problem. The problem was anything, and everything, that was needed, to implement the solution.
Doug Allen says
“Any wonder that Al Gore and Michael Mann won’t debate!”
_________________________________________
I have no doubt that Al Gore and Michael Mann would love to debate each other. It’s the only debate they would win.
Of all the institutions with which Feynman was associated, why single out Cornell? He taught there for five years. He was an MIT undergrad & Princeton PhD, but worked longest at Cal Tech.
It was there that in 1974, Feynman delivered a commencement address on the topic of cargo cult science. CCS has the semblance of science, but is only pseudoscience due to a lack of “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty” on the part of the scientist. He instructed the graduating class that “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.”
Sad that his biographer James Gleick suffers the ignominy of being the brother of shameless fraudster Peter.
I’ve got 500 dollars to help fund a well designed, statistically significant survey with meaningful definitions to counter this 97 percent b.s. We’re winning on the science but this is also about politics and P.R.
Anthony, would you be willing to consider something like this? There’s no doubt in my mind there are enough skeptics out there who’d be willing to dig deep to fund such an enterprise.
If you accept that the GHE has failed ALL tests, then surely you must accept that the GHE is a fiction, which is what the PSI group of scientists have been saying all along.
And, even as we speak, Pierre Gosselin’s No Tricks Zone blogged today that, “The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE [Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie]) based in Germany has issued a three-part rebuttal* to the German Ministry of Environment’s alarmist pamphlet…”
Pierre’s blog contains the summary of the third part translated , ” In the last of the three-part series rebutting the scientific claims and the assertions of the made by the UBA, EIKE sums up as follows:
“The claim made by the UBA over the supposed scientific consensus of dangerous climate damage caused by CO2 is ABSURD, BASELESS AND FALSE!”
Love to see a translation of the information leading up to that statement. Maybe the wheels of the AGW bandwagon are really coming off the vehicle!
*In German [unfortunately], issued June 5 and found at http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/das-umweltbundesamt-staatlich-verordnete-klima-doktrin-faktencheck-zur-uba-broschuere-und-sie-erwaermt-sich-doch-letzter-teil/ .
Simon C-S says (June 5, 2013 at 12:25 pm): “If you accept that the GHE has failed ALL tests…”
Sorry, I missed the part where the so-called GHE “failed all tests”. Could you point it out, please?
Gary,
The whole AGW/CAGW business is grounded in and synonymous with the GHE. Without the claimed CO2 GHE there would be no claimed (C)AGW. If AGW has failed, then GHE has, they cannot be separated.
It’s strange therefore that Anthony is vigorously defending the GHE yet proclaiming AGW has failed, it just doesn’t add up. It is PSI who have the line that maintains an integrity, that BOTH the GHE and CAGW claims have failed, with good, robust physical explanations why.
May I add:
CO2AGW scientists predict positive water vapor feedback. Specific humidity has declined since 1980, falsifying the theory.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/climate-update-earths-atmosphere-holding-more-water-or-something
MichaelS says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Doug Allen says
“Any wonder that Al Gore and Michael Mann won’t debate!”
_________________________________________
I have no doubt that Al Gore and Michael Mann would love to debate each other. It’s the only debate they would win.
You’re both being unfair. They seem like a right pair of mass debaters to me.
I just posted this on Blackboard, but it looks like this thread is perhaps more relevant.
I regularly read WUWT, Blackboard, SkS, and Mother Jones (just the environmental section) but I only comment when 1) I know (or at least think I do) something about the subject and/or the discussion focuses on some specific data and it involves either physics, data interpretation, or rarely, scientific method and 2) I think I have an original thought to contribute. This comment is more to ask a question than comment.
I have noticed on SkS and MJ that articles on climate change focusing on surface or atmospheric temperature rise have declined or almost vanished, perhaps due to the distinct possibility it may not be happening in accord with some expectations. The focus seems to have shifted to other things being the clear indicators of global warming: rising ocean heat content, particularly 0-700 m depth, sea ice variability, weather “extremes,” and “consensus” although it is still unclear to me exactly how the consensus view is defined, except perhaps that a “consensuser” knows it when he/she sees it. I have looked at the data for, and have (at least think I do) a rudimentary understanding of, most things listed above except ocean heat content.
So, finally, my question: can anyone point me to a decent review article(s) on ocean heat content with respect to historical record, forcings (either as source or sink), and current understanding in the context of AGW etc? I have looked at the data and some of the sources on the ocean page here but I have a lot to learn.
As an aside, Brandon Shollenberger deserves praise for his patience and steadfast adherence to reasoned discussion. I read a discussion thread on SkS recently in which he was roundly and repeatedly insulted and snipped by commenters and moderators but he admirably maintained a high level of discussion. I had a similar experience on MJ on the topic of arctic sea ice extent data and can only admire Brandon’s mindfulness.
Thanks.
Simon C-S says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:25 pm
“If you accept that the GHE has failed ALL tests, then surely you must accept that the GHE is a fiction, which is what the PSI group of scientists have been saying all along.”
The GHE is not the theory of CO2AGW.
All other things being equal, an increase in CO2 would lead to a slight warming (because “all other things being equal” means there is no positive water vapor feedback). This is the CO2 GHE at work.
The problem for climate science is that all other things are NOT equal as the climate is a complex non linear chaotic feedback system with more unknown mechanisms than any GCM has parameters.
They certainly have failed many of the tests like NH declining snow, missing hotspot etc. yet they cling on and refuse to see it. I said a few years back that one day we would one day see who the real ‘deniers’ are. How much longer can they continue this farce.
pokerguy says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:24 pm
“I’ve got 500 dollars to help fund a well designed, statistically significant survey with meaningful definitions to counter this 97 percent b.s. We’re winning on the science but this is also about politics and P.R.
Anthony, would you be willing to consider something like this? There’s no doubt in my mind there are enough skeptics out there who’d be willing to dig deep to fund such an enterprise.”
Anyone who still believes that the media would give him the same sort of exposure they give to crooks like Cartoonist Cook and Scientologist Nuccitelli must be living under a rock.
My understanding is that post 1990 climatologists had to agree with the warmist theory from the start in order to be accepted in their programs. I don’t remember exactly where I heard that, but it was already an intuitive feeling of mine. If anyone has anything anecdotal or otherwise to back up the point about climatologists had to agree with the warmists to get accepted, please add it here. Thanks!
If true this means that * the game is rigged * from the start such that nearly all climatologists would take the warmist line without question, and also it means that climatologists are in effect not acting as scientists but politicians or propagandists. And obviously the 97% agreement among climatologists would mean essentially nothing. But even among climatologists this 97% was from a cherry-picked group of respondents that only agreed man had “some role” in climate change. Look at other scientists, like geologists, and especially meteorologists, for a completely different picture, and it’s not a consensus picture.
Maybe it’s time for co-ordinated, full-on assault on the media to absolutely focus on the totally and repeatedly failed science of cagw theory?
Set it out in a similar way to how Joe has done, every damn claim that alarmists have made.
Knock those down that fail the evidence test.
Acknowledge those that PASS any evidence tests.
Likewise those that are marginal. That gains credibility. (One of the problems here is that each side seems to adopt a 100% win attitude on every point. That’s unrealistic, is it not? Unless each agw point really does fail on evidence, of course…)
Serious, world-class scientists to lead the charge.
Every sceptic website to put their name to it.
Multiple influential individuals too.
Just set it all out. The Mother of all Challenges.
Challenge them to counter the observed evidence. We in the UK came within 7-8 votes of economic suicide last night. It’s too close for comfort. These stupid alarmists must be smashed once and for all.
Reblogged this on Johnsono ne'Blog'as.
A quote from Richard Feynman:
“[I]f you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
“In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”
David, UK says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:53 pm
MichaelS says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Doug Allen says
“Any wonder that Al Gore and Michael Mann won’t debate!”
_________________________________________
I have no doubt that Al Gore and Michael Mann would love to debate each other. It’s the only debate they would win.
You’re both being unfair. They seem like a right pair of mass debaters to me.
Well, maybe “half-mass” debaters anyway.
🙂
Ok, seriously, since the supposed science of CAGW by CO2 continues to be shown to be false,
can we call folks who keep promoting CAGW by CO2 as “science” fraudsters?
With a bit of language cleanup such as pointed out above, and probably some comsolidation of points, and graphs and charts illustrating at least some of those points, this would make a fine general circulation all round position paper. Worth a shot.
David, UK says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:53 pm
“You’re both being unfair. They seem like a right pair of mass debaters to me.”
You came close to owing me a new keyboard on that one!
This is a bit rough – several folks writing thoughts on bar napkins. Write. Edit. Repeat.
See comments by Ben and milo for examples.
Then there are the several references to the PDO. I have the impression that Joseph D. and buddy Joe B. do not have a good grasp of this phenomenon. Item #23 says: “Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia.” (Badly written but not the main issue.) One ought to have a recognized mechanism for the PDO signal that connects that mechanism to rainfall in Australia for this statement to be useful. While there is a PDO index that might correlate with Australian rainfall (or not, I have no idea), and there may be something like the PDO concept in the southern Pacific Ocean that might be connected to the ENSO agents, the what, where, and how seem to be missing.
Consider #13: “ Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen ”
Turn this around and it says ‘during strong El Nino and La Nina, trends are seen.’
Is this the intended meaning? If so, what trends are there?
Many years ago I was told that if I did not want to discuss and defend a statement I should not bring it up. While I appreciate the intent of Mr. D’Aleo’s posting, It needs work.
When, in 2011, scientists at CERN reported seeing neutrinos travelling faster than light, there was a buzz of excitement. I imagine that most scientists suspected an error but they went to look and, even though it would have overturned 100 years of theory and experiment, there was some genuine excitement at the thought of something new. Of course it turned out to be the result of several errors but, while being investigated, it gave us a glimpse of what real science looks like. No one was accused of being an Einstein denier and there was no attempt to supress or hide this dangerous heresy. These real scientists did not behave as though they knew the correct answer and as if their job was simply to educate the uninitiated, they set about discovering the truth.
When I see a figure like this 97% consensus I am not surprised because it is 97% of a club whose entry requirement is being a believer. The only other place we ever see these sorts of levels of agreement is in the election of banana republic dictators. The dissenting 3% is more surprising.
“Anyone who still believes that the media would give him the same sort of exposure they give to crooks like Cartoonist Cook and Scientologist Nuccitelli must be living under a rock.”
Some of you guys are unbelievable defeatist. Much, much easier to bitch and moan about those crooked warmists and the big bad MSM. I’m not living under a rock. To the contrary. This is something solid, honest, and real that we could all pitch in and accomplish if we put our minds to it.
It was put very elegantly by Albert Einstein. When he was told that 100 Nazi scientists had declared that his Theory of Relativity was wrong because it was formulated by a Jew, he replied “If I were wrong, one would be enough.”
pokerguy says (June 5, 2013 at 2:28 pm): “This is something solid, honest, and real that we could all pitch in and accomplish if we put our minds to it.”
But is it the best use of our time and money?
I’m saving this list as a field guide for what bad science looks like and as it unfolds toward oblivion.
‘ pokerguy says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:24 pm
I’ve got 500 dollars to help fund a well designed, statistically significant survey with meaningful definitions to counter this 97 percent b.s. We’re winning on the science but this is also about politics and P.R.’
On another thread here I have proposed some of my ideas about the required meta analysis. It may become a ‘Donna LF’ project. Otherwise it should be done by an academic group. Think about recent research into peer review.. The bottle neck consists of the cooperation of some experts or reviewers. In case of a low budget project I am available for free to assist in rater reliability issues.
pokerguy says:
June 5, 2013 at 2:28 pm
“Some of you guys are unbelievable defeatist. Much, much easier to bitch and moan about those crooked warmists and the big bad MSM. I’m not living under a rock. To the contrary. This is something solid, honest, and real that we could all pitch in and accomplish if we put our minds to it.”
It will be ignored by the media. Warmism will vanish by itself as it becomes less and less useful as the climate refuses to warm. Then, a new common enemy of humanity will be created – yes you guessed it – antropogenic Global Cooling. I’ll give you a preview: Scientists have a new, groundbreaking theory; excess CO2 radiates too much IR from the stratosphere to space. According models will be built; 97% of scientists will agree that that is what is really going on, and that we must do something about it; preferrably hand over all power to the UN.
Timeline of the switches from a warming to a cooling panic:
http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/
When you can use the warming phase to accomplish your political goals, surely nothing stops you from using the cooling phase for the same. Science is the willing whore; bought and paid for.
(3) … This suggests GHG theory [is] wrong,… ” [D’Aleo]
That statement in the above EXCELLENT article does not say, as Simon C-S mischaracterizes it as saying (at 12:25PM today), “the GHE has failed ALL tests… .”
[assuming GHG and GHE refer to the same theory]
How and to what extent GHG theory is wrong is not discussed.
[Credit to: Gary Hladick for raising this issue and Dirk H for soundly expounding on it above]
If you accept that the GHE has failed ALL tests, then surely you must accept that the GHE is a fiction, which is what the PSI group of scientists have been saying all along.
There is no PSI “group of scientists”. Also, the GHE hasn’t failed all tests. The assertion of a strong positive feedback to the CO_2 linked component of the GHE has taken a bit of a battering and is almost certainly false, but that doesn’t mean that any of the thermodynamically incompetent assertions of the PSI nuts are worth the electrons required to form the image of their words on any screen. And electrons are pretty cheap.
Did you ever wonder why Anthony, and I, and Roy Spencer, and Dick Lindzen, and many others who actually have a clue about physics and meteorology spend an entirely disproportionate time bashing PSI’s absolutely absurd claims and their bad science just so that they might, one day, stop being an active embarrassment to the entire skeptical community and an active obstacle to its arguments?
So just to be entirely clear, the atmosphere is composed of a number of gases in various concentrations. Those gas atoms and molecules without the slightest doubt in the world absorb, emit, and scatter electromagnetic radiation in accord with the laws of quantum electrodynamics (the actual theory in physics that the aforementioned and revered Richard Feynman helped to invent). Experimental measurement of this radiation is straightforward — not only can one measure its integrated intensity in any given direction, one can measure its intensity as a function of frequency/wavelength across the entire IR through UV spectrum (and beyond on both ends, but this is the important part as far as climate is concerned).
You can walk outdoors any day of the week, any time of day or night, and point a suitable spectrometer up, and directly observe the so-called “downwelling” radiation coming from the atmosphere. One can plot its spectrum, and from the spectrum make straightforward inferences about the gases that are emitting it and the temperature (range) at which the emission occurs. You can orbit the earth any day of the week, any time of (local) day or night, and point a suitable spectrometer down, and directly observe the outgoing radiation in all frequencies/wavelengths from the entire column of matter from the ground to the detector. From this spectrum, one can make inferences concerning the gas molecules that emit it and their temperature. By comparing the two at the same place and time (especially at night, so that the measurements contain no component from direct solar radiation), one can directly observe the atmospheric radiation effect, a.k.a. the greenhouse effect in action.
That is why no actual scientist is going to assert that it doesn’t exist. It’s like asserting that the sun doesn’t exist, or that electrons don’t exist, or that gravity doesn’t exist. Existence is a long standing proven fact. What matters now are the details of the effect as being part of the energy flow in a dynamical open system, one that is startlingly complex and difficult to simplify to something computable and understandable. As perfectly reputable physicists have perfectly reasonably suggested, in the current state of the climate (which depends on many things including the last few hundred or thousand years of climate history) either a) hitherto ignored physics, e.g. Svensmark’s assertions about radiation and solar state have a sufficiently great influence on the climate that they can cancel, enhance, or confound simple CO_2 plus feedback models; b) the feedbacks used in these models are just plain wrong, in particular the assertions made about water, to the point where feedback could be strictly negative, that is, resisting perturbations due to variation in the CO_2 concentration; c) other gases associated with civilization and vulcanism, e.g. sulphates, that are known to contribute to the total atmospheric radiative effect with a negative sign (net cooling) are increasing at rates that equal or exceed that of CO_2 again cancelling all or part of the expected warming.
None of these are PSI suggestions or assertions, and all of them are subject to observation and falsification. Nor are they mutually exclusive — we could be seeing modulation of any expected CO_2 — linked warming from all three at once, with nonlinear coupling and further feedbacks. Or none of them. None of these theories assert that the GHE doesn’t exist, only that it is a lot more complicated than the GCMs would have it, quite possibly complicated enough so that CO_2 increases in the current state of the climate have little or no effect. That doesn’t mean that CO_2 isn’t an important contributor to the total GHE that lifts the Earth from the vacuum greybody temperature one would expect in the absence of any atmospheric absorption in the LWIR bands associated with its mean temperature range.
rgb
Simon C-S says (June 5, 2013 at 2:06 pm): “The whole AGW/CAGW business is grounded in and synonymous with the GHE.”
Ah, I see. So the article never explicitly trashed the so-called GHE, you just “read between the lines”, so to speak. Of course, the danger of reading between the lines is that sometimes one reads what isn’t actually there.
“Without the claimed CO2 GHE there would be no claimed (C)AGW.”
True.
“If AGW has failed, then GHE has, they cannot be separated.”
False logic. The statement “if A, then B” is not equivalent to “if no B, then no A”. Are PSI’s “robust physical explanations” based on this kind of thinking?.
What? Global Warming theory isn’t true?
Why didn’t somebody tell me?
It’s strange therefore that Anthony is vigorously defending the GHE yet proclaiming AGW has failed, it just doesn’t add up. It is PSI who have the line that maintains an integrity, that BOTH the GHE and CAGW claims have failed, with good, robust physical explanations why.
Surely you must be joking. State one, single “good, robust physical explanation” asserted by the PSI for why the GHE doesn’t exist. Be prepared to defend the assertion, as I am rather well prepared to eat any defense alive using nothing but actually valid physics. I’m reasonably well prepared to do the latter being as how I’m a physicist, I have Grant Petty’s book about 20 feet away, have written my own introductory physics and graduate electrodynamics textbooks, and actually have a clue as to what the first and second laws of thermodynamics are and how they work.
One would think that with the direct experimental proof Anthony showed the world (on youtube, none the less) that their tired, stupid, invalid arguments could finally be abandoned, but it is just like trying to get a religious believer to change their religious beliefs — not even direct spectrographs of the GHE contained (for example) in Petty’s book or here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
can convince a PSI member or one of their religious followers, any more than Galileo’s persecutors in the Catholic Church were willing to actually look through one of his telescopes.
Why believe your own eyes? Please, go on, help the PSI continue to give all the serious scientists who are climate skeptics an extra barrier to overcome by telling people to take their nonsense seriously.
rgb
Reblogged this on Power To The People.
Gary Hladik says (June 5, 2013 at 4:04 pm): “The statement “if A, then B” is not equivalent to “if no B, then no A”.
OK, I put my foot in it. 🙁 What I should have written was,
The statement “if A and B, then C” is not equivalent to “if no C, then no A”. Fortunately RGB explained it far better than I could.
*sigh* When will I learn that I just can’t multi-tas–Hey, look! A new article on WUWT!
🙂
Re: Simon says at 2:06PM, “If AGW has failed, then GHE has, they cannot be separated.”
Your comparison is not valid. You compare Anthropogenic Global Warming with GHE generally (which includes both natural and human CO2).
You would be correct if you said: “If AGW has failed, then AGHE has… .”
Personally, I think the anthro part of GHE is negligible, thus making your original statement meaningless.
“Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated”
Such a thing might also occur if warming was driven largely by the sun.
@ rgbatduke
“And electrons are pretty cheap.”
Not here in Australia. Each electron has to come with its own “Low Carbon” certificate, so we have to pay a fortune for the certification process. Our electricity bills just keep going up.
The problem is worse than Joseph suggests, The predictions ( Projections) are inherently untestable and therefore useless for policy decisions. Even if they matched reality for some period you would never know if that was the result of compensating errors in the micro algorithms .which structure the program . The horrifying thing is that the IPCC – AR4 science section states this quite openly but the statement is completely ignored in the Summary for Policymakers. The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions, algorithms and data , often of poor quality, which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes:
“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer. The IPCC AR4 science section itself says that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed.
The importance of the later SREX 2011 report is that finally the IPCC recognised that the uncertainties of climate prediction are much greater than they previously acknowledged. They are now in the embarassing position of having to acknowledge that the whole UN CO2 scare is built on very uncertain foundations and they somehow need to as quietly as possible change their position.The first thing they do is to change the definition of climate change (Global Warming no longer seems a convenient term to use) They say :
“several of the definitions used in this Special Report differ in breadth or focus from those used in the AR4 and other IPCC reports.]
Climate Change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.2[INSERT FOOTNOTE 2: This definition differs from that in the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change is defined as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.”
In other words where previously climate change meant change due to human activity now it means change due to human and natural causes . They now say that they can’t distinguish these causes for the next 30 years. The rest of their predictions re extreme events are simply trivial and tautologous speculation – they simply say that if warming continues, certain extreme events are more likely to occur. If they don’t know what is happening in the next 30 years they certainly don’t know what will happen in the next hundred.
The entire modelling output of the IPCC and the Impact studies depending on these models have a tenuous connection to reality and can be safely be ignored for forecasting purposes and policy purposes.
Mr. Hladik, you had the essential proposition right!
It isn’t, in my opinion, that you cannot multi-task. It is, rather, that your fine mind has far better things to do with its time than to rebut simple simons (I just accidentally typed “sli” before making it “simon,” heh, heh). He’s more at my, much lower, level (common sense). Using your high intelligence on such a mundane matter is like trying to cruise along main street in a high-tuned race car. It tends to sputter and can easily stall, idling along like that. But, on the race track…. watch out!
So, my fine WUWT scholar and fellow warrior for truth, remember all you CAN do (far more than Simon or I ever will, I’m sure) and go look in the mirror and smile and say, “I like me.” #[:)]
[One of my all-time favorite movie lines is the late great John Candy in “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles” when he responds to Steve Martin’s verbal abuse with, “… I like me. … .”]
Hey, if I like you — you sure should!
@ Rud Istvan and John F. Hultquist
I agree that this could be a useful resource, and that it needs cleaning up. Graphs, references,text boxes to explain NOAA PMEL
My own suggestions would be:
1. Points 4, 5, 18, 24 and 25 are or include accusations of misuse/manipulation of data. All this should be put into a separate section at the end, and expressed in a way that does not look like finger pointing and crying ‘Not fair! Fraud’. Fraud it might be, but whining “You cheated” does not win over public opinion.
2. For global claims, try to make sure that more than just US examples are given. 95% of the world’s population is not American, and we non-Americans have the strange idea that we matter too. (But include as many Australian examples as you wish.)
3. Organize the material so that it starts with the hardest hitting, least questionable, failed predictions. For example, the 16 year temperature stasis/CO2 increase, and the missing hot-spot both are solid failures of the general theory.
4. Include (as Rud suggested) graphs, references, text boxes to explain NOAA PMEL, PDO, etc.
5. Get someone (Lord Monckton or myself) to rewrite the whole thing in really good, pellucid, English. (A difficulty here. If Lord Monckton’s name is associated with it, it will be rejected out of hand in certain quarters and mocked in the media. I, on the other hand, would want to be paid.)
6. Get competent translators to produce versions in the other major languages.
And the importance of editing can be seen in the above post. I have left the phrase “Graphs, references,text boxes to explain NOAA PMEL” in the wrong place.
So I would suggest that point 6 should be
“have the whole thing edited by a professional and very old-fashioned editor”.
The current point 6 can become point 7.
Janice Moore says (June 5, 2013 at 4:36 pm): [snip]
Thanks, you’re hired! My next screwup is scheduled for 7:37 PM PDT, so plan your day accordingly. Look, I’m sorry about the low pay, but at least the hours are long. Like money, stupidity never sleeps…
🙂
@ Gary Hladik — re: “Thanks” — You are very welcome!
LOL. Does the job come with a shovel, or do I need to bring my own? How about gloves?
**********************************************************************
“And the importance of editing can be seen in the above post. ” [Roha at 5:04PM]
I beg your pardon! #[;)]
Pokerguy, et al, I’ve built a web site in order to host a neutral climate survey.
I am interested in people submitting questions to put on it.
RoHa says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:00 pm
…
. I, on the other hand, would want to be paid.
Do you take Paypal?
If so, I’m in.
Lets start at the top.
First, he misread Feynman, Feynman was a great practioner of correcting theories, beacuse theories are never falsified. Not logically and not practically. But, leaving that misreading aside,
lets start with the first three strawmen.
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only.
A.) the theory of global warming does not dictate that it must warm every place on the globe.
B) the theory actually predicts more warming in Northern latitudes. This is known as polar
amplification.
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
A) this is statistically wrong.
B) even if it were true the theory does not predict uniform or monotonic increases for all time
periods. Yes, you even have some models that have periods of cooling that exceed 20
years.
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
A) I does not suggest both. contamination of the surface and/or uncertainity in the tropospheric measures could explain the issue. This is an excellant example of how
simple falsification fails as a model of how science works. Another example
would be Feynmans use of renormalization.
The bottom line is that no theory is “falsified” by observation. Observation and theory are always in conflict because observations never ever fit a theory exactly. Never ever.
When theory and observation come into conflict ( as in ALWAYS ) there are these choices.
And note these choices are pragmatic
A) you can ascribe the difference between theory and observation to “error”
B) you can re examine your data, re run your test. And in some cases find
errors, saving your theory
C) you can adjust your theory to account for the data.
D) You can replace the theory, but you need a theory that is at least as good as the existing
theory.
Put another way, since theories can never be true, you can’t falsify them. Since they are always conditionally “true”, they can never be unconditionally false.
Theories are confirmed by evidence or disconfirmed. not falsified or verified.
“(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.”
Coincidentally (?) Dr. Spencer discusses the “hot spot” here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/#comments
I wonder what on Earth the Alarmists will get alarmed about next.
Steven Mosher says:
“…Feynman was a great practioner of correcting theories, beacuse theories are never falsified.”
1. Theorems are never falsified. But theories can be falsified — in theory. ☺
2. Man-made global warming is a conjecture, not a theory.
Nit-picking, I know. But in science, especially, language matters. Claiming that AGW is a “theory” is wrong. It is a conjecture; it is not even a hypothesis, because AGW is not testable, so it cannot be falsified. That may happen one day. But currently AGW is not testable because it cannot be reliably measured.
If AGW could be verifiably measured, then the disputed question of the climate sensitivity number would be answered. But right now that guesstimate ranges from negative warming for 2xCO2, to zero warming, to the UN/IPCC’s preposterous 3ºC to 6+ºC warming for 2xCO2, and plenty of WAG’s in beteween.But right now there is no widespread agreement as to how much global warming [if any] might result from a doubling of CO2. That number could even vary depending on CO2 concentrations.
Language matters; AGW is a conjecture, nothing more.
Steven Mosher says:
June 5, 2013 at 7:08 pm
…”Observation and theory are always in conflict because observations never ever fit a theory exactly. Never ever. ”
————
You just said “never ever”.
All this time I thought it was settled.
Sarc/
Methane?
CO2?
Coal Dust?
Black Carbon?
Dihydrogen monoxide?
Aah there are any number of things that they can pick next. Reposted this article on Weatherzone where the resident SkS Crusher crew will by now be doing a number on it no doubt.
“And the importance of editing can be seen in the above post. ” [Roha at 5:04PM]
I beg your pardon! #[;)]
***************
Re: my above apparently absurd remark (oh, brother). At the time, Roha’s 5:00PM post was invisible (a.k.a. “m-o-d-r–at–n”).
rgbatduke says:
June 5, 2013 at 3:56 pm
“Did you ever wonder why Anthony, and I, and Roy Spencer, and Dick Lindzen, and many others who actually have a clue about physics and meteorology spend an entirely disproportionate time bashing PSI’s absolutely absurd claims and their bad science just so that they might, one day, stop being an active embarrassment to the entire skeptical community and an active obstacle to its arguments?”
———————————————————————————————————————
I would say those behind PSI succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. How many sceptics are now too afraid to challenge the radiative GHE hypothesis for fear of other sceptics pointing the finger and shrieking “slayer”?
PSI claims were, as you say, absurd and bad science. The problem with the radiative GHE hypothesis that sceptics needed to be deflected from lays elsewhere.
It is worth reading Dr. Spencers description of an atmosphere without radiative gases –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/
Dr. Spencer describes the resulting isothermal atmosphere –
“Only the surface and a shallow layer of air next to the surface would go through a day-night cycle of heating and cooling. The rest of the atmosphere would be at approximately the same temperature as the average surface temperature.”
All it takes for the net radiative GHE hypothesis to fail is this claim –
“The rest of the atmosphere would be at approximately the same temperature as the average surface temperature.”
– to be false.
If the temperature of a non radiative atmosphere was set by surface Tmax not surface Tav, then such an atmosphere without strongly radiative gases would be far hotter than our current atmosphere.
There are two ways to arrive at the wrong answer. The first is to ignore the diurnal cycle and calculate conductive flux between the surface and atmosphere based on surface Tav. The second is to consider the diurnal cycle of surface temperatures, but fail to apply gravity bias when calculating conductive flux between the surface and the moving gas atmosphere.
Empirical experiment indicates that such an non radiative isothermal atmosphere would have its temperature above the near surface layer set by surface Tmax not surface Tav.
Simon C-S says:
June 5, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Gary,
The whole AGW/CAGW business is grounded in and synonymous with the GHE. Without the claimed CO2 GHE there would be no claimed (C)AGW. If AGW has failed, then GHE has, they cannot be separated.
It’s strange therefore that Anthony is vigorously defending the GHE yet proclaiming AGW has failed, it just doesn’t add up. It is PSI who have the line that maintains an integrity, that BOTH the GHE and CAGW claims have failed, with good, robust physical explanations why.
+++++++++++++
You are confused about what Anthony thinks. I do not intend to tell you what he thinks, but it’s certainly not what you wrote!
Believing in the GHE (theory), is not the same as agreeing with proponents of AGW or CAGW. Because evidence of the latter two (AGW and CAGW hypothesis) are only shown in models, which show with certainty that CO2 causes an initial warming which certainly causes positive feedbacks which will lead to catastrophic warming. CAGW proponents go as far as saying there is a tipping point where there is no return, as run away warming will essentially lead to a one way doom with no hope of fixing it.
Some skeptics of CAGW do believe in GHE theory in varying degrees. Most of us do not believe that CO2 is the main driver of climate that will lead to catastrophe. I think CO2 has some affect on climate, but that its effect is difficult to measure and is probably very small. I have believed that we were headed for cooling back about 5 years ago. The warming that was impossible to stop according to CAGW proponents, has stopped. It seems that their understanding of climate is based too strongly in preconceived notions that are just not panning out.
On points 16 and 17 (Antarctic ice and Greenland) we now have this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-06/greenland-antarctica-ice-loss/4736298
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7452/full/nature12238.html
It combines “new observations of ice-sheet mass balance and improved computer simulations of ice-sheet response to continuing climate change”.
Improved?
Can someone explain how 18. – sea level data manipulation – does the trick for alarmists. I can’t see how accounting for land rise would hide the levelling off in sea levels unless they only applied the manipulation to the last few years. Surely not?
CodeTech: Agree with Pokerguy. Let’s realize that the research is easy but needs academic quality and the cooperation of experts. Not waist our time with fruitless discussions but determine within one month whether it is feasible. I’m interested but where is your website?
Steven Mosher says:
June 5, 2013 at 7:08 pm
“When theory and observation come into conflict ( as in ALWAYS ) there are these choices.
And note these choices are pragmatic
A) you can ascribe the difference between theory and observation to “error”
B) you can re examine your data, re run your test. And in some cases find
errors, saving your theory
C) you can adjust your theory to account for the data.
D) You can replace the theory, but you need a theory that is at least as good as the existing
theory.”
You have forgotten
E) Don’t fix the theory, don’t collect new data, ignore all new data you can’t stop from being collected, and let a Cartoonist and a Scientologist write a paper saying that everyone agrees that the theory is correct.
This is what the international warmist-communitarian movement has chosen to do. An interesting new paradigm of science; surely Post-Popperian, but is it Post-Normal? Post-Normal Science does not include the writing bogus survey papers so I suggest we call it Cartoon Science.
You know you’re deep into big foot / area 51 / GHE when 25 ways a hypothesis has failed is listed, and the believers come out saying “that doesn’t mean GHE isn’t real.”
If it wasn’t wrong when they showed you the 168 watts into the earth and out, into some gas acting as a mirror with 324 X 2 coming back out after 168 went in,
There’s nothing short of psychiatric treatment that’s going to help you over your belief in the GHE.
The definition of belief based non science is when some men convince you that a
miles deep
frigid
fluid
nitrogen/oxygen
bath,
with a warm rock spinning submerged at it’s bottom at 1,000 miles per hour
has the analysis characteristics of a warm blanket.
It’s over there. The ones who ever believed or were willing to say there’s a chance that might work out, were the patients in the mental ward; and in climatology they took over and ran the honest science out of the building.
When you consider that adding a 1% shot of atmospheric pressures phase-change refrigerant to that mix, so that it cycles regularly picking up heat, taking it upward and dumping it up toward space, turning to ice falling back to repeat –
is referred to by these same psychos as “the hottest part of the giant heater which is actually a warm blankie”
you know it’s worse than you thought.
When you find grown men saying they believe all that in public places,
you know you’ve got as pure a group of wackos as you’re ever going to put together in a room and call what they say ‘science’
and just as the article points out, not a single element of that wacko insanity has turned out valid.
You’d think when people saw the “168 watts out of the earth into some gas which acts as a mirror and 324 watts X 2 come out of the mirror doesn’t break the laws of thermodynamics”
they would have realized just how loopy the believers in the stuff had to be.
It’s a mish mash of non scientific bloviating mixed with voodoo that breaks so many laws it’s past counting.
Gary Hladik says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Sorry, I missed the part where the so-called GHE “failed all tests”. Could you point it out, please?
Sure be glad to:
“(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming. The upward trends since 1979 continues.
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing. Fires have declined.
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.
(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years
(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.
(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998
(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” – is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.
(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.”
Gary Hladik says: “Thanks! I guess also that “168 watts into the atmosphere but 324 X 2 coming back out violation of the second law of thermodynamics sort of kept it’s options limited.
A little. ”
=========
No problem it just happened to be another endless list of the failures of this voodoo.
Others include the fact that the infrared astronomy business is stone silent on why they don’t have a bright pupil just trot out the photos of the sky for the past 100 years taken by students proving they know what such slides look like, studies done USING the earth frequency IR, etc.
Then there’s the study done by the people whose story it is, verifying there’s less infrared radiation in the frequencies demanded by GHE today, than 15 years ago. That’s just impossible if the GHE has any truth at all.
This is NOAA themselves, checking for their own Back Radiation.
For fourteen years.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1?journalCode=clim
While the magical mirror got 168 watts per sq meter out but returned 324 down to earth, 324 back out to space. While not breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some politicians and many others stubbornly continue to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide was the primary cause of global warming.
Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.
CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased since 2001 by 25.46 ppmv (an amount equal to 27.56% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; May, 2013, 396.59 ppmv).
The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat. (Some agencies say flat since 1997 see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml )
That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 25.46 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.
Average global temperature actually has little to do with meteorology so the wrong experts have been trying to figure it out. The so-called Global Climate Models (aka General Circulation Models) are actually weather models and they do a pretty good job of predicting weather for a few days. However, their predicting ability declines into computational noise within days. It is profoundly naive to perceive that a weather model can be turned into a climate model by running it longer.
DirkH says: @ June 5, 2013 at 12:58 pm
….Anyone who still believes that the media would give him the same sort of exposure they give to crooks like Cartoonist Cook and Scientologist Nuccitelli must be living under a rock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed. Our best bet is one on one with people who will listen (sitting on the fence).
I jot down websites to look at on the back of a business card and give it to people.
I do not start with CAGW but with more neutral topics like food and banking. The idea is to open eyes to the fact that the media (and government) LIES and is in bed with the elite/bankers.
For food: SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy
For banking: Democratic Congressman Wright Patman chair of the Finance of the Banking and Currency Committee: “A Primer on Money”
Also a supplement to A Primer on Money by Patman: MONEY FACTS – 169 Questions and Answers on Money
Rosa Koire, Democrat, protester, lesbian and government employee is one of our best weapons.
The Post Sustainability Institute
Democrats Against Agenda 21
Youtube: Rosa Koire-UN Agenda 21 Surprise Tea Party May 1, 2012
The idea is to find a suitable crowbar to open minds. Once the mind is open and questioning, then it will also question CAGW especially when the body is freezing.
Two papers on line provide some eye-opening insight on possible cause of change to average global temperature. The papers are straight-forward calculations using readily available data.
The first one is ‘Global warming made simple’ at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/. It shows, with simple thermal radiation calculations, how a tiny change in the amount of low altitude clouds could account for half of the average global temperature change in the 20th century, and what could have caused that tiny cloud change. (The other half of the temperature change is from net average natural ocean oscillation which is dominated by the PDO)
The second paper is ‘Natural Climate change has been hiding in plain sight’ at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.
A third paper, ‘The End of Global Warming’ at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ expands recent (since 1996) measurements and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.
Rud Istvan says:
June 5, 2013 at 1:36 pm
With a bit of language cleanup such as pointed out above, and probably some comsolidation of points, and graphs and charts illustrating at least some of those points, this would make a fine general circulation all round position paper. Worth a shot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I asked my husband, a technical writer to edit Joseph D’Aleo’s piece. With Joe’s permission and Anthony’s cooperation we can then put up the revised version and determine the best graphs/ papers to use to illustrate each point.
@JimW
…When I see a figure like this 97% consensus I am not surprised because it is 97% of a club whose entry requirement is being a believer. The only other place we ever see these sorts of levels of agreement is in the election of banana republic dictators. The dissenting 3% is more surprising….
There IS no 97%. Look at the methodologies used for all of these assertions.
Invariably, these are poorly designed surveys which, if they measure anything, attempt to measure attitudes in the vaguest sense, and then interpret the results as supporting anything that the survey writers want.
If you were trying to give the alarmists as much credibility as possible, you could probably say that the attitude of most ‘general scientists’ (that is, those who had not studied ‘Climate Change’) in 2000 was probably “There must be something in it, otherwise why would it be being pushed so hard?” So they probably believed that:
1 – the Earth was warming
2 – Man had something to do with it.
If you had asked them for any more detail they would have said: “Hang on- I don’t know any details – I’ll have to study the science. And if they were then asked about specific items – such as Jolliffe was about the hockey-stick stats, they would have said (as he did): “Well, this paper is rubbish, but maybe there’s more proof somewhere else.!”
And that would be the high-point – belief has gone rapidly downhill from then.
I can’t see how this can be claimed as a consensus. The best you could claim is probably that:
“more than 50% of scientists think there may be something in it”
and that would have been at the height of its popularity….
SIGH, My husband looked at this piece and said “NO, it would take too much time and the commenters here are already doing a great job.”
Was reading a story yesterday on the Argentine economic debacle and the follies of their socialist government, and this quote really nailed it for me as I think it pertains not just to failed economics but also to failed theories like global warming. The “other side” is infuriating because they have goals other than logic and the truth. Maintaining the status quo is their primary objective.
“When it comes right down to it, any government, not just the Argentine government, will simply do whatever it thinks it needs to do to keep the status quo intact, with no moral or ethical considerations.” http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-05/argentina-textbook-case-government-gone-mad
@ Dodgy Geezer; Agreed. This is why, whenever I refer to the “consensus”, I always use quotation marks. Not only do they need to fabricate the science, but they need to fabricate their consensus as well.
@DirkH
You have forgotten
E) Don’t fix the theory, don’t collect new data [er, wrong], ignore all new data you can’t stop from being collected [contradicts last clause so both can’t be true], and let a Cartoonist and a Scientologist [debunked but since the meme is being continued it is fair to point to the phoney theology that the writer of the post under discussion has signed up to] write a paper saying that everyone agrees that the theory is correct.
Since it doesn’t seem to be fashionable to provide links, I’ll let you do your own searching as that is what a true sceptic would do.
Interesting how various posters take the primary topic and divert it in so many directions in these threads.
If by “Global Warming theory has failed all tests, so alarmists return to the ‘97% consensus’ hoax”, the “Global Warming “theory”” is that “human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate” (Thanks to Petition Project), then I agree with Joseph D’Aleo.
I disagree that it is, or ever was, a theory, however. An “idea”. perhaps. that hasn’t passed any validation tests which would elevate it further.
So if (C)AGW has failed all tests, and as C(AGW) is firmly rooted on the GHE (man’s extra CO2 causing/increasing back radiation which further heats the surface), which is the IPCC’s and most politicians and policy makers position, why is it not fair to say therefore that the GHE has failed all tests?
I find it really strange though that here is a group (PSI) whose aim is to find true scientific and evidential reason for why CO2 is not the evil culprit C(AGW) pitches it to be, something you would think a skeptical environment such as WUWT would be only to pleased to support to help rid the world of this irrational C(AGW) stupidity, yet it meets with wild and vicious vitriol, from those supposed to be Christian at heart. I can only say, and I direct this straight to you Anthony, that this is wholly unnacceptable behaviour. It is childish, ugly, vile and uncaring behaviour, and has no place in science and this debate. You should step back and take a good long look at yourself. PSI are not the bad guys, but your continued utterly horrible response to them is rapidly making you the bad guy, something that is not going unnoticed and something I’m sure you don’t want to be.
I wonder…the anomalies may be flat, but they only measure departures from the average. Is the global temperature per se flat over the last 16 years, or just the anomalies?
Steven R. Vada and others who do not understand greenhouse effect (GHE) and back radiation. Point a spectrometer to the sky. What do you see? Do you only see the 3 K cosmic microwave background radiation or do you see also IR radiation from the atmosphere?
Simon C-S says:
June 5, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Gary,
The whole AGW/CAGW business is grounded in and synonymous with the GHE. Without the claimed CO2 GHE there would be no claimed (C)AGW. If AGW has failed, then GHE has, they cannot be separated.
Your stance seems to be that the fastest way to bury all the global warming baloney is to fight baloney with baloney. The problem is that the opponents are better-armed. Better to go back to the science.
If I eat 20 more calories per day than my present body weight and activity level require, say 2,020 rather than 2,000 calories, I will cause AWG (anthropogenic weight gain). However, I will not cause CAWG (catastrophic AWG) if I continue that same behavior of eating 2020 calories per day. Eventually, my weight will level off at a somewhat higher level as the additional body weight I would be carrying around during my consistent daily activities was causing me to burn that extra 20 calories I’ve been eating each day.
The additional calories will cause AWG, but a negative feedback exists that prevents CAWG, provided I continue my daily activities as before. Of course, if I were completely sedentary, or ate an additional 1,000 calories per day thereby gaining so fast that I couldn’t maintain my previous level of activity, CAWG might indeed occur. Given this complication, perhaps it would indeed be easier to simply ignore all evidence to the contrary and simply deny that additional caloric intake causes weight gain? That way both AWG and CAWG become impossible. Case closed. Really?
Now, getting to Voisin’s paper the other day, suppose my 2,000 calories of daily input were from a store, purchased with money I make doing a sedentary activity. Instead, I decide for health reasons to grow my own food supply. In doing so, I become far less sedentary (and make less money) but now require 3,000 calories per day to maintain my weight, a weight that was excessive due to my previous sedentary life, say 300 pounds.
A year later, due to my change in lifestyle, and a choice to only eat 2,500 calories (instead of the 2,000 I was eating or the 3,000 I would require to remain at 300 pounds), I now weigh a trim 180 pounds and the 2,500 caloric intake, combined with my higher activity level, is sufficient to fuel my 180 pound body each day and maintain a steady weight. Hmm, higher caloric input combined with other system changes resulted in lower body weight? Someone looking only at the caloric input would certainly be confused, no?
When we finally understand all there is to know about carbon sources and sinks, maybe it will be simple to understand their relationship with the climate. Right now, we appear to understand very little of all there is to know, and many refuse to understand even that which we actually do know. At least that’s my view as an observer.
Mario Lento says:
Some skeptics of CAGW do believe in GHE theory in varying degrees. Most of us do not believe that CO2 is the main driver of climate that will lead to catastrophe. I think CO2 has some affect on climate, but that its effect is difficult to measure and is probably very small. I have believed that we were headed for cooling back about 5 years ago. The warming that was impossible to stop according to CAGW proponents, has stopped. It seems that their understanding of climate is based too strongly in preconceived notions that are just not panning out.
That is pretty much how I see it. CO2 may have a minuscule effect, but because it is so inconsequential, it should be disregarded for all practical purposes. Regardiung global warming, CO2 simply does not matter. It is too small to even measure.
It also appears that Planet Earth is in full agreement with that view. Anyone who disagrees needs to post testable, verifiable measurements of AGW. Without that, everything they claim is just speculation.
Jim Brock – Anomalies are temperatures minus a single reference value (which is usually the average of measurements for some designated prior time period) so anomalies vary exactly the same amounts as the temperatures. The anomalies (or temperatures) have varied some but the trend (a straight line with best fit to the values) has been flat. Reported anomaly measurements since 1996 from 5 agencies are graphed at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/
There is no CO2 climate crisis. There will be no dangerous warming. There does appear to be a real risk of dangerous cooling but that is a problem for another thread.
The warmists will not participate in a debate as they would lose the debate. Observations and scientific analysis unequivocally supports that assertion. To avoid a debate which is based on facts, observations, and analysis, they are trying a bait and switch policy. Regardless of whether the warmists want a debate, the so called ‘skeptics’ are morally obligated to force a debate to occur. The following is relevant to the discussion or lack of discussion of the science of climate change and needs to also be ‘debated’.
A number of books by high profile blue ribbon warmist academics have recently been published that layout very basic facts and analysis to show that green energy is a scam and will not work. The ‘war’ on climate ‘climate’ change cannot change facts and reality. A paradigm shift (change in the basic beliefs of a person concerning climate ‘change’) is occurring among academics due to the newly published books. There has been no discussion of world mandated energy rationing (and more importantly the amount of rationing required) and implications of enforced energy rationing. It is astonishing that it has taken this long for this issue to be raised.
There are two alternatives if there truly is a CO2 climate crisis which requires that world CO2 emissions must be reduced by 80% in 20 years (actual 80% reduction in world CO2 emissions not just talked about reduction based on cooked calculations that are very close to lies.)
1) A mandated and forced massive conversion to nuclear power. This option would require Stalin like enforced policy (end of world democracy) and would require a world war or a threat of direct military action to get agreement from all countries. Due to the delay in construction of the new nuclear reactors elements of option 2 will be required, including but not limited to the end of air travel for tourism, energy rationing, and some population control.
2) If nuclear is not an option for some unexplained reason, then the only option is an incredible reduction in the standard of life for all humanity due to the mandated limited on carbon emissions which rationed/reduces the amount of energy use for all countries on the planet, in addition to increasing the cost of energy by 5 to 10 fold if we insist on using soft green energy to try to achieve a true 80% reduction in world CO2 emissions. In addition there would need to be mandated population control and significant population reduction. Option 2 would require Stalin like enforced policy (end of world democracy) and would require a world war to get agreement from all countries and a world military force to enforce policies.
The ‘war’ on climate ‘change’ has been used to mandate, legislate, green scams such as wind farms, photovoltaic installations, and particularly egregious the mandated conversion of food to biofuel. The green scams have not significant reduced carbon emissions in the countries where the scams have been installed if unbiased economic and engineering analysis is apply and have absolutely not reduced total CO2 emissions. If the mandated, legislated food to biofuel scam is continued, 100% of world available agricultural land will be used/required to grow food to convert to biofuel. That of course is practically and politically impossible. There will be mass starvation and a world war for food and for the right to burn fossil fuel for economic development. Energy is required for economic development and to support the number of people that current live on this planet.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/green-paradox
The Green Paradox – A supply side approach to global warming by Hans Werner Simn, published 2012. (Translated from German)
Hans-Werner Sinn is Professor of Economics and Public Finance at the University of Munich and President of the CESIfo Group. Author of Can Germany Be Saved? The Malaise of the World’s First Welfare State (MIT Press) and other books, he is former president of the International Institute of Public Finance, and former chairman of the German Economic Association.
“… to a large extent, these people (William: population increase from 630 million industrial revolution to 7,000 million current) owe their very existence to the exploitation of fossil fuel since the Industrial Revolution, and they can’t be assumed to go away by wishful thinking simple because we now want to close the fossil fuel carbon channel.”
“… The development path described above (William: consequences of the food to biofuel scam) described above is a horrific vision, and one hopes it is not a realistic … … This would pose a problem not only for those who would starve but also for those who would have to defend themselves against starving nations fighting for survival. If we decide to let this market mechanism work, and tolerate the replacement of fossil fuels with biofuel …. … hundreds of millions of people will be affected and they will not merely take to the streets in peaceful protest. They will wage war.”
“…of course the problem of global warming is still there but that problem is secondary to the horrors of starvation in the developing world and the horror of a world war for food.”
“Chapter 2 listed the technology options available to mankind in the form of “green” replacement technology. There are not many options alas. Wind power and photovoltaic devices, unfortunately aren’t serious alternative to fossil power. (William: Author provides facts and analysis to support that assertion. As noted above wind power and photovoltaic devices are viable if we reduce are standard life and reduce world population.) “
“… nuclear fission will work someday, which would be a blessing for the poor and those who otherwise would have to suffer from global warming. At present, however, mankind has no other options to choose policies that would limit biofuel production, resource-intensive growth, and population growth.”
@dbstealey: Now how can we help people like Simon C-S to actually have a meaningful interchange. I understand that people who have taken a position of belief want to be right. Most of them resist a change of belief. Wanting to be right, when you know you are wrong is willfully destructive to the progress of anything.
Seriously Simon C-S, can you respond here or are you a troll?
Steven R. Vada says (June 6, 2013 at 1:46 am): [snip]
Steven, did you really have to repost the entire list? You could have proclaimed your misunderstanding more easily just by writing, “But, but, but, what Joe wrote!!!!”
RGB explained better than I could, so why don’t you re-read (or read) his comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/global-warming-theory-has-failed-all-tests-so-alarmists-return-to-the-97-consensus-hoax/#comment-1327489
“Gary Hladik says: [snip fabricated quote]”
OMG, you’re in the Pink Unicorn Brigade (PUB), too! That explains a lot.
Let’s explore your delusion a bit:
1) Do you think your view is a) in accordance with “establishment physics” (e.g. textbooks, engineering manuals, actual working products like thermocouples); or b) in disagreement with “establishment physics”, which is deluding the public and all science/engineering students for some unknown but decidedly sinister purpose?
2) There is at least one experiment that would–according to the PUB–unambiguously disprove the so-called GHE, no ifs, ands, or buts, i.e. Dr. Spencer’s “Yes, Virginia” (so far) thought experiment. So, and here’s my question, why hasn’t the PUB performed this experiment and claimed a place in the pantheon of scientific heroes? I mean, wouldn’t it be deliciously ironic to use Dr. Spencer’s own design against him? Wouldn’t the revenge taste oh-so-sweet, despite being served cold? 🙂
Gail Combs says (June 6, 2013 at 4:50 am): ‘SIGH, My husband looked at this piece and said “NO, it would take too much time and the commenters here are already doing a great job.”’
Wait, your husband said “no”, and you let him get away with it?
blink blink
Dang, 40 years married and NOW I learn I have a choice…
@Mosher
“The bottom line is that no theory is “falsified” by observation. Observation and theory are always in conflict because observations never ever fit a theory exactly. Never ever. ”
I postulate a theory that 2+2=5
But I observe (counting fingers, pennies, or matchsticks, take your pick) that 2+2=4
Looks pretty damn falsified to me.
I think your point is an extreme interpretation.
All that Cook’s study “proves” is that the scientists he claims as supporters are either misquoted (as several have pointed out), or else are blithering idiots, not sicnetists at all but propagandists – as he is.
I would strongly recommend that everyone posting here go to CFACT and read Craig Rucker’s comments on the Bonn climate conference.
It’s apparent that Cook’s twaddle is the basis for recent statements by der Fuehrer that he is “increasingly impatient with ‘deniers’,” and new Secretary of Energy Moniz’s declaration that he “will not debate what is not debatable.” There is no question that our dictator is determined to shove his climate change/economic destruction programs down our throats. It’s the de-development of the US economy, enrichment of the crony capitalists who back him up, and submission to the UN that are his real objectives, and he will not give AGW up as it is the entoire rationaloisztion for this.
His attacks on the Associated Press, Fox News and other dissenters make it clear that he does not respect, or even acknowledge the existence of, free speech rights and will go to any length to silence opposing opinion. Skeptics should be on the lookout for attacks by the IRS and the Departmemt of Justice – “audits” by the likes of Eva Braun (uh, Lois Lerner) and possible “search warrants” carried out by Himmler’s (uh, Holder’s) goons.
Chad: You bring up something very important. Liberalism in its best form protects freedom of speech. In its most perverse form, they attack speech –think IRS, SkS, MSM and the current US administration including Holder and our president.
Simon C-S says:
“I find it really strange though that here is a group (PSI) whose aim is to find true scientific and evidential reason for why CO2 is not the evil culprit…” &etc.
Simon, you need to understand the Scientific Method, in which the onus is on the purveyor of a hypothesis or conjecture to defend it. It is not the duty of those questioning a conjecture or hypothesis to prove a negative — for example, whether or not AGW exists — when there is no measurable evidence to support that belief.
Radiative physics supports the position that CO2 has an effect on temperature. But it has not been shown by anyone that CO2 causes any measurable global warming. That is probably because the effect [if any] is simply too small to measure at current CO2 concentrations. You can see here why that is: almost the entire effect of CO2 is found in the first 20 ppm. At current concentrations, the effect of CO2 is simply too small to measure.
Therefore, if adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does not result in any verifiable global warming, it is irresponsible to throw more money at the non-problem of “carbon”. That funding is not doing anything except starving other, more deserving areas of scientific research of needed funding.
At this point, global warming alarmism is caused by the enormous funds that are paid to find it. No one is going to pay several billion dollars every year for someone to report back that there is no problem. So the alarmism continues, based on the money involved — not on any testable science.
Simon C-S says:
June 6, 2013 at 3:17 pm
So if (C)AGW has failed all tests, and as C(AGW) is firmly rooted on the GHE (man’s extra CO2 causing/increasing back radiation which further heats the surface), which is the IPCC’s and most politicians and policy makers position, why is it not fair to say therefore that the GHE has failed all tests?
I already explain that GHE and CAGW are two different things. read my comment to you at: June 5, 2013 at 9:52 pm.
If you cannot understand the difference, I cannot help you. In a simple short answer GHE is shown to have some affect. It is also shown to have a small effect. CAGW claims that GHE is different than what has been shown. They claim that their models prove its effects are multiple times more significant. Their models have been shown to be wrong. I’m happy to provide a more complex answer.
Simon C-S says (June 6, 2013 at 3:17 pm): “…yet it meets with wild and vicious vitriol, from those supposed to be Christian at heart.”
Simon, if your feelings are hurt, why not just prove Anthony, IPCC, etc. wrong with the relatively simple “Yes, Virginia” experiment, or one like it? PSI certainly hasn’t done it, and I’m utterly at a loss to understand why. I’m beginning to think (OK, I’m sure) they don’t really believe their own propaganda. Why do you?
Steven R. Vada says:
June 6, 2013 at 1:22 am
You know you’re deep into big foot / area 51 / GHE when 25 ways a hypothesis has failed is listed, and the believers come out saying “that doesn’t mean GHE isn’t real.”
If it wasn’t wrong when they showed you the 168 watts into the earth and out, into some gas acting as a mirror with 324 X 2 coming back out after 168 went in,
There’s nothing short of psychiatric treatment that’s going to help you over your belief in the GHE.
Konrad says:
June 5, 2013 at 8:11 pm
rgbatduke says:
June 5, 2013 at 3:56 pm
“Did you ever wonder why Anthony, and I, and Roy Spencer, and Dick Lindzen, and many others who actually have a clue about physics and meteorology spend an entirely disproportionate time bashing PSI’s absolutely absurd claims and their bad science just so that they might, one day, stop being an active embarrassment to the entire skeptical community and an active obstacle to its arguments?”
———————————————————————————————————————
I would say those behind PSI succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. How many sceptics are now too afraid to challenge the radiative GHE hypothesis for fear of other sceptics pointing the finger and shrieking “slayer”?
============
Steven – having nothing to do with the “slayers” as PSI, but having been at the receiving end of censorship by a mod saying my post was..
I have, on my own, in my own fashion, worked out why the GHE is duff science. I call it the Greenhouse Effect Illusion because the “33°C warming by greenhouse gases” does not actually exist. It was created out of a complex set of sleights of hand, with magicians’ tricks, deceiving the mind by tricking the eyes and ears by using terms from real physics, but giving them different meanings, giving the properties of one thing to another for example, which resulted in a completely fake fisics being passed off as being real physics, and consequently, the physically impossible world created out of the fake physics being passed off as the real world around us.
None of it is easy to explain.. I’ve just been discussing some of the aspect you bring up in the Dr Gray thread, but in summary. AGWScienceFiction has taken out, excised it completely from their GHE energy budget, the real direct heat from the Sun which is longwave infrared, aka thermal infrared, in order to pass off all downwelling longwave infrared as being “from the atmosphere” and not from the Sun – so they can pretend all real world measurements of any downwelling is “from backradiation by greenhouse gases”.
They have two explanations for why we “do not get longwave infrared direct from the Sun”, both nonsensical. The first that “longwave infrared is blocked at TOA by an invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse”; this invisible barrier in unknown in traditional up to date real world physics.. The second is that “the Sun produces insignificant amounts of longwave infrared and we get insignificant of insignificant”; they are not aware that what they are actually saying is that we get no direct heat from the Sun..
They’re not aware they are saying this because In its place they make the claim that it is “shortwave from the Sun, mainly visible but with the two shortwaves either side of uv and infrared (shortwave infrared as 1% of that total), which heat the Earth’s surface”. The AGWSF meme here is “shortwave in longwave out”.
In other words, they have given the properties of longwave infrared to shortwave. In real world physics, they have given the property of heat to lightwaves.
In real world physics, shortwave cannot physically heat land or water or us, and, in real world physics we know that the direct heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared. We know the shortwaves are not thermal.
So, they attribute all the energy from the Sun at TOA to their shortwave. They have not changed that figure from traditional physics, they have simply given that proportion of it which in traditional physics is longwave infrared to their “shortwave in”.
What they are measuring as “downwelling from the atmosphere”, actually includes the real downwelling longwave infrared direct from the Sun which they say doesn’t exist; they have double counted it.
What the actual amount, if any, of “downwelling from the atmosphere from backradiation” would be is, of course, now not available..
How they get their 168 I don’t know. This could be from actual measurements of visible light at the surface from which they then divvy up the remainder attributing to reflection/scattering and so on, but, as this TOA figure is based on the whole real world including longwave infrared and if they are simply getting the amounts by proportion, they are including in that, the amount of real world longwave infrared which isn’t actually being reflected/scattered by clouds because clouds, being water and matter, absorb it. Aggh, it’s late.. Hope at least you get what I’m trying to say. Because they are attributing longwave infrared at TOA to shortwave they have more to account for as “missing on route”, if they are using real world measurements of visible at the surface.
Gary Hladik says:
June 6, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Simon C-S says (June 6, 2013 at 3:17 pm): “…yet it meets with wild and vicious vitriol, from those supposed to be Christian at heart.”
Simon, if your feelings are hurt, why not just prove Anthony, IPCC, etc. wrong with the relatively simple “Yes, Virginia” experiment, or one like it? PSI certainly hasn’t done it, and I’m utterly at a loss to understand why. I’m beginning to think (OK, I’m sure) they don’t really believe their own propaganda. Why do you?
Why hasn’t Spencer produced the “Yes, Virginia” experiment?
Simon, your saying that ANY of the above responses to your inane arguments are “wild and vicious vitriol,” proves that you are either:
1) unaware of the definition of those terms;
2) suffering from a persecution complex (i.e., not thinking rationally); or
3) a l-i-a-r.
Take your pick. For your sake, I hope it is #1.
Christians care about TRUTH. They [and all the above posters, some (most?) of whom are not Christians] will defend truth fervently against those who are clearly twisting it as you are in your above posts. They will be especially stern with people who try to hide behind a façade of pseudo-naivete.
For example: ” ‘ You are like [a] whitewashed tomb[] … on the outside you [try to] appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy … .’ ” [Matthew 23:27, 28]
Forgive me, if you really are mentally impaired, but, I must say that even in that case, you are recklessly writing posts here. Your posting is, thus, an intentional act on your part to knowingly incur the risk of appearing ridiculous. In other words, Simon, you, not we, are the problem. The one who owes an apology (if one is, indeed due) is YOU.
Simon: I will forgive you if you repent. I know, I am not a good Christian, since I am giving you a condition. But, you see, it’s people like you that bring in the wrath of government to control our lives. Your ilk require my tax money to fund this nonsense, your ilk have causes harm on this world only to make certain people wealthy –and all to solve a problem that is not there.
So all I ask for is an apology.
Myrrh says (June 6, 2013 at 6:41 pm): “Why hasn’t Spencer produced the “Yes, Virginia” experiment?”
Good question. Two good answers:
1) Dr. Spencer (or any scientist, for that matter) has no incentive, since it would only prove (again) what he already knows. The Pink Unicorn Brigade (PUB), however, has everything to gain, yet for some obscure reason refuses to “prove” their “theory” empirically. Weird, huh?
2) If Dr. Spencer did the experiment, the PUB would only reject the inevitable result, claim fraud, and spout even more useless verbiage. To be convincing, the experiment must be done (honestly) by people who expect a result different from the one they’ll get (and even then may reject their own findings).
If you doubt point #2, think about our earlier discussions of the Herschel experiment. You reject others’ results (i.e. that “visible” light can heat matter), yet (correct me if I’m wrong) have not so far done this simple backyard experiment yourself. Would you be convinced if Anthony or Dr. Spencer ran the Herschel experiment yet again? Would you be convinced if you ran it yourself?
Gary Hladik says:
June 6, 2013 at 5:02 pm
“[PSI]… don’t really believe their own propaganda.”
——————————————————————-
Bingo!
Hear, hear, Mr. Lento!
My guess is that Mr. S. will plead “insanity” and back it up with some fine testimonial evidence below.
********************************
Mr. S., I’d be glad to be proven wrong on the above statement. How about it?
Ms Moore: I’m open arms… really I am.
OK – I am sure my banter here is causing people to roll their eyes. Back to the science now.
@Gary Young Hladik
My wife has always given me a choice.
(As long as I make the right choice, that is.)
Xsellent review. Thanks. Grrr …
[snip – off topic slayers junkscience]
Myrrh,
Sheer Gold & Frankincense. Doubt very much though that Roy Spencer will do his experiment, nor Anthony repeating his but correctly (i.e. directly measuring the temperature of the filament, not the shell). Thank you for also confirming that AGW and GHE are inextricably linked, as some seem to be in denial that they are. Without the conjectured GHE, there would be no thought of AGW.
All climate deniers identities have been recorded and will be contacted at some point when there is no more point to denial – the flood waters will be threatening our very survival. You will all be held accountable for your lies. So be very careful, it’s easy to trace where you get this tosh from, don’t paste anything you don’t know personally to be totally reliable. People can be so unforgiving when their lives have become untenable.
It’s all about taxes with you people, you just hate government taxing you, but would be the first to scream for help if government disappeared and you were at the mercy of the rich and powerful and the vicious and violent. Society has costs, government and taxes are how we organise our society and pay the costs. If you don’t like it, find somewhere without government [Somalia looks like a nice place] and move there. No taxes! But you might get raped by an Islamist pig; no police you see, nothing can be done about it. But never mind, you’ll have your gun …
William Astley says:
‘There is no CO2 climate crisis. There will be no dangerous warming. There does appear to be a real risk of dangerous cooling but that is a problem for another thread.’
There is a climate crisis; even insects appear to realise this fact and species are moving north, this is FACT and is not part of data accumulated by climate scientists.
There is already dangerous warming; seas are absorbing a lot of it, and becoming more acxidic, this means many species will disappear, corals are already almost gone. Sea level rise, currently measured by satellite at 1mm annually, will most likely increase its rate. Nuclear power stations are mostly on coasts because they need a lot of cooling water – just like Fukushima.
There is no risk of cooling, that is a lie promulgated by the rightwing who refuse to stop their rush for personal riches.
The only people who won’t debate are the deniers, perhaps they just can’t debate; this site is typical in that people copy and paste nonsense and think it’s debate. It isn’t. Debate means an honest use of language to back up an honestly held viewpoint, and using facts to make your point. Few here have ever debated anything, few have had any kind of education seemingly, they just want reassurance.
Dr Norman Page, a geologist and an oil man. Now why would he be a denier? Beats me! Why are fossil fuel geologists so sceptical? There seem to be a lot of them, perhaps it’s because they can only get jobs with oil companies? http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/277/
I think we can take Mr Page’s very long comments as being officially from the oil industry. Who have nothing whatever to lose by the population reducing its dependence on oil and other fossil fuels.
You couldn’t make it up!
No naughty words to upset a mod. Clean post to test if it’s words or just anything I, a dissident here, post.
[Recommend you read the site Policy page, as you are in continuous violation. —mod.]
Yep, it’s naughty words, my posts don’t get modded unless I use one from the list. Where IS the list though?
oneworldnet says:
June 7, 2013 at 5:56 am
Odd you claim that, since your “evillll” oil companies have been major contributors (by extortion ?) to the CAGW-promoting industry that owes its entire LIFE and FUTURE to continuing the lies and hypocrisies within the CAGW religion (er, doctrine).
ONLY the government and its agencies benefits by the scam through control, power, taxes, and destruction of the economies and health of the world, and it was ONLY government-paid “scientists” who were allowed to be represented within the original 97% of scientists so-called “research” results. It is government-paid “research” into government-funded labs by government-dependent “scientists” using government-limited grants and inside government-bureaucracies and government-dependent universities and government-funded “non-government-organizations” promoted by government-tied “news” medias and their profitable “non-profits” who gain from the CAGW doctrine.
It has been your socialist governments who have killed now more 250 millions of innocents this past century, not the oil companies. It is your socialist governments who need the CAGW doctrine to continue. It is the realists and engineers who have paying jobs who are defending the true science and the facts from the government propaganda and government lies.
The theory behind the fact that CO2 contributes very little to climate (even before feedbacks) is very simple, and is verified by satellite measurements.
It’s like adding an 11th layer of black paint on top of 10 layers on your window. It won’t make much of a difference. Although black paint absorbs light…
CO2 absorbs all the solar radiation energy in a very narrow band, and reflects it back into space. Even 60ppm, a seventh of the concentration, does it. Adding extra CO2 just makes this happen a bit higher up.
The theory and supporting measurements are around for 113 years now, due to Angstrom (1900). In a very simple experiment, a tube filled with 100% CO2 put at Earth’s surface in the sun doesn’t warm up AT ALL.
ALL heat in the CO2 band is ALREADY absorbed and reflected back by the CO2 higher up. Even at 3000m height, still nothing.
In the paper “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006” by Claudine Chen, John Harries, Helen Brindley, Mark Ringer where they compare the satellite data
The paper is in full here
http://tinyurl.com/ya7spzy
you can see in fig 3 that the effect of 36 years of CO2 levels growth is minimal, negligible compared to neighboring bands. Half the CO2 band is up, half is down, by about the same amount.
This confirms Angstrom’s paper, and the fact that the effect of EXTRA CO2 is minimal.
As the stagnating temperatures for 16 years now confirm as well.
PS Angstrom also noticed that the reflection of water vapor is proportional to the humidity, so water vapor DOES influence climate.
Mosher:”Theories are confirmed by evidence or disconfirmed. not falsified or verified.”
The point is that AGW has been disconfirmed by evidence. By modern science standards, it is junk.
In modern, empirical science, theories exist only to explain observations. Theories that fail to explain observations, such as AGW, are no longer part of science. They are historical artifacts, at best.
PS Your understanding of QFT renormalization is a bit fuzzy. What is your problem with it?
@oneworldnet
I’m just guessing that you haven’t read the WUWT policy here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
I am privy (but please keep it discreet before the official publication date) to the forthcoming Dana Nucitelli – John Cook literature survey.
A JOHN COOK DANA NUCITELLI SURVEY OF THE LAST 40 YEARS OF TROUSER LITERATURE SHOWS BELL BOTTOMS ARE THE MOST POPULAR SHAPE
Trouser scientists agree on bell bottoms.
So why doesn’t everyone else?
Why are Americans ignoring trouser science?
Is it the corrupting influence of the Big Shorts?
oneworldnet: “anything I, a dissident here, post”
My, are you self centered, man.
Do you get most of your insights by navel gazing?
[snip – off topic slayers junkscience, and way way too long – stop postingn this stuff in threads where it doesn’t belong or you’ll earn permanent troll bin status – Anthony]
Please allow me to definitely prove that the AGW models and their supporters are wrong. It’s quite simple, we know they’re a bit weak on math. Their claimed 97% of people agreeing is actually 9.7%. Far from any significant data point. It’s almost in the category of ‘noise’.
Janice Moore: Insanity! Far from it. As one with a science degree and many years working in a technology industry, I read all these posts and much, much more, papers included, with a level head and caring heart. I am not upset personally by Anthony’s and Roy’s childish dismissal of the arguments offered by PSI, just saddened that such irrational dismissal takes place, as they too are directly challenging the threat to humanity posed by the promoters of (C)AGW., which is I am sure the aim of WUWT. It is sad though to see Anthony descending into the “it’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to” mindset. It is childish and immature. I have greatly valued Anthony’s writing and work to challenge (C)AGW and all that it stands for, but this recent spat has somewhat dented his standing in not only my mind, but in many others also. However, I don’t hold Anthony or anyone up on a pedestal such that I will automatically believe anything he or they say or write, but treat it with the same critical and skeptical eye as anything else, and that includes those in PSI.
Of course I understand that GHE and AGW are different entities, but it remains that they are synonymous, especially in the minds of those that promote (C)AGW, particularly most of the world’s politicians and environmental groups, which is where the prime battle is. The belief in their minds that (C)AGW is true is based on them believing the GHE is true and the direct cause of (C)AGW. If there is any possibility that the GHE is not true, why wouldn’t that be a valid and supportable line of inquiry. Yet what I and many others see, is a ‘religious’ outright rejection of this based on a ‘consensus. belief (that the GHE must be true), not a true scientific open mind that questions and investigates. Remember, consensuses are man-made, and history has repeatedly demonstrated that many are eventually overthrown. Consensus, aka ‘current perceived wisdom’ is a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is transitory and illusory, it is not science.
Myrrh,
it seems that you know nothing at all about physics. It is people like you who give us skeptics such a bad name. What you have stated above is utter rubbish. Rubbish, no science and especially no physics understanding.
Simon C-S is thoroughly confused. Anthony did not write this article, so attacking him is pointless.
Simon says: “Of course I understand that GHE and AGW are different entities…”
They are used interchangably. Without a GHE there would be no AGW.
To the best of my knowledge, most skeptics do not reject the GHE out of hand. The real question is: how important is the GHE?
My view is that the GHE is minuscule on a planetary scale. Most of the effect takes place in the first 20 ppmv, and as 400 ppmv is approached, any GHE is completely undetectable. It is down in the noise, therefore it can be completely disregarded.
No catastrophic global warming is on the horizon. There is nothing to worry about, based on curent observations. The real concern is global cooling. Fortunately, the planet seems to be staying within current parameters; no unusual warming or cooling is evident.
It gets tiresome constantly reading about “What if” scenarios, when there is no scientific evidence to support those scenarios. We have been fortunate to be living in a truly “Goldilocks” climate, for which we should be thankful. Because things could easily get out of hand — naturally.
Myrrh says (June 7, 2013 at 5:05 am): “Spencer’s thought experiment has been falsified by superior expert thinking in the field …”
BWAHAHAHA! Aristotle claimed, no doubt after much “expert thinking”, that men have more teeth than women and heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones. Myrrh, the adorably naive boy “scientist”, says that “visible” light can’t heat matter. All three claims are falsified by experiment, not verbal tap dancing. (I’d link the famous Feynman lecture here, but I know it wouldn’t do any good.)
“Let him put up or shut up.”
BWAHAHAHA! You mean the way LaTour “put up”? Why didn’t he and his buddies do the experiment and prove Dr. Spencer wrong with his own experimental design?
Look, Myrrh, you guys are the outsiders, you said it yourself. The burden of proof is on you. The IPCC, its critics, science and engineering professionals and students, science textbook authors, and interested laymen like me all think of you guys as hopeless crackpots (when we think about you at all). Handwaving and posturing won’t change that. Only experiment will change that (or would, if you guys were actually correct), yet you steadfastly refuse to do the work. It’s glaringly obvious you guys don’t believe your own propaganda! Otherwise why the reluctance to “put up”? If you’re actually right, the rewards would be enormous.
BTW, from skimming the rest of your prattle, I gather you still haven’t done your own backyard Herschel experiment, Myrrh–or should I say “Aristotle”?
Simon C-S says (June 7, 2013 at 9:34 am): “Doubt very much though that Roy Spencer will do his experiment, nor Anthony repeating his but correctly (i.e. directly measuring the temperature of the filament, not the shell).”
Anthony doesn’t have to. It’s been done:
http://www.gelighting.com/LightingWeb/emea/images/Halogen_MR16_IR_Lamps_Data_sheet_EN_tcm181-12732.pdf
Now don’t you feel silly? 🙂
Simon C-S says (June 7, 2013 at 10:13 am): “However, I don’t hold Anthony or anyone up on a pedestal such that I will automatically believe anything he or they say or write, but treat it with the same critical and skeptical eye as anything else, and that includes those in PSI.”
No you don’t. Otherwise you’d demand they do Dr. Spencer’s experiment and prove their theories. Why do you think they haven’t done it?
Myrrh – Your post is an example of ‘anything appears to be possible when you have no idea what you are talking about’.
In brief:
GW ended in 2001. http://endofgw.blogspot.com/
AGW never was. http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html
Dr. Spencer, et al. are correct and completely consistent with “real world empirical well understood modern up to date physics”.
Dr. Latour may have been having a bad day. He certainly had nothing to do with radiation HT analyses for Apollo and apparently doesn’t know how space simulation chambers work. I have used one (for testing satellites) and even directed how to fix it . . . twice (both successful).
GHE exists but the magnitude doesn’t change significantly as a result of any rational change to non-condensing ghg (never mind that GHE is a misnomer and radiation HT has little to do with why greenhouses work.).
Dan Pangburn, PE65, MSME73
By ‘global’ temperatures, are we looking at the whole globe, or only the surface and lower atmosphere? Asking because heat goes into the oceans* and melting ice. Those indicators show warming for the period (from the 1990s).
* D’Aleo only looks at a small portion of the oceans (tropical Pacific, 300 meters) in the top post. Trends are strongly upwards for global heat content from the 1990s.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png
@Barry: You wrote: Asking because heat goes into the oceans* and melting ice
+++++++
Correct me if I am wrong here. Isn’t global sea ice at its 30 year average? So what do you mean?
Mario – you are talking about a few months. You need 20 years or so of data to address the point D’Aleo made, which is about climatic trends.
The period in question (D’Aleo) is from the 1990s. There is a clear downward trend in global sea ice since then. I was also referring to land ice (glaciers), which likewise shows a downward trend from the 1990s.
[snip}
“Barry”, if you want to take Mr. D’Aleo on at that level, I ask that you put your name to your words, like he did, like Mosher does. I’m really rather tired of your pot shots here from behind the comfort of anonymity, where if you are wrong (and you are in this rebuttal in some places) there’s no downside for you because you take the no risk hidey hole route.
If you believe your challenge, put your name to it like Mr. D’Aleo does. I think it is only fair.
Anthony Watts
[snip – off topic slayers junkscience]
“barry says:
June 7, 2013 at 9:51 pm”
If one looks further back than 1979 as a starting point, the trend is clearly one of cooler temps given that we already know this interglacial is the coldest in the last 4 or 5. Don’t sell your overcoat just yet.
Artic sea ice area is graphed here http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent_prev.htm and here http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
Links to the reports from the 5 agencies that report average global temperature anomalies on the web are at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/
[snip – off topic slayers junkscience]
Simon C-S says:
June 7, 2013 at 9:34 am
Simon, please see http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/08/open-thread-weekend-21/#comment-330365
[Snip. Your comment to Simon C-S was in the spam folder. It has been rescued and posted. There are typically close to a thousand spam comments to weed through every day, and that takes time; your name-calling response in this post was uncalled for. — mod.]
Anthony, what do you mean by ‘potshot’? If you can point out where i’ve done this I will adjust my behaviour accordingly.
[Reply: Anthony made his concern very clear: “I’m really rather tired of your pot shots here from behind the comfort of anonymity, where if you are wrong (and you are in this rebuttal in some places) there’s no downside for you because you take the no risk hidey hole route. If you believe your challenge, put your name to it like Mr. D’Aleo does. I think it is only fair.”
You can be fair, or not. But by now you surely must be aware of Anthony’s view of anonymous criticism. You can adjust your behavior by posting your real identity. — mod.]
No.
barry says:
“No.”
buc-buc-buc!
This may help.
ROTFLOL!!
Joseph D’Aleo
I offer:
(26) The AGW Greenhouse Effect of “AGW defined greenhouse gases warm the Earth 33°C from the -18%deg;C it would be without them”, is an illusion created out of faked physics.
A very interesting as well as conflicting read. I am being a layman in this topic, however, feel that this piece of article lacks considerable credibility as there are no references given. I am sorry if it is only meant for the experts to understand because there are acronyms used everywhere without being expanded even once.
If I compare to the IPCC findings or publications, they are easy to read and simple to understand. In terms of communications, Mr. Gore certainly scores higher over the piece of reading.
I am sorry to state that being a common man, I certainly find this article only a wastage of time. No offenses to anyone!!!!
Rakesh says (June 9, 2013 at 11:52 am): “I am being a layman in this topic, however, feel that this piece of article lacks considerable credibility as there are no references given.”
There are two references near the end of the article, to failed appeals to “consensus”, and three references at the end. A few quick references for the main points:
#2, not warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/are-we-in-a-pause-or-a-decline-now-includes-at-least-april-data/
#7, no hot spot
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
#11, tornado/hurricane
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/tornadoes-drop-to-new-record-alltime-low/
Bear in mind that these are just a few references supporting just a few of the article’s points. There is support for all of them, but you should do some of your own homework. You seem to know a lot about the IPCC’s work, so why not get the other side of the story from WUWT or some of the other blogs on Anthony’s list (scroll down the right side of the main page)?
“In terms of communications, Mr. Gore certainly scores higher over the piece of reading.”
Gore is a professional politician. He can lie or tell the truth with equal sincerity. Here’s one skeptical look at Gore’s “inconvenient truth”:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
An excellent summary, but it appears written for fellow scientists in the field. It would be more useful if written for the kind of people that need convincing, i.e. politicians. I would dearly like to forward it to my Member of Parliament, Minister of the Emvironment, etc. (in Canada). What is needed is a glossary of the abbreviations used and a brief description of key phenomena such as the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), AMO, etc. Sceptics have got to learn to write briefs like this one in terms that politicians can understand and without burying them in detail. It’s a major challenge in communications.