The 200 months of ‘the pause’

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

A commenter on my post mentioning that according to the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature dataset there has been no global warming at all for 200 months complains that I have cherry-picked my dataset. So let’s pick all the cherries. Here are graphs for all five global datasets since December 1996.

GISS:

clip_image002

HadCRUt4:

clip_image004

NCDC:

clip_image006

RSS:

clip_image008

UAH:

clip_image010

The mean of the three terrestrial datasets:

clip_image012

The mean of the two satellite datasets:

clip_image014

The mean of all five datasets:

clip_image016

Since a trend of less than 0.15 K is within the combined 2 σ data uncertainties arising from errors in measurement, bias, and coverage, global warming since December 1996 is only detectable on the UAH dataset, and then barely. On the RSS dataset, there has been no global warming at all. None of the datasets shows warming at a rate as high as 1 Cº/century. Their mean is just 0.5 Cº/century.

The bright blue lines are least-squares linear-regression trends. One might use other methods, such as order-n auto-regressive models, but in a vigorously stochastic dataset with no detectable seasonality the result will differ little from the least-squares trend, which even the IPCC uses for temperature trend analysis.

The central question is not how long there has been no warming, but how wide is the gap between what the models predict and what the real-world weather brings. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, to be published in Stockholm on September 27, combines the outputs of 34 climate models to generate a computer consensus to the effect that from 2005-2050 the world should warm at a rate equivalent to 2.33 Cº per century. Yeah, right. So, forget the Pause, and welcome to the Gap:

GISS:

clip_image018

HadCRUt4:

clip_image020

NCDC:

clip_image022

RSS:

clip_image024

UAH:

clip_image026

Mean of all three terrestrial datasets:

clip_image028

Mean of the two satellite datasets (monthly Global Warming Prediction Index):

clip_image030

Mean of all five datasets:

clip_image032

So let us have no more wriggling and squirming, squeaking and shrieking from the paid trolls. The world is not warming anything like as fast as the models and the IPCC have predicted. The predictions have failed. They are wrong. Get over it.

Does this growing gap between prediction and reality mean global warming will never resume? Not necessarily. But it is rightly leading many of those who had previously demanded obeisance to the models to think again.

Does the Great Gap prove the basic greenhouse-gas theory wrong? No. That has been demonstrated by oft-repeated experiments. Also, the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, though it was discovered empirically by Stefan (the only Slovene after whom an equation has been named), was demonstrated theoretically by his Austrian pupil Ludwig Boltzmann. It is a proven result.

The Gap is large and the models are wrong because in their obsession with radiative change they undervalue natural influences on the climate (which might have caused a little cooling recently if it had not been for greenhouse gases); they fancifully imagine that the harmless direct warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration – just 1.16 Cº – ought to be tripled by imagined net-positive temperature feedbacks (not one of which can be measured, and which in combination may well be net-negative); they falsely triple the 1.16 Cº direct warming on the basis of a feedback-amplification equation that in its present form has no physical meaning in the real climate (though it nicely explains feedbacks in electronic circuits, for which it was originally devised); they do not model non-radiative transports such as evaporation and convection correctly (for instance, they underestimate the cooling effect of evaporation threefold); they do not take anything like enough account of the measured homeostasis of global temperatures over the past 420,000 years (variation of little more than ±3 Cº, or ±1%, in all that time); they daftly attempt to overcome the Lorentz unpredictability inherent in the mathematically-chaotic climate by using probability distributions (which, however, require more data than straightforward central estimates flanked by error-bars, and are thus even less predictable than simple estimates); they are aligned to one another by “inter-comparison” (which takes them further and further from reality); and they are run by people who fear, rightly, that politicians would lose interest and stop funding them unless they predict catastrophes (and fear that funding will dry up is scarcely a guarantee of high-minded, objective scientific inquiry).

That, in a single hefty paragraph, is why the models are doing such a spectacularly awful job of predicting global temperature – which is surely their key objective. They are not fit for their purpose. They are mere digital masturbation, and have made their operators blind to the truth. The modelers should be de-funded. Or perhaps paid in accordance with the accuracy of their predictions. Sum due to date: $0.00.

In the face of mounting evidence that global temperature is not responding at ordered, the paid trolls – one by one – are falling away from threads like this, and not before time. Their funding, too, is drying up. A few still quibble futilely about whether a zero trend is a negative trend or a statistically-insignificant trend, or even about whether I am a member of the House of Lords (I am – get over it). But their heart is not in it. Not any more.

Meanwhile, enjoy what warmth you can get. A math geek with a track-record of getting stuff right tells me we are in for 0.5 Cº of global cooling. It could happen in two years, but is very likely by 2020. His prediction is based on the behavior of the most obvious culprit in temperature change here on Earth – the Sun.

About these ads

301 thoughts on “The 200 months of ‘the pause’

  1. Who can say the models aren’t wrong? The evidence cannot possibly be more clear. So warmists, scrap the models and go back to the drawing boards! You ain’t got nuthin’.

  2. The “3 degrees” is a strong element of every one of the Gap graphs (as in the oft-quoted 3 degrees of increase for a simple doubling of CO2 concentration). All the graphs are over/predicting by this same 3 degrees, with very minor variations.

    This ought to lead to at least a question about the reliability of the sensitivity assumptions behind the models, I’d have thought …

  3. So, now the ancient fear is graphically clarified…what “they” used to tell the boys, the caution: wanton digital manipulation leads to blindness. QED. Bravo, Lord Christopher!

  4. If the models are as wrong as they appear to be, and the areas of error are as clear as outlined by Lord Monckton (Title not in doubt by me), has anybody published a more realistic model output that matches reality?

  5. To be fair , and as with both sides , ‘paid trolls ‘ is not really an issue like all religions the most fanatical are volunteers whose motivation is many fold but not finical . And we should be careful not to indulge in ‘conspiracy’ claims the alarmists are so fond off.

    What this article does seem to miss out is the way the area of climate ‘science’ has seen massive growth of the back of ‘the cause ‘ . From a poor relation to the physical sciences , little heard off and less cared about , it’s become an academic ‘star’ with lots of research cash and positions a plenty . For some it is that which as to be defended to the death, for they know that once the academic ‘trend’ slips away from them, they have nothing but to go back to but obscurity, defunding and lack of jobs.
    Can anyone see people like Mann get any role in academic without ‘the cause ‘? So all they can do is keep doubling down in the hope to keep the gravy train on track , and facts be dammed.

  6. This is plain to see by everyone other than the unconvertible zealots. For them, a few other standard techniques might help: plotting the residuals as a histogram or probability plot, residuals versus predicted value, residuals versus time, and predicted values versus actual values.

    But why bother? Anyone can see the model doesn’t fit the data. The residuals would all be positive and diverge over time. I guess the hope of those profiting from the public trough is that the real data will eventually catch up with the model.

    If I tried to present a model describing drug stability this bad when filing a new drug with any agency, it would result in a nonapproval.

  7. there is a model that accurately predicts temperatures…no computer needed…just paper and pencil…cheap

  8. “They are mere digital masturbation, and have made their operators blind to the truth”. Perfect. Where else in the world can you get this stuff?!?

    Thank you Anthony and thank YOU, my noble lord.

  9. It is so clear that the IPCC are in denial about their models being totally wrong. You would think that normal scientists would be celebrating and drinking cocktails(banana daiquiris perhaps?) in the streets from their test tubes with the news that the “catastrophic” warming had stalled. The continuance of arguing with increasingly insane “evidence” shows they have something to hide. They will NEVER admit the whole thing is a fake to create their Fabian Utopian One World Government(in reality, North Korea without the backing of China) because they know what will happen to them when the s%^t hits the fan and the People learn of their treachery.

  10. Typo? In the face of mounting evidence that global temperature is not responding at (as) ordered,

  11. **That … is why the models are doing such a spectacularly awful job of predicting global temperature – which is surely their key objective. **

    Yes, doing an awful job of predicting global temperature is indeed their key objective, so that they can pursue their anti-development and anti-human agenda.

  12. Lord Monckton

    I enjoyed reading your piece. There was a recent post which featured a talk given by Dr Essex on this very subject. Your post here affirms the points he was making.

    I think you’re a bit hard on the poor modelers. Most of the people building and writing them are just doing a job. Trying perhaps do to the impossible, but I don’t think they should be de-funded for it. I think the real problem is that many of the scientists that use them don’t understand them and therefore attach to much confidence in their projections. Somewhere along the line there are scientists who are promoting what they know – at least now – to be inherently flawed methodologies. Perhaps they should be isolated and exposed for misrepresenting the models.

  13. The models really do grossly overstate warming. Still, it is reasonable to consider all factors which influence average temperatures, the most obvious of which is ENSO. If a modest adjustment is made to account for ENSO, then the rate of warming since 1998 increases to about 0.75C per century. If you believe there are longer term cyclical influences (like the AMO/Atlantic thermohaline circulation rate) then a reasonable conclusion is that some of the rapid warming between 1975 and 1997 was the result of longer term cyclical factors; the flip side of which is that some of the recent slowing in warming was due to the downward side of those same factors.

    A plausible “underlying rate” in in the range of 0.11C per decade, which is a bit under half the model projection, and completely consistent with a sensitivity to GHG forcing near half of the model diagnosed 3.2C per doubling. I think it is no coincidence that empirical estimates of 1.6 to 1.8C per doubling.

  14. BTW….Lord Mocnkton

    A friend of mine works for hedge fund company. He told me that they employ Oxford and Cambridge math graduates to build financial and economic models. He’s a physics graduate and helps run and maintain them. After years of building very complex models in order to predict the market, these incredibly bright people decided that extrapolating a running average a few days ahead was better at predicting the future than the highly complex models they had built.

  15. I do not really understand most of the technical terms in his explanation for the failure of the models. However, I would submit that if the warmists wish to refute Lord Monckton’s arguments, they had better come up with something better than ad hominem attacks and rages against “Big Oil”.

  16. Good post and nice, explanatory, charts. The linear regressions include very low “r-square” values, 0.000-0.035. If, in my work, I had data that gave r2’s like that, I’d re-examine the data set and experimental technique, because I would consider it to be no correlation. In climate science discussions, on the other hand, seem to ignore this lack of correlation and both sides of the issue divine significance of data that seem to be too noisy to have any good confidence level or much of a decent correlation.
    I’m currently involved in an effort to optimize operations of a landfill gas to pipeline gas plant. We are collecting data and doing statistical analyses on the data. R2’s of 0.5 mean we can’t can’t attach much significance to the data. One of the things I don’t understand about climate science is making much of very poor correlations. Should you be using other curve-fitting, y=mx+b doesn’t seem to be overly convincing.

  17. Every kind of modelling or forecast-making is an attempt to predict the future. It always was, still is and always will be impossible. I just cannot understand how anyone could believe that these people could predict future climate. To me, this is quite possibly the most intriguing and entertaining part of the great climate swindle. Just imagine, we have politicians sucking up to IPCC’s saucerers. Even Rasputin couldn’t have done a better job!

  18. “predicting global temperature – which is surely their key objective”

    I know some people who have been trying to use the same climate models for trying to predict rainfall.

    One guy was telling me they were doing very well (tongue in cheek, I might add), because the model mean was tracking really well with reality.

    Thing is, about half the models predict more rain, and half predict less rain. ;-)

  19. So to summarize: Lord Monckton did pick the dataset with the lowest, (even negative) trend (RSS) of -0.2 ºC/century since all the other datasets show positive trends between +0.44ºC/century and +0.93 ºC/century. So, yes, RSS was a cherry, because it was the only one that showed (be it statistically insignificant) cooling for 200 months (I know, the warming trends of the others are equally statistically insignificant). It is a pity that he chose RSS, since it gave his opponents ammunition to attack his credibility.

  20. As good as this is, what we really need is some cooling that no one can deny/spin instead of non-warming.

  21. Well, I think you’re forgetting the fact that all of the 163 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 163 years! So there…

  22. Sheffield Chris asked:

    “has anybody published a more realistic model output that matches reality?”

    Yes, as long as one realises that the best we can do so far is determine the direction of trend rather than the rate of that trend. Internal system variation, especially from the oceans, currently confounds quantification of the rate of any underlying longer term trends.

    The fact is that zonal jets with reducing cloudiness result in system warming and meridional jets with greater cloudiness result in system cooling by regulating the proportion of ToA insolation that gets into the oceans to drive the climate system.

    That fits all the observations that I am aware of including LIA, MWP, Roman Warm Period et al.

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/

    So we need to start over from that point.

  23. Good of you to take time out of your busy jousting schedule and swing by the Village once again, Sir Christopher, encouraging us and lifting our spirits. Hurrah, I say!

    Just one little thing, You Grace. It would help us exceedingly (especially those of more feeble faith than your good self) if you would deign to pencil in on your beautiful graphs, just where you think the global temperatures will go in the next 10, 20, 50 years. This would really help – reinforcing our already firm confidence in you that you actually know what you are talking about. You see, I don’t want to be a sneak, but I’ve heared some disquieting murmurs down on the Village Green along the lines of: ‘mud-slinging, yelling ‘yah boo’ and flicking your fingers at falsehood can only buy you cheap credibility; to really sort out the Lords from the serfs, and slay the Serpent good n’ proper, you have to show that you can predict future global temperature better than them.’

    So, please: Show us of what stuff you’re made, and that you’re not afraid to go head to head with these amateurs.

  24. stevefitzpatrick:

    Congratulations at your attempted damage limitation in your post at August 27, 2013 at 3:41 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1400944

    Unfortunately (for you and the modellers), your attempt fails.

    You say in total

    The models really do grossly overstate warming. Still, it is reasonable to consider all factors which influence average temperatures, the most obvious of which is ENSO. If a modest adjustment is made to account for ENSO, then the rate of warming since 1998 increases to about 0.75C per century. If you believe there are longer term cyclical influences (like the AMO/Atlantic thermohaline circulation rate) then a reasonable conclusion is that some of the rapid warming between 1975 and 1997 was the result of longer term cyclical factors; the flip side of which is that some of the recent slowing in warming was due to the downward side of those same factors.

    A plausible “underlying rate” in in the range of 0.11C per decade, which is a bit under half the model projection, and completely consistent with a sensitivity to GHG forcing near half of the model diagnosed 3.2C per doubling. I think it is no coincidence that empirical estimates of 1.6 to 1.8C per doubling.

    No, it is NOT “reasonable to consider all factors which influence average temperatures”.

    It is reasonable to consider all the KNOWN factors which influence average temperatures and to admit we don’t know the unknown unknowns.

    For example, nobody knows what has caused – and probably still is causing – the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age (LIA) which has been happening for centuries. This natural temperature rise is certainly not a response to anthropogenic (i.e. human-released) CO2. And it has been providing an observed – n.b. observed and not merely plausible – rise of about 0.8°C per century.

    Add in the known effects (such as ENSO which you mention) and there is no need to introduce any hypothesis of an anthropogenic effect of magnitude sufficient for it to be discernible.

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

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

    and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data

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

    and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data

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

    These findings are consistent with – and indicative of – the feedbacks in the climate system being negative (i.e. not positive as is required for climate sensitivity to be higher than 1.1°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration).

    These empirical indications are that climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and, therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration only has an abstract existence; it is too small for it to have a discernible existence that has observable effects.

    Please note that my post I here provide presents is
    1.
    An explanation of why the climate models don’t work: the models use high and untrue values of climate sensitivity
    2.
    A reply to Sheffield Chris who asks at August 27, 2013 at 3:00 am for a “published a more realistic model output that matches reality”: the references I here cite are to published values of climate sensitivity and the ‘model’ they represent is of no discernible effect of anthropogenic CO2 on natural global temperature variations.
    3.
    Agreement with the post of gopal panicker who, at August 27, 2013 at 3:14 am, says

    there is a model that accurately predicts temperatures…no computer needed…just paper and pencil…cheap

    Richard

  25. Village Idiot:

    Thankyou for your post at August 27, 2013 at 4:15 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1400961

    which again demonstrates your idiocy.

    Lord Monckton is being a scientist so he has no need to provide an alternative model: as a scientist he is only required to falsify the existing model(s) as he does in the above article.

    Of course, as you say, his understanding and application of the scientific method is much superior to those whom you call “amateurs”. However, I think calling them “amateurs” is being too kind to them when they so flagrantly flout the scientific method.

    Richard

  26. Sheffield Chris says: @ August 27, 2013 at 3:00 am
    …. has anybody published a more realistic model output that matches reality?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Try Joe Bastardi and Joseph D’ Aleo of Weatherbell
    (It is on the right side of WUWT about 6 page downs)

  27. The climate models have clearly failed in the last 20 years.

    Basically, since they were built. Most of them were developed less than 20 years ago.

    If we go back to the first of them by Hansen and Manabe in the early 1980s, the predictions missed the last 20 years as well.

    There is no global warming climate model that has a long pause in it because they are programmed to increase with rising CO2.

    Why are we wasting so much resources on models which don’t work. Tens of millions of dollars per year and thousands of people are involved One might be tempted to say “why not reprogram them so they do a better job?” Well, whomever tried to do this would get blacklisted by the other climate scientists.

    Hence, they go on and on looking for flimsy excuse after flimsy excuse when the obvious answer is right there staring them right in the face.

  28. Ah, but Chris Schoneveld, it is okay if they attack his credibility. That is the only weapon they have at their disposal since the truth has deserted them. What really counts is the credibility of the alarmists has so thoroughly been destroyed. In your blindness, you fail to see that the two most reliable datasets are two which record the least warming (all at a time of peaking of ocean oscillations). Chalk the vast majority of the warming that has occurred since the 70’s to ocean oscillations and the sun being above average activity the last half of the 20th century (and don’t forget to factor in the adjustments to the data in the other datasets which account for quite a bit of the slope). You’re left with a falsified theory and falsified models. Get over it.

  29. Additionally, the models all have subset characteristics which are testable, and failing. Tropical hotspots, water vapor content, sea level, etc.

  30. Village Idiot,

    A real scientist, aware of the shortcomings of the current state of climate science, would not try and predict what temperatures will be based on known incomplete knowledge. On the other hand, the IPCC and the world’s policy makers are prepared to. That is both ingenuous and irresponsible.

    Another thing, the root of the word amateur is the latin word amare (to love). It was originally used to describe someone who did something for the love of it and who was considered more noble than someone doing something professionally. Sadly, amateur has come to mean second rate. His Lordship is definitely an amateur in the original sense of the word whereas many modern climate scientists are definitely professional.

  31. If you had based your career and economic security on being a leader in your field and then came to find out, not only have you been wrong, but your methods that lead to your conclusions were also wrong, would you risk being sent away to the poor house with little more than a footnote in history? Most likely not so you would defend yourself to the bitter end, after all, what have you got to lose by hanging on as long as you can. (not a defense just an understanding of why)

  32. Village Idiot, given a 420K/yr history of +\- 1 deg change within a +\- 3 deg range, I suspect he can get a bit closer then the model’s mean of greater then two degrees of error using nothing more then a bit of chalk.

  33. I’m not sure why ghg theory not being proved wrong is mentioned, as it’s a straw man. The real argument is over what the climate sensitivity to man’s CO2 actually is. The “human fingerprint” has not been shown. That doesn’t mean there is none; it just means that it is very small. It appears that climate just doesn’t respond like a laboratory. Fancy that.

  34. mike g says:
    August 27, 2013 at 4:39 am
    “You’re left with a falsified theory and falsified models. Get over it.”

    “You are barking up the wrong tree”. I have been a skeptic from day one, you obviously didn’t get the gist of my comment.

  35. A comment I’ve made before and will make again. It is pointless and misleading to superimpose the CO_2 curve, with an arbitrary y-axis scaling, on top of the temperature curve, with equally arbitrary y-axis scaling. This is screamingly obvious when one is plotting not absolute magnitudes (which have some meaning) but the cursed “anomalies” that climate scientists seem obsessed with, largely because of their belief that they can subtract away some sort of reliably known “time varying baseline” and focus only explaining deviations from this baseline, in a system described in even its simplest (almost trivial) forms by a nonlinear stochastic differential equation. Sadly, plotting anomalies is the subject of almost an entire chapter in the lovely book “How to Lie with Statistics”, (which could also be read as “How to make terrible errors using statistics naively” as an alternative title).

    So please, please — remove the grey CO_2 curve. That isn’t science. It isn’t even good argumentation — since the two curves have completely different units you can easily scale the y-axis units for the CO_2 so that it falls nicely into the range of the temperature fluctuations and lines up with the temperature trends in perfect agreement with any positive temperature slope — and it still won’t mean anything.

    If you want to see something really instructive, take a look at this:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/offset:287/plot/rss/plot/esrl-co2

    This is what the actual global average temperature looks like in degrees Kelvin. Some “hockey stick”, huh? Only it doesn’t, because one cannot add a constant back — the Earth’s temperature varies seasonally just like the CO_2, and the anomaly was computed by subtracting something like a constant plus an annual sinusoid from the original data, and I cannot add back the annual sinusoid function because I don’t know it. I can’t even find it on the internet. I could probably figure it out if I looked deep in some computer code somewhere, and it probably is in the literature, but at the moment I don’t even know the purported range of monthly variation of the supposed mean global temperature relative to which the anomaly is computed (and it may be computed locally and subtracted before forming the anomaly mean!) So this entire figure could have monthly ripple that is as large or larger than the entire “anomaly” variation over the entire range. How would I know? How would anyone (but one of the deep climate cognoscenti) know?

    It is also what the actual CO_2 concentration looks like in parts per million, which conveniently scales to fit on the same graph and (because pre-industrial baseline CO_2 was ballpark 287 ppm) by pure chance one can quite accurately extrapolate the near-exponential rise back to the left so that it appears to be rising from the temperature line. This does, actually, correctly illustrate the relative increase — CO_2 has increased by around a third of its original absolute pre-industrial concentration, and the bulk of that increase has occurred within the last 50 or 60 years.

    Entertaining as it is to look at anomalies, sometimes it is very useful to look at the actual quantities involved. The skeptics who assert that a “trace gas” like CO_2 cannot provide much warming as it increases — well, look at these curves. It doesn’t, not in any absolute sense. Not much, of course, is not the same as zero.

    A second sorry aspect of WFT is that it is (as far as I can tell, correct me if I’m wrong somebody) quite impossible to add simple little things like error bars to the curves, or to do a proper chisq fit USING the data uncertainties. In fact, there are a ton of things one cannot do within WFT, either because it is missing the functions needed to do it or because it is missing the DATA needed to do it. In particular any sort of reasonable error estimate. It would be infinitely more instructive to put all of the data into R (for example) where one could actually do statistics with it instead of thinking up fifty different ways to commit the sin of post hoc ergo propter hoc on the susceptibility of a quantity that cannot even be properly defined by the very people that compute it.

    One day I’m going to write an entire article on the “anomalous” sins of the climate community. For example, GISS and HADCRUT and all of the rest of the datasets that purport to reach back to the mid-1800s are presented as anomalies across the entire range. At the same time, it is openly confessed that to transform the anomaly into an absolute temperature one has to add to the quantity an estimate of some baseline temperature, say, 14 C or 287 K. Only, there is no general agreement as to just what that baseline temperature ought to be — it might be as low as 286-something K or as high as 287-something K, where the range enabled by the “somethings” is order unity either way. What value you get depends — wait for it — on what model you use. Strangely enough, what value you get for the anomalies themselves also depends on what model you use! The error for the anomalies, surely, increases as one goes back in time. The error for the baseline similarly increases as one goes back in time! In fact, we have precisely zero thermometric measurements for entire continents — Antarctica, for example — from the mid-1800’s.

    You can then see why it is essential not to present any sort of graphical treatment of the uncertainties in global temperature — this is never done even in the modern thermometric data. Each “anomaly” dataset is presented as a fait accompli, without the slightest hint of uncertainty, and (committing a sin that would cost them points on any physics exam!) to an absolutely absurd number of significant figures! The anomaly is never 0.1, it is 0.1327… (who knows how many digits of garbage they actually keep in their published computation — WFT is happy plotting at least 2. Thus we are presented with the illusion that we know the global temperature anomaly within an experimental resolution of at least 0.01 K, perhaps 0.001 K or even more! We are further led to believe that “smoothing” this data in some way leaves us with a real trend, and not just smoothed noise! Lying, lying, lying.

    Let’s realistically assume that even in the modern era, it is most unlikely that we know the absolute global average temperature to an experimental resolution of 0.1 K. By this I mean that there is that much variation (easily) just between purported estimates of the anomaly alone, and since those estimates surely rely on substantially overlapping data, this variation almost certainly significantly underestimates the error. One could argue that in the modern era we probably don’t know the anomaly within 0.3 K, and of course this grows substantially as one goes into the past, and plotting the “anomaly” in the first place conceals the simple fact that we don’t know the baseline to which the anomaly is added to within more than about a degree.

    One cannot assume that this error is unbiased normal error — pure statistical error resulting from some process with zero mean. For one thing, the datasets that compute anomalies have systematic differences — some are consistently higher than others (again, in spite of the fact that they have enormous data overlap and indeed are probably adjusted to remain IN approximate agreement). For another, the anomaly computations include systematic corrections to the raw data — which begs so very many questions it is difficult to count them — as well as perform black infilling and extrapolatory magic that literally cannot be validated outside of AT MOST a narrow window of time. Indeed, the strangest thing of all is that even the anomalies fluctuate by several tenths of a degree month to month, all or part of which could be pure statistical error. After all, what they are subtracting to form the anomaly isn’t even a constant average baseline temperature, it is an average baseline temperature plus an assumed known seasonal correction, which is a second order correction compared to the baseline.

    With all that said, I do agree with you that the IPCC is getting ready to repeat the sins of AR4’s summary for policy makers and present the mean and standard deviation of many different model results as if it is a statistically meaningful quantity. Which is why your presentation above — especially when presented with the AR4 and/or AR5 predicted trend — is NOT cherrypicking, at least not when applied to the entire time after those (e.g. AR4) predictions were made. That is simply looking to see how the models did, which is terribly.

    I’m not certain I agree that we are due for 0.5C of cooling — perhaps we are, perhaps not — because I don’t think uncertain science suddenly becomes certain for you, for me, for your friend who is sometimes right, for the IPCC, for the GCMs, or for your favorite psychic medium. Given the uncertainties in the data and the corrections, I’m not even sure we’ve had the claimed 1 C of global warming post the mid-1800s. I think we have actually had some warming, but it could be a half a degree, it could be a degree and a half. Who knows what Australia, Antarctica, the western half of the United States, most of South America, half of Canada, most of China, the bulk of the pacific, and the bulk of the Atlantic oceans were doing (temperature-wise) in the mid-1800s? Our thermometric data is spotty to sparse and inaccurate, and a lot of this was terra incognita to the point where we don’t even have good ANECDOTAL evidence of climate.

    We are left trying to make sense of equally sparse proxies, where the proxy errors BEGIN with the residual errors of the modern era (which typically normalizes the proxy) and get strictly larger as one computes the proxy results further in the past, where the normalization period is almost certainly corrupted by the incorrect inclusion of UHI-contaminated data that is almost impossible to correct without doing a case by case study of EACH contributing station, if then.

    I say “if then” because if one looks at the range of temperatures visible on the area weather stations just in the immediate vicinity of my house in Durham, while there are clearly visible UHI systematic errors in the local airports that contribute to e.g. GISS, it isn’t particularly easy to see how to correct them in a time-dependent way that allows for things like gradual urbanization of the area, the fact that it is piedmont (hilly, with significant vertical variation of temperature that is different at different times of the year), with a particular kind of soil that favors certain kids of convective updrafts and thunderstorm formation (at least in the nearby sandhills that influence our weather), with two large impoundments, both very near the airport, that have been built and filled over the last three decades, as the airport itself has gone from a single small terminal and a runway to three terminals and two large runways where they are on the THIRD REBUILD of two of those terminals, and where they relocated the airport weather station right next to the tarmac in the middle of nowhere, directly exposed to the sun, awash with jet exhaust, and right next to what amounts to solar heated rock, gravel and grass (no trees need apply, even though the entire region is heavily wooded EXCEPT for the cities proper and the airport). I shudder to think of doing this sort of thing, correctly, for every contributing weather station or pretending that a one-size fits all correction can be applied across the board on the basis of some simple functional form.

    IMO we have at most 33 years of pretty good measurements of global average temperature(s) — by pretty good I mean arguably within a few tenths of a degree C combined systematic and statstical error. We have perhaps another 20-30 years of decent measurements (post-world-war-II, say) where our knowledge probably is within order of a half a degree. Before that, I suspect that it quickly broadens out to a degree or more of error, with an unknown fraction that could be systematic and not zero-trend statistical. It is a daunting proposition to try to measure the Earth’s temperature now with anything like real precision. It isn’t even possible to measure the temperature within a tenth of a degree in my own back yard. Yet we purport to know what the temperature in my own back yard was in the year 1870 to well within a degree? I don’t think so.

    rgb

  36. Pete Brown says:
    August 27, 2013 at 4:09 am
    Well, I think you’re forgetting the fact that all of the 163 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 163 years! So there…

    You might also add that 163 years out of the last 163 years have occurred after the end of the Little Ice Age.

  37. John Judge says: @ August 27, 2013 at 3:49 am
    ….they had better come up with something better than ad hominem attacks and rages against “Big Oil”.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The ‘rages against “Big Oil” ‘ is projection. Al Gore is tied to Occidental Petroleum. Maurice Strong Chair of the UN’s First Earth Summit, served from 1973-1975 as the founding director of the U.N. Environment Program and later chaired (thanks to help from President Bush) Kyoto. He got his start in Saudi Arabia with Rockefeller’s oil company, served as President of the Power Corporation of Canada; CEO of Canada’s national oil company, Petro-Canada (which he also helped to found); and head of Ontario Hydro, North America’s largest utility company. He was senior consultant to the World Bank, the UN and a trustee of a Rockefeller Foundation(Standard Oil money.) SEE: Cloak of Green

    Ged Davis, VP of Shell Oil, is shown in one of the Climate gate e-mails as the person who wrote the ‘scenarios’ for the IPCC. (Golden Economic Age (A1), Sustainable Development (B1), Divided World (A2), Regional Stewardship (B2)) SEE: e-mail

    Shell and BP provided initial funding for the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia.

    And then there is Chris Horner’s eye witness story: Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room.

    Their only hope is to tar skeptics with the same brush while down playing their involvement with the energy industries and they have been quite successful… if you are a brain dead sheeple.

  38. Bruce Cobb —

    Maybe it was mentioned for people like me. The only explanation I have for how a “greenhouse gas” could possibly cause warming works equally well for preventing warming, i.e., for moderating temperature, damping both warming and cooling for a net change of zero. I am willing to be made wrong, because then I’d understand the matter better, but it remains that I honestly don’t see it. I’d welcome a direction to a high-school-level explanation (one not written by believers in AGW). Hopefully it will include why Venus, when pressure is accounted for, is no hotter than it “should” be just from closer proximity to the sun. ?

  39. It was Prof. Phil Jones in the Climategate emails (‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’) and Ben Santer in a 2011 paper in JGR (“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”) who picked the time period. Complaints of cherry-picking go to them. If perhaps they were wrong about validation periods, what else might they be wrong about?

  40. Chris Schoneveld says: @ August 27, 2013 at 3:57 am

    …..It is a pity that he chose RSS, since it gave his opponents ammunition to attack his credibility.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I would also pick RSS because it is the ‘CLEANEST’ of the data sets. The three terrestrial datasets: GISS, HadCRUt4, NCDC, have been sliced diced and mutilated as has been shown repeatedly here at WUWT. An example from Jo Nova’s site.

    The satellite sets also have better more uniform coverage without all the problems of very spotty coverage, siting, multiple instruments, calibrations and observers that give you a much larger possible error.

    Of the two satellite sets: UAH has the ‘Stigma’ from Dr. Roy Spencer (in the minds of the warmists) so that leave RSS as the only ‘neutral’ set.

  41. Village Idiot, given a 420K/yr history of +\- 1 deg change within a +\- 3 deg range, I suspect he can get a bit closer then the model’s mean of greater then two degrees of error using nothing more then a bit of chalk.

    By the way, I think this particular assertion is just plain wrong. The glacial/interglacial variation in global temperature is a lot larger than that according to e.g. this graph:

    or this one:

    The actual range of variation appears to be roughly 10 K, which is quite substantial. Note well that almost all of that variation is negative compared to the present — we are currently in the Holocene interglacial, with a temperature that appears to coincide with both the warmer third of the Holocene and with the warm interglacials past. That is, if glaciation returns (so glaciers descend across the Americas several kilometers thick all the way south into say Pennsylvania, similar effects in what is not the temperate zone worldwide) global average temperatures could be as much as 8 to 10 C cooler than they are at present. In the last glacial era (the Wisconsin) CO_2 levels dropped to where the partial pressure was barely large enough to sustain at least some species of plants — close to mass extinction levels, in other words. If one goes back further still, out of the ice age we are currently in, the Eocene optimum was perhaps 5 to 10 C warmer than the present, as well. But at that point the continents themselves had a different shape.

    The five million year curve is actually rather disturbing, especially when compared and contrasted with the last half-billion years. We are actually remarkably, dangerously cold. It has only been as globally cold as it currently is in a single era out of the last 500 million years (on a timescale where the entire glacial/interglacial fluctuation vanishes). We spend 90,000 out of 100,000 years in glacial mode, with that borderline extinction-event hovering on the low side of the temperature/CO_2 curve. So I think Monckton got all of these numbers wrong (or at the very least, I’d like to know the source for his claims as they disagree with the published results that are the basis of these figures, which I think are really rather reasonable as we have NON-anecdotal evidence for glaciation that would have kept e.g. all of New York State and parts north at a temperature well-below freezing year round. That’s the kind of proxy I trust, although perhaps not to terribly high resolution, and of course it merely corroborates this isotope-derived evidence.

    rgb

  42. Someone please send this to CNN, NYT, ABC, NBC, CBS, AND The President.
    Please.
    And add in every local college and highschool.

    JimB

  43. stevefitzpatrick says:
    August 27, 2013 at 3:41 am

    The models really do grossly overstate warming.
    ============
    Of course they do….models are tuned to past temperatures that have been adjusted to show more rapid warming than is real…
    …even if you had the most accurate model in this world, it would never be right because of those past temp adjustments
    All models are going to shop more rapid warming because of that one fact
    If the get the model right….they would have to admit they lied about past temps
    a catch 22……..

  44. These IPCC models predict the trend per century. The data uncertainties of measurement work and climate noise both ways in the argument. So after how many years of decline can the IPCC models be challenged? According to some of their experts it was around 15 years but each year it’s of course becoming more of a problem statistically since then.

    But that still does not make the graphs as created above that meaningful or scientific as often portrayed. The prediction is multi-decadal and the measured cooling trends are not there yet, especially considering the admitted inaccuracies (again they work BOTH ways).

    This is in my view the fundamental flaw in the reasoning in this article: comparing current trends of one or two decades with predictions made for the coming 50-100 years. They just do not compare well although they can be interesting to analyze of course. It’s just that the exercise does not warrand the conclusion drawn: “the world is not warming anything like as fast as the model”. Simple because the model does not inform you that well about the trend in this decade. It’s simply not designed to do so.

  45. Village Idiot,

    I am perfectly capable of knowing whether someone can’t sing, dance, juggle, etc. I am not required to do it better than them in order to render judgment.

  46. Mr. Idiot, since the IPCC does not do any future predictions (according to Trenberth) why is it you expect Monckton to do something different? Maybe you should direct your energies to the IPCC or Trenberth.

    The CO2 GHE was quoted about as 1.16C/doubling. I’ve seen many references to different numbers. If I use the following site to compute the increase of 3.7 w/m2 I get less that .8C (start at TOA/4 and add 3.7 to the power) . Does anyone have a reference to why these various numbers are different.

    http://mc-computing.com/Science_Facts/Temperature_Conversions.html

    Also, the CERES data that Willis referenced in his “spot” article shows that feedbacks are negative for most of the planet. This means whatever the impact of the CO2 GHE, the result will not be as high as the computed value.

  47. The Old Farmers Almanac does it better than the climate models. It is predicting 2014 to be a very cold year. Village idiots, take heed.

  48. Another well-written piece that even a non-scientist like myself can at least appreciate. Christopher Monckton writes very eloquently for the ordinary reader – it’s a tragedy the msm are too cowardly to ever print his informed analysis.

  49. MattN says: @ August 27, 2013 at 3:59 am

    As good as this is, what we really need is some cooling that no one can deny/spin instead of non-warming.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Nature may be about to answer your prayers although I doubt it will matter since the Media is turning a blind eye to all the record breaking lows set in the USA; 2/3 of the USA cooler than normal January to Augst 2013 and 2899 record colds vs 667 record warms for the USA 7/24/2013 to 8/21/2013 the fact the temperature above 80N has been cooler than average all summer; DMI The fact the Arctic Ice is within 2 sigma of ‘normal’ DMI Also the MET office managed to blame Global Warming (thawing of the Arctic) for all the nasty winter weather in the UK. The Huffington Post: Climate Change ‘Causing Colder British Winters’ Says Met Office Chief Scientist

  50. JimS says:
    August 27, 2013 at 6:00 am

    > The Old Farmers Almanac does it better than the climate models. It is predicting 2014 to be a very cold year. Village idiots, take heed.

    I don’t think the Old Farmer’s Almanac is out yet, you are referring to the Farmers’ Almanac from Maine, a pretender to the throne.

  51. RGB, your points are well-founded, but it is quite relevant for Monckton to mention–in some manner–the behavior of CO2 in a period in which Earth’s temperature, represented in the main available data sets, has been nearly unchanged. The best temperature information we now have invites skepticism about AGW; it would be ironic is the warmists were to seize upon the unreliability of their own data as a defense against Monckton’s criticism.

  52. @Ric_Werme
    Yes, you are correct. My bad. The Old Farmers Almanac comes out next month. I doubt its predictions will be much different, since both almanacs rely more on the Sun and its influence, rather than CO2. Our children will still know what snow is next year.

  53. Steve Jones says: @ August 27, 2013 at 4:44 am
    ….. Sadly, amateur has come to mean second rate.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is very unfortunate since I know a lot of ‘amateurs’ who are a lot better than ‘professionals’ in many different callings. As far as I can see the only difference between the two is as you mentioned an amateur does it for love and a professional for money. There is nothing in those definitions that says who is actually better. In some instances, like horse training, the amateur, who has no reason to force the horse to be ridable in a month, does a much better and more thorough job of it. In science, whether in academia or industry, again the professional is playing to someone else’s tune and if he doesn’t ‘produce’ what is wanted within time constraints he is penalized. All the science fraud in many different fields that is now coming to light is cause by this problem with ‘professionals’

    His Lordship, as you say “is definitely an amateur in the original sense of the word.”

  54. Chris Schoneveld says:
    August 27, 2013 at 3:57 am

    So, yes, RSS was a cherry, because it was the only one that showed (be it statistically insignificant) cooling for 200 months

    On the other hand, two data sets that were not discussed here are right on the heels of RSS, namely Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2. Both show 196 months of a flat slope. See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:196/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:196/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/last:196/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/last:196

  55. Ric Werme says:
    August 27, 2013 at 6:11 am
    I don’t think the Old Farmer’s Almanac is out yet, you are referring to the Farmers’ Almanac from Maine, a pretender to the throne.
    ================================
    The Farmers’ Almanac is using words like “piercing cold,” “bitterly cold” and “biting cold” to describe the upcoming winter. And if its predictions are right, the first outdoor Super Bowl in years will be a messy “Storm Bowl.”

    The 197-year-old publication that hits newsstands Monday predicts a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey. It also predicts a colder-than-normal winter for two-thirds of the country and heavy snowfall in the Midwest, Great Lakes and New England.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57600023/farmers-almanac-predicts-a-bitterly-cold-winter/

  56. Monckton
    They are mere digital masturbation, and have made their operators blind to the truth. The modelers should be de-funded. Or perhaps paid in accordance with the accuracy of their predictions. Sum due to date: $0.00.

    KNR
    For some it is that which as to be defended to the death, for they know that once the academic ‘trend’ slips away from them, they have nothing but to go back to but obscurity, defunding and lack of jobs.

    LOL. Where is Nick Stokes? He seems to think that the IPCC has never made a prediction. ROFLMAO.

  57. Steve Jones says:
    August 27, 2013 at 4:44 am

    Another thing, the root of the word amateur is the latin word amare (to love). It was originally used to describe someone who did something for the love of it and who was considered more noble than someone doing something professionally. Sadly, amateur has come to mean second rate. His Lordship is definitely an amateur in the original sense of the word whereas many modern climate scientists are definitely professional.
    =======================================================================
    Quite so. Would this be an appropriate moment to state the oft quoted comment that Noah’s Ark was built by amateurs and RMS Titanic was built by professionals?

  58. “…most obvious culprit in temperature change here on Earth – the Sun.”

    Yeah, right, as if the Sun was the primary source of heat for the planet or something.

    Oh, wait…never mind.

    Didn’t Willis once point out that even the reflected off the Moon heat from the Sun is noticeable? If such a small amount can be detected, what a great effect would be even a small change in the Sun?

  59. How can people still cling to the CO2 myth — including WUWT? The idea that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures has failed the observational test.

    “Does the Great Gap prove the basic greenhouse-gas theory wrong? No.” ???? Observation of actual events HAS disproved the GHG theory. Get over it.

  60. The error in the models is largely a result of the assumption that post LIA warming stopped 150 years ago. This warm biases the models because they assume that natural warming must be due to human activity.

    Occam tells us to pick the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that post LIA warming did not suddenly stop 150 years ago, that it continues to this day. Thus the climate models are running hot because they do not account for long term natural variability.

  61. Lord Monckton states:

    “Does the Great Gap prove the basic greenhouse-gas theory wrong? No. That has been demonstrated by oft-repeated experiments. Also, the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, though it was discovered empirically by Stefan (the only Slovene after whom an equation has been named), was demonstrated theoretically by his Austrian pupil Ludwig Boltzmann. It is a proven result.”

    Whilst I agree with the answer to the first sentence, I can see no purpose in the balance of the paragraph. In my opinion, this article would be better served if it stuck to the observational data, and did not discuss the ‘science’ of GW. That way it would be better focused on the key point namely the model divergence from reality, which divergence may be because the underlying science is wrong, or the science is not well modelled, and/or there are just simply too many unknowns and/or because of chaos even if the science is well understood and modelled still no prediction of the future would be possible.

    The data is the data, although much of the data has been basterdised by endless adjustments/homogenisation (the need for much is moot), polluted by UHI and poor siting issues, and biases may well have crept in with station drop outs and the like (including the state of screen maintenance).

    It is apt to point out what the data shows, and what the models predict/project and to comment upon the divergence. That is the crux of the issue and rgb’s comments (rgbatduke says:
    August 27, 2013 at 5:08 am ) usefully add to how the data should be seen and interpreted.

    In my opinion, the comments in the artcile on the ‘science’ of GW and the speculation such as “…(which might have caused a little cooling recently if it had not been for greenhouse gases)…” only serves to detract from the central point of the article and as such dilutes the take home message.

  62. Dear Lord Monckton,

    In the first sentence of the second to the last paragraph, my Minnesota ear for American English wonders if the phrase at ordered is a small typographical error and should read as ordered?

    In the face of mounting evidence that global temperature is not responding at ordered, the paid trolls – one by one – are falling away from threads like this, and not before time.

  63. Gail Combs: Bravo!
    Rather than taking your words as ‘truth’, I followed your link to Elaine Dewar’s ‘Cloak of Green’ but did more than that… I went to Maurice Strong’s wiki and read that and, then, the reviews of her other major book on Amazon.
    In doing so I looked mainly at the negative reviews of her work. Considering those and their wording tells me all I need to know about the curious influences of big science, ‘Big Oil’ and their role in what is going on.
    When you look at the ‘World of Science’ with a critical eye as she has done, what you see is not necessarily scandalous but instead proves that any field has its own agenda which may or may not be in the best interests of the public or even scientific method.
    I have no doubt that reading the wiki’s of the other players Dewar mentions in her book will link the ‘conspiracy’ together. What is foreseen is a one-world cabal by influential NGO’s and Corporations administered by UN edict, and paid for by ‘Contributions’ by the various first world states. All ‘behind the curtains’ of course.
    And the press is of course complicit in this. There is no doubt of that.
    If some of you find that loony, just pay attention to other events that seem unrelated and do what I did… read the evidence for yourself. Follow the money.
    Alone, none of them are too weird. Together, they are chilling.

    Kudos

  64. richardscourtney says:
    August 27, 2013 at 4:27 am

    “Lord Monckton….as a scientist”
    Nope…Google him and I don’t think he is. Jounalist, yes. Knight of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, yep. He is obviously, as you so rightly say, an amateur, doing what he loves best…Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British public speaker.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

    So will the Honorable Knight pick up the gauntlet? Methinks not. He may be many things, but he’s not stupid enough to put his money where his mouth – he’d crash and burn. He’d rather keep his powder dry and “predict by proxy”: “A math geek with a track-record of getting stuff right tells me we are in for 0.5 Cº of global cooling. It could happen in two years, but is very likely by 2020. His prediction is based on the behavior of the most obvious culprit in temperature change here on Earth – the Sun.”

    What a clever Champion we have!

  65. Chris Schoneveld says:

    August 27, 2013 at 3:57 am

    So to summarize: Lord Monckton did pick the dataset with the lowest, (even negative) trend (RSS) of -0.2 ºC/century since all the other datasets show positive trends between +0.44ºC/century and +0.93 ºC/century. So, yes, RSS was a cherry, because it was the only one that showed (be it statistically insignificant) cooling for 200 months (I know, the warming trends of the others are equally statistically insignificant).

    //////////////////////

    Don’t forget that the raison d’etre for the change from Hadcrut3 to Hadcrut 4 was because Hadcrut3 was flat (just like RSS), and the ‘Team’ required at least some signs of warming (even if the warming is of no statistical significance) and hence the emergence of Hadcrut4.

    The reality is that within measurement errors, there appears no warming in any data set for 17 or more years.

    If the satellite data set is to be preferred then apart from a step change around the Super El Nino of 1998, there has been no warming these past 33 years. The warming these past 33 years certainly has not been anything akin to a steady linear annual/decadel increase but instead, just one step change/climate shift.

  66. The cherry pick claim is now the universal shield used by CO2 advocates to dismiss contradictions. Before the politics of climate change contrary evidence was a signal of an incomplete or wrong hypothesis prompted deeper discussion.

    There is also climateschizophrenia. When a skeptic highlights the lack of warming it is called cherry picking but Hansen, Trenberth, Solomon, von Storch and most climate scientists admit the global average has failed to rise in over a decade. As von Storch said Dr. von Storch replied, “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations”

  67. Determining when the trend change is a bit puzzling. There are very strong El Nino -la Nna effects in 1998 to 2001, so the fluctuations are anomalous. Though it is statistically not different from the trend since 2001 to now, is it also Not statistically different from the trend from 1980 to 1997? Why should the time 1998 to 2000 be assigned to either the current trend or the previous trend? Since least squares regression is very strongly affected by anomalies wouldn’t it be more robust to determine the current trend based on the trend since those strong events calmed down, and the prior trend from before they occurred? It seems to me that the hinge point where the trends changed should be determined by projecting forward the 1980 to 1997 trend and backwards the 2001 to current trend and see where they intersect.

  68. fyi – This is from the comment section associated with today’s WaPo article about warming. I linked to the graph, above, and got this as a response, below. Sounds like slander to me.

    jimbenison
    9:47 AM EDT
    Anthony Watts has lied and manipulated and smeared and been a fraud to the point where it cannot be seen as an accident. It is a pattern of behavior.

    He isn’t just a joke, he is a menace to society. In fact, he might be held criminally accountable some day.

    Anyone can say anything they want about the guy because he and his Heartland partners in crime know that stepping into a courtroom would be suicidal.
    ———–

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-global-warming-warning-cant-be-ignored/2013/08/26/448eb232-0c39-11e3-9941-6711ed662e71_allComments.html

  69. mellyrn says: @ August 27, 2013 at 5:17 am
    ……I’d welcome a direction to a high-school-level explanation (one not written by believers in AGW)…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Try Dr. Spencer:
    Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell
    Global Warming
    My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies
    Revisiting Wood’s 1909 Greenhouse Box Experiment

    What you are saying, the temperature is modified with the highs being lower and the lows being higher, actually works for H2O, think rain forest vs desert. This is because H2O has absorption bands in both the higher wavelengths (sunshine) and the lower wavelengths (earthshine IR)
    My comments using an actual example:
    comment 1
    comment 2
    and Sleepalot’s original comment and his other interesting comment.

  70. Village Idiot says:
    August 27, 2013 at 6:49 am
    =====
    What an odd request….
    Asking someone to make a prediction….when the argument is we don’t know enough to make those predictions

  71. I hate to mention reality but Obama is still in charge and he thinks global warming is an issue and is acting accordingly. Forget the facts this is power politics.

  72. Excellent article! One would like to point out notes from Sankhya research little long .sorry if there is any inconvenience.
    The Suns (hence Earth’s too) distance from the galactic centre keeps changing which causes polar glacial meltdown every 26000 yrs. It is moving towards cooling!
    In Sankhya the Triguna theory of simultaneous and self similar interactions derives the standard oscillatory cycle of components in space through axiomatic theorems and equals 2.965759669e+8 interactions per cycle,. It is approximately equal to the frequency of modern velocity of light at a wavelength of a meter in 1.010845 seconds, which is due the earth’s distance from the Sun. The solar gravity field flux density varies as the log of distance. The Meter to yard conversion factor of 1.30795 for cubic space and a time correction of 2.99792458e+8/1.486e+11 shown below which is an indicator of their scientific knowledge. It yields the value of 3.5312861 x 1025 cubic yards per second exact to the 7th decimal place of the value from the Rigvedic theorem. Statistically this equivalence cannot be an accident. An important factor is that time correction for Galactic and Earth velocities were included which means the Vedic forefathers knew of the Doppler shift in frequency due to relative movement
    “Sanskrit” means a refined code. “Sama” means equalised and “krit” means cut, clipped, divided, pulsed or in other words a code. The language was developed scientifically and logically as the only possible code human beings could create naturally with the equipment they had, the human body.
    Any cyclic vibration has a typical characteristic of reversal of action, like up and down, forward and backward or left and right and this variation can be described as creation and destruction or acceleration and deceleration or sinusoidal oscillation. If the opposing effects are equal they cancel out or the nett algebraic effect is zero which does not contribute to detectable or measurable signal. The period the pulse is on can be considered a ‘mark’ and the silence a ‘space’ and a combination of mark and space makes a cycle.

    (Rapid Rise of Sea Level 19,000 Years Ago and Its Global Implications
    Peter U. Clark,1* A. Marshall McCabe,3 Alan C. Mix,2 Andrew J. Weaver4
    Evidence from the Irish Sea basin supports the existence of an abrupt rise in sea level (meltwater pulse) at 19,000 years before the present (B.P.). Climate records indicate a large reduction in the strength of North Atlantic Deep Water formation and attendant cooling of the North Atlantic at this time, indicating a source of the meltwater pulse from one or more Northern Hemisphere ice sheets. Warming of the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the Southern Hemisphere also began at 19,000 years B.P. These responses identify mechanisms responsible for the propagation of deglacial climate signals to the Southern Hemisphere and tropics while maintaining a cold climate in the Northern Hemisphere.)
    The stellar divisions based on 28 Nakshatras- the angular width = 12.857 (With 27 the angular divisions are 13.333 deg.)
    Calculations show that the current starting position or the 0 degree position on the ecliptic to date is in the Nakshatra( Na = ‘not’ Aksha = ‘terrestrial latitude’ Atra = ‘in this case’ meaning not a terrestrial latitude in this case) is a label to identify a numerical angular position or celestial latitude or longitude Aswini or Aries constellation between 0 and 13 degrees. As a rough guide the total ayanamsa period of 25739 years divided by 28 yields 919 years per Nakshatra passage.
    The Vedic scholars, following the Sankhya principle of self-similarity that governed the dynamic state of the Substratum, took the ecliptic coincidence as a clock time benchmark that can at least be relied on in a cycle of approximately 25739 years. This drift or Ayanamsa(Ayan = motion or movement and Amsha degree or division) was used by astronomers and astrologers to fix the moving zodiac (ecliptic) so that accurate comparisons of events could be made in a locality where everything is moving relative to everything else. If the number of Ayanamsa cycles are known between events in multiple units of 25739 years, then it could be compared meaningfully.
    The earth’s equator spins at a mean surface velocity of approximately 462 m/s and the earth itself moves around the sun at an algebraic mean speed of approx. 29845.4 m/s. But the earth’s axis is tilted by 23.5 deg. to the plane of revolution around the sun, called the ecliptic. As a result of this tilt, the earth’s maximum spin velocity vector at the equator works out to : 462 x .91706 (cos 23.5) = 423.52 m/s. The drift of the starting point of the ecliptic is at the rate of 423.52 / 29845.4 = 1 / 70.47 of a cycle and the drift due to the sidereal effect is 1/365.25 thereby giving a total drift of 1 / (70.47 x 365.25) = 1/ 25739 of a cycle. It means that an identical ecliptic coincidence of the sun and earth at a particular position will be repeated only after 25739 cycles or years in this case. This calculation has been shown in a simplified form to make it understandable but a very accurate calculation supported by many years of practical observation gives a drift rate of 50.35 seconds of arc per solar year and is only used in Vedic astrological calculations as a normal course . The precession of the equinox calculated by applying modern principles of celestial mechanics is 26000 years or (49.85 sec of arc per year.).The precession of the equinox provides the correct algorithm to predict global weather trends.. The glacial melt about 10000 years ago is now driving the world towards a colder regime in another 3000 years or the mid cycle of 26000 years to another glacial melt But extremely accurate calculations give varying precessional rates at different periods and relative positions, but the 25739 rate is an average of over 30000 years.
    Finally, The numerical proof for this fact comes from the enigmatic 2.7 degree Kelvin background temperature in space that Peebles et al recorded. The 10e+17 modes of change in entropy in a micro blackhole in space logarithmically equals the natural log value of e = 2.718 or the total sum of self-similar change in volume per cycle. Mathematically it could never exceed 2.718. Hawking et al exposed the entropy value but as a macro blackhole phenomenon on a solar scale, for science was apparently unaware of the concept of scale invariance and reflection symmetry in a frozen hologram. So a tiny blackhole is no different from a massive blackhole except for its self- similar time cycle.
    The earth spins on its own axis in 24 hours or 1/365.25 of its annual orbit around the sun. This sets the actual time of a daily revolution to less than 24 hours of clock time, if the starting point of each daily revolution is referred to a location in the sky; that is ( (24 x 3600)/365.25) = 236.55 sec or 3 min and 56.55 sec less than 24 hours. It means that if we use a particular stellar constellation or star at the zenith or the horizon, identifying the starting point for the daily revolution of the earth, one would see this mark arrive 3 min and 56.55 sec earlier every day and will again coincide with the same stellar location and clock time only after 365.25 days or a year. It is the natural shift in timing of an object that is both spinning and orbiting in space. The time of 23 hrs 56 min 3.45 sec is called sidereal time. Hence we can locate the star accurately at any future time by applying the sidereal time from a known date within an annual cycle. Similarly if the location of this star is recorded at a particular time, it is possible to work out the location of the observer and the date of such observation, all within the cycle of one year. This example has been quoted to show that location and date of events can be ascertained with the required degree of accuracy based on the sidereal shift in stellar positions. Added to the sidereal shift that moves along the solar ecliptic, there is another movement due to the shift in the angle of earth’s axis to the ecliptic that creates a relative change in the angle of inclination of the ecliptic. This movement is called precession of the equinox and is treated in current physics as a problem connected with spinning bodies like a gyroscope and in relativistic physics it is due to the curvature of the field. But Sankhya proves that all phenomenon is due to the synchronisation of vibrations or it is of a holographic nature and treats space like any other matter field comprising gas or fluid etc. that causes delay by superpositioning of vibrations and therefore a shift in the static or synchronised state and both these shifts are combined and defined as Ayanamsa (Ayan = motion or movement and Amsha degree or division- in Sanskrit explained below). The fundamental reason that precession exists is that the oscillating or vibrating parameters along the two axis in the plane of motion is not synchronous or the synchronous nodes along the two axis have marginally different rates of oscillations. Two sets of axial vibrations can be in resonance or have a standing wave relationship if the two axis (say x and y ) have a ratio of one to two. That is the tangent of an angle of 26.565 is exactly ½ and at this value the resonant state at the 2nd harmonic is maintained. This is perhaps just the tip of iceberg !!! Pls explore http://www.kapillavastu.com

  73. arthur4563 says:
    August 27, 2013 at 5:44 am

    If the objection is cherry picking the years involved, then let’s REALLY cherry pick andstart with the MWP.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Nah, start with the Cretaceous. graph

  74. Village Idiot:

    I see that again you demonstrate your idiocy at August 27, 2013 at 6:49 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1401056

    where you write

    richardscourtney says:
    August 27, 2013 at 4:27 am

    “Lord Monckton….as a scientist”

    Nope…Google him and I don’t think he is.

    Village Idiot, what you “think” is not relevant and is merely further demonstration of your idiocy.

    I actually wrote

    Lord Monckton is being a scientist so he has no need to provide an alternative model: as a scientist he is only required to falsify the existing model(s) as he does in the above article.

    That is true.

    Richard

  75. @Village Idiot
    You wrote about Lord Monckton: “So will the Honorable Knight pick up the gauntlet? Methinks not. He may be many things, but he’s not stupid enough to put his money where his mouth – he’d crash and burn. He’d rather keep his powder dry and “predict by proxy”: “A math geek with a track-record of getting stuff right tells me we are in for 0.5 Cº of global cooling. It could happen in two years, but is very likely by 2020. His prediction is based on the behavior of the most obvious culprit in temperature change here on Earth – the Sun.”

    “What a clever Champion we have!”

    JimS responds: If the Sun is so obvious as the culprit for temperature, why haven’t the modelers clued into this already? So you mock Lord Monckton for being clever in leaning upon the obvious main driver of temperature? How bitter-sick can you be?

  76. JimS says:
    August 27, 2013 at 6:00 am

    The Old Farmers Almanac does it better than the climate models. It is predicting 2014 to be a very cold year….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Sorry Jim, that is the pretender The Farmers Almanac not the Old Farmers Almanac because the 2014 issue is due out September 10, 2013!

  77. Those who want to take a stab at making their own prediction of the trend in Global Mean Temperature over the next 87 years to the year 2100 can use Beta Blocker’s Analysis Framework as their methodology, an approach which uses trends in Central England Temperature (CET) as a proxy for future trends in GMT.

    Beta Blocker’s CET Pattern Picker.

    The analysis framework illustrated above can summarize and document almost any kind of GMT prediction you want to do, from the most simple to the most complex, depending upon how much additional writing you are willing to generate in support of the summary information shown on the one-page form.

    And if you don’t want to go to all the trouble of doing an “analysis” per se, just throw a dart at the CET Pattern Picker Dartboard and you will have a prediction straight away.

  78. @Gail Combs
    Yes, Gail, read further down from there – correction noted, made, and walked off with tail between my legs already.

  79. Village Idiot says:

    Yada, yada, yada…

    He, he – we actually have folks here replying to a self-proclaimed villiage idiot who continually demonstrates his (her?) credentials in each post!

    Is this a great board or what?

  80. “mere digital masturbation,” – MaLrd you owe me a coffee as I just spewed mine all over the place.

    Reality is a concept lost on the modelers. If your model and reality differ your model is WRONG. Abandon or modify it. Full stop!

  81. Given the current troll-like harping on land-based temperature records in the U.S., we need to see more comparisons with that station-induced biased gap against satellite and other global benchmarks. The gap will only grow and the trolls will get more shrill.

  82. John Judge says: @ August 27, 2013 at 3:49 am
    ….they had better come up with something better than ad hominem attacks …

    Especially since it’s a bad idea to use ad hominem against a man who can think of a phrase like ‘digital masturbation’ and is not afraid to use it.

    I’m glad I unlearned reading WUWT while sipping coffee over papers of any importance.

  83. It is perfectly obvious that the IPCC models are not fit for purpose because they are structured incorrectly ab initio.They are based on three irrational and false assumptions. First that CO2 is the main climate driver ,second that in calculating climate sensitivity the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a feed back effect and third that the GHE of water vapour is always positive.As to the last point the feedbacks cannot be positive otherwise we wouldn’t be here to talk about it .
    Temperature drives both CO2 and water vapour independently,. The whole CAGW – GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause.As a simple (not exact) analogy controlling CO2 levels to control temperature is like trying to lower the temperature of an electric hot plate under a boiling pan of water by capturing and sequestering the steam coming off the top.A corollory to this idea is that the whole idea of a simple climate sensitivity to CO2 is nonsense and the sensitivity equation has no physical meaning unless you already know what the natural controls on energy inputs are already ie the extent of the natural variability.
    A simple empirical approach based on the forward projection of quasi cyclic quasi repetitive patterns is much more useful.Here are the conclusions of a Thirty Year Forecaste update posted on my blog at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

    To summarise- Using the 60 and 100 year quasi repetitive patterns in conjunction with the solar data leads straightforwardly to the following reasonable predictions for Global SSTs
    1 Continued modest cooling until a more significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
    2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
    3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
    4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
    5Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
    6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
    7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
    8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and more CO2 would help maintain crop yields .
    9 Warning !!
    The Solar Cycles 2,3,4 correlation with cycles 21,22,23 would suggest that a Dalton minimum could be imminent. The Livingston and Penn Solar data indicate that a faster drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures might even be on the horizon.If either of these actually occur there would be a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario”

    Note – I believe that the SSTs are the best metric for climate change because we should really be measuring enthalpy and the SSTs are a reasonable guide to the changing enthalpy of the oceans and the thermal inertia of the oceans smooths out short term noise.Perhaps Monckton could add the HadSST3 and the NOAA SST data to his comparisons.

  84. @Latitude
    Yes it is both almanacs and since both rely upon the Sun and its activity or lack thereof, Village Idiot would call them “clever,” methinks. Now all we need is for Villiage Idiot to tell the climate modelers to do the same and leave the impact of CO2 way off in the back field, and we just might get some clever climate modelers.

  85. Paid trolls are mythical creatures. Just like the few hundred regular WUWT posters, they do it for free.

  86. Village Idiot says:
    August 27, 2013 at 4:15 am

    Good of you to take time out of your busy jousting schedule and swing by the Village once again, Sir Christopher, encouraging us and lifting our spirits. Hurrah, I say!

    Just one little thing, You Grace. It would help us exceedingly (especially those of more feeble faith than your good self) if you would deign to pencil in on your beautiful graphs, just where you think the global temperatures will go in the next 10, 20, 50 years…..

    Sceptics don’t have to predict or suggest anything if they don’t want. Monckton is simply pointing out the failed projections / scenarios of the Great Climate Gurus.

    PS When you fail you don’t ask someone whether they can do any better. If I write a paper suggesting that the Sun was responsible for most of the recent warming and peer reviewers reject it. I then turn around and ask them whether they can do any better? They will laugh me out of the room. This is what you are suggesting.

  87. Chris4692:

    Your post at August 27, 2013 at 6:57 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1401060

    is warmunist obfuscation at its most extreme.

    After waffling about ENSO effects, you conclude saying

    It seems to me that the hinge point where the trends changed should be determined by projecting forward the 1980 to 1997 trend and backwards the 2001 to current trend and see where they intersect.

    NO!
    We are discussing how long a period has existed during which there has been no statistically significant trend in the global temperature according to available data sets. The ONLY valid start date is now (because it is the present) and to assess the time series back from now.

    Any other start date is ‘cherry picking’.

    And it so happens that there has been no statistically significant trend in global temperature for more than 16 years according to all the compilations of global temperature. But the climate models projected there would be a discernible and statistically significant rise in global temperature over that period.

    Richard

  88. I get the impression that Village Idiot is a frustrated climate modeler designer, by asking Monckton to give a better prediction. Who else would demand such a thing, and natter on and on about it for so long?

  89. Chris4692 says: @ August 27, 2013 at 6:57 am

    Determining when the trend change is a bit puzzling….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It is all about the statements made by Warmists:
    1. Prof. Phil Jones saying in the Climategate emails – “Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” Also see: interview with Judith Curry and Phil Jones

    2. Ben Santer in a 2011 paper “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.” link

    3. The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled The State Of The Climate

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

    So the falsification criteria is 15 years to 17 years. That is why we start at the present and count backwards. Once we hit 17 years The Goose is Cooked. Unfortunately the Goose seems to be a zombie and keeps rising from the dead.

    Anyone have silver bullets, garlic and a wooden stake?

  90. KNR says:
    August 27, 2013 at 3:04 am
    “To be fair , and as with both sides , ‘paid trolls ‘ is not really an issue like all religions the most fanatical are volunteers whose motivation is many fold but not finical . And we should be careful not to indulge in ‘conspiracy’ claims the alarmists are so fond off.”

    So you dispute the claim of the EU’s transparency site, which details the amounts they give to green NGO’s, including Greenpeace.

    http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/06/fun-finding-the-eco-lobbys-funding.html

    What evidence do you have that shows that the EU commission is lying?

  91. JohnWho:

    re your post at August 27, 2013 at 7:30 am

    The troll posting as Village Idiot makes spurious points which need to be refuted for the benefit of onlookers who are seeking information about the subject of the thread.

    Similarly, the troll posting as JohnWho needs to be answered and for the same reason.

    Richard

  92. Can I cherry pick too? I’m an amateur.
    TSI is said to be 1.5%
    Global mean temp is said to be 276 k.
    We would be zero if it weren’t for the sun.
    276X.015=4.14
    A whopping 8.28k plus or minus differential due to the sun.
    Simple really. ;-)

  93. Bruce Cobb says:
    August 27, 2013 at 4:51 am

    I’m not sure why ghg theory not being proved wrong is mentioned, as it’s a straw man. The real argument is over what the climate sensitivity to man’s CO2 actually is. The “human fingerprint” has not been shown. That doesn’t mean there is none; it just means that it is very small. It appears that climate just doesn’t respond like a laboratory. Fancy that.

    Not true–if we could stuff all the components of climate into a laboratory, we’d have an equivalent comparison–the lab experiment would just have to be a perfect replication.

    However, that undertaking is proving to be just a bit difficult.

  94. There’s a wealth of useful information in the text and graphics that Christopher Monckton of Brenchley has eloquently provided above, but I have a reservation about the graphics. There is a very interesting and potentially important missing piece of information in the plots. Indeed, this information has to my knowledge never appeared in any illustration of climate trend lines. In my own work on climate trends I *always* compute and plot this information. It is the confidence interval for the fitted regression line, at some arbitrary probability level (conventionally 95% in many branches of science). If presentation of this vital statistical information became the norm for those who publish on climate matters it would throw useful light on the arguments that surround interpretation linear fits to highly variable data.

    In (climate) time series there is a problem involved in computing this interval that does not arise if the values in the underlying data set had been independent observations from the same distribution. They are not independent samples, and although the numerics of the linear fit are not affected, inferential statistics derived from these least squares calculations are. Steve McKintyre has frequently commented on this often ignored difficulty, and has referred to methods that have been proposed to allow for its effect. Overall, the modified interval is wider than the simple one, further degrading the predictive power of the regression.

    The ultimate objective of those who work with climate data is usually to attempt to project into the future any wisdom that can be gained from studying the past. It is known as forecasting.

    Anyone who has invested in the financial markets using professional advisers will have noticed their all-embracing caveats regarding future expectations. Exactly the same considerations apply to climate analyses.

    Another interesting piece of information would be the confidence interval for a future (usually single) observation, for a datum coming from the same underlying distribution. This is normally a very disappointing statistic for most researchers, and in the case of highly autocorrelated data such as climate (often temperature) invariably are, might lead to despair.

    All this leads to the point that R Squared, though a perfectly valid statisitic in itself, is a poor indicator of the practical (forecasting) value of the simple least squares fit. It would be an improvement to provide a probability level for the t value for computed coefficient (its magnitude divided by its standard error).

  95. @ Gail Combs
    Thanks for the documentation re the warmists and their obsession about the time frame as to when the jig is up. It was most interesting.
    I believe their new strategy is already revealed in that they are now concentrating on extreme weather events, of which, can always be found… somewhere.

  96. JimS says:
    August 27, 2013 at 7:24 am

    Yes, Gail, read further down from there….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Sorry JimS, I comment as I read. I gave up trying to do it any other way such as trying to read all the comments first and then remembering what comments were which. Already there are 100 responses. Reading through once is bad enough. :>)

    [Now, 157 comments. Mod]

  97. “””””””………cd says:

    August 27, 2013 at 3:37 am

    Lord Monckton

    I enjoyed reading your piece. There was a recent post which featured a talk given by Dr Essex on this very subject. Your post here affirms the points he was making.

    I think you’re a bit hard on the poor modelers. Most of the people building and writing them are just doing a job. …….”””””””

    I wish I had a $1 for every time I hear or read of the excuse; “I was just doing a job; AKA I was just following orders.”

    I keep seeing different numbers for how many peer reviewed climate Temperature models there are.

    13 ? 17 ? 19 ? 77 ? whatever?

    And not one of them would let you postdict the mean global temperature in 1776, or 1066 , or 1492 , or 2011; let alone predict in 1988 (as Hansen did) what it would be in 2008; which it wasn’t.

    So they are just doing a job Right ?

    Hey that’s one job that the economy can well do without.

  98. rgbatduke writes:

    “One day I’m going to write an entire article on the “anomalous” sins of the climate community.”

    Please do. Maybe your explication of these anomalous sins will cause some in the Alarmist camp to take the problems seriously. Once again, I thank you for your powerful contributions to our understanding of climate science as it is practiced today.

  99. Lord Monckton is the “Celente” of climate. His classy indignation is welcomed and well received. He never comes off as ugly, calls names with the slickest of grace and provides entertainment with his meddle. He’s a pit bull with a pretty smile. Lord on, Lord Monckton! Me? A fanboy? Perhaps. I simply adore an coherent meddler.

  100. “In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
    ― Richard P. Feynman

  101. Gail Combs says:
    August 27, 2013 at 5:29 am
    “Of the two satellite sets: UAH has the ‘Stigma’ from Dr. Roy Spencer (in the minds of the warmists) so that leave RSS as the only ‘neutral’ set.”

    I agree, but why didn’t Monckton make that obvious point himself when going for the RSS data so as to shut up all the potential whiners that use the tiniest indication of prejudice to attack him.

  102. even about whether I am a member of the House of Lords (I am – get over it).

    Your Lordship, it is understandable that some might argue this point since the House of Lords itself does not list you among its membership, and indeed has asked you on more than one occaision to stop claming that you are a member of the house.

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

    http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/

  103. Robin Edwards says:
    August 27, 2013 at 8:05 am

    There’s a wealth of useful information in the text and graphics that Christopher Monckton of Brenchley has eloquently provided above, but I have a reservation about the graphics. …It is the confidence interval for the fitted regression line, at some arbitrary probability level (conventionally 95% in many branches of science).

    It was not my intention to advertise my own article, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/25/rss-flat-for-200-months-now-includes-july-data/
    however that article may have what you are looking for in Section 2:

    As a result, we can now say the following: On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 23 years.
    The details are below and are based on the SkS Temperature Trend Calculator:
    For RSS the warming is not statistically significant for over 23 years.
    For RSS: +0.120 +/-0.129 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
    For UAH the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
    For UAH: 0.141 +/- 0.163 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
    For Hadcrut3 the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
    For Hadcrut3: 0.091 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
    For Hadcrut4 the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
    For Hadcrut4: 0.092 +/- 0.106 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
    For GISS the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
    For GISS: 0.104 +/- 0.106 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
    For NOAA the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
    For NOAA: 0.085 +/- 0.102 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
    If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not statistically significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:
    RSS since August 1989;
    UAH since June 1993;
    Hadcrut3 since August 1993;
    Hadcrut4 since July 1994;
    GISS since January 1995 and
    NOAA since June 1994.

  104. A truly EXCELLENT post. This should end, once and for all, the debate over “man-made warming.” But it won’t, because Big Money is involved in keeping the myth alive.

  105. richardscourtney says:
    August 27, 2013 at 7:53 am

    Gail Combs says:
    August 27, 2013 at 7:57 am

    It is a strange situation that a scientific theory has to be dis-proven at the 95% level, but the models are already outside of that self-determined range. They don’t believe their own statistical ranges as set by their models, why would this one matter? If the modellers do not already acknowledge that the models are wrong, reaching some length of time that those models are wrong will not be convincing to them either: that time is just arbitrary and will be revised as egos require. It does not matter whether the models have diverged starting in 1997 or 1998 or some other time. The models and the data will continue to diverge, and they will eventually have to acquiesce, but they will only do it when they decide, not by hurrying the schedule.

    The goal should be to get the science and analysis right, not score points in a contest.

  106. Climate sensitivity (feedback) is a huge issue. Without it, increased CO2 would have only a modest effect on temperature and might even be beneficial given increased crop yields and longer growing seasons. IPCC and the models they use as the basis for their reports, assume a strongly positive feedback. If that is true, why did temperatures not run away when CO2 was 2,000ppm and higher in the not so distant past?

  107. CG in BOS says:
    August 27, 2013 at 7:01 am

    The person you quote might not be a troll. However, the Washington Post sites are infected by paid trolls. Their technique is to post so quickly that interesting posts are scrolled off the first page before anyone has had a chance to read them. They also use other familiar troll techniques. How do I know? I have conversed with them online. But the clearer evidence is that they are not there on holidays or most weekends. Why did I care to learn this? Because Jennifer Rubin’s blog has had the comments section controlled by trolls since she started at WAPO. That is really sad because she is a first rate analyst of the news regardless of what you think of her political predispositions.

  108. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair To a large extent, the “scientists”, the green groups, the UN IPCC and the politicians; are all depending on not understanding it.

  109. ‘Meanwhile, enjoy what warmth you can get. A math geek with a track-record of getting stuff right tells me we are in for 0.5 Cº of global cooling. It could happen in two years, but is very likely by 2020. His prediction is based on the behavior of the most obvious culprit in temperature change here on Earth – the Sun.”

    now that’s a prediction.

    an appeal to an un named source.
    with no work to back it up.
    it “could’ happen in two years.. this is like warmists saying the ice could all melt if the melting continues..
    very likely by 2020? how every likely.

    Many of the folks who believe in AGW do science a disservice by making vague predictions.
    Some do the science a disservice by failing to show their work or share their data.
    Its a good thing that they are taken to account by folks demanding data and folks demanding that people show their work and take ownership of failed predictions.

    I find it odd that you would end a piece that stressing looking at data and predictions with an appeal to some wizard of OZ

  110. steveta_uk:

    re your fallacious and offensive post at August 27, 2013 at 8:34 am.

    This matter was dealt with on the previous thread.

    You are repeating a smear and a falsehood.

    Concerning your specific point, I answered that in the previous thread where I wrote at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/sticking-it-to-the-mann/#comment-1400513

    The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.
    Letters of Patent (which appoint a man to be a Lord and thus a Member of the House of Lords) are issued by the Monarch. The Letters of Patent inherited by Lord Monckton have NOT been withdrawn by the monarch who alone has the right to withdraw what the monarch has provided.
    So, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a Member of the House of Lords.
    However, Lord Monckton does not have a ‘Seat’ in the House of Lords and, therefore, he cannot participate in debates and has no voting rights in the House of Lords.

    The opinion of some flunky does not – and cannot – negate a decision of the monarch in a Constitutional Monarchy. You would have been able to work this out for yourself if you possessed as many as two brain cells to rub together.

    I commend a post of kadaka (KD Knoebel) and its links if anyone wants a definitive explanation of the egregious misrepresentation which your untrue smear provides. His explanation is also in the same thread and can be read at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/sticking-it-to-the-mann/#comment-1400444

    Richard

  111. Hoya Skeptic says:
    August 27, 2013 at 8:25 am

    There you have it, in basic form, from the last great scientist who often expressed awareness of his social and political roles as scientist. He constantly taught scientific method and the duty of each scientist to follow scientific method in detail.

    The problem that Alarmists face is that none of them have produced even one new well confirmed physical hypothesis. As regards CO2, they are dependent on Arrhenius. As regards the “forcings and feedbacks,” they have produced nothing.

  112. KevinM says: @ August 27, 2013 at 7:47 am

    Paid trolls are mythical creatures…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Don’t bet on it. Around 1985 while job hunting I saw several ads in the Boston Globle advertising paid positions as Nuclear Protesters (Seabrook NH site) They paid $10/hr when the minimum wage was $3.35 and McDonalds was paying ~$5.00.

    Amusing CALPIRG Astroturfing Video

  113. Steven Mosher says:
    August 27, 2013 at 8:57 am

    He did not present it as a prediction, at least not as one he accepts. He presented it as one among a list of possibilities that cannot be excluded at this time.

  114. Theo Goodwin says:
    August 27, 2013 at 8:41 am
    “The person you quote might not be a troll. However, the Washington Post sites are infected by paid trolls. Their technique is to post so quickly that interesting posts are scrolled off the first page before anyone has had a chance to read them. ”

    That sounds a lot like Cass Sunstein technology. (He is the inventor of the idea that the government should control internet fora by sending out sockpuppets)
    (And he’s got a new job on the NSA oversight committee)
    (And his wife is UN ambassador for the Obama administration)

  115. If we replace belief in a tiny variable with belief in another tiny variable, exactly how does that make us right and them wrong? Just because the Sun is a big thing in the sky we can see, doesn’t mean it is the cause of our weather pattern variations. It is a logical fallacy to think there is a mechanistic connection between something that is big in the sky and an observation on Earth that varies from time to time. Between the two celestial bodies, Earth is FAR AND AWAY the bigger variable because…duh…it varies a great deal more than the Sun does. The smart money is on the Earth as the source of weather pattern variation in the short AND long term.

  116. Chris4692:

    In a post addressed to Gail Combs and me following our each having refuted your earlier excuse for the modellers, at August 27, 2013 at 8:38 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1401138

    you write

    It is a strange situation that a scientific theory has to be dis-proven at the 95% level, but the models are already outside of that self-determined range. They don’t believe their own statistical ranges as set by their models, why would this one matter? If the modellers do not already acknowledge that the models are wrong, reaching some length of time that those models are wrong will not be convincing to them either: that time is just arbitrary and will be revised as egos require. It does not matter whether the models have diverged starting in 1997 or 1998 or some other time. The models and the data will continue to diverge, and they will eventually have to acquiesce, but they will only do it when they decide, not by hurrying the schedule.

    The goal should be to get the science and analysis right, not score points in a contest.

    You are right when you say,
    “If the modellers do not already acknowledge that the models are wrong, reaching some length of time that those models are wrong will not be convincing to them either: that time is just arbitrary and will be revised as egos require”.

    But that is why your final sentence is plain wrong. I correct it as follows.
    The goal should be to get the science and analysis right, and that is why the egregious and anti-scientific errors of the modellers need to be proclaimed to all and especially to those who fund the modelling.

    Richard

  117. Some answers to commenters. First, Professor Brown rightly questions whether adding the CO2 graph to the temperature graph is proper, statistically speaking, given that the units differ, so that one can arbitrarily tamper with the aspect ratios.

    However, the CO2 graph comes into its own when the temperature trend is at or below zero, while the CO2 trend is positive. That indicates a clear discrepancy between the two datasets, and demonstrating the fact of the discrepancy is legitimate.

    Several commenters have complained at the lack of error-bars on the surface-temperature data. Here one must give full marks to HadCRUt4, which does publish error-bars around 0.15 Cº above and below the central data. In a future posting I shall be happy to display those error-bars. In practice, any trend of less than 0.15 Cº does not count as detectable warming because it falls within the zone of insignificance.

    A troll says I am not a member of the House of Lords. What that has to do with global temperature trends is not intuitively patent. He cites the opinion of a politicized clerk who acted without the authority of the House and will face court action in due course. The reasoned opinion of a barrister specializing in constitutional law is uncompromisingly to the effect that I am, as I have said I am, a member of the House without the right to sit or vote, and I am fully entitled to say so.

    Let us stick to the main points of the head posting. Since December 1996 none of the datasets has indicated warming rates equivalent to even 1 Cº/century. Since January 2005 all of the datasets show global cooling, while the IPCC’s 34 models show global warming. The models are wrong. The IPCC’s case is based on the models. Ergo the IPCC’s case is wrong.

  118. Chris Schoneveld says….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Lord Monckton has been known to take suggestions from the peanut gallery (us)

  119. The first signs of the weaker solar cycles are starting to make its effect on Earth with the modest recovery of the Arctic sea ice this year. I expect over the next 5 to 10 years it will be come increasing evident that the Earth is entering a cooling phase despite ever rising CO2 levels. In spite of the constant barge from EPA, the President and the so called “main street media” to hammer the point that we must reduce our carbon emissions, at some point the balance of public opinion will shift away from this false “AGW” doom story. Maybe in front of a Congressional Inquiry the data fudging that GISS has done over the decades with the historical climate data will come to light and finally people will see the truth and the enormity of this hoax. People like Professor William Gray will have been vindicated!

  120. Chris4692 says: @ August 27, 2013 at 8:38 am

    ….The goal should be to get the science and analysis right, not score points in a contest.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On that we agree, however when we try to bring up the science and discuss it we are shouted down as D*ni*rs and worse. So it is very nice to be able to refute those claims using their OWN WORDS and their OWN DATA. Not that we don’t still get the Zombie Effect.

  121. george e. smith

    I wish I had a $1 for every time I hear or read of the excuse; “I was just doing a job; AKA I was just following orders.”

    For God’s sake they’re typically math graduates that write computer code. They aren’t carrying out execution orders.

    BTW the models, while rubbish at predicting the climate, have actually played an important part in moving scientific programming and numerical methods along.

  122. “They are mere digital masturbation, and have made their operators blind to the truth”.

    Maybe they’ll stop when they need glasses.

  123. Just Steve says: @ August 27, 2013 at 8:41 am….
    Fredrick Weisberg as a decent reputation link Definitely a turn for the better.

  124. Gail said:
    Nature may be about to answer your prayers although I doubt it will matter since the Media is turning a blind eye to all the record breaking lows set in the USA; 2/3 of the USA cooler than normal January to Augst 2013 and 2899 record colds vs 667 record warms for the USA 7/24/2013 to 8/21/2013 the fact the temperature above 80N has been cooler than average all summer; DMI The fact the Arctic Ice is within 2 sigma of ‘normal’ DMI Also the MET office managed to blame Global Warming (thawing of the Arctic) for all the nasty winter weather in the UK. The Huffington Post: Climate Change ‘Causing Colder British Winters’ Says Met Office Chief Scientist

    ——————————————————————————————————
    I understand. Despite the US having what I certainly consider a below normal year, globally it seems to be in line with recent years. What we need is some long term mild/moderate global cooling, instead of global sameness. We don’t need to go back to 50s-60s cool, some mid 1970s/early 1980s global temps would likely shut a whole lot of people up for a long time.

  125. sometimes, your Lordship, I really wish you would get off the fence and tell us what you really think ;)

  126. @MattN
    I think the only thing that will shut some of the CAGWers up is to have the Laurentide Glacier to start building up again over North America. Even then, warmists like Jim Hansen will blame CO2 for the glacier’s return.

  127. cd says: @ August 27, 2013 at 9:36 am
    just following orders.”

    For God’s sake they’re typically math graduates that write computer code. They aren’t carrying out execution orders….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Please tell that to the families of the thousands who died from the effect of hypothermia in the UK. Please tell that to the old people having to chose between eating and staying warm. Please tell that to the one in four families living in fuel poverty. Please tell that to the 22% unemployed in the USA who will never see their jobs come back while increasing costs of energy (and regulations) makes darn sure no new industry will chose the USA.

    As long as these cowards continue to ‘defend’ their jobs they are contributors to the misery of others. I speak as someone who refused to ‘Go along to Get along’ with falsifying lab data and was fired and blackballed as a result. But at least I am not a ‘Lady MacBeth.’ However these people don’t even have her amount of conscience. They tell themselves any amount of lying is fine because it is ‘For the Cause’ so who cares about the thousands to millions who die as a result of the lies.

  128. Richard Courtney, and Lord Monckton have both gone down considerably in my estimation by responding with nasty rants and accusations of being a troll when presented with a polite and not unreasonable point.

    Chris Monckton, I did not raise the irrelevant point – you did yourself in the main post. Try reading what you write before accusing others.

  129. JimS says: August 27, 2013 at 9:54 am
    @MattN
    I think the only thing that will shut some of the CAGWers up is to have the Laurentide Glacier to start building up again over North America. Even then, warmists like Jim Hansen will blame CO2 for the glacier’s return.
    ________________
    But, according to Hansen, burning more coal equals more soot, which in turn absorbs heat and MELTS glaciers, :)

  130. “Yeah, right. So, forget the Pause, and welcome to the Gap:”
    _______________

    Love it. The Great Gap.

  131. steveta_uk:

    re your silly post at August 27, 2013 at 10:10 am

    You did NOT raise “a polite and not unreasonable point”.
    You provided a fallacious smear, and I gave you a reasoned and factual rebuttal together with links for anyone to see the factual information for themselves.

    People who provide untrue ad homs. are trolls.

    Be as upset as you like.

    Richard

  132. cd says:
    August 27, 2013 at 9:36 am
    “BTW the models, while rubbish at predicting the climate, have actually played an important part in moving scientific programming and numerical methods along.”

    In what way? Granted they look awesome; you can create animations that look similar to a real planet. Otherwise? Chaos theory has moved maths forward (and explains why GCM’s fail so hard). But Chaos theory delivered its crushing verdict early in the 80ies. That would have been a good time to stop wasting billions with supercomputers; and instead think down and think. This time has been wasted – or; maybe the climate scientists would have found a way to cause even more harm, had we not payed them to play with their useless models.

  133. JimS says: @ August 27, 2013 at 9:54 am

    I think the only thing that will shut some of the CAGWers up is to have the Laurentide Glacier to start building up again over North America. Even then, warmists like Jim Hansen will blame CO2 for the glacier’s return.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is for sure since they ignore things like in Norway the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years, and a significant percentage of the glaciers in the Himalayas are expanding. Even the rangers at Glacier National Park when asked say the glaciers are only 3,000 years old. That means they are not from the last ice age ( 15 thousand years ago) but have been growing since the the Minoan Warm Period (2700 BC) ended. You can see the temperature has been slowly decreasing in fits and starts in this Graph, (Alley 2000.)

    However the Warmists always ignore the past in favor of screaming the current temperature blip PROVES CAGW.

  134. JohnWho says:
    August 27, 2013 at 6:33 am

    “…most obvious culprit in temperature change here on Earth – the Sun.”

    Yeah, right, as if the Sun was the primary source of heat for the planet or something.

    Oh, wait…never mind.

    Didn’t Willis once point out that even the reflected off the Moon heat from the Sun is noticeable? If such a small amount can be detected, what a great effect would be even a small change in the Sun?

    Thanks, John. Actually, what I talked about was the “moon wind”, the wind that blow across the moon’s terminator line on earth. It is perceivable, but only in certain circumstance. In my opinion, the net effect on the climate, however, is far below the level of detectability.

    w.

  135. The furtively pseudonymous troll “steveta_uk” seems incapable of sticking to the main point of the head posting, which, in case this is not clear to him/her/it, is about the now-abject failure of the computer models accurately to predict global temperatures. One realizes that, to trolls like him/her/it, whether paid or not, the temptation to try to divert attention away from the spectacular incompetence of these billion-dollar brains is strong. But, as many commenters have sensibly said, some malicious and politicized lackwit’s effusions about my peerage, issued without the authority of the House of Lords, have still less relevance to the climate than they do to whether or not I am a member of the House. The models have failed, and failed, and failed again. Keep to that point, or go and play in someone else’s sandbox until rising sea level washes away your bucket and spade. At the 1.3 inches/century mean rate of sea-level rise shown by the late Envisat satellite during the eight years of its operation, that will be quite a long time.

  136. Richard M says:
    August 27, 2013 at 5:51 am

    Mr. Idiot, since the IPCC does not do any future predictions (according to Trenberth) why is it you expect Monckton to do something different? Maybe you should direct your energies to the IPCC or Trenberth.

    The CO2 GHE was quoted about as 1.16C/doubling. I’ve seen many references to different numbers. If I use the following site to compute the increase of 3.7 w/m2 I get less that .8C (start at TOA/4 and add 3.7 to the power) . Does anyone have a reference to why these various numbers are different.

    http://mc-computing.com/Science_Facts/Temperature_Conversions.html

    Also, the CERES data that Willis referenced in his “spot” article shows that feedbacks are negative for most of the planet. This means whatever the impact of the CO2 GHE, the result will not be as high as the computed value.

    Thanks, Richard. I showed that the relationship between albedo and temperature is positive for some of the earth, in particular many regions in the tropics … but not for most of the earth.

    All the best,

    w.

  137. Latitude says:
    August 27, 2013 at 6:31 am

    The Farmers’ Almanac is using words like “piercing cold,” “bitterly cold” and “biting cold” to describe the upcoming winter. And if its predictions are right, the first outdoor Super Bowl in years will be a messy “Storm Bowl.”

    The 197-year-old publication that hits newsstands ….

    It’s still a pretender – the OFA has been publishing since 1792, 221 years. So there! :-) Us New Hampshire folk tend to be a bit sensitive about such matters.

    For the wrong reasons – the OFA’s forecasting reputation is from a happy circumstance, see http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=11616 and pick a variation on the theme. (The daily forecasts are really just entertainment, the seasonal ones may have some skill.)

  138. Wouldn’t it be good to get say ‘rgbatduke’ and ‘LordM’ perhaps one or two other ‘heavy hitters’ to spend a few days together to hammer out an agreed stance, then post the results here.

    If we could get agreement amongst the logical, well spoken people, we may start to move the argument much further forwards….

  139. Since a trend of less than 0.15 K is within the combined 2 σ data uncertainties arising from errors in measurement, bias, and coverage, global warming since December 1996 is only detectable on the UAH dataset, and then barely.

    All of the significances below are the numbers from December 1996 according to SkS: http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    For RSS: Trend: -0.002 ±0.210 °C/decade (2σ)

    For Hadcrut4: Trend: 0.048 ±0.118 °C/decade (2σ)

    For GISS: Trend: 0.073 ±0.122 °C/decade (2σ)

    For NOAA: Trend: 0.044 ±0.114 °C/decade (2σ)

    For UAH: Trend: 0.095 ±0.214 °C/decade (2σ)

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I wanted to know the uncertainty to 1 sigma, I would divide the 2 sigma by 2. Is that correct? If so, only GISS shows warming at 1 sigma from December 1996. Not even UAH shows warming at 1 sigma, let alone 2 sigma. Or am I wrong?

  140. Chris Schoneveld says:
    August 27, 2013 at 8:32 am

    Gail Combs says:
    August 27, 2013 at 5:29 am
    “Of the two satellite sets: UAH has the ‘Stigma’ from Dr. Roy Spencer (in the minds of the warmists) so that leave RSS as the only ‘neutral’ set.”

    I agree, but why didn’t Monckton make that obvious point himself when going for the RSS data so as to shut up all the potential whiners that use the tiniest indication of prejudice to attack him.

    The catastrophic AGW wiggle watchers would always base their hysteria on RSS; that is until it also showed slower rises then stopped showing warming. Now when one of the ‘opposite camp’ uses RSS the wiggle watchers shout cherry picking?

    This is yet another case of ‘projection’.

  141. The problem we have, and will have for a long time as far as I can tell, is that this is not an issue of facts. Never has been. It is not an issue of science, and never has been.
    So yes…you can present statements from various members of the cult that say 15-16-17 years of no warming will invalidate the models. And it will be totally meaningless. It will be written off as a misinterpretation of data, a bias, etc. Some commenters have read the post by Monkton, and their rebuttal is to single out a somewhat tongue and cheek comment about it getting colder? Really?
    Politicians don’t care about the data OR the science. Politicians care about money and votes. That’s the business they’re in, period. As soon as a politician finds it to be politically advantageous to call an of this hoax into question, then more and more will do so. Until then, not a chance. They have no accountability on any issue of this nature.
    My close friends and family consider me to be a pretty stand up guy, straightforward, and trustworthy. I’m also the techie out of the bunch. Think they believe me when it comes to this scam? Nope…not a one. Discuss politics, hurricanes, technology, any one of a hundred subjects, and it’s a reasonable discussion. Climate change? Nothing but eye rolls. And that’s from people close to me.
    My point is, don’t expect Joe and Joette Public to suddenly wake up and become “aware”. That’s probably going to take another 10-15yrs to happen…and even that may be generously optimistic.

    This will take decades to right itself and become clear that the premise was wrong, if it every even happens. Look at many of the “false flag” operations that have come to light in our time regarding what was believed to be true in history…and very few people are even aware of that.

    Sorry to be a downer, but this is the reality of our current population of sheeple.

    JimB

  142. Reblogged this on CACA and commented:
    “So let us have no more wriggling and squirming, squeaking and shrieking from the paid trolls. The world is not warming anything like as fast as the models and the IPCC have predicted. The predictions have failed. They are wrong. Get over it.”
    Don’t mess with the Monck!

  143. Chris4692:

    Since least squares regression is very strongly affected by anomalies wouldn’t it be more robust to determine the current trend based on the trend since those strong events calmed down, and the prior trend from before they occurred?

    I recommend always using robust statistics such as least absolute deviation (also known as least L1 norm) fitting, particularly for data whose variation might well not be Gaussian. Such methods are not always optimal, but never far wrong. If you want to get sophisticated, there are M estimators that behave like least-squares when the data is well behaved and behave robustly when the data is erratic.

    Call in the statisticians.

  144. Despite the reactions of Mr. Courtney and Ms. Combs in the interlude, I would appreciate a reaction from someone who knows about statistics and cares more about science than a contest, to my comment at 6:57 am. Which is in brief: how should it be determined when a change in trend occurred, considering the wide fluctuations in the data at the time?

  145. neil says at August 27, 2013 at 7:09 am
    I’m sorry, was that complete piffle?

    I think I understood:

    This movement is called precession of the equinox and is treated in current physics as a problem connected with spinning bodies like a gyroscope and in relativistic physics it is due to the curvature of the field. But Sankhya proves that all phenomenon is due to the synchronisation of vibrations or it is of a holographic nature and treats space like any other matter field comprising gas or fluid etc. that causes delay by superpositioning of vibrations and therefore a shift in the static or synchronised state and both these shifts are combined and defined as Ayanamsa (Ayan = motion or movement and Amsha degree or division- in Sanskrit explained below). The fundamental reason that precession exists is that the oscillating or vibrating parameters along the two axis in the plane of motion is not synchronous or the synchronous nodes along the two axis have marginally different rates of oscillations.

    But it still predicts anything.

  146. @Chris Schoneveld

    So to summarize: Lord Monckton did pick the dataset with the lowest, (even negative) trend (RSS) of -0.2 ºC/century since all the other datasets show positive trends between +0.44ºC/century and +0.93 ºC/century. So, yes, RSS was a cherry…”

    I have to agree with Gail C and others that the temperature sets are so fudged and re-fudged they are not to be trusted. Suppose the sets all showed a slight incline upwards? Would make no difference really – the models are still fundamentally defective. CO2 just doesn’t have the net effect that is estimated from the forcing. Which is to say, the reaction by the atmosphere to a forcing (of any kind, not just CO2) is not what has been modeled. Once it sinks in that the feedback mechanisms and anti-feedbacks are not as imagined, it is not just CO2 that will lose its Danger sign.

    We are not too many years from the general populace wondering why all that windmill money was not put into Thorium and CANDU research instead. At least then they would have been be able to complain about the cold with the lights on.

  147. Chris4692 says:
    August 27, 2013 at 11:11 am

    Despite the reactions of Mr. Courtney and Ms. Combs in the interlude…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I was playing in their sand box.

    As far as I am concerned you need at least 1500 years. That is one Bond event or Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillation. You can start seeing real trends with those peaks and valleys:Greenland Icecore graph and Vostok And 140,000 years gives you an even better feel for the data. graph

    Otherwise you are just looking at noise.

  148. steverichards1984 says at August 27, 2013 at 10:37 am

    Wouldn’t it be good to get say ‘rgbatduke’ and ‘LordM’ perhaps one or two other ‘heavy hitters’ to spend a few days together to hammer out an agreed stance, then post the results here.

    A conference might be fun but why expect a single viewpoint to be derived?
    What unifies people is contempt for the poor scientific practise that led to an apocalyptic cult of: CO2 = Original sin
    Therefore we are all damned.

    How the climate works is a different issue.
    There is no guarantee that a single viewpoint will be reached or even would be desirable.

  149. Les glaces de l’arctique, l’antarctique et des glaciers montagnards sont-ils:
    -stables?
    -en progression? à quelle vitesse?
    -en régression? à quelle vitesse?

    [The ice in the Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine glaciers are they:
    -stable?
    -up? how fast?
    -declining? how fast?
    From Google translate. Mod }

  150. steverichards1984:

    Your post at August 27, 2013 at 10:37 am says in total

    Wouldn’t it be good to get say ‘rgbatduke’ and ‘LordM’ perhaps one or two other ‘heavy hitters’ to spend a few days together to hammer out an agreed stance, then post the results here.

    If we could get agreement amongst the logical, well spoken people, we may start to move the argument much further forwards….

    I think this short (12 minute) video by David Evans may be what you are looking for.

    Richard

  151. Richard S Courtney: The ONLY valid start date is now (because it is the present) and to assess the time series back from now.

    Just so. “Is warming” is different from “has warmed”.

    And the most justifiable single interval is 17 years, due to the simulations showing that a 17 year span is necessary to have a high statistical power at the usual 5% significance level. You might want more or fewer for some reason, such as to exclude a major volcano as the earliest time, but you have to have a strong a priori justification.

    Lord Monckton’s selections are spot on.

  152. steverichards1984: Wouldn’t it be good to get say ‘rgbatduke’ and ‘LordM’ perhaps one or two other ‘heavy hitters’ to spend a few days together to hammer out an agreed stance, then post the results here.

    I think the free exchange of opinions that we have here is better.

  153. rabbit says:
    August 27, 2013 at 11:02 am

    Thank you for a serous response and something to look at and educate myself.

    Call in the statisticians.

    Being inherently lazy, I value their evaluation.

  154. rgbatduke: It is pointless and misleading to superimpose the CO_2 curve, with an arbitrary y-axis scaling, on top of the temperature curve, with equally arbitrary y-axis scaling.

    In this instance I disagree with you; here the graphs illustrate the plain fact of the matter: either the trend of temperature is independent of the CO2, or else the trend of temperature is slightly negatively correlated with CO2, over the past 17 years. According to the AGW theory, that should not be happening.

  155. Chris4692:

    I am copying your entire post at August 27, 2013 at 11:11 am so others who are ‘late to the party’ are not misled by its implicit ad hom.

    You say

    Despite the reactions of Mr. Courtney and Ms. Combs in the interlude, I would appreciate a reaction from someone who knows about statistics and cares more about science than a contest, to my comment at 6:57 am. Which is in brief: how should it be determined when a change in trend occurred, considering the wide fluctuations in the data at the time?

    My “reaction” “in the interlude” was a rebuttal of your concern trolling. That “reaction” provided a direct link to your original post, made a verbatim quote of your concluding paragraph, and answered your point completely.

    My rebuttal of your concern trolling is at August 27, 2013 at 7:53 am and this link jumps to it.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1401103

    My rebuttal also addresses why what you say you want is a ‘red herring’.
    At issue is comparison between what the models projected and what has happened. Your introduction of “when a change in trend occurred” is merely an attempt to distract from the subject of the thread.

    Richard

  156. Chris4692: I would appreciate a reaction from someone who knows about statistics and cares more about science than a contest, to my comment at 6:57 am. Which is in brief: how should it be determined when a change in trend occurred, considering the wide fluctuations in the data at the time?

    The topic is called “switching regressions” or “change point analysis”, and there are lots of methods too numerous to mention here. You can probably find a good discussion by googling: here’s one

    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mwzCuRMUVLIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=change+point+analysis&ots=iKQrNmiJOr&sig=Y5PP0amEZXH_S4ZmnPLhyO0Xg9s#v=onepage&q=change%20point%20analysis&f=false

    There are two basic cases: (a) when you have a really well-founded hypothesis about when the change occurred and (b) when you merely guess that some change may have occurred over some interval. For (a) for example, there could be a dramatic event such as the 1998 el Nino and a desire to test whether what came after is the same statistically as what came before.

    I would think that the most appropriate to our discussion today would be “the latest 17 years” versus “the seventeen years before that”, since 17 has been supported by simulations as the shortest interval for yielding a high probability at the 5% level for finding a change if it has occurred.

  157. Nimbus says:
    August 27, 2013 at 11:35 am

    Les glaces de l’arctique, l’antarctique et des glaciers montagnards sont-ils:
    -stables?
    -en progression? à quelle vitesse?
    -en régression? à quelle vitesse?

    In the Antarctic, near latitude 59 and 60 south where sunlight is 4 to 6 times higher than in the Arctic at today’s date, the sea ice is advancing each year, and is setting new records for all-time recorded high levels.

    In the Arctic, near latitude 85 north (where there is very, very little sunlight in September), it is decreasing from its recorded high points in the 1970’s, but is much higher than last year’s record low point.

    The total sea ice levels are near-normal, but remember, the Antarctic sea ice is increasing in places where significant solar energy is being reflected, but the Arctic ice is in a region where there is almost no solar energy at all.

    In the mountain glaciers, there is mixed news. about 1/3 of the world’s glaciers are decreasing, about 1/4 are increasing, and the rest are steady. That ratio is recently changed, and many more glaciers are expanding in the past few years. Almost all of the retreating glaciers worldwide are revealing ground features and archeological findings that prove they have been this low before many times in the past years.

    And that summery, you probably will not see anywhere else: It doesn’t have information the CAGW academic-industrial-government-funded/government-taxing agencies don’t want you to have.

  158. Crispin in Waterloo says:
    August 27, 2013 at 11:15 am
    ….We are not too many years from the general populace wondering why all that windmill money was not put into Thorium and CANDU research instead. At least then they would have been be able to complain about the cold with the lights on.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I think the UK and the EU has already reached that point. Since the US government is not exactly efficient, they have really really screwed up the switch from Coal Fired to renewables.

    The Smart Metered Appliances and the Smart Metered Grid are not ready for prime time, the green tech companies are bankrupting (34 so far) and the closing of coal fired plants are Taking 34 GW of Electricity Generation Offline( and the Plant Closing Announcements Keep Coming) when according to EPA, these regulations would only shutter 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity.

    Heck the blackouts have already started. Rolling Blackouts Hit California Again and Texas Comes Close to Rolling Blackouts

    Why in heck (aside from the fact a switch to natural gas was the plan in the first place) do you think Obama is throwing support towards fracking?

    As Obama Promised: Energy Prices to Soon Skyrocket

    Obama’s war on coal hits your electric bill
    The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt…. These are not computer models or projections or estimates. These are the actual prices that electric distributors have agreed to pay for new capacity. The costs will be passed on to consumers at the retail level….

    So with wages decreasing, jobs scarce what do you think Main Street’s reaction to a electric bill going from $100 to $400 per month or higher is going to be?

    The 2012 forecast for residential electricity prices. Source: US Department of Energy, you know the ones who messed up forecasting just how many coal plants would closing by over a factor of three….

  159. Matthew R Marler says:
    August 27, 2013 at 12:03 pm (replying to)

    Chris4692:

    The topic is called “switching regressions” or “change point analysis”, and there are lots of methods too numerous to mention here. ….

    There are two basic cases: (a) when you have a really well-founded hypothesis about when the change occurred and (b) when you merely guess that some change may have occurred over some interval. For (a) for example, there could be a dramatic event such as the 1998 el Nino and a desire to test whether what came after is the same statistically as what came before.

    Now, let me add a third case: We are in a long-term temperature increase since the Little Ice Age whose deepest cold point was (about) 1650. During that long-term increase – WHICH NO MAN’S ACTIVITY COULD HAVE CAUSED – there are shorter cycles of increasing, decreawsing, and relatively steady temperatures.

    IF so, if the world’s temperature record can be approximated by a sum of different cyclic temperatures of varying amplitude and irregular periods, then the proposed 1997-1998 “change point” is meaningless: the world’s cycle will continue on its way with little regard to to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    IF so, then the analytical question becomes what is the probability that the 1997-2012 hig is a short-cycle peak – like the 1935-1945 peak, or is it the “top” of the long term cycle that last peaked somewhen around 1100-1200 AD?

  160. Matthew R Marler says: @ August 27, 2013 at 11:46 am
    I think the free exchange of opinions that we have here is better.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes, Crowd Sourcing at it’s best. :>)

  161. RACookPE1978 says:
    August 27, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    The warming since the 17th century depth of the LIA is also just a cyclic variation in the longer-term, secular down trend in temperature since the Minoan Warm Period, c. 3000 years ago, if not from the Holocene Climatic Optimum, c. 8000 to 5000 years ago.

    The current Interglacial, like most of them, began warm, then has undergone a slow cooling toward the next Glacial, with shorter-term warming cycles on the way back down, each colder than the prior peak & with lower troughs in global T.

  162. Past history shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sun is the driver of the earth climatic system, and this time is going to be no different.

    If one goes back in past history it will show prolonged active solar periods have been associated with a rise in temperatures while prolonged solar minimum periods have been associated with a drop in temperature.

    However neutral solar activity or solar activity that has been established over a long period of time remaining more or less the same will show very weak or no correlations to the climate at all ,or even run counter to the climate and that is where so many of you are getting tripped up.

    So many are so short sided, and so many of you fail to grasp the secondary effects that come when the sun changes from a prolonged active state to a prolonged minimum state.

    So many of you have no concept of climatic thresholds, so many of you don’t understand the beginning state of the climate has much to do on how the climate will wind up even if the same forcings are applied.

    So many of you don’t understand that the climate is non linear, and cycles only work when the climate is in the same climatic regime and even then they are a guide at best.

    They say bond events occur in a cycle every 1470 years, that is a qusi cycle at best with a plus or minus 500 year difference from the mean which in effect does not make it very cyclic.

    So many of you ignore completly the real issue of why the climate has changed abruptly from time to time in a period of a few decades. Cycles do not explain and cannot to be made to fit in with past abrupt climate changes that have taken place on earth .

    My conclusion is that present day mainstream climatolgist are an embarrassment to this very interesting field ,and have set it back by decades, while their AGW theory will meet it’s end before this decade ends.

    The temperature trend is going to be down once the maximum of solar cycle 24 passes by which is not very far off. I have mentioned the solar parameters needed to set all of this in motion many times in the past.

    1.solar flux sub 90 sustained

    2. ap index sub 5.0 or less sustained

    3. solar wind 350 km/sec or lower sustained

    4. UV light off upwards of 50% extrme uv light wavelengths sustainded.

    5. solar irradiance off upwards of.015% sustained

    The above, following several years of sub solar activity in general which we have had post year 2005, in contrast to very active solar conditions previously.

    Clueless fools.

  163. RACookPE1978:

    I agree with you when you say in your post at August 27, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1401303

    {snip}
    Now, let me add a third case: We are in a long-term temperature increase since the Little Ice Age whose deepest cold point was (about) 1650.
    {snip}

    Indeed, I mentioned that “third case” and its implications for climate modelling in my above post at August 27, 2013 at 4:15 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1400962

    However, I fear that we are now swallowing a ‘red herring’ deliberately introduced to deflect this thread from its subject. Considerations of different statistical analyses and their underlying assumptions are NOT what this thread is about.

    Please note that if I had a prejudice about this then I would be pressing your “third case” because I was the first to mention it. Your “third case” is – as you rightly say – a point which needed to be made when you made it, but I respectfully suggest to all that further discussion of it would be a ‘side-track’.

    Richard

  164. milodonharlani says:
    August 27, 2013 at 12:22 pm (replying to)

    RACookPE1978 says:
    August 27, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    The warming since the 17th century depth of the LIA is also just a cyclic variation in the longer-term, secular down trend in temperature since the Minoan Warm Period, c. 3000 years ago, if not from the Holocene Climatic Optimum, c. 8000 to 5000 years ago.

    True, that is the general observation of the temperature trends at a long-term basis.

    It leaves open the analysis that might answer the question I brought up: When is the “peak” of today’s long-term rise form the Little Ice Age to “mirror” or complete the Medieval Warm Period?

    Is it the 1997-2012 peak of the today’s short-term cycle? Will it be 40-60 years from now at the next short-term peak? (That is: If you add the short-term peaks of the late 1870-1880, the 1935-1945 short-term peak/flattening as Mosher-Hansen-Meier-NASA-GISS-BEST plot it, and the 1997-2012 peak, when will the next short-term peak/flattening occur?

    Hidden on the table, but more fundamental, WHY are there apparently short-term and long-term cycles, and is your statement about their periodic lengths getting shorter a pre-cursor of the world beginning its drop into the over-due next Big Ice Age?

  165. This thread contained so many classic false arguments and tricks that it would make a good case study for graduate work. I loved it for that alone. My thanks to LordM for his entertaining and competent work. That ‘digital masturbation’ sentence is priceless.

    Several themes seem silly to me. Whether the IPCC predicts or merely cites predictions. Or does the IPCC cite only projections rather than cite any predictions? Whether a model predicts of projects is not the point; the model’s output is the point. Does hindcasting predict or project? I think it does neither but is still useful.

    Cherry picking can and always will be charged. An essay must have a finite length, so data sources must be chosen and sometimes the data set itself must be pruned. Someone will always say data from another source should have been used or another statistic should have be calculated.

    And someone will always assert the author should have done something else. That LordM should or must create his own models and/or predictions.

  166. Matthew R Marler says:
    August 27, 2013 at 12:03 pm

    RACookPE1978 says:
    August 27, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    Thank you for your serious responses. It’s difficult to Google when you don’t know the current formal names of the topic. When I first did harmonic analysis some mumble mumble years ago it was with punch cards and Fortran. Fortunately for my family I also learned some marketable skills to generate an income. The statistical skills have not been exercised since then. I am trying to catch up.

  167. Spotted in the personal ads at ‘Nature':

    Masochistic, pedantic, warmista seeks robust petard for auto-hoisting activities. No photo nec.

    Contact NS, post haste

  168. Once last note with the sun versus the climate is as follows: The CATCH is the degree of magnitude change of solar activity and duration of time of solar activity has to reach a certain critical level in order to overcome random earthly climatic changes and or influence these random earthly climatic items(such as enso,volcanic actiivty ,cosmic rays/clouds,to name a few) which will allow them to phase in line with the solar activity rather then show no corrrelation at all when solar activity is neutral or not changing over the course of many decades.

    In addition I maintain the GHG effect is a result of the climate ,not the cause of the climate. It comes as a result of the amounts of co2 /water vapor that are in the atmosphere which are tied to oceanic temperatures which is tied to the total energy in the earth climatic system to begin with.

    Evidence of this is co2 follows the temp., does not lead it.

  169. RACookPE1978 says:
    August 27, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    As you may know, there has been a lot of discussion on this blog about predicting the onset of the next glaciation.

    The range of educated guessing is enormous. Some models predict onset within one or two more Bond cycles, while others forecast that the current interglacial could be a super-phase that will skip an equinoxial precession & last 50,000 years (10 to 20 ky is normal).

    IMO the present 150-odd years since the end of the LIA is too short a time for the current warm cycle, although its heat might already have peaked in the 1930s. It’s still possible however that after the coming cooling, there might be another warmer peak late in this century that would top out the cycle before descent into the next colder phase like the Dark Ages & Little Ice Age Cool Periods.

    If the next cool period is colder than the LIA, as trends would lead one to suspect, then maybe the next glaciation will start sooner rather than later, as expected by so many back in the 1970s.

  170. @JimB
    All true and realistic, except I would add that in 2014 U.S. midterm elections hold the potential for complete one party rule during the final two years of Obama. Thus, it is highly lucrative to hold out for this and hold actual data and model errors in abeyance to see if the big money payoff of another run at carbon taxes as law of the land is possible. Once locked in as law of the land, it might as well be 50 years of cooling because the artesian well of money will be flowing at that point and no amount of watch and wait will matter. The risk of message is not worth it now with the potential payoff in the near term. There must be a game theory model of this somewhere.

  171. The only explanation for abrupt climatic change, and therefore climate change in the long run are prolonged solar changes and all of the secondary effects which come about as a result, which phase to bring the climate to a threshold which moves it either a positive or negative temperature direction.

    Absent that explanation there are not any because abrupt climatic change has happened to often in far to short a period of time in a jig saw pattern that eliminates all other alternative explanations.

    NOTE : a weakening geomagnetic field will serve to compound solar effects.

  172. @milodonharlani
    We are entering the bottom 20,500 years of the obliquity cycle. From what I see, from the Milankovitch cyles for the last million years, no interglaciation period maintained itself during the bottom of this cycle when the earth’s tilt is the least pronounced. Currently, the precession and the eccentricity are working against maintaining an interglacial period as well.
    I did come across an interesting paper analyzing these matter, and it predicted another round of glaciation starting in 1500 years or less. It concentrated on the Milankovitch cycles, but it also nattered on about CO2 which kind of spoiled it for me. But unfortunately, I suppose the authors had to throw CO2 into the mix to get published.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1358.html?WT.ec_id=NGEO-201202

  173. Lord Monckton: as your original posting in this thread itself made reference to your claim to be “a member of the House of Lords” and you also responded to what I thought was a fair posting from steveta_uk by describing him as a “furtively pseudonymous troll” and going on about “some malicious and politicized lackwit’s effusions” I am afraid I have decided to add my own ha’pennys worth – accepting that this was not of course the principal topic of your otherwise interesting article.

    I am sure you know that in the UK the Monarch does not by herself (or by Royal Command or Warrant) make laws: it is “the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in …. Parliament assembled” (to use the enacting words on all general legislation of the Westminster Parliament), that constitutionally makes laws. The monarchy is itself subject to those laws (as under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013), so are peers (life and hereditary) and commoners. Unlike in some other jurisdictions there is no constitutional court or right of judicial review from legislation enacted by Parliament (Monarch, Lords and Commons together) nor any concept that an Act passed by Parliament can ever be flawed or unenforceable – every Act passed by Parliament is valid legislation until the Parliamentary process is used once again to alter or repeal it.

    By Section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (enacted by the Queen, Lords and Commons in Parliament) “No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”. By Section 2 “Section 1 shall not apply in relation to anyone excepted from it by or in accordance with Standing Orders of the House”; “At any one time 90 people shall be excepted from section 1”; “Once excepted from section 1, a person shall continue to be so throughout his life …” – creating 90 hereditary peers (in addition to appointed life peers) as members of the House for life. This legislation is absolutely clear; it was passed with the direct authority of the (then) House of Lords.

    Since I believe you succeeded to your title in 2006 when the 1999 Act was already in force (as it still is today), under Section 1 of that Act you cannot be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of your hereditary peerage unless you show that you have been excepted from Section 1. This is the law however unreasonable, unfair or improper you might consider it to be; it was approved by the Monarch, the (then) House of Lords and the Commons in 1999.

    For clarity: may I ask if you have a Section 2 exception in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House? If not, how can you be a member of the House of Lords so long as Section 1 of the 1999 Act remains the law?

  174. MILANKOVITCH CYCLES do not explain the many abrupt climatic changes , they are far to long to account for abrupt climate changes taking place over decades.

    Example 1, Younger dryas cold period duration 1300 years, rapid warm up prior and after this period.

    In addition many earlier warm ups /cold snaps post last glacial maximum some 18,000 years and prior to the very cold Younger Dryas Period.

    Example 2, 8200 year ago cold period, sudden rapid temp. plunge.

  175. cd says:
    August 27, 2013 at 3:37 am

    ‘…I think you’re a bit hard on the poor modelers. Most of the people building and writing them are just doing a job. Trying perhaps do to the impossible, but I don’t think they should be de-funded for it…’
    ==========================
    Nothing is expensive to the person who doesn’t have to pay for it.

    I do agree they should not be defunded. Their projects should be defunded and they redirected to productive tasks.

  176. JimS says: @ August 27, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    We are entering the bottom 20,500 years of the obliquity cycle….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes that is the discussion we should be having if we want to be prepared.

    So far there are those on both sides of extended interglacial vs headed into glaciation debate. Dr Brown @ Duke, made a comment eons ago about the climate being bistable. The questions are what tips it from one state to the other, how rough is the ride down from interglacial to glacial and how fast. Growing glaciers are not the real problem, unstable climate is.

    There has been some discussion on the topic here at WUWT:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-“trap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/30/the-antithesis/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/can-we-predict-the-duration-of-an-interglacial/

  177. I protest this cherry picking, you deliberately left out 1934. IF that year is included in the data set, there would be no trend at all. IF one is to determine a trend in cyclical type data it must be from either trough to trough or peak to peak otherwise any pronouncement is faulty. I think you need to define what cherry picking is before responding to a self serving accusation from a group of people who distain good data gathering much less maintenance of the integrity of the set and it’s purity from contamination by biased adjustments. The fact you have to add an adjustment already means you have admitted the data set is corrupted or so imperfect as to be a useful construct. The means and amount of the adjustment is fraught with bias based upon the world view of the person making the adjustment. (Mann’s guilt)

  178. Steven Mosher says:
    August 27, 2013 at 8:57 am
    “now that’s a prediction.”
    “with no work to back it up.”
    steven mosher | February 17, 2013 at 3:27 am over at J. Curry’s.
    “The physics of climate are such that we know more about what happens after 2060 than before. Strange but true.”

    How about letting us in on what happens after 2060?

  179. Gail Combs

    Your response is little melodramatic. I agree that the metoffice should be held to account for their failings but the death of the old was down to the weather and expensive fuel partly due to government energy policy and the devalued pound.

    But I don’t think you hold the programmers to account. The people that use the models to further the sort of policies that result in the old being exposed to the cold in their own homes, should be held to account.

  180. DirkH

    In what way? Granted they look awesome; you can create animations that look similar to a real planet. Otherwise?

    As far as I know parallel programming, numerical methods for solving partial differential equations and such like.

  181. rgb said “The five million year curve is actually rather disturbing

    Each glaciation seems to get colder and have lower co2 levels. If that trend continues then extinction will occur during one of the future glaciations. And probably sooner if the Watermelons get their way and we all live in a low carbon society with carbon capture in full swing.

    Although some way off I would think a combination of ever slowing rotation and continued loss of atmosphere will lead to an ever increasing cooling trend which will culminate in a snowball Earth, until such time as the Sun starts expanding in old age to thaw us out before going on to vaporise the oceans and turn planet Earth into a lump of molten rock.

    Mankind if still around, in several million years or so will need to find ways of replacing the lost atmosphere and perhaps speeding up the Earth’s rotation, or finding and getting to another planet to live on.

  182. 1. KTWO says at August 27, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    Several themes seem silly to me. Whether the IPCC predicts or merely cites predictions. Or does the IPCC cite only projections rather than cite any predictions? Whether a model predicts of projects is not the point; the model’s output is the point. Does hindcasting predict or project? I think it does neither but is still useful.

    Yes.
    It does neither but – it tests the understanding that is modelled.

    I agree, it is the test of whether the modellers are worth listening to, when it comes to policy which is important.

    And the answer…
    They are not.
    Good point, cAGW is disproven, practically.

  183. J Martin says:
    August 27, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    At some point the Icehouse World in which we now reside will be replaced with another Hothouse phase, which are more common. I can’t rule out another Snowball Earth incident, of course, but in the longer term, Earth should lose all or most of its surface water to subduction, well before being engulfed by the Sun when it goes Red Giant.

    We appear to be more than halfway through the time in which Earth supports complex, multi-cellular life, with maybe another 500 million years to go in this phase. In around a billion years, the surface water should mostly be gone, making us like a larger, warmer Mars, although with a different atmosphere.

    Given out present Icehouse conditions, only a fairly low equilibrium CO2 level is possible, since ocean heat content, storminess & air T & pressure limit the amount of gas released.

  184. TimC says:
    August 27, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    =========================
    Tim – Lord Monckton has already responded to your post in an entirely sensible, rational and adult manner, so it only remains for me to say, “don’t be a prat”.

  185. Richard Courtney Aug 27, 4:15AM
    Humm, I if you account for the known effects of ENSO (which I assume from your comment you think are reasonably well known), then the trend in all the data sets since 1998 is somewhat higher (it averages near 0.75 per century), not lower. It also becomes statistically significant, because accounting for ENSO reduces variability considerably, compared to the original time series. Do you think that is not the case? There is an apparent 60-70 years oscillation in the temperature history which many people have associated with the AMO (and some other multi-decadal pseudo-cyclical behaviors like the PDO); this pattern seems to be consistent with flat to falling temperatures in the 1945 to 1975 period, along with a relatively fast temperature increase in the 1975 to early 2000’s period, and relatively more flat temperatures now. Do you think that the 60-70 year pattern is in error or caused by some other unidentified factor(s)?

    There have been several recent empirical studies (see for example, “An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity”; by Nicholas Lewis, and references) which suggest, based on energy balance, that the most probable value for ECS is in the range of 1.6C to 1.8C per doubling, or a bit more than half of the most probable estimate from climate models. Do you think that Nick published that paper also “attempting damage limitation” for the models? I sure don’t think so. FWIW, I personally think that climate models are 1) certainly wrong about sensitivity 2) torqued that way by modelers who use made-up and tailored kludges like aerosol offsets to try to maintain a high value for ECS in the face of strong opposing evidence, and 3) will continue to predict more warming than what will actually happen over the coming decades. If you think that is “attempting damage limitation”, then I have to admit I do not understand you.

  186. As “The furtively pseudonymous TimC” (Anthony has my email address with my correct full name which I prefer to abbreviate here) I have indeed read the opinion obtained by Lord Monckton: I assume that given by Hugh O’Donoghue of Carmelite Chambers, Inner Temple.

    I have (the now rather too familiar) issues over someone first called in 2004, who probably won’t get silk for another 10-15 years, being described as “a leading constitutional lawyer” – until he gets silk he is not entitled to lead anyone. I fear this is another example of embroidering expressions rather to the limit – and we have all on occasions shopped cases around the Temple until we get the opinion we want.

    And I’m afraid I simply don’t agree with the opinion. The 1999 Act is absolutely clear and to the point: “no-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”. The Queen gave royal assent to this in 1999, thereby altering letters patent given before that time (by her or any of her predecessors). The Queen, and any instrument previously issued by her, is subject to later Acts of Parliament exactly in the same way as any of her subjects.

  187. Village Idiot:

    “Lord Monckton….as a scientist”
    Nope…Google him and I don’t think he is.

    Why? What credentials are required to be a scientist? Isn’t it more about applying the scientific method than about clutching a license?

    He has falsified a model; others cling to the falsified model. Which is the action of a scientist?

  188. SteveFitzpatrick:

    Your post at August 27, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1401392

    purports to be answering my post at

    {Richard Courtney Aug 27, 4:15AM

    For the benefit of others, I provide this link to my post at August 27, 2013 at 4:15 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1400962

    Your post ends saying

    I have to admit I do not understand you.

    Indeed, and clearly, you don’t. But it is not apparent whether that lack of understanding is or is not deliberate.

    Richard

  189. Unless, the residuals are pure white noise–which demonstrably they’re not–the 200-month linear trend fitted to the data cannot be taken for a SECULAR trend. At best, this ever-changing, volatile metric provides a crudely band-passed, lagging indication of the temporal evolution of multi-decadal and quasi-centennial cycles. Given the spectral structure of the various global average time-series, something akin to a 200-YEAR trend woud be required for the intended purpose. ANd nobody has reliable, unbiased series of actual instrumented measurements that long at sufficient locations throughout the globe. The various arguments presented here are empty on those grounds alone.

  190. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 27, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    MILANKOVITCH CYCLES do not explain the many abrupt climatic changes , they are far to long to account for abrupt climate changes taking place over decades….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You might want to take a look at the possible lunar effect as well as solar:

    http://ansatte.hials.no/hy/climate/defaultEng.htm

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/can-the-moon-change-our-climate-can-tides-in-the-atmosphere-solve-the-mystery-of-enso/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/d-o-ride-my-see-saw-mr-bond/#comment-44196

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/lunar-cycles-more-than-one/

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/

    What ever it is that changes our climate, H2O is the agent acted upon, not CO2.

  191. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 27, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    No Gail, it is NOT Milankovich cycles, that is not the answer.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Milankovich cycles set the stage, something else tips us over. And no it is not only the Milankovich cycles. The closing of the Isthmus of Panama and the opening of Drakes Passage, the building of mountain ranges, the configuration of the continents has a lot to do with our climate and glaciation. There is also Dr. Shaviv’s passage through the spiral arms of the galaxy changing the amount of Cosmic Rays.

    If climate was controlled by just one main factor the problem would be simple to solve. The fact everyone is still pretty much in the dark says it is multiple co-factors.

  192. 1sky1:

    re your post at August 27, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1401406

    If I understand you correctly, then you are saying that there is no global temperature data capable of indicating anything meaningful. If that is what you are saying then I completely agree: indeed, I have often said that myself including on WUWT and many other places: e.g. see

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

    However, that is not pertinent to the discussion in this thread.

    The climate models are claimed to emulate climate behaviour as represented by the existing data sets of global temperature. That claim is falsified by comparison of the models’ outputs with the existing data sets of global temperature. This thread is discussing that falsification.

    Richard

  193. cd says: @ August 27, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    Gail Combs…Your response is little melodramatic.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Perhaps that was because when I was young I felt as you did. It wasn’t my job. It wasn’t my department. So after reporting the problem a couple times to the safety officer I did nothing, the safety officer did nothing and finally the inevitable explosion occurred and people died….

  194. Lord Monckton I dont know why you even bother with all this XXXX. Its all over its not even interesting anymore there is no warming C02 is not even involved obviously and even this site is becoming boring because no one actually gives a XXXX about the whole thing goodbye warmistas goodbye skeptics goodbye deniers. I think I am over the whole climate scam thing thank god! Unfortunately all the pro and anti climate sites will have a big turndown this year as interest wanes on both sides hahah LOL.

  195. RACookPE1978: Now, let me add a third case:

    You could also try wavelets, Bayesian Adjustable Regression Splines, extend the time series back much longer, and so on. As you note, there are many things to do IF they are warranted.

    SteveFitzpatrick: I if you account for the known effects of ENSO (which I assume from your comment you think are reasonably well known), then the trend in all the data sets since 1998 is somewhat higher

    That depends on how you do the adjustment. Could you show us an adjustment that provides a 0 slope in the temperature trend after 1998?

  196. JimS says:
    August 27, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    I happen to agree with you, as I’ve stated on this blog, that we have only about one 1500-year Bond cycle left before onset of the next glaciation. But that’s at best a guess on my part & not necessarily a very educated one.

    But the ruling (ie, secular) 3000-year (at least) trend is definitely down. The next warm period & cool period should both be colder than the present one & the preceding LIA. Then we won’t come out of the following cold period, but descend into the next glacial phase, with wider-swinging D-O cycles instead of Bond cycles.

    Then the world will want more of the missing warmth, as real catastrophe looms.

  197. *sigh*

    You people really need to look on the bright side of life.

    Syria is not falling to the Muslim Brotherhood allies and associates fast enough so Obama is starting bombing. The UK is joining in, Cameron has recalled Parliment. The WH swears it’ll be limited, only a few days of punishing Syria. But Iran has sworn if Syria is attacked then they’ll attack Israel, who could “retaliate” before Iran launches. Also there’s NATO member Turkey in the fallout zone.

    In short order, perhaps hours away from ignition, the US and Europe will be embroiled in a wide-ranging Middle East conflagration. Which, for good measure, Russia will also get involved in per previous pledges if Syria (and other military customers) were attacked.

    Add in the predicted bitterly cold winter, and soon no one will care about “stopping global warming for future generations”, as from companies to individuals, all will be too hard pressed to find affordable energy for survival to stomach paying more “just in case”.

    As the coming warfare will be another grand failure of the over-politicized funding-demanding bloated beast known as the UN, even less people will be willing to believe the IPCC is the one piece of the UN which is truthful, unbiased, and trustworthy. The Fifth Assessment Report shall be catapulted into the aether, swiftly descending to a thud in the dirt.

    So SMILE everyone! Things are getting better!

  198. cd says:
    August 27, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    Gail Combs

    Your response is little melodramatic. I agree that the metoffice should be held to account for their failings but the death of the old was down to the weather and expensive fuel partly due to government energy policy and the devalued pound.

    But I don’t think you hold the programmers to account. The people that use the models to further the sort of policies that result in the old being exposed to the cold in their own homes, should be held to account.

    cd – The government have an energy policy (the UK Climate Change Act 2008) that required closure of fossil fueled power plants because Milliband and Brown took the advice of the Met Office (who also advised the EU and through Hadley Centre Climatic Research Unit – the USA). The Met Office modelers were the very ones who helped persuade the politicians of the ‘reality’ of AGW – thus giving the politicians the excuse they needed to increase taxes and make a fortune in the renewables market and in ‘carbon trading’. It is no accident that the Carbon Trading markets were all set up by politicians like Gore, Obama, Blair etc.

    The programmers in most cases are actually meteorologically trained analyst programmers and researchers often meteorology post docs and masters grads – apart perhaps from the systems programmers building the clusters; and even then in my experience these are often meteorologists. The ‘tuning’ and parameterizing of the models would also be done by meteorological analyst programmers and sometimes miss employed forecasters. University research department models will have been designed written and coded by meteorologist professors and meteorological students.

    The days of being ‘just a lowly grunt programmer’ coding someone else’s algorithms have gone the way of the typing pool.

  199. John Judge says:
    August 27, 2013 at 3:49 am
    However, I would submit that if the warmists wish to refute Lord Monckton’s arguments, they had better come up with something better than ad hominem attacks and rages against “Big Oil”.

    Actually it is what they must do when they don’t have the facts, and it works. Which is why they do it.

    Propaganda isn’t about facts, it’s about preying on people’s assumptions and emotions.

    • I’ve been reading through all of the comments on this thread because it is the first WUWT thread that I’ve commented on (the Feynman quote) and, so far, I don’t think I’ve seen a single comment that criticizes Monckton’s posting (or defends the models) based on legitimate scientific or statistical grounds. (Please correct me if I’m wrong about that. In fact, a critic would perform a genuine service if he or she would post a detailed point-by-point refutation of Monckton’s posting.) Rather, the “critics” tend to resort to argumentum ad hominem, which Wikipedia defines as “an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.” So, instead of talking about the weather, they talk about whether Monckton is a “real Lord” or not. I guess the inference that is supposed to be drawn that is that if Monckton is lying about that, then he must therefore be lying about this, i.e. warming. At best, that is a pretty weak argument; at worst, it smacks of McCarthyism.

  200. The only true model is the Earth itself. Historical evidence does not offer a correlation between CO2 and temperature. No further models needed, end of case

  201. Richard Courtney:

    I’m not quite as pessimistic as you are about the “meaningless” global average temperature. To be sure, it’s a scientifically inadequate measure of the planetary balance of power fluxes. Nevertheless, it provides a practically meaningful measure of the average state of surface conditions. Unfortunately, reliable measurements at non-urban stations seldom extend further back than the late 19th century even in the most advanced societies. There are huge regions where effectively no such measurements are available. Nevertheless the convergaence of various spatial sampings to a characteristic “climate signal” is quite rapid when only properly vetted station data is used.

    Inasmuch as climate models don’t calim to emulate multidecadal variations, only the SECULAR trend should be at issue in any comparison with in situ observations. My point about the requirements to establish such a trend is entirely relevant to the issue of model falsification.

  202. Ian W

    I suppose it’s horses for courses, but must of the climate modelling jobs I have seen advertised generally ask for maths grads. Not that it really matters. But the point still remains, you can’t blame the people the design and write the models for what others do with it.

  203. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    August 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    “……..Add in the predicted bitterly cold winter, and soon no one will care about “stopping global warming for future generations”, as from companies to individuals, all will be too hard pressed to find affordable energy for survival to stomach paying more “just in case”……”
    ——–

    Not true I am afraid KD, the EPA will carry on regardless regulating the USA energy supplies out of existence. Similarly, the EC will continue imposing its ‘carbon taxes’ on as many areas as it can. The bureaucrats in both agencies have nothing else to do – that is their sole raison d’etre. So even as the US becomes embroiled in yet another war – the EPA will be cutting away at its industrial foundations. I am not sure they care about or even believe in CAGW but their jobs depend on it being true and on enforcing ever more stringent regulations – so that is what they will do as it is their source of power.

  204. kadaka;
    In short order, perhaps hours away from ignition, the US and Europe will be embroiled in a wide-ranging Middle East conflagration. Which, for good measure, Russia will also get involved in per previous pledges if Syria (and other military customers) were attacked.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    Heh. Time will tell, but my guess is that they’ll slap Assad hard enough to make him think seriously about using gas again, but no more. Russia will scream loudly, and do absolutely nothing except sell more ammunition and guns. But watch the pea and which cup it is under….

    They’ll slap Assad hard enough that oil prices will “necessarily skyrocket”, they were up 3% today alone. That will be the cover that Obama needs to approve Keystone for “security” reasons over the objections of his green support base.

    Or I could be completely wrong…. ;-)

  205. TimC says:
    August 27, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    As “The furtively pseudonymous TimC” (Anthony has my email address with my correct full name which I prefer to abbreviate here) I have indeed read the opinion obtained by Lord Monckton: I assume that given by Hugh O’Donoghue of Carmelite Chambers, Inner Temple.

    I have (the now rather too familiar) issues over someone first called in 2004, who probably won’t get silk for another 10-15 years, being described as “a leading constitutional lawyer” – until he gets silk he is not entitled to lead anyone. I fear this is another example of embroidering expressions rather to the limit – and we have all on occasions shopped cases around the Temple until we get the opinion we want.

    And I’m afraid I simply don’t agree with the opinion. The 1999 Act is absolutely clear and to the point: “no-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”. The Queen gave royal assent to this in 1999, thereby altering letters patent given before that time (by her or any of her predecessors). The Queen, and any instrument previously issued by her, is subject to later Acts of Parliament exactly in the same way as any of her subjects.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/

  206. Steven Mosher says:

    I find it odd that you would end a piece that stressing looking at data and predictions with an appeal to some wizard of OZ.

    Thanks, Steven, you made me laugh.

    He played the likes of you as fools and you were too dim to discover the intended sarcasm.

    Do you not think Cook’s SKS surveys aren’t an appeal to a CO2 Wizard of Oz?

  207. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says August 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    Syria is not falling to the Muslim Brotherhood allies and associates fast enough so Obama is starting bombing. The UK is joining in, Cameron has recalled Parliment. The WH swears it’ll be limited, only a few days of punishing Syria. …

    Amid the excitement, disarray and confusion, who will end up possessing (even parts of) the stockpile of chemical weapons?

    PS. I ordered a Geiger counter off eBay a couple days ago; none too soon with a nuclear Iran in existence … maybe a gas mask (or Scott Air pack) should be next?

    .

  208. Gail Combs says August 27, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    Perhaps that was because when I was young I felt as you did. It wasn’t my job. It wasn’t my department. So after reporting the problem a couple times to the safety officer I did nothing, the safety officer did nothing and finally the inevitable explosion occurred and people died….

    An assumption that “coincidence equaled causation”? You know, you have to let ppl make their own mistakes and learn; you can’t force them to conform to your way of thinking UNLESS you are paying them in which case it’s a whole ‘nother ball game …

    .

  209. ” I ordered a Geiger counter off eBay a couple days ago….”

    May be time to brush up on the Nuclear Winter scenario again…some cooling is in the air,,,

  210. One would like to point out notes from Sankhya research little long .sorry if there is any inconvenience.

    One day, perhaps, you will learn the difference between numerology and science, specifically physics. Until then, the error you are making isn’t even unique to the Indian subcontinent — Plato made it, many others have made it, it is a common error on this blog today. It is a capital mistake (as Sherlock Holmes might say) to theorize in front of the data, because we insensibly start to twist the data to match our theory. And there is not one single quantity that we know in physics with quite as many digits as you seem to wish to right down as “certain knowledge” in your essay above (where the “precise” ratios you cite are highly dubious at best anyway).

    It’s a late day and age to be a neo-pythagorean, or to accord mysterious knowledge to the vedic masters of thousands of years ago that they almost certainly did not have (lacking, after all, the instrumentation that would have been required to make the measurements to ascertain and infer and deduce a correct theory). Indeed, lacking a telescope or theory of gravitation they almost certainly had no idea that galaxies existed, or that gravity was the force that bound them together. With the naked eye one can see, on a good clear night, a few thousand stars and if one has REALLY good eyes, one can make out a vague hint of glow that in fact turns out to be the Andromeda galaxy.

    rgb

  211. Gail Combs says August 27, 2013 at 12:10 pm
    … and the closing of coal fired plants are Taking 34 GW of Electricity Generation Offline …
    Heck the blackouts have already started. Rolling Blackouts Hit California Again and Texas Comes Close to Rolling Blackouts

    The article cited for Texas is for two years back, and, if you had read it you would have seen the extenuating circumstances cited for generation units being placed offline and then the possible need to impose rolling blackouts (WHICH by the way were not required!) … perhaps this excerpt from the story will clarify things:

    After more triple-digit temperatures and continued skyrocketing power demand, the Texas electric grid operator warned of a “high probability” of rolling blackouts, although as of 5 p.m. the danger appeared to have abated.

    Today is the fourth day in a row that ERCOT has urged residents and businesses across Texas to conserve the amount of electricity they are using from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. — but the first that the operator has had to undertake step two. … About 4,000 to 5,000 megawatts became unavailable today, about 1,000 megawatts more than in previous days,

    The reason less power is unavailable today, Roark said, is prolonged strain on the generation units. The past three months saw record-breaking demand on the system as a result of the hot weather.

    .

  212. Richard Courtney,
    Ok, so you don’t want to address simple questions like whether adjustment for ENSO makes sense, or even if recent papers (like by Nick Lewis) estimating climate sensitivity based on heat balance are valid or not. Too bad, but at least I will know not to bother with you in the future. A deus.

  213. So far there are those on both sides of extended interglacial vs headed into glaciation debate. Dr Brown @ Duke, made a comment eons ago about the climate being bistable. The questions are what tips it from one state to the other, how rough is the ride down from interglacial to glacial and how fast. Growing glaciers are not the real problem, unstable climate is.

    More properly, not necessarily bistable — it could even be multistable. But the current data from the last five million years strongly supports bistability — one has to go back to the Eocene fifty million years ago to find a distinct third phase (if it is really distinct) and as you pointed out in later posts, the continents were in a different position then and that apparently matters far more than “just” CO_2.

    Personally, I don’t think we understand any of this yet. Not even close. Milankovitch is a glib hypothesis, but one with many open questions (such as why the period of glaciation changes over the Pliestocene.

    If I had to try to muse on the probable nature/structure of the poincare cycles that describe the climate, it would be something like two major attractors but with NUMEROUS lesser attractors in the neighborhoods of the major attractors and with slow processes — e.g. Milankovitch — driving the actual motion and stability of the attractors themselves. As the interglacial draws to a close, the warm phase simply becomes less and less stable. Depending on pure chaotic chance, motion around the attractor will eventually carry the system into a state where transition to the cold phase attractor becomes likely — just enough positive feedback from e.g. glaciation albedo that glaciation becomes favored. Again depending on pure chaotic chance, the transition can be anything from very rapid and sudden to slow and with many bobbles.

    Empirically, the bobbles are a lot more likely in cold phase, though. The warm to cold transition is more usually quite rapid in geological time.

    I sometimes wonder why people do not try to match up a chaotic oscillator in N dimensions that has the right qualitative properties to describe this. Sure, it is blatant numerology, but if a good heuristic numerical model was found that had the right properties, it might give us insight into the underlying critical dimensionality, which in turn might give us insight into how many independent variables are important in the PRIMARY baseline evolution of the locally stable attractors themselves.

    But hey, not really my thing and I don’t have time to do it myself, at least not at the moment.

    rgb

  214. Re: Ben D says August 27, 2013 at 5:25 pm

    Actually, the ‘counter’ is for another project, but the timing of its purchase would seem most prescient and impeccably timed given ‘world circumstances’ … I notice that Russia even rattled her old sabers this time.

    .

  215. In practice, any trend of less than 0.15 Cº does not count as detectable warming because it falls within the zone of insignificance.

    Not quite (it depends to some extent on the data and baseline), but yes, if one includes the error bars and computes chisq of the best linear fit to the chisq of a zero slope fit (the null hypothesis) to the specific data plotted above, then even the value of R^2 above is probably optimistic on the interval shown.

    rgb

  216. From Steven Mosher on August 27, 2013 at 8:57 am:

    I find it odd that you would end a piece that stressing looking at data and predictions with an appeal to some wizard of OZ

    What you talkin’ about, Moshy? He made no mention of Nick Stokes. He certainly didn’t mention Lewandowsky, who “fled” Australia anyway. Either of those can pull any numbers they want out of I-don’t-want-to-know-where.

    Clearly you’re not referring to John Cook. He’s no more than a wizard’s apprentice, whatever he does keeps blowing up in his face.

    That’s a big country there, mate. Crikey, can’t you narrow it down a bit?

  217. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: August 27, 2013 at 6:25 pm
    “That’s a big country there, mate. Crikey, can’t you narrow it down a bit?”

    He might mean David Archibald, the Wiz of the West.

  218. _Jim says: @ August 27, 2013 at 5:34 pm
    The article cited for Texas is for two years back….
    So you want a more recent article?

    How about this one: FORBES: 6/19/2013 Will Summer Blackouts Doom The Texas Boom?

    …There’s not enough new power plants coming on line to keep up. That’s why the North American Electric AEP +0.28%
    Reliability Corp. (NERC), which keeps tabs on the nation’s power grids, says that Texas faces the biggest threat of rolling blackouts during the peak summer air conditioning season.

    The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages the Texas grid said in May that it expected record peak demand for electricity of 68,383 mw this year. This is above the record August 2011 peak of 68,299 mw.

    If the 550 power plants in the region are able to handle the load this summer it will be by only a hair. ERCOT forecasts that its summer reserve margin will be just 8.1%.

    This means that at the hottest time of the year, when air conditioners are running full blast, Texas will only have a cushion of about 6,700 mw of capacity. That’s not much wiggle room, considering that on any given day some 2,500 mw of power plants are offline for one reason or another. And even if there is sufficient power within the state, sometimes transmission lines get too congested to carry it where it needs to be…..

    The problem is Californians fleeing CA because of the insane politics and better job prospects in Texas, coupled with not enough capacity and the closing of six coal plants.

    My state is closing four plants and my local electric coop was even considering buying a small modular nuclear reactor. The guy I talked to last year had just come back from a seminar on the subject.

    So yes the problem is real even if it doesn’t make the news. Do you really think wind mills and solar can take the place of the hundred or more coal plants that are shutting down?
    According to EIA data, since 2007, wind and solar production grew by 1.18 quadrillion BTUs. Over the same time period, natural gas and oil production in the lower 48 states grew by 8.68 quadrillion BTUs. No matter how you slice it we are replacing cheap paid for coal plants with new expensive power generation.

  219. 200 months of flatline? That means warming will be TWICE AS FAST for the next decade! The models must be right – the science is settled.

    /sarc

  220. rgbatduke says: @ August 27, 2013 at 5:50 pm
    ….More properly, not necessarily bistable — it could even be multistable. But the current data from the last five million years strongly supports bistability….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thanks.

    Once you get away from all the CO2 is the control knob stuff there is some interesting research going on.

    For example Drakes Passage/Antarctic Circumpolar Current and the prevailing winds that influence it seems to have a bit of an influence on both the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans. So what happens if the Antarctic freezes a bit more and change the Drakes Passage configuration? (Antarctic sea ice satellite image) Heck what happens when the prevailing winds are stronger or weaker?
    Wiki has a map of the major ocean currents and you can see how many are connected to the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. So do changes in the winds effect the Antarctic Circumpolar Current which in turn effects ENSO? Response of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current to Atmospheric Variability Or does El Nino effect the Antarctic Circumpolar current? El Nino Link To Southern Ocean Currents

    NASA on ozone and polar winds: link
    From Penn State:

    January 31, 2013 Ozone depletion trumps greenhouse gas increase in jet-stream shift

    Depletion of Antarctic ozone is a more important factor than increasing greenhouse gases in shifting the Southern Hemisphere jet stream in a southward direction, according to researchers at Penn State.

    “Previous research suggests that this southward shift in the jet stream has contributed to changes in ocean circulation patterns and precipitation patterns in the Southern Hemisphere,…”

    In their study, the researchers analyzed four wind patterns. The first wind pattern corresponded to an equatorward shift of the midlatitude westerlies toward the equator. The second pattern also described an equatorward shift, but included a strong tropical component. The third pattern corresponded to a poleward shift of the westerlies toward the South Pole with a weakening in the maximum strength of the jet. The fourth pattern corresponded to a smaller poleward jet shift with a strong tropical component.

    In addition to their novel inclusion of more than one wind pattern in their analysis, the scientists investigated the four wind patterns at very short time scales….

    In addition to finding that ozone is more important than greenhouse gases in influencing the jet-stream shift, the scientists also found evidence for a mechanism by which greenhouse gases influence the jet-stream shift. They learned that greenhouse gases may not directly influence the jet-stream shift, but rather may indirectly influence the shift by changing tropical convection or the vertical transfer of heat in large-scale cloud systems, which in turn, influences the jet shift. The researchers currently are further examining this and other possible mechanisms for how greenhouse gases and ozone influence the jet stream as well as Antarctic sea ice….

    That is just one of the complicated bits of the Earth’s climate system that still need a lot of research.

  221. rgbatduke says:
    August 27, 2013 at 5:29 am: You begin to sound like a geologist, rather than a physicist. We geo-types have been thinking this way a long time.

  222. Gail Combs says August 27, 2013 at 6:42 pm

    So you want a more recent article?

    How about this one: FORBES: 6/19/2013 Will Summer Blackouts Doom The Texas Boom?

    Your article posits a ‘what if’ scenario in Texas; since we are WELL past June (note the date on your cited article!) I can now answer with certitude that we have had _no_ ‘posited’ blackouts OR brownouts. Zip, zero, nada. (You did notice one of the favored weasel words “will” was used in the title, a word frequently used by purported ‘news’ organizations to ‘hype’ stories?)

    Next …

    .

  223. Hey, _Jim! LOL, still trying to help your favorite blogger, Gail, I see. Good for you. You might want to re-think that last post, however… . (ahem). While the article was dated 6/19/13 (how kind of you to point that out to Ms. Combs), it’s still “summer.” It will be summer until around September 21 (just FYI). Perhaps, there will be no brown-outs as feared, but, her cite was not the fool’s errand you make it out to be.

    Oh, _Jim, I probably shouldn’t have written so sarcastically to you above. Please forgive me, but IT WAS SO MUCH FUN! Okay, now you can help ME with my writing!

    #(:))

  224. I think I need a primer on temperature. Is the average temperature the average of the daily Tmax and Tmin, or is it the average of more data points through the day? My recollection is that it is the average Tmax and Tmin, and when compared with the hour or minute frequency data, there is quite a large difference in what the average is, much larger than the fractions of degrees for the one sigma stated earlier. Has the global average daily Tmax gone up with time, or the average Tmin, or both? If all of the warming is on the low end, is it less of a problem than on the high end?

  225. ” the most obvious culprit in temperature change here on Earth – the Sun.”

    O.K. The science is in. Time for us to take action. Fix the Sun, or get rid of it entirely.

  226. _Jim;
    You know, you have to let ppl make their own mistakes and learn;
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    What a crude and ignorant remark. Is there some part of “people died” that you fail to comprehend? Do dead people learn from their mistakes? In this case the “mistake” being that they were unfortunate innocent victims of someone else’s mistake? If you spotted a child playing with a loaded machine gun, would you shrug and suggest the child should learn from their “mistakes”? Or just the people the child accidentally kills?

    I suggest that you owe Gail an apology.

  227. Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton. Good work!
    A long, significant pause for average temperature under ever-increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
    Could it be that night temperatures are raising while day temperatures ares falling, as Patrick J. Michaels, wrote in 1992?
    “Most of the warming is at night, when it produces benign effects such as longer growing seasons”
    From “Sound and Fury – The Science and Politics of Global Warming”
    See http://store.cato.org/free-ebooks/sound-fury-science-politics-global-warming

  228. Good for you to stand up for Gail Combs, David M. Hoffer. Well said and I agree.

    Perhaps…….. _Jim thinks Gail Combs is really his ex-wife (or SOMETHING like that — she is his number one target quantity-wise by FAR), lol. He makes a practice of following her posts and regaling us all with his harsh criticisms of what she writes. One wonders why… .

  229. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 27, 2013 at 10:34 am
    “At the 1.3 inches/century mean rate of sea-level rise shown by the late Envisat satellite during the eight years of its operation, that will be quite a long time.”

    That must be a reference to how, indeed, Envisat in its original data was finding little sea level rise, including showing a fall during 2010.

    Sea level change is plotted by most publicizing institutions in an extremely misleading manner via showing only total cumulative gain rather than variation in the rate of change. However, doing the latter leads to a striking pattern in sea level rise, cloud cover, humidity at appropriate altitude, and temperature:

    As can be seen, there is quite a reason that the *derivative* of sea level change is almost never, ever, ever plotted in graphs distributed by those favoring the CAGW movement.

    Based on the preceding (and the sun seeming headed for a Grand Minimum), I’d wager outright fall in sea level to become the trend by / after later this decade (at least in reality, although publicized charts may unfortunately be largely a matter of adjustments).

  230. 1sky1:

    Your post at August 27, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1401440

    answers my post addressed to you at August 27, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/#comment-1401415

    In my post I said

    The climate models are claimed to emulate climate behaviour as represented by the existing data sets of global temperature. That claim is falsified by comparison of the models’ outputs with the existing data sets of global temperature. This thread is discussing that falsification.

    THAT IS TRUE and, as I said, the validity of the “existing data sets of global temperature” is not relevant to “that falsification”.

    But your reply says

    Inasmuch as climate models don’t calim to emulate multidecadal variations, only the SECULAR trend should be at issue in any comparison with in situ observations. My point about the requirements to establish such a trend is entirely relevant to the issue of model falsification.

    What you, I, or anybody else thinks “should be at issue” has no relevance to what IS at issue. And this thread is about what is at issue.

    And it is not possible to define the “SECULAR trend” because there is no agreed definition of what average global temperature is or how it could be determined. This is explained in Appendix B of the item I linked for you. To save your needing to find it, I again provide it here

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

    So, I request that we return to the important subject of this thread.

    Richard

  231. Friends:

    Ian W said at August 27, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    the EPA will carry on regardless regulating the USA energy supplies out of existence. Similarly, the EC will continue imposing its ‘carbon taxes’ on as many areas as it can. The bureaucrats in both agencies have nothing else to do – that is their sole raison d’etre. So even as the US becomes embroiled in yet another war – the EPA will be cutting away at its industrial foundations. I am not sure they care about or even believe in CAGW but their jobs depend on it being true and on enforcing ever more stringent regulations – so that is what they will do as it is their source of power.

    Repeated for emphasis because it is why the subject of this thread is important.

    Those bureaucrats will be permitted to continue founding their activities on the the ‘projections’ of climate models unless people are made aware that those ‘projections’ are shifting sand.

    Richard

  232. stevefitzpatrick:

    re your silly post addressed to me at August 27, 2013 at 5:40 pm.

    I consider ALL the science of climate change to be important because the pseudoscience of AGW is
    (a) damaging the reputation of all science
    and
    (b) being used as an excuse to promote totalitarianism.

    Your assertion that I don’t want to discuss any of the science of climate change is untrue and laughable.
    But I object to trolls attempting to distract discussion of any part of the science of climate change.

    If you want to discuss ENSO then do it on appropriate thread – they often occur on WUWT – where I would be pleased to engage about it. ENSO is NOT the subject here. And if you wanted to deflect a thread about ENSO with irrelevances about “the 200 months of the pause” then I would object to that, too.

    Your every contribution in this thread has been input of ‘red herrings’. And your false assertions of what I “don’t want” to do cannot hide your trolling.

    Richard

  233. Your article posits a ‘what if’ scenario in Texas; since we are WELL past June (note the date on your cited article!) I can now answer with certitude that we have had _no_ ‘posited’ blackouts OR brownouts. Zip, zero, nada. (You did notice one of the favored weasel words “will” was used in the title, a word frequently used by purported ‘news’ organizations to ‘hype’ stories?)

    I don’t know about Texas, but North Carolina is having its coolest summer in at least 30 years, maybe more. In August, for example, it’s been down in the mid-50’s at night repeatedly, and we’ve had daytime highs that are in the seventies and low 80s where “normal” is 88 to 90 and where the record highs are around 100 F. It is cloudy to partially cloudy almost all the time, not with the high haze of humidity that makes it killer hot, but with honest cumulus and a fair bit of rain. The weather right now feels more like mid to late September or even October, not August, which is usually scorching. It’s been nice outside, nice enough to do things outdoors in the middle of the day far inland, in August. Often. Basically, this never happens, trust me.

    It is quite possibly the case that Texas had a similarly comparatively cool summer, but either way the fact that Texas did NOT have a blackout or brownout doesn’t falsify the reported shortage of capacity, does it? If it had had an unusually HOT summer with HIGH demand, or if any sort of incident had interrupted a part of its supply chain, it might have, but in a cool or even a “normal” summer without accident or incident, it would get by. It may also have more expensive alternatives that are not included in its primary capacity computation that saved it — buying power across state lines, for example — that buffer(ed) any shortfalls that might have occurred without making any waves but higher costs that were absorbed by the fact that the overall summer was cooler than normal.

    I’m not sure how wise it is, in other words, to ignore an article that points out that a critical resource is marginally provisioned to handle a growing, inelastic demand, in such a way that fluctuations can push one over the edge. Sadly, if it ever does go over the edge into brownouts or blackouts, people will die (no AC is potentially life-threatening to the elderly and very young in midsummer) and global warming, not carbon trading, will be blamed even if the weather that produces it is completely within normal hotter year/colder year fluctuations about its floating mean behavior.

    Europe is, of course, far worse off because they invested far more heavily in e.g. wind generation, and they are backing off as hard as they can right now as it is becoming clear that energy poverty is a whole new emerging class of discontentment in a democratic population. In the end, CAGW hysteria may fail simply because people refuse to vote themselves into poverty and misery and bring civilization itself crashing down in order to avert a model-predicted disaster that is, um, not happening they way it was predicted, I mean “projected”, errr, prophesied, hmmm, speaking of weasel words, what IS the right word for making a statement about the future that you are unwilling to bet your professional ass on but are perfectly happy to have used to bet the ass of global civilization on instead?

    rgb

  234. Sea level change is plotted by most publicizing institutions in an extremely misleading manner via showing only total cumulative gain rather than variation in the rate of change. However, doing the latter leads to a striking pattern in sea level rise, cloud cover, humidity at appropriate altitude, and temperature:

    As can be seen, there is quite a reason that the *derivative* of sea level change is almost never, ever, ever plotted in graphs distributed by those favoring the CAGW movement.

    Wow, really interesting. I wonder what Lief would say regarding this — usually he jumps all over arguments linking solar state to secular climate trends, but most of the data above seems linked to magnetic field variation and directly measured or proxy-inferrable variations in cosmic ray flux. Given a proposed, physically plausible causal mechanism, the correlations become something more than numerology and are rather compelling especially given that they appear on multiple time scales (including geologic time scales). While I wouldn’t say that they “prove” a solar-climate link beyond mere insolation variation or demonstrate that solar influences on climate suffice to completely trump possible GHE variations, they suggest that if nothing else, GCMs are omitting a possibly important variable. I was already aware of the fact that stratospheric H2O has plummeted in the last five or six years, that so far NASA is not attributing a cause, and that even NASA’s articles on this are pointing out that it should have a -0.5 C or thereabouts effect on climate if sustained, more if further amplified.

    Why not break this out and turn it into a top article? A single streaming GIF isn’t the best possible way to present either textual or graphical information, and I hesitate to add the link to my collection of climate-related links because the source link does not have the feel of permanence (where WUWT is archived AFAICT indefinitely).

    rgb

  235. In the Gap plots for the last 100 months Monckton starts the red line projection approximately 1.5ºC above the Jan 2005 measured value, why is that? Surely if he is really showing the gap between actual temperatures and projections since 2005 the plots should have the same origin.

  236. I think I need a primer on temperature. Is the average temperature the average of the daily Tmax and Tmin, or is it the average of more data points through the day? My recollection is that it is the average Tmax and Tmin, and when compared with the hour or minute frequency data, there is quite a large difference in what the average is, much larger than the fractions of degrees for the one sigma stated earlier. Has the global average daily Tmax gone up with time, or the average Tmin, or both? If all of the warming is on the low end, is it less of a problem than on the high end?

    It’s far worse than you can imagine. Here is NASA/GISS’s direct statement on mean surface air temperature and its use of “anomalies” instead of the absolute temperature. Basically, the absolute mean surface air temperature is effectively not computable.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

    The assertion is made that the “anomaly” — deviation from some sort of local average — is, though, and the further assertion is made that this anomaly can be extrapolated spatially to cover an area far, far larger than the locally sited surface station producing the data from which it is derived. The data from any given station is also full of holes, and these holes are “infilled”, that is, assigned a value based on averages of surrounding stations (to avoid breaking the code). With few exceptions, this extrapolated, infilled, anomaly result is then spatiotemporally averaged and turned into the “anomaly” you see in the surface data sets, usually without any explicit statement about probable error and whether or not the probable error is symmetric/normal or potentially skewed or biased by the computational methodology used.

    The station data is itself transformed in various ways before the anomaly is computed, some of the transformations amount to adding or subtracting a constant amount from the baseline and/or anomaly itself (e.g. to correct for the “urban heat island” (UHI) effect that corrupts almost all of the station data because of how the stations are cited. The data transformations used are different for older data and because they are biased and in some sense completely arbitrary (very difficult to justify on any sort of formal basis) the transformations alone can produce “warming” where it is not visible in the raw data, or (by increasing the presumed UHI) it could conceivably produce relative cooling as well.

    It is historically interesting to note that data adjustments in basically all of the major surface temperature records have AFAIK invariably increased relative warming from the beginning of the century to the present, never decreased it. A simple hypothesis test applied to this result, assuming as the null hypothesis that an actual statistical error is as likely to be positive (warming) as negative (cooling) produces a p-value that suggests HUMAN bias in the selection of the corrections with over 99% confidence, because the corrections are the equivalent of many coin flips in a row that all turned out heads. It doesn’t prove that the coin is biased, but it does not support the null hypothesis that it is unbiased and trusting the coin, is in the language of the con, a mug’s game.

    The different SAT anomaly data sets primarily differ in the particular set of corrections and the particular algorithms they use for infilling and extrapolating. They also differ in their included data, but of course with a finite data set to select from (especially in the more distant past) there is enormous overlap in their input data and the data sets cannot be considered “independent” in any sense of the word. Nevertheless, the output results from the different algorithms differ significantly — by tenths of a degree or more — every month. I’m a bit of a statistician, and have some knowledge of things like autocorrelation and covariance, and if three different methods purporting to compute the same quantity with (say) 80% overlap in their input data produce a spread of results an average of (say) 0.2 C apart, it is absolutely certain that the standard error in the means of these methods is strictly greater than 0.2 C. Quite a bit greater, in fact. Roughly twice as great (even more if the overlap is greater than 80%).

    This same problem plagues the estimation of the number of “independent samples” in Monte Carlo methods based on a Markov Chain of transitions where each succeeding state produced by the chain has a large autocorrelation with the previous state — if you use the raw number of “Monte Carlo” steps as if each step is an independent and identically distributed sampe, you will significantly underestimate the probable error. I have a peer reviewed publication in Physical Review, by the way, that proves this — I’m not making it up.

    This is why I brought up the question of error in my comments to Mr. Monckton above — it is a critical omission in the entire discussion of AGW. In figure 1.4 of the leaked AR5 report, for example, a uniform error of 0.1 C is applied to the mean surface data points without discussion or justification. Yet if you go to WFT and plot the actual data from the surface stations, they visibly differ by more than this and are based on overlapping data and partially similar methodology — even the variations in method can hardly be considered to be pulled out of an “independent and identically distributed” hat!

    Personally, I think somebody armed with a mouse or spreadsheet just made these error bars up. I think they said to themselves “Hmm, we need error bars or this won’t look like science. The independent coarse grained averages of the surface data have some visible spread, I’ll make up an error that isn’t too big — it might look like we don’t know what we’re doing — and that contains them to make them look reliable. 0.1 C is about right, yeah, that will do it.”

    Of course, if I’m wrong I’d love to hear how they arrived at them, because given the overlap in the input data and the visible spread in the result, I think they are underestimating the error by a factor of 2 to 4 (where the 2 generously assumes that there is SOME independence in the computational algorithms used to add to the partial independence in the data).

    No matter what transformations and biases that are applied to the surface data at this point, they are pretty much finished. HADCRUT4 is likely to be the last major change that squeezes just a bit more warming out of the very same data, because at this point the surface data is strongly constrained by lower troposphere measurements that are ALREADY diverging somewhat from the surface temperature and by sea surface temperature measurements that do not have UHI type corrections that can be arbitrarily manipulated (although both satellite and buoy data can be arbitrarily manipulated in other ways, it is more difficult to justify any correction that produces systematic time dependent warming, and more obvious that if one is introduced it comes at the direct expense of precision).

    The point of including the error is that it adds a substantial range to claims of warming over the thermometric era. Instead of making the bald statement that “temperatures have increased 1 C over 140 years” or the like, one has to make a statement more like “temperatures have increased 1C plus or minus 0.5 C over the last 140 years”. Statements like “X is the hottest year on record” have to be blurred, because e.g. 1930 was well within an uncertainty of 0.5 C of the year X — dozens of years are — so the correct statement is: “We have no idea what the comparative ranking of year X is, but we can say with some confidence that it is the upper third of temperatures in the last 140 years.”

    Nobody makes headlines or gets enormous grants from the latter, but the latter is — once one adds in the all important error bars — quite true, depending on what those error bars, honestly and properly computed, really are.

    Precisely the same issues arise when trying to compute “anomalies” — the assumption is made that the secular trend of the anomaly can somehow be isolated from the secular trend in the average of the absolute temperature. While this might be approximately true in models with a nearly constant absolute temperature, it requires that the factors that move the average absolute temperature are in some sense orthogonal to the factors that move the anomaly. This is the unwritten assumption in all claims of AGW — that CO_2 is a separable factor that is the primary cause of secular trend in the anomaly but is not a factor in the secular trend in the underlying average temperature and that the two can somehow be independently computed even across very long time bases where many other conditions (including the sparsity and quality of the data) change. True or not — and I very much doubt that it is even crudely true, I think it is just plain wrong — the computation of the separability has to account for independent errors in the two — the error in the underlying secular trend in the average that is NOT due to CO_2 has to ADD to the error in the secular trend in the anomaly (all these silly linear fits to intervals in the surface temperature anomaly). Hence even the error in the anomaly itself properly estimated from a consideration of the independence of the various methods used to compute it and the spread of results is an underestimate of the true error. There is almost certainly a nearly equally large error in the baseline, one that increases into the past. This is evident in the fact that the spread in model computed “average surface temperature” — the baseline to which one must add the anomaly to get a supposed absolute surface temperature as a function of time — itself varies by almost 1 C around 14C. Some places in the literature you will see it is 15 C, for example, not 14 C. Some places it might be given as less than 14C.

    We thus have the rather humorous implicit assertion that while we do not know the absolute mean surface temperature of the Earth within 1 C, and while if we added the various anomalies computed in their various ways from overlapping data TO mean temperatures selected within this range we’d end up with an envelope of estimates for the absolute means surface temperature as a function of time that spans at least 1.2 to 1.5 C, and that if we added the uncertainties in the actual anomalies to THAT the range would get even LARGER, we nevertheless do, indeed, know the mean surface anomaly within (say) the 0.1 C illustrated in AR5 and that anomaly can directly and fairly be compared to the similar anomaly computed in 1930, or 1900, or 1870, without any need to concern ourselves with error when positively asserting catastrophic anthropogenic global warming over the latter half (only) of that interval.

    In the end, none of these considerations disprove AGW, or CAGW — only the future will prove or disprove the latter, and it is perfectly plausible that humans have had some effect on the climate, although that effect as a secular trend is essentially impossible to separate from non-CO_2 linked secular trends (that is, the “natural variability” of the climate). They do substantially weaken the claim that the historical climate record itself is evidence for CAGW. As independently discussed elsewhere, the rest of the evidence is the global circulation models, and these models independently fail any sort of reasonable hypothesis test when compared to the last 20 years of data and are almost certainly incorrect. I cannot even tell you HOW they are incorrect (and I doubt anyone else can, for all of the “certainty” that it is really this not that), only that one can pretty reliably reject the null hypothesis “this model is correct and predicts the climate future within the statistical spread of results this model produces when conditions are perturbed”, one model at a time. The average of 30+ plus such failed models is then a model that, on average, fails as Mr. Monckton illustrates above, although I think he would do just as well to reproduce figure 1.4 from AR5 is it does an admirable job of this all by itself (as do other figures from the body of AR5, e.g. the spread of model results from selected specific model compared to the actual surface temperatures, however accurate or inaccurate their computation might be).

    rgb

    ["The different SAT anomaly data sets" ... And SAT means? Mod]

  237. Eli understands that there is some betting action to be had on the proposition that “A math geek with a track-record of getting stuff right tells me we are in for 0.5 Cº of global cooling. It could happen in two years, but is very likely by 2020.”. It is for two bets of $1000 each from John Abraham to Lord Monckton. Eli is looking perhaps for some smaller side bets on the proposition and what the good Lord’s reaction will be.

  238. What percentage of years in recent centuries has the statement “the last decade was the warmest in the last 1000 years” been true?

  239. ***
    rgbatduke says:
    August 28, 2013 at 5:29 am

    It is cloudy to partially cloudy almost all the time, not with the high haze of humidity that makes it killer hot, but with honest cumulus and a fair bit of rain.
    ***

    I watch the visibility closely. This summer, as most of the recent, had relatively little haze — except for yesterday! Felt like I was back in the 70s-80s. Rain this morning has washed it out.

  240. Most of the climate models look great… if they only look back in time from when they were built. Happily most of the graphs the warmists push to the media include their post-dictions to give them the credibility they deserve. This makes them seem as though they made accurate predictions for many years before inexplicably falling off. The falling off just happens to begin with the year of the models creation. By the way my model of Superbowl winner predictions work the same way if anybody is looking for a system. I established it in 2005 and it accurately predicted the previous 20 winners. Since 2005 it hasn’t done very well, but there is probably some innocuous factor out there dampening the results, but it will surely clear up at any time and come roaring back to success.

  241. Henry Clark: Sea level change is plotted by most publicizing institutions in an extremely misleading manner via showing only total cumulative gain rather than variation in the rate of change. However, doing the latter leads to a striking pattern in sea level rise, cloud cover, humidity at appropriate altitude, and temperature:

    As can be seen, there is quite a reason that the *derivative* of sea level change is almost never, ever, ever plotted in graphs distributed by those favoring the CAGW movement.

    I concur on the importance of estimating derivatives and relating derivatives to potentially relevant factors that alter the rate of change. Murry Salby did this very informatively with derivatives of global mean temperature and mean CO2 concentration. That link is hard to read, and lacks descriptions of what the graphs contain. Do you have a paper? That looks worthwhile.

  242. Before this decade is out we will know how much of an influence the sun has on the climate in contrast to co2.

    This debate should be over very soon.

    The only explanation to explain all the jig saw temperature changes often times abrupt and happening in a decade or so are prolonged solar changes from one state of activity to another state of activity, and all of the associated side effects.

    Nothing else holds up.
    Gail , has shown various studies but none of them can address the abrupt climate change issue.

  243. rgbatduke- (6.03) You sound surprised at the sun climate connection.
    It is amazing how the establishment scientists in the USA and UK not only abandoned scientific judgement but also simple common sense and reason in their leap to make CO2 the main driver of climate change.Here is a passage rfom the latest post on my blog at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
    “b) A Simple Rational Approach to Climate Forecasting based on Common Sense and Quasi Repetitive- Quasi Cyclic Patterns.
    How then can we predict the future of a constantly changing climate?
    When,about ten years ago ,I began to look into the CAGW – CO2 based scare, some simple observations immediately presented themselves.These seem to have escaped the notice of the Climate Establishment. ( See the Post 5/14/13 Climate Forecasting for Britains Seven Alarmist Scientists and for UK Politicians.)
    a) Night is colder than day.
    b) Winter is colder than summer.
    c) It is cooler in the shade and under clouds than in the sun
    d) Temperatures vary more widely in deserts and hot humid days are more uncomfortable than dry hot days – humidity (enthalpy) might be an important factor. We use Sun Screen against UV rays – can this be a clue?
    e) Being a Geologist I knew that the various Milankovitch cycles were seen repeatedly in the Geologic record and were the main climate drivers controlling the Quaternary Ice Ages.
    f) I also considered whether the current climate was unusually hot or cold. Some modest knowledge of history brought to mind frost fairs on the Thames and the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum without sunspots during the 17th century . The 300 years of Viking settlements in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period and viniculture in Britain suggested a warmer world in earlier times than at present while the colder Dark Ages separate the MWP from the Roman Climate optimum.
    g) I noted that CO2 was about 0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out, that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog.
    I concluded ,as might any person of reasonable common sense and average intelligence given these simple observations that solar activity and our orbital relations to the sun were the main climate drivers. More specific temperature drivers were the number of hours of sunshine,the amount of cloud cover,the humidity and the height of the sun in the sky at midday and at Midsummer . It seemed that the present day was likely not much or very little outside the range of climate variability for the last 2000 years and that no government action or policy was required or would be useful with regard to postulated anthropogenic CO2 driven climate change.

    These conclusions based on about 15 minutes of anyone’s considered thought are,at once , much nearer the truth and certainly would be much more useful as a Guide to Policymakers than the output of the millions of man hours of time and effort that have been spent on IPCC – Met Office models and the Global Warming impact studies and the emission control policies based on them.
    For a more more data based approach see Fig 6 (taken from Steinhilber 2012) in my blog at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/02/its-sun-stupid-minor-significance-of-co2.html

  244. Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think that the somewhat recent reconciliation of satellite observations of the sun based on an instrumental error, which, btw, lowered observations of the quiet sun (minimum of the solar cycle) down to 1361 W/m^2, coupled with Leif S’s showing that simple, sunspot numbers have to be corrected for method because the folk who provide the counts have changed methodologies (aka multipliers) over time in ways which have not been taken into account. If you do so (and he has) recent solar activity does not reach a maximum between 1950 and 2000, but has been rather constant since 1700. This throws a rather effective spanner into the it must be the sun arguments.

  245. What steveta_uk fails to get or chooses to forget or is paid to ignore is that we don’t give a tuppeny $hit whether a) C Monkton is a Lord or not b) cross dresses or c) runs around naked at each full moon … etc. … you get the message?
    We do care that a “good bloke” – and yes I have met him – is passionate in his beliefs and in a polite way presents those beliefs such that they can be studied / dissected by others. This being in total contrast to the Manns, Cooks of this world.
    So steveta_uk: how can I put this? If you cannot argue the science do us all a favour and piss off.

  246. You’d think that someone who bought the first ever computer into No. 10 and stopped the miner’s strike with a doff of his cap would know that you usually need at least 30 data points to discern a trend.

  247. rgb said with respect to Europe “and they are backing off as hard as they can right now”

    Mainland Europe, maybe, but the UK is contemplating the abyss of impossible to achieve co2 reduction and think they can do it simply by passing an act in the house of common fools.

    Eli said “recent solar activity does not reach a maximum between 1950 and 2000, but has been rather constant since 1700. This throws a rather effective spanner into the it must be the sun arguments”

    I’m afraid what you have said disagrees with the observed evidence, in particular the Dalton minimum round 1810. It is likely the sun has a double effect, firstly although reduction in TSI may be small, reduction in EUV is large, secondly reduction in magnetic field may well provide a magnification effect via the Svensmark GCR mechanism.

    So although the effects of a loss of sunspots are not yet observed by modern science, the most likely effect will be cooling, caused by the sun one way or another. Time will tell, and within certainly 17 years, possibly far less.

  248. “… so far, I don’t think I’ve seen a single comment that criticizes Monckton’s posting (or defends the models) based on legitimate scientific or statistical grounds.” (Hoy! A wildcat! — intriguing name, Sir or Madam)

    WELCOME TO POSTING ON WUWT! (I’m fairly new myself, but likely no one else will say anything, so, here I am)

    Glad you piped up. Good comment. Keep it up and HAVE FUN!
    #(:))

    Heh, heh, looks like your mentioning the matter summoned up a rabbit troll…. no science, no legitimate statistics, just a wager… . lol

  249. Simon:

    re your post at August 28, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    I would think that even an anonymous troll would learn some basic understranding of statistical analysis before demonstrating his/her/their/its ignorance by making a fallacious statement such as

    you usually need at least 30 data points to discern a trend

    Usually? No, it depends on the data set.

    Richard

  250. The solar crowd is standing on fudge factors and “amplification” to the same degree the CO2 crowd is. Not a very solid thing to stand on. Neither side spends one iota of time studying weather pattern variation and the degree of energy required to shift and sustain those patterns to the extent that global temperatures shift from one regime trend to another trend. No clue at all. Yet they trumpet their favorite version of a gnat being able to shift the elephants in the room thus change the amount and location of dung piling up or disappearing.

    • Pamela Gray wrote: “The solar crowd is standing on fudge factors and ‘amplification’ to the same degree the CO2 crowd is. Not a very solid thing to stand on. Neither side spends one iota of time studying weather pattern variation and the degree of energy required to shift and sustain those patterns to the extent that global temperatures shift from one regime trend to another trend. No clue at all. Yet they trumpet their favorite version of a gnat being able to shift the elephants in the room thus change the amount and location of dung piling up or disappearing.”

      The point is is that the “CO2 crowd” is in control of policy, and based on what??? Their models have been refuted. And yet they want to institute all sorts of new policies that will, at the very least, disrupt the economy, if not cripple it. The “solar crowd,” on the other hand, seems to be ignored and doesn’t have any political agenda, except all of those who are in the pocket of the Koch brothers or big oil, which, of course, the “CO2 crowd” claims each and every one is.

  251. Richard Courtney says:
    “What you, I, or anybody else thinks “should be at issue” has no relevance to what IS at issue. And this thread is about what is at issue.”

    That dubious statement is emblematic of the difference between a debate-oriented viewpoint and a scientific one. It is by no means true that all modellers claim “to emulate climate behaviour as represented by the existing data sets of global temperature.” Some do recognize that their models do not emulate certain intra-decadal (ENSO) and multi-decadal (AMO, PDO) oscillations evident in various “global” surface temperature indices. Thus the length of time over which a linear trend is fitted is very much an issue in any compelling falsification of model results. Although I place no confidence in any model, or in linear trends, my original point that a 200-month interval is grossly inadequate for that purpose stands scientifically unchallenged.

  252. richardscourtney says:
    August 28, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    Simon:

    re your post at August 28, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    I would think that even an anonymous troll would learn some basic understranding of statistical analysis before demonstrating his/her/their/its ignorance by making a fallacious statement such as

    you usually need at least 30 data points to discern a trend

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Richard, that is what is taught in the USA first semester basic Stat courses and especially in some of the QC seminars so he is not really out of line. The basic understanding you have is often very lacking until you get to some of the higher level courses.

    (Did I mention I think US education sucks?)

  253. rgbatduke says:
    August 28, 2013 at 6:03 am
    “Wow, really interesting.”

    Thanks.

    “Why not break this out and turn it into a top article? A single streaming GIF isn’t the best possible way to present either textual or graphical information, and I hesitate to add the link to my collection of climate-related links because the source link does not have the feel of permanence (where WUWT is archived AFAICT indefinitely).”

    I might try that sometime indeed (although needing to get around to converting to more professional style for that, while uncertain whether it would be accepted and whether all images would make it through).

    In the meantime, as a small note, when you mentioned the matter of permanence, I realized just now that I could make a permanent version by sending it to webcitation:

    http://www.webcitation.org/6JE6Xp0Y7

    (appearing small at first but enlarging on further click).

  254. Matthew R Marler says:
    August 28, 2013 at 9:20 am

    “I concur on the importance of estimating derivatives and relating derivatives to potentially relevant factors that alter the rate of change.

    “Do you have a paper? That looks worthwhile.”

    Certainly. A non-paywalled full-text version online of the Holgate paper is at the following address, where the sea level plot is figure 2 in it:

    http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Holgate.pdf

    The version in my composite image adds red & blue box highlights while cropping to the 1964-onwards period of neutron monitor data for its comparison plot (but is otherwise the same).

    In that paper, figure 4 is a conventional-style sea level plot, but how the derivative is more informative can be seen in figure 2.

  255. 1sky1:

    re your post at August 28, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    I refuse to bite on your (deliberate?) misrepresentation of my words by selective quotation and, instead,
    I respond to all your irrelevance by saying,

    Yeah, whatever.

    Richard

  256. The argument about recent solar activity being roughly constant since 1700 is Leif S’s. The EUV argument at this point is pretty much handwaving.

  257. Perhaps too terse. If sunspot numbers have been roughly constant since 1700 and EUV is associated with sunspot number, there is no reason to believe that EUV changed radically since then unless you come up with other proxys.

Comments are closed.