Getting very close to meeting Santer’s 17 year warming test

RSS: no global warming for 16 years 11 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The RSS monthly satellite global mean surface temperature anomaly data, delayed by the US Government shutdown, are now available. The data show no global warming at all for 16 years 11 months. This dataset could be the first of the five to pass the strict Santer test: no global warming at all for 17 years.

Since no el Niño is now expected until next spring at the earliest, the long run without any global warming at all is likely to continue for another few months.

clip_image002

CO2 concentration, meanwhile, continues its upward trend. And it is this disconnect between rising CO2 concentration and stable near-surface temperatures that makes the present long hiatus in global warming more significant than the previous periods of a decade or more without warming over the 163 years of global mean surface temperatures. In none of the previous periods was CO2 concentration either as high or rising as fast as it is today.

Climate extremists are prone to show the data since 1970 as an “escalator” with a series of “steps” consisting of decade-long pauses, but an overall rising trend:

clip_image004

However, a trend is not a prediction. There is no guarantee that merely because the trend has been upward it will continue upward. The effect of the frequent supra-decadal periods without warming is to constrain the overall warming rate since 1970 to a not particularly thrilling 1.6 Cº/century equivalent.

Taking the trend since 1950, a fairer benchmark since the period covers a full warming and cooling cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, shows warming at a rate equivalent to less than 1.1 Cº/century.

clip_image006

So, can one clearly distinguish an anthropogenic warming signal in these post-1950 data from the data before 1950, when we could have had no measurable influence on the climate?

The answer is No. Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.

clip_image008

In fact, the later period is on the left. Let us determine the linear warming trends on each of the two periods:

clip_image010

The later period has a very slightly steeper slope than the earlier, but only by the equivalent of a third of a Celsius degree per century. On these figures, it seems difficult to justify the IPCC’s assertion of 95% confidence that most of the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic.

Meanwhile, the discrepancy between IPCC prediction and observed reality in the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index remains glaring. A shame that the IPCC did not deal honestly or clearly with this discrepancy in its latest Summary for Policymakers.

clip_image012

For Santer’s test see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/

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

191 Responses to Getting very close to meeting Santer’s 17 year warming test

  1. milodonharlani says:

    I’m looking forward to the 20-year period 1997 to 2016. At that point, there will have been no warming, indeed probably statistically significant cooling in unadjusted data, for as long as the allegedly Mann-made, 20-year warming period of 1977-96, despite our enjoying ever higher levels of the life-giving compound CO2 in our air.

  2. Santer wrote a later paper:

    ““The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes.”

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf

  3. Jquip says:

    17 years? You mean 27. It’s a common typo, what with the keys being so close together.

    /flees

  4. Jeff L says:

    …. 1 month to go

  5. Chris @NJSnowFan says:

    What about the AMO look at this chart about 1970 to present.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo

  6. milodonharlani says:

    Jquip says:
    October 23, 2013 at 6:32 pm

    Funny, but that’s what they’ll say. Or go the whole hog with Patchy & claim at least 30, 45 or more years without warming or with cooling will be needed to falsify CACA. Depends on how young the “climate scientist” is.

  7. geran says:

    16 years, 11 months is more than 95%!!

    Let’s call it DONE.

  8. JohnWho says:

    Well, while we have gone almost 17 years without any statistically significant warming, we have had climate change and it is climate change that threatens all of us.

    /sarc

    :)

  9. A.D. Everard says:

    Well, we know they are already moving the goalposts. The problem there is that they’ll soon run out of places to move them to. At every step, they are painting themselves into a corner.

    It would be so much quicker and cleaner if they just admitted to getting it wrong… No, wait, there’s still all that money involved. Billions of taxpayer dollars. Billions and billions. Oh dear, I guess they can’t let go and they can’t hang on much longer, it’s death either way. I’d say they’re not feeling too well at the moment.

  10. OssQss says:

    Well, the “ice free” countdown clock is no more. We do have room now for another……no?

  11. Jquip says:

    milodon: “Depends on how young the “climate scientist” is.”

    For amusement, young scientists are popping out of school at around 24-25 years of age. Episodic memories begin around 6 – 8 years old. So the current young scientists are those who have no personal recollection of increasing temperatures during their life. Or in only the first couple years after they could remember the plots on My Little Pony.

  12. Richard Day says:

    I’m sure the warmists will change it to “Santer meant until 2017, not 17 years.”

  13. Brian H says:

    For my money, the 0.33K/Century is the upper limit of Anthro climate effect. What ECS does that compute to?

  14. Janice Moore says:

    It’s thirty seconds before midnight, Fantasy Science Cult …

    prepare
    to meet
    your doom…..

    All during WWII, every day, the BBC broadcast Big Ben’s faithful chimes — just so the Na-z-1s would know that London was. D Day has come for the Envirostalinists. Their doom is sealed. They are raging and snarling like the cornered rats that they are, but, it is only a matter of time until the forces of Truth triumph.

    Truth will win.

  15. Noblesse Oblige says:

    And what is the scientific basis for the 17 year interval. Locusts?

  16. James at 48 says:

    RE: “Since no el Niño is now expected until next spring at the earliest, the long run without any global warming at all is likely to continue for another few months.”

    Furthermore, with the current far Western Hemisphere, upper North latitude Rex Block in place, it would be very difficult for ENSO Positive conditions to get established. I would not be at all surprised to see ENSO Neutral to Negative conditions lasting at least one more year. This is after all Negative Phase PDO mode, which may be modulating ENSO and hemispheric patterns.

  17. ferd berple says:

    Chris @NJSnowFan says:
    October 23, 2013 at 6:37 pm
    What about the AMO look at this chart
    ============
    add in NH SST
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/plot/hadsst2nh

  18. philjourdan says:

    What is apparent, and Monckton alluded to it, is that they simply move the goal posts. It is no longer necessary to show a warming trend, as long as one existed in the industrialization era. TO them, all the rest is simply noise.

  19. berniel says:

    Another benchmark that rarely gets mention, but is worth considering for its reasonableness, was given by Santer’s predecessor on the IPCC detection and attribution chapter. In FAR Ch 8 Wigley et al answered the question on when might we achieve AGW detection. (This must be seen in the context of a strong, vocal and public protest against Hansen’s congressional declaration of detection in 1988 which was otherwise remained undeclared in many papers and reports.) In FAR in 1990, when after a first drafting Wigley was especially requested to address the question of ‘when,’ he came back and said that there would need to be another 1/2 degree warming on top of the 1/2 already achieved in the last 100 years.

    This finding is often quoted as no detection ‘for a decade or more,’ but the ‘decade or more’ was about when we expect by model prediction for the 1/2 warming to be achieved. What is strongly suggested by Wigley et al (in amongst all the AGW excitement of the time) is that if the 1/2 warm does occur in the next few decades then the model predictions would be increasingly called into question, and so a negative result comes up for consideration…or, better, the null hypothesis gets confirmed with higher degrees of certainty. With a lack of warming in the decades subsequent to 1990 we are ‘detecting’ that the sensitivity of the models is not validating empirically.

    This is interesting in the context of the subsequent corruption of IPCC detection and attribution finding by Santer’s hand in the following assessment using the pattern of warming ‘finger print’ method. (Wigley had qualified his answer by saying that detection might be earlier if new techniques are found.) When Santer’s argument turned out to be weak (and otherwise no ‘hotspot’ etc), they returned to the GMT, but it could not this time be the instrument record that would persuade, but a new look proxy record in the hockey stick. With Santer’s and Mann’s science called into question, it seems reasonable to return to Wigley’s text in the first assessment.

  20. Jquip says:

    philjourdan: “What is apparent, and Monckton alluded to it, is that they simply move the goal posts.”

    Now now, that’s unseemly and might be misunderstood as an accusation of shenanigans. The scientifically proper understanding is that AGW will evolve motile hypotheses.

  21. Mike M says:

    Rush laid it on thick today asking why is it warmists don’t try to claim CREDIT for the lull in warming? They could have tried to convince everyone that no further warming for all this time was direct evidence that their efforts curbing CO2, attacking SUV’s, wasting money on green energy, preventing 3rd world countries from advancing and otherwise collapsing industrial civilization in general – are showing signs of working. But nooooooooo! As he pointed out, the fact that they are not trying to do that is evidence in itself that “man-made global warming” is not driven by science at all, it’s driven by a political agenda.

  22. albertalad says:

    Sixteen years eleven months with no warming increase – it is obvious that the warming moved back down to the earth’s core after escaping into the ocean first. In seriousness I have never yet seen any so called AGW scientists even mention what blue jets, sprites, and elves were in the atmosphere. The fact is very clear humans are just beginning to understand the complex actions of this planet.

  23. Jquip says:

    berniel: “… it seems reasonable to return to Wigley’s text in the first assessment.”

    Can’t happen for social reasons. Wigley’s statement is what would be needed to even *establish* the claim in any manner. Santer’s claim can be used as a herpderp bone to throw on falsification. Letting simmer the idea that the claim was ever empirically validated to begin with. A return to Wigley’s statement is a prima facia acknowledgement that it never has been.

    That’s not just egg in the face, it opens up all manner of income loss, torts, and possible criminal charges for misuse of funds, fraud, etc.

  24. milodonharlani says:

    Jquip says:
    October 23, 2013 at 7:02 pm

    All the more reason for them to challenge the orthodoxy, did not their career prospects rest upon upholding it.

    Well do I remember the strange WX year of 1977. And the bitter winters of the late 1960s, especially 1968. To the extent that there has been warming in my part of the world, it is from fewer sub-zero F. lows in winter rather than fewer above 100 degree highs in summer.

  25. William Astley says:

    The warmists are in denial concerning the scientific/logical implications of the plateau of 16 years with no warming. A plateau with no warming and a half dozen other observations/fundamental analysis results supports the assertion that a significant portion of the warming in the last 150 years was due to some other forcing function(s) (say changes in the solar magnetic cycle for instance).

    As they say on Wall Street, the trend is your friend in terms of predicting what will happen next.
    As Latitude noted in the discussions concerning polar sea ice:

    October 23, 2013 at 5:26 am
    Huge increase in five year old ice…….that they now call four year old ice
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/what-nsidc-is-hiding/
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/nsidcs-nature-trick-hiding-the-massive-incline/

    William:
    Ditto for Antarctic sea ice.
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

    It is difficult to imagine what creative explanation will be spun to explain global cooling. The heat hiding in the ocean will not cut it.

  26. Keith W. says:

    10% increase in carbon dioxide, and a flat line trend in the temperature record. Maybe we have already reached the saturation point for IR absorption by CO2… nah, that ain’t it. Any other theories out there because I got nothin’ for the alarmists to hang a prayer on?

  27. milodonharlani says:

    William Astley says:
    October 23, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    Clearly the heat is going to be hiding in outer space. The cosmic microwave background radiation between the earth & moon will be found by modeling to equal 3.000000000000000000000000001 K instead of 3.0 K.

    Problem solved.

  28. johninoxley says:

    I think Santer will not be coming for the warmists this Christmas.

  29. Jquip says:

    Keith W. “Any other theories out there because I got nothin’ for the alarmists to hang a prayer on?”

    Try: Meaningless statistical artifact of the AMO stadium waves.

  30. Rob says:

    Lovely charts for this weeks EPA coal killing meetings.

  31. Scott says:

    Chris a quick question what is the trend if you take the HadCRUT4 adjustments out?

    I think you will find your warming rate before and after 1946 are reversed.

  32. thingadonta says:

    “one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008″

    The similarity in the 2 panels is remarkable. In nature this rarely occurs without very similar underlying causes.

    An obscure example comes to mind, the island groups of Sulawesi and Halmahera in Indonesia. These two groups of islands have very unusual star-like shapes, separated by hundreds of kilometres. Sulawesi is much bigger, but the shapes are uncannily similar. Without going into the details, it is largely because the area is situated in a complex tectonic zone, (which includes the only known case in the world of double island arc-subduction zones), and the formation of the 2 groups of island’s shapes has much the same complex tectonic origin and history. Have a look at a map, the similarity and unusual aspect of the 2 island’s shapes, whilst being so far apart, is remarkable.

    Here is a google image map of the area, Halmahera is cutoff a bit in the NE. http://www.kingbirdtours.com/itineraries/sulawesi.jpg

  33. Doug Proctor says:

    I don’t understand why we insist on putting a linear trend line on the 1955+ temp data, when to do so is to ignore common sense and the curving pattern that, yes, does rise but in a cycle of ups and downs. We might do the linear trend if we were to believe, as do the warmists, that the linear driver of importance is CO22, but since we don’t, I can’t see a reason to do so without pointing out how badly the data fit a linear trend.

    But since the warmists do not think that pre-1975 means anything, it is a bit of a straw man argument to even do any analysis of pre-1975 data. Better would be to treat the two periods separately, as the warmists would agree they should be treated, and show what that data handling does. After all, without the CO2 influence, we would say the data should be treated as it is, in the blocks and clumps that are most similar. Which gives us the pre- and post-1975 split anyway.

    The warmists have moved the goalpost on the 15, 17 or even 20-year perriod of importance. They have successfully done this without compromising the importance of the previous 20 year warming trend, incidentally, a triumph of willful blindness and misdirection if there ever was one.

  34. pochas says:

    Until the continents rearrange themselves or the sun changes its habit, the earth’s climate is bounded and regression-to-the-mean applies. Each year added to the string makes it more likely that the bounds are still in place, that natural variability within those bounds continues, and that nothing has happened to change things.

  35. Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
    Good article.
    It is impressive the way this controversy is going. First it was “Global Warming”, then “Climate Change”, now it is “Deep Ocean Warming”?
    Next; “Magma Warming”?

  36. max says:

    “And what is the scientific basis for the 17 year interval. Locusts?”

    It’s a statistical artifact of the IPCC models of warming. I forget exactly how Santer came up with the 17 year number, but if there are 17 years in row without an increase in global average temperature then there is a 95%+ chance that reality is wrong and we should ignore it going forward and only use the models for determining what the temperature is. I’m not in the mood to reread it, but the paper was “Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale” by Santer et al, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres November 2011.

  37. Nony says:

    There was also no warming in the first 129 months of this record. That means that all of the warming of the satellite record occurred in the 87 months in between. That’s seven and a quarter years.

  38. anthropic says:

    Andres Valencia says:
    October 23, 2013 at 8:41 pm

    Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
    Good article.
    It is impressive the way this controversy is going. First it was “Global Warming”, then “Climate Change”, now it is “Deep Ocean Warming”?
    Next; “Magma Warming”?

    Hasn’t Al Gore announced that the magma is a million degrees? Maybe that’s how it got so hot!

  39. tomdesabla says:

    Liquid hot Magma

  40. Frederick Michael says:

    Pretty soon, we’re going to get to a point where a second or third order fit on temperature shows an alarming cooling in our future. The warmists like to cite the precautionary principle as why we must “act now.” Just for fun, we could counter that with a highly plausible scenario/model where we desperately need all the atmospheric CO2 we can muster.

    Remember, cold causes a lot of deaths, crop failures, etc. These projections come with dire consequences.

  41. DougS says:

    Janice Moore says:
    October 23, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    Thanks, that was the first time I heard big Ben. Cool!

  42. philincalifornia says:

    johninoxley says:
    October 23, 2013 at 8:13 pm
    I think Santer will not be coming for the warmists this Christmas.
    ==============================

    You think he might get a sack of coal ??

    That irony would be too delicious.

  43. edmh says:

    The world does indeed face a dire and truly urgent threat from climate change. It is just not what the Global Warming Alarmists want everyone to think it is.

    The last Millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coolest of the current Holocene and about 1.5 °C cooler than the earlier Holocene optimum according to ice core records. The UKMO CET record has lost ~1.0°C in the last 13 years since the year 2000 and winter temperatures have been a full 1.5°C lower in that period. More recently an extreme escalation of the temperature decline has occurred and is shown in the UKMO official Central England Temperature CET record. In the first half of 2013, UK Met Office CET temperatures were a full 1.89°C lower than the monthly averages of the previous 12 years.

    That is really significant and it really matters. That marked decline has lead to significant crop failures and serious loss of agricultural productivity. The effect has been mirrored in both hemispheres.

    Assessing the sunspot records we seem to be rapidly heading for a Dalton minimum event (at best) in the next few decades. This will destroy agricultural productivity throughout the world.

    But Global Warming advocates only ever propose solutions for the control of Global Warming, (overheating), by reducing Man-made CO2 emissions.

    The climate is presently changing, (as it continues to do naturally), to a colder phase, probably because of reducing solar activity and changing ocean circulation patterns. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates fail to explain how reduction of man-made atmospheric CO2 can ever help to control Climate Change towards a cooling world.

    Having made so many dire predictions of impending climate catastrophes from overheating, the advocates of Global Warming / Climate Change fail to accept that a climate change towards a cooler climate is more likely to lead to more intense adverse weather. There is good reason to expect this, simply because the energy differential between the poles and the tropics is bound to be greater and that in itself leads to less stable atmospheric conditions.

    A cooling world as the Northern Hemisphere seen in the years since 2000 leads to much more dire consequences for the biosphere and for mankind than any realistic amount of warming that could ever arise from future man-made CO2 emissions. Cold is a much greater threat than any moderate amount of additional warmth that could result from greater release of Man-made CO2.

    National policy makers and the United Nations are neither recognizing nor are they preparing for this potentially disastrous eventuality, by way of example, see.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130910/halltext/130910h0001.htm#13091045000001

    Steve Baker: We have agreed here that science proceeds by conjecture and refutation, so in an attempt not to have a cloying consensus, will the Minister fund some climate scientists who wish to refute the current thesis?

    Gregory Barker: “I am afraid that I do not have a budget for that sort of research.”

    In spite of the enormous costs and appalling waste it is clear that the powers that be do not want to hear the good news that there is no real problem needing to be tackled.

    It is now estimated that Climate Change policies in Europe alone will cost ~ £174,000,000,000 annually by 2020 or about 1.5% of European GDP.

    But this figure does not include the attendant losses to Europe of industries already leaving the EU for regions with cheaper energy resources and more rational energy policies.

  44. Bill Hunter says:

    “The later period has a very slightly steeper slope than the earlier, but only by the equivalent of a third of a Celsius degree per century”

    Hmmm, maybe the .15 difference in warming over the two 52 periods was due to a 50 year solar grand maximum?

  45. Alan Robertson says:

    johninoxley says:
    October 23, 2013 at 8:13 pm

    I think Santer will not be coming for the warmists this Christmas.
    _________________________
    You get the thread’s Gold Star next to your name.

  46. I think I can confidently predict (95% certainty anyone?) that when we do reach the 17 year mark, the goalposts will have moved to a “minimum of 20 years is necessary …”

    The only good news in this mess is the fact the UK Coalition government has woken up to the damaging affect of “Green” taxes on energy prices and the majority part of the government wants to scrap them. Their LibDem partners however, want to raise them higher. Even in Germany, now the costs are rising steeply, the Greens are losing ground in the polls, and credibility among the populace. As Churchill remarked, it may not be the beginning of the end, but it could be the end of the beginning.

  47. Mr. Africa says:

    here is RealClimate poster Daniel Klein on December 29, 2007, with Gavin Schmidt’s response following. It was comment # 57:
    “Daniel Klein says:
    29 Dec 2007 at 11:40 AM
    OK, simply to clarify what I’ve heard from you.

    (1) If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding

    (2) In general, any year’s global temperature that is “on trend” should be exceeded within 5 years (when size of trend exceeds “weather noise”)

    (3) Any ten-year period or more with no increasing trend in global average temperature is reason for worry about state of understandings

    I am curious as to whether there are other simple variables that can be looked at unambiguously in terms of their behaviour over coming years that might allow for such explicit quantitative tests of understanding?

    [Response: 1) yes, 2) probably, I'd need to do some checking, 3) No. There is no iron rule of climate that says that any ten year period must have a positive trend. The expectation of any particular time period depends on the forcings that are going on. If there is a big volcanic event, then the expectation is that there will be a cooling, if GHGs are increasing, then we expect a warming etc. The point of any comparison is to compare the modelled expectation with reality - right now, the modelled expectation is for trends in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 deg/decade and so that's the target. In any other period it depends on what the forcings are. - gavin]

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/a-barrier-to-understanding/comment-page-2/#comments

  48. Janice Moore says:

    You’re welcome, Doug S., my pleasure. Maybe you and I will each, one day, get to hear Big Ben in person. Thanks for taking the time to let me know you enjoyed that clip. J.

    ******************
    SANTER CLAUS! (J.I.O.) Ho, ho, ho!

    Well, here he is, boys and girls — drunk again. “Jingle bells…. jingle bells…. jingle all – (hic) – the day… it’s cold… .”
    (and I think it is Leif Svalgaard, clearly NOT drunk, who comes to the rescue!)

  49. Janice Moore says:

    Sigh. You Tube search term: miracle on 34th street drunk santa.

  50. markpro3ger says:

    when is this going to be considered a fail for Gavin? I know that in the 6 years since he wrote this response it has become en vogue to blame the deep oceans, but he should still be challenged to explain this. i remember a prediction that “half of the years between 2000-2015 would be hotter than the previous hottest on record. that one has already failed without 2014 or 2015 even happening yet.

  51. markpro3ger says:

    dang…meant to say “2010-2015″

  52. anthonyvioli says:

    You know the warmists will not like this..
    And you will all feature heavily on a certain blog in Australia that spends all its time bagging this one.
    One after the other, every hypothesis is dismissed.
    And with a La Nina around the corner, yes you heard right, no El Nino in 2014, a La Nina instead I would expect to to stretch out to 20 years and cooling to 15 years.
    The only hope Santer or anyone on the AGW side has is using the 1640-1710 Maunder Minimum baseline..
    Which is why we should push to have temperature measurements and not anomalies that can be manipulated.

  53. Bill Parsons says:

    Mike M says:
    October 23, 2013 at 7:39 pm
    Rush laid it on thick today asking why is it warmists don’t try to claim CREDIT for the lull in warming?

    Google “Co2 emissions in decline” to find dozens of recent articles like the following (add “NPR” to your search if you want to coax the most tendentious reports to the top of the heap):

    Energy-Related Carbon Emissions Dropped Nearly 4 Percent Last Year
    OCTOBER 22, 2013 | 10:29 AM
    BY TERRENCE HENRY

    New numbers from the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) show that energy-related carbon emissions continue to fall in the country, down nearly four percent last year. “The 2012 downturn means that emissions are at their lowest level since 1994 and over 12 percent below the recent 2007 peak,” the EIA reports.

    Those declines have occurred in 5 out of the last 7 years, even last year as the economy began to recover.

    So what’s behind the change? The EIA credits several factors: increased energy efficiency (i.e. appliances that use less power), warmer weather (meaning less heating for homes), more efficient vehicles, and more natural gas in the power sector instead of coal. (Renewable energy actually declined last year, due to less hydro power being used.)

    With all due respect to Rush Limbaugh, I don’t think he’s keeping pace with the facts. Despite the clear upward trend shadowing the back of Christopher Monckton’s temp graphic (the Keeling graph), global warmers are claiming CO2 levels are tapering. Carbon levels are in decline. The fever has broken. The planet may yet be saved, the tipping point averted. Etc. etc. … And the credit is theirs.

    There are variations. Here is one that says the Earth is “breathing” differently of late.

    “Swinging CO2 Levels Show The Earth Is ‘Breathing’ More Deeply” from NPR’s Richard Harris.

    http://www.npr.org/2013/08/08/210243967/swinging-co2-levels-show-the-earth-is-breathing-more-deeply

    Skeptics just keep tossing handfuls of sand into their funding machine. How rude.

  54. MangoChutney says:

    17 years? I meant 170 years, just a typo

    Regards

    Ben Santer

  55. rtj1211 says:

    Perhaps one of the more interesting observations which could be made currently is this: during the 16 year 11 month hiatus in GSS, the acceleration in the summer ice melt in the Arctic has reached its zenith. Only a small change up to then, then a rapid decline as temperatures stabilised.

  56. dp says:

    What credibility does Santer’s 17 years exclamatory have over say Donald Duck saying 5 years should reveal all? It’s all cartoon, isn’t it? I think the presumption is Santer might know more than Joe SixPack, but really, where’s the proof? What is there that suggests anything Santer has ever said is more valid than what any random person anywhere has said regarding climate? The prevailing evidence is the Santers of the world are nutters for even suggesting absolutes, that is to say, predicting verifiable quantified predictions that can be shown to be flat wrong. And, as it turns out, have been. Santer looks like a fool, but at least he manned up and made a prediction. Mann himself avoids that like a mummy’s curse. Live by models, die by models.

  57. Steve (Paris) says:

    Silver lining? Politicians are losing credibility everywhere as economies keep on tanking. Once the great unwashed realise that ‘AGW’ is a massive con that has had a deeply negative impact on their lives, I would expect a mass clean out – and with the internet rather than mass media driving the conversation perhaps it will turn out to be all for the good. (Daydreaming again, I know!)

  58. ZootCadillac says:

    Whilst all very interesting and every effort must be made to bring these people to task for previous comments, I think it’s still in vain. Thomas Stocker, at the mockery that was the presentation of the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers has already moved the goalposts. When being asked pesky questions about the hiatus in the rate of warming he decided that it was not significant as we’d need 30 years of such to attribute anything significant to it. They are clearly betting that the mysterious missing heat is going to shoot from its hiding place, 20,000 leagues under the sea.

    And one day someone is going to have to explain to this layman the process by which heat from the energy budget is capable of sequestering itself in the deep ocean without affecting the temperature record of the body of water above it. I may not have enough of a grasp on thermodynamics and fluid dynamics to get my head around this one because it’s baffling me how this claim can be true.

    @DougS I’m glad you have been able to hear Big Ben. As a one-time resident of London for 15 years, I know the locals can become a little blasé about it.
    I wonder, have you ever seen Big Ben though?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/5407086/Big-Ben-celebrates-its-150th-birthday.html?image=12

    It’s surprising how many locals, let alone tourists have no idea that what they see is actually the Clock Tower ( recently renamed the Elizabeth Tower for QEII in her Jubilee year ) of the Palace of Westminster and Big Ben is the E♭ bell inside the tower, the one that counts the chimes.

  59. Alan Robertson says:

    Thanks once again, Lord Monckton of Brenchley.

  60. Allan MacRae says:

    edmh says: October 23, 2013 at 9:52 pm
    [excerpt]

    The world does indeed face a dire and truly urgent threat from climate change. It is just not what the Global Warming Alarmists want everyone to think it is.

    The last Millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coolest of the current Holocene and about 1.5 °C cooler than the earlier Holocene optimum according to ice core records. The UKMO CET record has lost ~1.0°C in the last 13 years since the year 2000 and winter temperatures have been a full 1.5°C lower in that period. More recently an extreme escalation of the temperature decline has occurred and is shown in the UKMO official Central England Temperature CET record. In the first half of 2013, UK Met Office CET temperatures were a full 1.89°C lower than the monthly averages of the previous 12 years.

    That is really significant and it really matters. That marked decline has lead to significant crop failures and serious loss of agricultural productivity. The effect has been mirrored in both hemispheres.

    ************
    Hello edmh,

    I share this concern re imminent global cooling but have a question about your above numbers.

    I looked at CET’s at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
    and they directionally support your contention but at a glance the recent cooling does not seem quite as large as you say.

    What is your data source for CET?

    Also, do you have a data source for your claims re crop failures and loss of agricultural activity.

    BTW, do you accept HadCET temperatures as-is or do you think there is an inadequate adjustment for UHI, or other such deficiency?

    Do you believe, for example, that the ~20-year period from ~1990 to 2010 was really warmer than circa 1935-45?

    Thanks, Allan

  61. Stephen Richards says:

    I caution all of you to not get carried away by the idea that the AGW scam is dying. It isn’t and it won’t. I have been watching the media for a very long time now and recently started to count the number of people and the sum of money that is hanging around this scam. I am here to tell you that I couldn’t finish either count with satisfactory accuracy. They are enormous. $trillions (really trillions) and hundreds of thousands of people. It is the most massive scam in history and we therefore have no precedent for how it will finish.
    Many of the media people and the corporation people will bail quite quickly, I think, but they are all waiting for the first. The green charities such as the famous 4 of Greenpeace, FoE, WWF and Oxfam will keep going for ever. Governments are very unpredictable. What they do will depend on the stupidity of the politicians involved and their wish for power or glory (glory coming from saving the planet).

    For us in france, socialism dictates the need to tax and spend and that continues unabated and so will the green taxes. Hollande has already firmly ruled out fracking, again and has recently raised taxes on cars and investment. 6000€ to register an SUV is obscene and signals the start of the process to tax fossil fueled vehicles off the roads (incidently, this was the winning suggestion in one of many of Shell-funded green-debates. Shell have contribute staggering amounts of money to all the green beenies. France has to close 22 nuclear power stations by 2023 and has no plan to replace them therefore the whole of europe, including the UK, will be affected by loss of feed through power. Hang on to your hats the ride is going to get really rough.

  62. steveta_uk says:

    I believe one of the complaints that Pielke Sr. has often made is that seeing CO2 as the daemon has resulted in other anthropogenic changes being downplayed – in particular land-use changes.

    This I think means that in answer to the question “can one clearly distinguish an anthropogenic warming signal in these post-1950 data from the data before 1950, when we could have had no measurable influence on the climate?” that indeed we could have affected the climate prior to 1950, mainly through land-use changes, but of course many of these changes are pretty much saturated now – not much unused land good for farming isn’t being farmed.

  63. Roger Tolson says:

    I hope that when you come to listen to Big Ben chiming it is not striking midnight at nine twenty five.

  64. As far as the warmists’ escalator goes:

    1) The first standstill in the 1970′s was part of a 30 yr pause, coinciding with cold phases of PDO and AMO.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/amo-pdo-cycles/

    2) The standstill in the 80′s and 90′s were due to El Chichon and Pinatubo.

    Therefore to suggest that the current pause is just a normal decadal event is grossly misleading.

  65. Message from Sen Banter

    “17 yrs? Sorry, a typo, I meant 71 yrs!”

  66. halo says:

    It would be interesting to see the outcome if the modellers at IPCC tried to prooftest their model parameters based on the warming trend from 1920′s to 1940′s. How hot should it be now according to such a prooftest model with similar parameters? Just wondering..

  67. Jan Smit says:

    @ johninoxley, October 23, 2013 at 8:13 pm
    I think Santer will not be coming for the warmists this Christmas.

    Brilliant, John! Thanks for brightening up my day. I’ll second the nomination for ‘Best comment on thread’ prize for you, sir.

    Given the timing, and further to your excellent pun, perhaps Santer’s claim could be known henceforth as:

    ‘Santer’s Clause”…

    ——————————————

    Reminds me of what I consider the best comment ever on WUWT. I think it was in reference to Peter Gleick, but it might have been Gavin Schmidt. Anyway the offending individual was consumately evading criticism, leading one commenter to say:

    He ducks like a quack!

    Quite simply the funniest thing I’ve ever read on WUWT…

  68. Jan Smit says:

    In fact, it occurs to me that conflating Santer and Christmas might just provide some excellent material for a Cartoon by Josh…

  69. DirkH says:

    Bill Parsons says:
    October 24, 2013 at 12:05 am
    “Google “Co2 emissions in decline” to find dozens of recent articles like the following (add “NPR” to your search if you want to coax the most tendentious reports to the top of the heap):
    [...]
    Those declines have occurred in 5 out of the last 7 years, even last year as the economy began to recover.”

    Recover… began last year… that’s a good one! Look at Caterpillar’s stock as a proxy for the global economy….

  70. Bob Greene says:

    Unfortunately, the 17-year period is like the “ice free Arctic in 5 years” predictions. Oh, we didn’t mean these 17 (or 5) years, but one in the future.

  71. rogerknights says:

    Bill Parsons says:
    October 24, 2013 at 12:05 am

    Mike M says:
    October 23, 2013 at 7:39 pm
    Rush laid it on thick today asking why is it warmists don’t try to claim CREDIT for the lull in warming?

    Google “Co2 emissions in decline” to find dozens of recent articles like the following (add “NPR” to your search if you want to coax the most tendentious reports to the top of the heap):

    Energy-Related Carbon Emissions Dropped Nearly 4 Percent Last Year
    OCTOBER 22, 2013 | 10:29 AM
    BY TERRENCE HENRY

    But that refers only to US emissions, not global emissions. Those are still rising.

  72. rogerknights says:

    Jan Smit says:
    October 24, 2013 at 3:05 am

    Reminds me of what I consider the best comment ever on WUWT. I think it was in reference to Peter Gleick, but it might have been Gavin Schmidt. Anyway the offending individual was consumately evading criticism, leading one commenter to say:

    He ducks like a quack!

    Quite simply the funniest thing I’ve ever read on WUWT…

    That was my coinage–thanks for the compliment. I was pretty pleased with it too. My target at the time was Gore.

  73. Jan Smit says:

    @rogerknights

    Roger, I take my hat off to you sir. Though I am clearly a sucker for such wordplays, it was truly inspired. And of course Gore is just as deserving of such a wittcism as the other two crooks – they’re all quacks and are all very practised duckers…

  74. rogerknights says:

    PS: Ant-on-y also called one of my comments “the funniest . . .” That was in response to a story about how Japanese scientists had used enzymes to convert a cow patty into a hamburger.

    I said, “Want flies with that?”

  75. J Martin says:

    Santer will cook up some dubious explanation and move the goalposts sufficiently far enough into the future to cover his retirement date.

  76. Jan Smit says:

    @rogerknights

    Very funny! I missed that one. It’s the pithy one-liners that always do it for me. Does that mean I’m full of pith?

  77. rogerknights says:

    Hi Jan. Here are a few more. I may not have been the first to think of some of these—I haven’t Googled for most of them. They all relate, at least vaguely, to the climate change situation.

    Too big to jail (This is the only one of mine that’s gone viral, re bankers)
    A Nobel lie (Gore’s movie)
    An Inconvenient Goof (Gore’s movie)
    Nonsensus
    Academia nut
    Hype springs eternal (This has gotten around, but I was 1st with it, 25 years ago)
    Bulloney
    I’ll crow tomorrow (i.e., I’ll laugh last, when temperatures fall) (A 1950’s bestselling memoir was titled I’ll Cry Tomorrow)
    What, me curry?! (Judy Curry’s unofficial motto—she liked it when I sent it to her)
    Jeer review (comments on WUWT on warmist claims)
    Booty is only sin deep (just cut a corner …)
    The grossest story every told.
    We, the 3-percenters, are the sensible selvage, not the lunatic fringe.

  78. Jean Parisot says:

    What I would like to see is the IPCC “flip” to a cold phase and begin warning about the dire consequences of cooling. I’m not sure how they are going to make it the rich, white mans fault though.

  79. observa says:

    Data! You call that data! THIS is the story of data!
    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm#comments
    Part 1 of the Cholestorol Club and it’s rise and rise to fame and fortune, dripping in sublime irony for the blind idiots and ideologues at Aunty who can’t see or hear themselves in their own digital images and sounds. The analogy and parallels completely lost on them as they’ve been parrotting Gore, Figueres and having love-ins with McKibben all week over the Sydney bushfires as proof positive they’re all right, if only that nasty Abbott (Figueres is talking through her hat!) and his Govt could see what they see along with the Climatology Club. Can’t wait for episode 2 of ‘The Heart of the Matter’. Watch the Heart Foundation bloke answering the hard question. Sublime irony Aunty. Simply sublime.

  80. Jan Smit says:

    @rogerknights

    Wow! You’re prolific. My favourites? Academia Nut and Jeer Review. Great work, keep it up…

  81. Mike M says:

    Bill Parsons says: “With all due respect to Rush Limbaugh, I don’t think he’s keeping pace with the facts. “

    Oh yes he is!… With all due respect, Rush Limbaugh knows how to push buttons and he just pushed yours:

    Skeptics just keep tossing handfuls of sand into their funding machine. How rude.

    Just as you imply, it IS all about funding; funding your alarmism scam. That was the ultimate point Rush was making – it is YOUR funding that is going down – worldwide, according to the “Global Warming Policy Foundation”, dropping from $700 billion to $359 billion per year. That trend has liberals VERY worried. Good news doesn’t sell….

    And your “Carbon levels are in decline.” ? In fact no they are not, not even close. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html

  82. beng says:

    ***
    Noblesse Oblige says:
    October 23, 2013 at 7:18 pm

    And what is the scientific basis for the 17 year interval. Locusts?
    ***

    Yes, indeedy! The warmth will swarm out of the ground all at once in a mass exodus driven by sexual-heat.

  83. marktwain says:

    No real need to worry about decadal averages as a way out for the climate industry. They defer a change in trend, but cannot change it. If the underlying trend in global temperatures remains stable, or even falling, this will show up in decadal averages eventually. This is familiar to economists, where a recession in quarterly GDP only shows up as a fall in annual GDP a year afterwards.

  84. rogerknights says:

    Roger Tolson says:
    October 24, 2013 at 1:46 am

    I hope that when you come to listen to Big Ben chiming it is not striking midnight at nine twenty five.

    Or 13.

  85. Jimbo says:

    As for moving the goalposts TomRude predicted this back in 2011 on the very same “Ben Santer’s 17 year itch” post. It was the very first comment too.

    TomRude says:
    November 17, 2011 at 11:49 am
    1, 2 and 3, all move the goal posts…

    Back in February Pachauri huffed and puffed as he started the process of shifting the goalposts.

    In an interview with The Australian, Dr Pachauri said a warming pause would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend. He said it was important people were able to openly discuss all issues surrounding the challenge of climate change.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/science-to-win-on-climate/story-fn59niix-1226583866039#

    Expect a new flurry of papers pushing back the 17 years to maybe 25 years or more. Whatever happens to falsify CAGW speculations, expect a new set of papers aimed at keeping the great gravy train rolling along. Possible future Arctic sea ice expansion……….as set of papers will explain it away and in fact blame man’s Satanic gases for interfering with natural ocean currents etc. It would be called a temporary recovery in its the long term disappearance. What if it got back up to the 1979 level? It would still be caused temporary and in any case why don’t we look at volume.

    Cat and mouse.

  86. Ashby Manson says:

    Great link to that ABC program on the BS (bad science) behind the vilification of saturated fats! http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm#comments

    The worst current science myths are that saturated dietary fat is is bad for you and the catastrophic consequences of CO2.

  87. John Whitman says:

    Christopher Monckton,

    Thanks for your update on the current continuous period of 203 months (ending Sept 2013) that shows no GASTA increase (no warming) for the RSS dataset based on linear trend analysis.

    When the datasets for the exact same period are finally available for GSS, NCDC, UAH and HadCRUt4 then it would be great to see their linear trends as well.

    I would also be useful to see an average of all 5 datasets (GSS + HadCRUt4 + NCDC + RSS + UAH) for the 203 month period ending Sept 2013. NOTE: I think you did something like an average of all 5 datasets for a shorter period in one of your previous posts here at WUWT.

    It will be interesting to see the precipitous drop in Climate Sensitivity Estimates (CSE) should the GASTA data continue with no warming or no significant warming or some cooling. We should start a CSE guessing pool at 6 months intervals. it would help keep media focus on the IPCC’s faults and failures. And it would be fun.

    John

  88. observa says:

    Mustn’t forget the science is settled on CAGW just the same as it is on Catastrophic Cholesterol because of the correlation warmies :)

  89. John Leon says:

    @ Stephen Richards. I live in France and I have not heard anything along the lines of 22 power stations to be closed. To get into power Hollande made a deal with the greens to close down Nuclear plants, at first 80% by 2050 but that was quickly reduced. Merkel on top of her 3ed victory has announced that she wishes to give Brussels far more control over fiscal policy over nation states, believe me France will NEVER accept this and don’t forget Hollande is SO unpopular that Marine la Pen has recently made some politically significant gains, considered an impossibility even 12 months ago. Behind the scenes in France there is a civil service who’s sole raison d’etre is the continued existence and life of La France, even though the E.U. is ultimately a French construct, if it has to be abandoned for the sake of it’s survival it will be, quite apart from the general feeling of the vast number of the population outside Paris.

  90. Jim Brock says:

    I need some help on this. We are in an interglacial period. What is the normal warming rate in an interglacial?

  91. John F. Hultquist says:

    Noblesse Oblige says:
    October 23, 2013 at 7:18 pm
    “And what is the scientific basis for the 17 year interval. Locusts?”

    Lately it seems hard to get straight answers for such questions and increasingly we find attempts at straight answers gone wrong. [exp: What does hide the decline mean?]

    Anyway, about the Santer-17 thing: I don’t remember if I read this or whether it is a long ago WAG that I’ve internalized but one could look at all the model runs of all the models and search for the longest periods of no warming. What are graduate assistants paid for if not for this sort of thing? So, say you find many periods of 5 years, fewer of 10 years, and only 1 or 2 of 15 years. None longer. 17 is a nice number (prime, in fact) and sufficiently larger than 15 such that additional model runs are unlikely to output a period of no warming that long. You then go on record as saying a period of 17 years is needed to confirm our models are bonkers – or something like that.

    At the top there is the phrase “the strict Santer test: no global warming at all for 17 years.
    My thought is that this “test” is of the same level of importance as the “95 % certain” category, namely, none.

  92. Richard Barraclough says:

    Allan Macrae

    The CET (as reported by the Met Office) has indeed dipped since the millenium, and if you pick your years quite carefully you can find a drop of more than 1.5 degrees C in winter temperatures.

    For example, the 5 winters from 1998 to 2002 had a mean temp of 5.33, and the most recent 5 winters have a mean of 3.58. However, the periods are too carefully chosen, and too short to be able to attach much significance to them.

    The first 6 months of 2013 were certainly very cold, Every month was lower than the 1961-90 reference period quoted by the Met Office. But since then, July, August and October (so far) have all been around 2 degrees above average, with September close to it.

    The warmest “decade” in the record was that from July 1997 to June 2007 at 10.51 degrees. By the end of October, the most recent decade will have dipped to 10.12, a run of years which includes 2006 and 2011, the hottest 2 on record, so you can’t really describe it as a “trend”, even though there have been a few cold snaps in there too.

    By the way, if the RSS anomaly for October is above 0.2 degrees, then a month will get lost off the far end of marginally negative slope. Watch with bated breath!

  93. Burch says:

    >why is it warmists don’t try to claim CREDIT for the lull in warming?

    Reminds me of that classic old joke that ends with: “Does it work? You don’t see any elephants around here, do you?”

  94. Gary Pearse says:

    “hiatus in global warming more significant than the previous periods of a decade or more without warming over the 163 years of global mean surface temperatures.”

    Note also that the current hiatus is over 10% of the entire 163 record and growing.

  95. Reg Nelson says:

    Does this mean there won’t be Giant Crabs?

    To paraphrase a great scientist, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of Giant Crabs at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

  96. Mike M says:

    Reg Nelson says: Does this mean there won’t be Giant Crabs?

    Could be Giant Dragonflies in our future though! More NPP via more CO2 and warmer temperatures could lead to an increase of O2 concentration which allows some insects to grow bigger – MUCH bigger!

    http://phys.org/news/2010-10-giant-insects-unravel-ancient-oxygen.html

    (70 centimeters = ~27 inches)

  97. Bill Parsons says:

    Mike M says:
    October 24, 2013 at 6:44 am

    Re-read my post, would you Mike? Short of an irrational fear of being turned into Obamacarrion, I’m not generally an alarmist, although someone over-reacting to something that I didn’t say can bring me close. It was late when I posted, however, so let me try this again.

    The records showing temperature plateauing are credible. Whether they are still being tinkered with to show temps as high as they are is a question I’ll leave to the experts.

    Even-more credible records show rising Co2 levels world-wide. No contest. I read these two facts the same way you do – global warming is a fairy tale. But it’s an ongoing saga, and the global warming bards want to claim credit for their heroes.

    At the same time that world-wide CO2 levels are rising, the U.S. levels appear to be in decline. That decline appears to be what green sources are touting in the articles propagating across the internet. The reasons for the decline are worth mentioning here even if they only modestly affect current temperatures. They include: U.S industrial declines during the great recession, along with outsourcing to other countries; subsidized green energy; the boom in natural gas and shift from coal to gas-fired power plants; a reduction in U.S. driving and flying miles over last 6 years, as well as better fuel efficiency of both cars and planes.

    So, as misdirected as their battle is with CO2, Obama and his crew appear to be winning. Give them some credit. They’re bringing down Co2 levels… along with our economy, our wealth-generation capabilities, and most of our freedoms…

    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/whats-behind-the-good-news-declines-in-u-s-co2-emissions/ (May article to Yale climate forum, by Zeke Hausfather)

    I haven’t listened to Rush’s full screed, but he evidently has missed the apologetic (subtly defensive) shift in the tone of stories coming out of liberal media lately. If he listened, he would hear the spate of stories apparently designed to justify and explain the 15-17 year plateau in temperatures in terms of the superlative efforts of greens.

    I assume most readers here at WUWT have been watching as the media does this not-so-subtle pivot to qualified acknowledgement of temperature “slow-downs”, but maybe some people have missed it.

    Warmists are twisting in the wind, and I for one am savoring the sight. Credit them with reducing Co2:

    Good boys! Now look what your big government, anti-growth, anti-competitive policies have done to the economy, and to the levels of trust in government

    I think that’s the battle they are really trying to win. And it’s the war they are unintentionally losing.

  98. philjourdan says:

    @Jquip – Yes, you are correct. I forgot the new PC term is “evolve”.

  99. Jan Smit says:

    @John Leon

    I’m sorry to disappoint you John but the EU was as much the inspiration of a British civil servant (James Arthur Salter) as it was his esteemed French friend and counterpart (Jean Monnet), though Salter has been carefully airbrushed from official EU history. They were both deeply invested in the inter-war internationalist scene, both worked in far-flung places and had very influential friends and connections across the globe. They were the epitome of the powerful parasitic types that have carefully crafted this modern world in their own image!

    Though I’m delighted to hear that the EU will be abandoned if necessary, perhaps given the rise of Le Pen’s popularity, it’s better the devil you know…

  100. JohnS says:

    The graphs are quite powerful. unless you are familiar with ENSO, IPCC, RSS and all the climate terminology people are just going to look at those and say clearly the earth is getting warmer. I don’t buy AGW but no wonder it’s been easy for them to convince alot of people.

  101. Jan Smit says:

    @Ashby Manson

    Here’s another great link for those that might want to further investigate the ‘alternative’ view of saturated fat: http://www.westonaprice.org/

  102. Frank says:

    Quick. Someone grab the goalposts and flee.

  103. clipe says:

    “Temperatures between 1983 and 2012 are the warmest in the past 1,400 years [in the Northern Hemisphere],” said Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group I.

    Did nobody ask Stocker to elaborate?

  104. Earl Smith says:

    Janice Moore says:
    All during WWII, every day, the BBC broadcast Big Ben’s faithful chimes — just so the Na-z-1s would know that London was. D Day has come for the Envirostalinists. Their doom is sealed. They are raging and snarling like the cornered rats that they are, but, it is only a matter of time until the forces of Truth triumph
    ***********

    In a War, the first victim is Truth.
    the BBC is widely noted as being on the side of the forces of evil in the Climate War.

    So it should be no surprise that the folks who have been systematically altering the actual temperature data from the past were not above altering the weather of the present.

    During WW2 the chimes that were heard on the radio were not the real tones. A change was made to using recorded sounds so as to deny German scientists the ability to accurately determine London’s weather from the tones.

    Parliament could have been a smoking ruin and the chimes would still ring for the uninformed.

  105. dbstealey says:

    JohnS says:

    “The graphs are quite powerful.”

    There are graphs posted here that show how wrong the catastrophic AGW narrative is. Some examples that I like:

    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5

    They put the current “carbon” scare into perspective.

  106. Janice Moore says:

    (Re: 1:26am)

    My dear Stephen (I have not forgotten your generously kind remark to me…),

    The view from occupied (by socialists) France would, indeed, appear grim. Take heart! These fellows, too, were likely saying: “Hang on to your hats the ride is going to get really rough.”

    But, they were on their way. The tide of the war has turned. While ultimate victory may be months, even years, away, victory is assured, for TRUTH ALWAYS WINS, IN THE END.

    Your American ally,

    Janice

    @ all Envirostalinists — Listen up, you slime. In fact, listen to this and remember…

    dit-dit-dit-dah… _ … _ your doom is sealed.

  107. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Mr. Smith (at 12:49pm)

    I was unable to locate the source in which I read the story of “Big Ben’s” being a hero of WWII, thus, I can neither affirm nor refute you. You also, however, have cited no source for your assertion. So, at this point, we have: “she said — he said.”

    Be that as it may, the truth that mattered, which was quite clearly communicated to the Na-z-1s, was that if the BBC was broadcasting, London was. If you are correct and the chimes were not live, the essential truth yet remains: the broadcasts boldly proclaimed that London still stood.

    And it IS “30 seconds to midnight” for the Environ-a-z1s.

    Thank you for, assuming you are correct, correcting the details of my post. You leave us, however, with the impression that you equate the BBC’s using during WWII, albeit for a noble purpose, recorded chimes with the lies of AGW propaganda. Given that the BBC’s message was: “We are here,” I would ask you to consider whether your comments were not unfair (not to mention needlessly demoralizing). Whose side are you on? It is unclear from your post. I hope that you are on the side of truth-in-science and merely have a penchant for pedantic detail, morale of the troops be damned.

    Perplexed yet hopeful,

    Janice

    P.S. Yes, I agree that the BBC are, now, tools of the Environ-a-z1-s.

  108. Earl Smith says:

    Janice Moore says:
    Whose side are you on? It is unclear from your post. I hope that you are on the side of truth-in-science and merely have a penchant for pedantic detail, morale of the troops be damned.
    ********

    I am on the side of Truth, be it ever so personally painful.
    As a Naval Officer I KNEW that, if we lost a war, I could expect to the in the dock at a war crimes trial. But that didn’t stop me from going North to hide like my classmates. The difference being that they went to Canada while I went north of the Soviet Union with 48 Hydrogen bombs, hiding in a submarine.

    We make much of the Nazi euthanasia efforts but neglect the fact that they were just extending the American and British laws to their logical extent. The American Eugenics effort was real. (and existed well after ww2) (and we had our own “Brown Shirts” in ww1 — the “American Protective League” a “private” quarter million man gang devoted to instilling a proper war fever in passivist Americans). Sorry, the evil we see in others is just a refection of our own selves.

    In my opinion ww2 was started by the bankers in 1933 when Hitler refused to turn over Germany’s finances to a private bank, it just took a few years for them to get the propaganda machine rolling to bring the rest of the population to a frothing boil. How WE entered the war is one of those crimes that remain hush hush. The Navy was busy secretly fighting in the Atlantic, but that didn’t work, so FDR tried the back door approach by doing everything short of shooting to get Japan (Germany’s ally) to attack. (and he was secretly shooting in China with all those “volunteers”). Embargos, confiscating assets, move the Navy in a threatening manner from San Diego to Pearl. In the end he was getting radio reports of the progress of the attack force on its way to Hawaii (and not advising Kimmel or Short). The talk about radio silence was a falsehood — the fleet types were actively broadcasting after they were scattered in a storm. Even the Red Cross had secretly stockpiled supplies on Oahu known only to the folks in DC.

    Your comments about morale of the troops was a direct insult. As one of the front line individuals in the Cold War, I take any falsehood to heart. I did not want to die for a lie.. WE entered Vietnam via a lie promulgated by LBJ. The Maddox and Turner Joy were not attacked by the North, and their COs had advised DC that the earlier contact report was in error. But LBJ ignored that and wanting a war got Congress to go along.. And the bankers and war merchants made a fortune.

    The young feel immortal and will believe anything their elders tell them, especially if it comes from Hollywood, or grave faced politicians. What good is morale if it is based on a lie. Gott mit Uns reinterpreted by our troops as – We have mittens also.

    Compare that with our Syria efforts. Parliament refused to go along and Congress had a massive revolt by the voters on it’s hands until Putin gave Obama a way out with the CWs. We are still financing the “rebels” (who are paid mercenaries) and we finance terrorists in Iran to overthrow the government just like we did in 1953. That is not to say that the bankers will not have their war, they just have to run a better set of lies (the incubator lie worked well but one can not repeat that story)

    We have reality on our side. We do not need to stoop to lies and falsehoods to get the unwashed masses to ignore the propaganda from those who seek financial gain from the AGW idiocy.

  109. george e. smith says:

    Well it looks like a load of hooey to me. I don’t see any of your data, Lord Monckton, that plots as a straight line against the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 abundance, so I think you have made a misteak somewhere.

    But I’m prepared to wait another 30 or 31 day, and then look again. I always like to give a chap, a chance to redeem himself, and you do strictly speaking, have some time left to make your case !

  110. george e. smith says:

    “”””””…….Noblesse Oblige says:

    October 23, 2013 at 7:18 pm

    And what is the scientific basis for the 17 year interval. Locusts?…….””””””

    Nah ! Cicadas ; Locusts is seven years; they’re an Egyptian thing ; same as frogs.

  111. dbstealey says:

    [snip wayy off topic, we aren't discussing the president - Anthony]

  112. Jeff Alberts says:

    This dataset could be the first of the five to pass the strict Santer test: no global warming at all for 17 years.

    If you look at Appendix zz, Section 235.199.0.4.5.22.x1, Subsection 0000000000004, you’ll see that Santer was counting in dog years.

  113. Janice Moore says:

    “Your comments about morale of the troops was a direct insult.”

    It was intended to be.

    And the content of your reply confirms that it was well-merited.

  114. Earl Smith says:

    Janice Moore says:
    “Your comments about morale of the troops was a direct insult.”

    It was intended to be.

    And the content of your reply confirms that it was well-merited.
    ************

    I will assume that during your service as a volunteer in the military that you came across a totally different type of person than what I encountered. Sounds like your encounters were with easily brainwashed men who were prime candidates for propaganda of the rah rah yay team style of cheering who would fold at the first sign that things were not going according to plan.

    I, on the other hand had enlisted personnel who had on average about 2 years of college who were much more rational in their outlook and behavior.(thankfully – since in the event that we lost contact with the western powers we had to assume after 24 hours that the west had lost ww3 at which point we would own the 16 birds. You have no idea of the stress to hear an erroneous announcement “Man battle stations missile” instead of a normal “Man battle stations missile for WSRT (weapons system readiness test) and the implicit statement that the US had just suffered 30 million casualties. ) I had two year of Russian. My Engineer had a collection of posters from the October Revolution. When we were on patrol we had great laughs at the Hollywood depictions of the military and international relations. We could get a better reaction from “All’s quiet on the Western Front” and “Catch 22″ than a simplistic WW2 propaganda flick. (Consider “Why We Fight” with the sinister train station call of “Papers Please” that was laughed at by ww2 servicemen verses todays Homeland Security searches.)

    Or are you just an armchair military expert, with no idea of the meaning of Duty, Honor, Country; or the reasons that morale could be high in a Confederate army that was starving and had suffered years of defeat by a bigger, better equipped foe because they were defending their homes against a War of Northern Aggression. (and yes, I am eligible for the Sons of the Confederacy by a collateral line decent from a trooper who served under Gen Stands Waite — the Cherokee Army that still fought for months after Appomattox, going home around October IIRC. And that army is a major irony considering they fought on the side of the people who stole their land.)

  115. George E. Smith asks why the trend-line on CO2 concentration is a straight line when he expects a logarithmic curve. Here, as so often, Mr. Smith is guilty of a confusion that one hopes is accidental rather than deliberate and troll-like. The dog-tooth curve shown in gray on the temperature graph is the graph of actual, measured CO2 concentration measured in micro-atmospheres (a.k.a. parts per million by volume). The straight line through that graph is the least-squares linear-regression trend on the data – a standard statistical technique for representing the trend as a straight line calculated to minimize the sum of the squares of the absolute differences between the data-points on the graph and the line itself.

    The effect of CO2 in altering the radiative balance in the atmosphere is indeed logarithmic – or, in simple terms, each additional molecule of CO2 has less warming effect than any of its predecessors. However, the graph plots the CO2 concentration itself, not its radiative effect (which would be expressed in Watts per square meter).

    It would be better, therefore, if Mr. Smith were not to advertise his own ignorance by describing as “hooey” matters of which, on any view, he has a minimal understanding.

  116. Patrick Adelaide says:

    Can someone please help me? I’ve read time and again that the temperature rise from around 1850 or 1900 (there appear to be 2 or 3 start years) until present is about 0.7C. Figure 2 above suggests the temperature rise has been 0.7C since 1970 (1.6C per century), lets say about 1.6C since 1900. Is this because of the dataset used, eg HADCRUT4 instead of HADCRUT3 (before it slayed Phil Jones) or does it imply warming really was 0.7C but from say 1900 with cooling periods until about 1976 which negated overall warming until 1970 to present.

    BTW, I hate seeing HADCRUT4 used since it’s creation seems to have only been a response to the lack of warming in HADCRUT3.

  117. Edim says:

    Patrick, use woodfortrees to answer your questions.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut3gl

    The thing is, the trough in ~1970 is about the same temperature like the plateau around 1870.

  118. Patrick says:

    “Monckton of Brenchley says:

    October 24, 2013 at 9:37 pm”

    I suspect you will have to retract that “troll like” statement in regards to Mr. Smith at some point.

  119. Ed Mertin says:

    [snip (and dbstealy's comemnt snipped too) for being waayyy off topic - Anthony]

  120. Ed Mertin says:

    [snip lets not go there - Anthony]

  121. Ed Mertin says:

    [snip waaaayyyy off topic - Anthony]

  122. Since I have made no “statement” that Mr. Smith was troll-like, there is nothing to retract. On no evidence, Mr. Smith described the CO2 trend-line on my graphs as “hooey”. That was impolite. .He must expect to be taken to task for using hate-speech of that sort. If Mr. Smith or “Patrick” would like handkerchiefs to blub into, no doubt one can help: but if Mr. Smith thought he could get away with perpetrating a gratuitous insult he now knows better. There are certain standards of scientific civility. Mr. Smith’s contribution fell short of those standards. No doubt he will have learned to behave better in future.

  123. Patrick says:

    “Monckton of Brenchley says:

    October 24, 2013 at 9:37 pm

    George E. Smith asks why the trend-line on CO2 concentration is a straight line when he expects a logarithmic curve. Here, as so often, Mr. Smith is guilty of a confusion that one hopes is accidental rather than deliberate and troll-like.

    And…

    It would be better, therefore, if Mr. Smith were not to advertise his own ignorance by describing as “hooey” matters of which, on any view, he has a minimal understanding.”

    You are implying as much. There was no need to use that language on your part. If you track back through the years of posts here at WUWT made by Mr. Smith you might find he does not have “minimal understanding” of the subject.

  124. Mike M says:

    [snip - also waaayyyyyy off topic- Anthony]

  125. JohnWho says:

    I am somewhat surprised that Monckton of Brenchley took the time to respond to:

    george e. smith says:
    October 24, 2013 at 6:03 pm
    Well it looks like a load of hooey to me. I don’t see any of your data, Lord Monckton, that plots as a straight line against the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 abundance, so I think you have made a misteak somewhere.

    since the obvious “misteak” is smith’s confusing “atmospheric CO2 abundance” with the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO2.

    The “CO2 abundance” would be the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and it is, indeed, increasing at a relatively steady pace as shown in the first graph above. According to the CAGW by CO2 Alarmists, this steady increase will cause a steadily increasing warming of the atmosphere, ultimately reaching a level which will cause catastrophic events. (“Abundance” may be being misused here, too, since if one goes back in time it appears that atmospheric CO2 at about 400 parts per million is well on the low end of what might be considered “normal”. )

    Interestingly, they ignore the logarithmic effect alluded to by Mr. smith. We have already reached the point where adding more CO2 into the atmosphere may only make a slight difference in the warming effect of atmospheric CO2, perhaps not even enough to rise above the natural variances in the global atmospheric temperature and be discernible with our current temperature measuring technology.

    The “load of hooey” here is coming from Mr. smith.

  126. Beta Blocker says:

    Climate science skeptics:

    Are you reading skeptical blogs more and more but enjoying them less and less?
    Are you tired of endless arguments over solar variability versus oscillations versus random walk?
    Are you critical of IPCC science but are being challenged to do your own peer-reviewed climate science paper?
    Are you wanting to make your own prediction for Global Mean Temperature in the year 2100?

    What you need is ….. Beta Blocker’s CET Pattern Picker

    Here’s how it works:

    1: – Using the top half of the Beta Blocker form, study the pattern of trends in Central England Temperature (CET) between 1659 and 2007.
    2: – Using CET trends as proxies for GMT trends, make your best guess as to where you think GMT will go between 2007 and 2100.
    3: – Linearize your predicted series of rising/falling trend patterns into a single 2007-2100 trend line.
    4: – Using the bottom half of the Beta Blocker form, summarize the reasoning behind your guess.
    5: – Add additional pages containing more detailed reasoning and analysis, as little or as much as you see necessary.
    6: – Give your completed form and your supplementary documentation to your friends for peer review.
    7: – If your friends like your prediction, submit your analysis to your favorite climate science journal.
    8: – If your friends don’t like your prediction:
    —— Challenge them to write their own peer-reviewed climate science paper.
    —— Hand them a blank copy of the Beta Blocker CET Pattern Picker form.

    Just follow these eight easy steps and you too can become a peer reviewed climate scientist!

    You owe it to yourself! Get started today!

  127. “Patrick” seems to think it was acceptable for Mr. Smith to accuse me inaccurately of “hooey”, while it was somehow unacceptable for me to question whether he was ignorant or troll-like in misunderstanding the distinction between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which has been rising in a near-straight line year on year for the past few decades, and the radiative forcing from that concentration, which is logarithmic.

    If Mr. Smith was deliberately confusing the two, then his comment was troll-like. If he was inadvertently confusing the two, then his comment was either careless or plain ignorant. Either way, his use of the word “hooey” to describe my carefully-compiled graph was inappropriate and not justified by any evidence.

    If “Patrick” would like a violin for Christmas to accompany his blubbing, in addition to the handkerchief I have already offered, perhaps he would let me know. Once he has dabbed at his tears enough to see things with a clear eye once more, he will realize that Mr. Smith’s use of the word “hooey”, on no evidence, was indefensible, however brilliant his earlier contributions to this blog may appear to have been.

    If “Patrick” were as willing to criticize Mr. Smith for his unjustifiable insult as he is to criticize me for having dared to query the appropriateness of that insult, then he would begin to attain to that just balance which philosophers from Confucius (Analects, passim) to the author of the Book of Proverbs (see e.g. XI:1) have recommended.

  128. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on CACA and commented:
    JohnWho says:
    October 23, 2013 at 6:52 pm
    Well, while we have gone almost 17 years without any statistically significant warming, we have had climate change and it is climate change that threatens all of us.
    /sarc
    :)

    Hehe gold.

  129. philjourdan says:

    [snip -off topic related to snipped comments above - Anthony]

  130. TLM says:

    ferd berple says:
    October 23, 2013 at 7:21 pm
    Chris @NJSnowFan says:
    October 23, 2013 at 6:37 pm
    What about the AMO look at this chart
    ============
    add in NH SST
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/plot/hadsst2nh

    Well the similarity is not surprising because one is a tweaked and detrended version of the other!
    This is as close as I can get fiddling with WFT:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/mean:60/plot/hadsst2nh/detrend:0.6/mean:60/offset:0.4

    There will be a paper on it somewhere…

  131. Janice Moore says:

    [snip -off topic related to snipped comments above - Anthony]

  132. Phil. says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    October 24, 2013 at 9:37 pm
    George E. Smith asks why the trend-line on CO2 concentration is a straight line when he expects a logarithmic curve. Here, as so often, Mr. Smith is guilty of a confusion that one hopes is accidental rather than deliberate and troll-like. The dog-tooth curve shown in gray on the temperature graph is the graph of actual, measured CO2 concentration measured in micro-atmospheres (a.k.a. parts per million by volume). The straight line through that graph is the least-squares linear-regression trend on the data – a standard statistical technique for representing the trend as a straight line calculated to minimize the sum of the squares of the absolute differences between the data-points on the graph and the line itself.

    The effect of CO2 in altering the radiative balance in the atmosphere is indeed logarithmic – or, in simple terms, each additional molecule of CO2 has less warming effect than any of its predecessors. However, the graph plots the CO2 concentration itself, not its radiative effect (which would be expressed in Watts per square meter).

    But in your original post which George responded to you said:

    “CO2 concentration, meanwhile, continues its upward trend. And it is this disconnect between rising CO2 concentration and stable near-surface temperatures that makes the present long hiatus in global warming more significant”

    Deliberately contrasting the linear increase in [CO2] with temperature when you know full well that the effect is logarithmic, intellectual honesty on your part would be to draw attention to that point or to plot ln([CO2]). It is that failure on your part that George is drawing attention to, quite rightly in my opinion. The ‘confusion’ you refer to is engendered by your statement and follows a pattern among others who post similar graphs. George is not confused by your post and is asking why you appear to want to deliberately mislead, and I agree with him, and echo his thought that the next time you produce such a post it won’t be so misleading.

  133. george e. smith says:

    “””””””……..Monckton of Brenchley says:

    October 24, 2013 at 9:37 pm

    George E. Smith asks why the trend-line on CO2 concentration is a straight line when he expects a logarithmic curve. Here, as so often, Mr. Smith is guilty of a confusion that one hopes is accidental rather than deliberate and troll-like. ……..””””””””

    Well Lord Monckton, it appears that you, and also others, did NOT catch, that my comment, regarding your Essay; was ENTIRELY tongue in cheek. A complete spoof, in fact , trying to make the point; that the “noisiness” of any and all of these “climate data” sets, is such that it is quite impossible to support a claim ( not one you’re making), that earth’s Temperature varies linearly, with the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 abundance. That being the essence of the supposed existence of a “climate sensitivity”, that is purported to follow such a rule.; when in fact a purely linear Temp vs CO2 , or even log(Temp ) vs CO2 is just as good a fit to the experimental data.

    Perhaps I overdid the spoof by beginning with the “hooey” comment. Well your sequence of graphs clearly demonstrate this phenomenon, that the “noisiness” of real observational data, allows for all sorts of manipulations of the underlying trends; and you mention in the manner, you often do, how people do that.

    However; bottom line is, that NO criticism or disrespect of YOUR essay was intended; BUT, it did in fact elicit that interpretation by you and by others. The moderators know full well, that I am one of your ardent fans.

    So an apology is appropriate, and hereby tendered, since you did not catch my gag, and it offended you, so, I’ll take my lumps, and don the dunce hat and go sit in a corner.

    For the record; as you usually do; you DID make your case, that the “pause” is inescapable; and in 30 or 31 days, I will celebrate with you and everyone else, the passage of a suitable 17 year hiatus, in that purportedly inexorable man made global warming.

    George E. Smith

  134. mkelly says:

    Earl Smith says:

    October 24, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    A bubblehead.

  135. Great summary of where we stand, Christopher.

  136. Anthony Watts says:

    Note to commenters who went off the rails related to Obama on this thread – all your comments have been snipped. Stop it.

    Mr. Stealey, you should know better. Take a 24 hour time out for starting it.

  137. george e. smith says:

    And for the record; while I pay serious attention and give credence to anything Phil (the real Phil) posts here; I am NOT in agreement with Phil’s conclusions, as to MY intent; nor did I intend ANY criticism of Lord Monckton’s use of a linear CO2 scale.

    In fact the very essence of MY criticism of the whole concept of CLIMATE SENSITIVITY, is that the experimental SIGNAL DATA, is so “noisy”, that it is not possible to support ANY formal mathematical expression relating earth’s surface or near surface Temperature, to how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. I don’t even believe the published data; because it fails by large factors, to comply with the Nyquist sampling theorem, that governs the validity of sampled data.

    I am ……..NOT………. a believer in either the experimental claim of a logarithmic climate sensitivity; nor do I believe in any THEORETICAL claim for such a relationship.

    I have pointed out, many times, that Beer’s law relating absorption of radiant energy, to the amount of absorbing species, in the path, is based entirely on the presumption that THE ENERGY stays absorbed; the INPUT photons die, and STAY dead.
    Well while the input radiant species may be absorbed per Beer’s law, the ENERGY does NOT stay dead; it is simply re-emitted at other wavelengths, and angular distributions, and proceeds on inexorably. This is especially true in the atmosphere, where the heating caused by the solar and earth surface radiant energies, simply results in generally isotropic emission of other LWIR emissions.

    So Phil, I was not criticizing Viscount Monckton’s presentation. MY comment was a spoof, and MY suggestion of a logarithmic link, was complete fiction; I hold no such belief.

    And seriously Phil, I DO pay attention to your posts, and I value your opinion.

    George

  138. JohnWho says:

    @ george e. smith says:
    October 25, 2013 at 11:50 am

    Glad you cleared that up.

    Perhaps unexpectedly though you did have a few folks agreeing with you.

    So, in that respect, you’ve exposed some possible ignorance on the subject.

  139. Janice Moore says:

    Anthony,

    I apologize (please just snip this post, too) for refuting Ed Mertin. I will only do so again when I see that comments like his are still there after a few hours. And, I will also expect to be snipped when such comments as his are also snipped upon being discovered. I just couldn’t (while his comments were still out there) let them stand unopposed. Dopebama’s crew is ruining my country.

    Q: Is it possible to “snip” only partial comments? I was really disappointed to see that my letter to George Smith (it wasn’t inflammatory, I don’t think) that took me quite awhile to compose was also snipped along with the Dopebama stuff. I’ll try to remember to put separate subjects in separate posts from now on anyway. I’m just so bummed out about that G. Smith note that I had to write this.

    Anyway, this is YOUR blog. I will do my best to respect that fact.

    Thank you, so much, for letting me continue to participate in the discussions.

    Janice

  140. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..

    Patrick says:

    October 25, 2013 at 5:57 am

    “Monckton of Brenchley says:

    October 24, 2013 at 9:37 pm

    George E. Smith asks why the trend-line on CO2 concentration is a straight line when he expects a logarithmic curve……..””””””

    Patrick, while I appreciate your comment; you did miss the point that my post was a spoof, that evidently went off the rails.

    And to the extent that Lord Monckton perceived an insult, though none was intended; and indeed no criticism of his essay was intended; his response was entirely appropriate, since HE perceived it as an insult. So it is for ME to rectify the matter and apologize to “Monckton of Brenchley” which I have done. Hopefully Anthony can make it clear to his Lordship. that I am a loyal supporter of his, including his very colorful antics, tweaking the noses of the IPCC, from open microphones or parachute stage entrances.

    Dunce George

  141. Janice Moore says:

    @ D. B. Stealey (and Phil Jourdan, O Valiant Ally for Truth),

    I understand why A-th-y removed our comments, but, I want you to know that I am proud to have been snipped in the company of you two who so firmly stood up for the truth.

    Hang in there, D.B. — as you stand out there in the hall, picture a little girl about your age sitting on the floor beside you. She even gave you the cupcake her mom put in her lunch that day. She thinks you are pretty cool.

    Oh, come, now, D.B., don’t tell her to “Beat it, punk, I don’t need any stupid girl sitting by me!” I’ll scoot a little farther away…….. Just know that I (and, no doubt, MANY of us out here) support you 100%.

  142. george e. smith says:

    Just for the record, so that nobody misunderstands my position, I have a degree in mathematics (among other things) so I DO know what the mathematical logarithmic function is. I also have some familiarity with solid state physics, and have observed the forward Voltage of semiconductor diodes versus forward current over from four to seven orders of magnitude, so I know of physical phenomena that are logarithmically related over a wide range.

    So to me a Temperature versus logarithmic CO2 abundance means that going from 280 to 560 ppm of CO2 should (if true) cause the same Temperature increment as going from2.8 ppm to 5.6ppm of CO2, or from 1 ppm to 2 ppm.

    I have measured the extinction of a He-Cd blue laser over 8 orders of magnitude per Beer’s law using sharp cut Schott glass color filters, and the suppression of the 4416 radiation IS logarithmic (or exponential, depending on how you view it). But the suppression of the radiant energy, was a completely different story; those glasses strongly fluoresce at wavelengths longer than their cutoff, so much of the energy simply floods on through, but now as isotropic, and incoherent radiation at much longer wavelengths.

    So fitting CO2 range from 315 ppm up to 398 ppm from the Mauna Loa data to some log relationship to the Temperature since 1957/8, leaves me cold. As I have said many times, with a couple of parameter fittings, I could fit the data as well to the form:-

    y = exp (-1/x^2) a fun function, that has all of its derivatives equal to zero, at x = 0 yet still manages to get somewhere.

  143. Janice Moore says:

    Dear George E. Smith,

    Glad to see you apologize (kinda sorta, lol) to Christopher Monckton. But, man alive, your tongue looked MILES away from being in your cheek. No one but you realized that was what you meant. LOL, you even had Phil dot cheering for you, heh. Sorry to take a bit of a “tone” with you, but, (along with your apology being so lukewarm) you proved me wrong (re: what I said of your character in a little note I wrote that got snipped along with my refutation of Mertin) and that bums me out.

    Still hopeful, but not so much,

    Janice

    #(:/)

    P.S. You may think this is a waste of a person’s time, but I’ve been praying that all would go well with school (and in later finding a job he enjoys) for your son. Is all going well?

  144. philjourdan says:

    @george e. smith – I am a real Phil! Just not Phil. ;-)

  145. philjourdan says:

    @Janice Moore – It is his free ice cream. I respect his decisions and take no offense either.

  146. Janice Moore says:

    @Phil Jourdan — yes.

  147. george e. smith says:

    “””””……Janice Moore says:

    October 25, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    Dear George E. Smith,

    Glad to see you apologize (kinda sorta, lol) to Christopher Monckton……””””””

    Well Janice, you have no need for any regrets. It was my fault entirely . Actually I really thought that my use of the term “load of hooey”, was so off the wall, that Lord Monckton would see it was a spoof; those words I will have to remember, don’t translate elegantly into the King’s English.

    As for apologies, I don’t do “kinda sorta” ; when I apologize, it is for real; and deeply meant. I’m a Kiwi, we don’t do kinda sorta. If you had any idea of the high regard, in which I hold the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley; his title, and the heritage of that title; then you would understand, how silly I feel at this point. You have no idea, just how different a world we might now have, were it not for the history behind Christopher’s hereditary title. You should probably look that up.

    And for Philjourdan; yes you are a real Phil; but there’s a long time Phil, totally unknown to me, who has rescued me from the jaws of stupidity, on more than one occasion, and we have also a “the other Phil”, sometimes not always declared; so I don’t dismiss anybody.

    And Lord Monckton, made the point in his presentation, that when it comes to trends in data, that is this “noisy”, different persons, can construct different interpretations of what THEY perceive is going on. And in this sense, I write “noisy”, not because I feel the numbers are corrupted by random fluctuations (they may be), but because the actual real numbers are so chaotic; and that is why they can’t be used to support any pre-conceived mathematical formula, over some other formula. We have Ln(1+x) = x -(x^2)/2 +… and also exp(x) -1 = x +.(x^2)/2! +….. So neither is easily distinguishable from linear; for small x, and we have, for data since ML CO2 data started in 1957/58 , x = 0.25 so they all agree within errors less than 0.03 for that whole 58 year period of accumulation, which is maybe 10 ppm in 58 years..

    Christopher’s graphs show fluctuations much larger than that; which is partly why I don’t buy the CS concept. Yes I do believe CO2 absorbs 15 micron LWIR radiation, and other GHGs capture other wavelengths; but I don’t believe that alone significantly warms the planet.

  148. george e. smith says:

    “””””””…….JohnWho says:

    October 25, 2013 at 6:10 am

    I am somewhat surprised that Monckton of Brenchley took the time to respond to:

    george e. smith says:
    October 24, 2013 at 6:03 pm…….”””””””

    Not quite sure of your point John. CO2 in the atmosphere is commonly presented as xyz ppm of the atmosphere BY VOLUME. I think that is plain silly. You grab ANY sample of the atmosphere, and you simply count the molecules of each species present. The atomic theory of matter has been fairly well accepted since maybe 1930 or so. So by “abundance” I simply mean the mole fraction of any species present; in the case of CO2, this being about 400 molecules of CO2 in each sample of one million atmospheric molecules. I don’t care if you put those all in a thimble, or your bathtub.
    And this “””””…..since the obvious “misteak” is smith’s confusing “atmospheric CO2 abundance” with the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO2. …..”””””

    What is the difference between the “logarithmic effect of the atmospheric CO2 (abundance)” and the effect of the “logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 abundance”. I am in no way confused, as to their identity; and it is somewhat irrelevant what ancient atmospheric abundances were. The credible historical numbers go from 315 ppm mole fraction abundance in 1957/8 (IGY), and the roughly 400 ppm of today. I am NOT using “abundance” to mean a glut of CO2; it means the relative contribution of any molecular species, as a mole fraction, of the entire atmosphere. And I’m not even a Chemist.

  149. Janice Moore says:

    Dear George Smith,

    I am so glad. I misread the words of your apology and, thus, missed your intended, and clearly deeply sincere, meaning. And remember, that while, yes, titles and nobility and all that are fine things, there are many more people without them who equally (sometimes, even more) merit respect and esteem and whose contributions to civilized society deserve high regard. You are one of them.

    Yours with admiration and respect,

    Janice

    P.S. A quote I just happened (providential, I think) to read today from my favourite author (British, of course), C. S. Lewis (in letter to M. W. Shelburne, Feb. 22, 1954, vol. 3 C.S.L. Collected Letters):

    I don’t think that an appreciation of ancient & noble blood is “snobbery” at all. What is snobbery is a greedy desire to know those who have it, or a mean desire to flatter them, or a conceited desire to boast of their acquaintance. I think it quite legitimate to feel that such things give an added interest to a person who is nice on other grounds, just as a hotel which was nice on other grounds would have an added charm for me if it was also a building with “historic interest.”

    P.P.S. Was your silence about your son’s college situation intentional? Hoping (and praying) all is well.

  150. I am most grateful to Goerge E. Smith for his kind apology. We can now draw a line under the affair, and he is free to choose whether it is logarithmic, linear or exponential.

  151. Patrick says:

    “george e. smith says:

    October 25, 2013 at 12:40 pm”

    It’s clear, to me at least, you know what you are talking about (Been reading your posts for years and matching my own studies). Maybe a case of open mouth, change foot in all cases?

  152. Patrick says:

    “george e. smith says:

    October 25, 2013 at 9:09 pm

    I’m a Kiwi, we don’t do kinda sorta.”

    So am I, albeit imported. British and thinking about becoming Australian too (Just not sure I can cope with the lobotomy *ahem* /joke! just so I don’t step on sensitive toes).

  153. Patrick says:

    With all due respect Monckton of Brenchley, none of my posts were out of line, insulting or disrespectful to anyone least of all you. If that were the case, there are moderators (Mods) to take care of that. I have posted here for several years, respectfully thanks to Anthony and mods, and have had a comment “snipped” only once if I recall correctly in all that time. Patrick is my real first name (We’re not obliged to publish our full names online here at WUWT and rightly so. It also forms part of my e-mail address, which is accepted here at WUWT, and have been using since 1996). I am not a fake, a troll nor completely clueless. To me, your posts read “Al Gore” (Insert any alarmist name here) like and dismissive of comments not to your liking.

  154. Pamela Gray says:

    What I find incredulous, and believed hook, line, and sinker by warmers, is the idea that only “natural” CO2 is beneficial as a greenhouse gas and as a plant fertilizer. Warmers love natural CO2. In fact, when a warm Earth was covered with gobs and gobs of it, our warmers say loverly things about that time in our geologic history. But today, the tiny portion that is human-sourced CO2 is a monster and has caused ALL the current warming. Now that’s a big load of hoohey!!!!! Given that the effect of CO2 is indeed logarithmic, this silly belief is made even more incredulous. Warmers must admit, they have no choice given the laws of physics, that they see human-sourced CO2 as a powerful demon able to spread death and destruction and that must be killed, while nature-sourced CO2 is their benevolent friend.

  155. “Patrick” continues in floods of tears, and says I have been “dismissive” of comments not to my liking. Well, “Patrick” made the mistake of effectively endorsing an inappropriate remark by Mr. Smith, and the further mistake of persisting in that endorsement long after it was apparent that Mr. Smith had made his inappropriate remark on no evidence. Now that Mr. Smith has graciously apologized for what he had written, “Patrick” is left exposed and should really apologize as well. I mean, I’ve already offered him a handkerchief and a violin to accompany what in Scotland we should call his “greetin’”. Or would he prefer an entire symphony orchestra?

  156. Gary Pearse says:

    There are a lot of smart people here so I know I won’t get away with any illogical remarks for long, and I will benefit from the education. But here goes. Re logarithmic affect of CO2 on global mean temperature: whether this affect is real or not, the methods used to calculate seem to me incorrect . Let us say that the CO2 that is present in the atmosphere for a long enough period to absorb its quota of LWIR has, by definition become neutralized in this activity (I understand that it re-emits and “fills up” again in equilibrium). It is therefore only the “new” CO2 being added that has an incremental affect, not so? Further heating would then be calculated from delta log CO2 to get delta T would it not? Hmm… I suppose it amounts to the same thing taking taking the whole volume and total T. It’s been a confusing week. However, one should get the wiggles better defined, I would think, if we go with delta Log CO2 and delta temperature.

  157. Earl Smith says:

    mkelly says:

    October 25, 2013 at 11:53 am
    Earl Smith says:
    October 24, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    A bubblehead.
    ***********

    A Target

    (for those non naval types :
    there are two classifications for water craft used in an attack cent / CIC [combat information center]
    1: Submarines
    2: targets
    reflecting how difficult it is to detect / kill and the consequent danger to you)

  158. Pamela Gray says:

    Good heavens, it seems men are such a sensitive gender. Maybe we are tougher because we spend a lot of time raising recalcitrant kids who say they hate us when they don’t get candy at the checkout counter. This type of thing reminds me of when I retreated behind the locked bathroom door to read a sultry cheap paperback just to dull the squeaky crying voices of arguing children.

    Really guys, move on with the science discussion.

  159. In response to Gary Pearse and others who are questioning whether the radiative forcing from a change in CO2 concentration is a logarithmic function of the proportionate change in concentration, the function used by the IPCC and the models is that the forcing delta-F is equal to a coefficient multiplied by the logarithm of the proportionate change. The coefficient was 6.3 in the first two IPCC reports but was reduced by 15% to 5.35 in the third.

    Prof. Christopher Essex, who did some of the earliest line-by-line radiative-transfer calculations, confirms that the forcing effect of CO2 is indeed logarithmic, and that now that the coefficient has been reduced the function is probably in the right ball-park.

    However, George E. Smith and others who say it is more complicated than that are also correct, because many other radiative as well as non-radiative transports make it very difficult to reduce the forcing function to the simplistic 5.35 ln(C/C0) that is now canonical (it was derived, inevitably, from an inter-comparison between three models).

    Which is one reason why there is a startling and ever-growing discrepancy between the gradually-accelerating rate of increase in CO2 concentration and the flatlining global temperature response (you should just see the contortions they’re going through at “Real”Climate to try to explain The Pause”).

  160. milodonharlani says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    October 26, 2013 at 9:44 am

    Which is one reason why there is a startling and ever-growing discrepancy between the gradually-accelerating rate of increase in CO2 concentration and the flatlining global temperature response (you should just see the contortions they’re going through at “Real”Climate to try to explain The Pause”).
    ———————————

    You mean the heat hiding in the abyssal depths is not yet settled science?

  161. Auto says:

    Stephen Richards says:
    “October 24, 2013 at 1:26 am I caution all of you to not get carried away by the idea that the AGW scam is dying. It isn’t and it won’t. I have been watching the media for a very long time now and recently started to count the number of people and the sum of money that is hanging around this scam. I am here to tell you that I couldn’t finish either count with satisfactory accuracy. They are enormous. $trillions (really trillions) and hundreds of thousands of people. It is the most massive scam in history and we therefore have no precedent for how it will finish.”
    Agreed
    Auto
    ……

    “For us in France, socialism dictates the need to tax and spend and that continues unabated and so will the green taxes. ”
    Agreed for the UK – see Blair, Brown [even little Davey] etc.
    And the EUSSR [legions of 'crats - no 'p' - who can spend [that's what they call it] our money far better than we can]
    Guess the US might be waking up to the great socialist tax-n-spend-n-waste experiment . . . .
    Auto
    …..
    “France has to close 22 nuclear power stations by 2023 and has no plan to replace them therefore the whole of europe, including the UK, will be affected by loss of feed through power. Hang on to your hats the ride is going to get really rough.”
    ====
    Hmmm – and maybe really rough earlier than we thought.
    Tomorrow???
    There are predictions [with some caveats, at least] of a (very . .) significant storm through England [and adjoining Regions of the EUSSR] tomorrow night and Monday morning.
    See, for example: -
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24674537 or
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10406523/Storm-warning-keep-999-lines-free-during-hurricane-force-winds-say-police.html

    It is suggested that this may be as bad as the Great Storm of 1987 [When I woke in Liverpool, turned on the radio, and heard "This is the Emergency Service of the BBC."].
    For my two penn’orth, it won’t be as bad. Unpleasant; damages, heavy seas for sure, perhaps deaths, unhappily – but not like the ’87
    But we didn’t have the Channel, much of the London River, and elsewhere, infested by windmills then, in 1987. I wonder how they’ll fare through what might be a ten- or twenty-year storm?
    And how well anchored are the solar panels in the [somewhat-sunnier - for England] South-West, where the winds will strike first?
    A PV panel cartwheeled away from its moorings doesn’t input a huge amount to the Grid, I believe.

  162. Janice Moore:

    re your post at October 24, 2013 at 2:12 pm.

    Thankyou for your defence of the brave and gallant men from many countries who sacrificed their lives so we and subsequent generations can live free of the evil which spread across Europe and threatened to engulf the world in the 1930s and 40s.

    Trebah Gardens are near my home. The beach still has the remains of the purpose-built jetty from which many US soldiers left for Omaha Beach. Many did not return. Each year a memorial day is held by the jetty: serving and retired military personnel together with civilians of all ages meet to honour the memory of those brave men who left from there and to whom we owe so much. US military personnel serving at Culdrose often attend and some of them have told me such celebration of American WW2 soldiers is rare in the US: that saddens me.

    The AGW-scare is a scandal. But it would have been impossible to oppose such things – and worse – were it not for the sacrifice of those like the young men in the landing craft shown in your video.

    Remembrance Sunday will soon be here again. We owe those men. And we cannot know the true enormity of what we owe them. People who trivialise our debt need to be decried.

    Richard

  163. milodonharlani says:

    richardscourtney says:
    October 26, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    Here we remember too the 100,000 Americans who died fighting Communism, & largely succeeded in wiping that scourge from the face of the earth. Most Korean War vets who survived are also gone now, along with 2/3 of those from Vietnam.

  164. richardscourtney says:

    milodonharlani:

    re your post addressed to me at October 26, 2013 at 12:35 pm.

    My post you answered was a support of Janice Moore in her defence of US military personnel who suffered in WW2. I did address those who fought in later wars up to the present with my comment about the importance of Remembrance Sunday.

    You specifically mention the Korean War. The US was not the only country involved in that conflict, either. For example, this link lists the British forces who fought in that war
    http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/British-Forces.html

    Obviously, I need to clarify what I was trying to say in my support of Janice Moore. This was the salient message I intended to provide in my post to Janice.

    “The AGW-scare is a scandal. But it would have been impossible to oppose such things – and worse – were it not for the sacrifice of those like the young men in the landing craft shown in your video.

    Remembrance Sunday will soon be here again. We owe those men. And we cannot know the true enormity of what we owe them. People who trivialise our debt need to be decried.”

    Richard

  165. milodonharlani says:

    I knew British Korean War vets. About 1300 died or went missing. There were also lots of Commonwealth personnel there, killed in their hundreds. Australians served in Vietnam with distinction & many Canadians volunteered for service with US armed forces, more than Americans going to other way to avoid the draft.

    When speaking at Memorial Day & Veterans’ Day (as it’s now called), I make a point to mention our allies. The Americans you met must be from big cities. In rural America, which has always contributed disproportionately to the war dead, we still observe these remembrances solemnly.

  166. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Richard,

    Thank you, very much, for your kind affirmation of my attempt to (once again, smile) boost the morale of those fighting for Truth in Science. It’s so nice to know that someone appreciated what I wrote.

    That you and others pause in England, each year, to remember what those brave young men did is touching. There should be, as you pointed out, more such celebrations in the U.S.A.. People are naturally self-centered and forgetful (or simply ignorant of history). For others, their brains are firing away okay, but their hearts are hard and cold. People like you and those greathearts who join you on the coast of England are rare, indeed.

    The world owes the biggest debt of gratitude, nevertheless, to the British who fought on, alone, for such a terribly long time. Thank you.

    And, yes, Mr. Harlani is, indeed, right to add that the Korean War (and though their valiant efforts were sabotaged by Congress (just as MacArthur’s were in Korea by Truman), also those of the Vietnam war against communism) vets also deserve to be remembered and honored (all of them, including those of the other “U.N.” (lol, the U.N. was (and is) a blank cartridge, lots of noise….) coalition forces, including, significantly, the British).

    “Auto” above says a big storm is on the way. Batten down the hatches, reef the sails, drop the hook, and….. HANG ON! Do take care. Still praying for your friend. Hope all is well.

    Your ally and sister in the fight for Truth,

    Janice

    P.S. If you notice after reading this that my post here got snipped (I’m cringing a tiny bit already), if you would be so kind, please post an “I read it” *ping* — thanks.

  167. richardscourtney says:

    Janice Moore:

    This is my *ping* as requested in your post at October 26, 2013 at 1:59 pm.

    Yes, the contribution of the US troops whom you highlighted is valued here. There are many memorials to them in coastal towns where they trained and were billeted. Importantly, the disaster at Slapton Sands was ‘covered up’ by both your and our governments for decades, but it is now remembered each year with the event being partially funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund so the lives of those US WW2 soldiers is officially recognised as being part of British Heritage: this link tells more of that
    http://www.exercisetigerslapton.org/

    Sue obtained an infection but that is now dealt with and recovery is back on schedule. Sincere thanks for your interest. I have been away doing my ‘shift’ in looking after her, and have returned home this afternoon because I have some duties in the morning.

    Richard

  168. milodonharlani says:

    Britain didn’t fight completely alone from June 1940, when Hitler overran France, to June 1941, when the German dictator invaded the USSR & Stalin switched sides.

    Besides forces from the Commonwealth nations, such as India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc, & the colonies, she was aided by volunteers from the USA & elsewhere, French, Poles, Czechs, Dutch, Norwegians & assorted other freedom fighters in Europe, Africa, Asia & Oceania, as well as the Resistance in occupied Europe. At least equally important were the sailors, airmen & merchant mariners who sustained the Home Islands during that year at great cost in life & treasure, plus the civilian shipyard crews, plane, tank, truck & equipment builders. Much of the world was behind her.

    US Flying Tiger pilots (some of whom I knew) were also fighting Japan in China, as our sailors had been doing since 1937.

  169. milodonharlani says:

    First combat by FTs wasn’t until Dec ’41, but their P-40s arrived in Burma in spring of that year.

  170. Janice Moore says:

    Richard Courtney:

    Thanks for sharing that commemoration. First class.

    (and thanks for the *ping* — phew! made it!)

    Janice

  171. milodonharlani says:

    I think I’m under moderation for mentioning the name of a German dictator, or maybe being off topic.

    This is way off topic, but speaking of Anglo-American cooperation, a lot of stuff was declassified 30 years after the late unpleasantness in the South Atlantic. Last year, the in-fighting in the Reagan Administration over the Falklands became public. SecState Haig & UN ambassador Kirkpatrick wanted to back Argentina, while SecDef Weinberger & CIA deputy chief Inman wanted to tilt toward Britain. SecNav Lehman got Reagan’s agreement to lend the Royal Navy USN amphibious ship (in effect a USMC Harrier carrier) Iwo Jima if Britain lost one of its then two jump jet carriers, Invincible & Hermes.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165945/Not-neutral-Ronald-Reagan-secret-plans-loan-U-S-warship-Britain-aircraft-carrier-lost-Falklands-War.html

  172. richardscourtney says:

    milodonharlani:

    Thankyou for the info. in your post at October 26, 2013 at 3:20 pm.

    However, as you say, we are now way off topic (and the fault for that is probably mine) so I thank you for the post and leave it at that but not with any intention of disrespect.

    Richard

  173. milodonharlani says:

    None felt.

    In a lame stab at relevance:

    http://www.kew.org/science-research-data/directory/projects/falkland-islands-climate-change.htm

    An urgent national action plan is needed to save the Falklands from the ravages of climate change!

    Reminds me of Pope’s “doggerel”:

    “I am His Highness’ dog at Kew.
    Pray, tell me sir, whose dog are you?”

  174. Patrick says:

    @Monckton of Brenchley says: October 26, 2013 at 7:28 am

    You still refer to me as “Patrick”, even after stating it’s my real name, and yet you respect the title of Mr. Smith (Even though he publishes his full name, a practice I do not support nor follow btw but will never refuse people that freedom. A policy at this site I agree with). I have responded to your comments in quotes (Not this time), at the start, to isolate the actual post, date and time, and that is in no way an insult. It identifies the post, person, date and time, I am responding to so that there is no ambiguity as to what comment I am responding to. Would a “name” of Davis of London be more acceptable to you? Pathetic! Given your position of affluence and influence (In the Thatcher years), your post(s) has convinced me that you are no longer tolerant, nor even consider, alternate opinions. Have you considered changing your name, by deed poll, to Al Gore?

  175. richardscourtney says:

    Patrick:

    re your post at October 27, 2013 at 5:05 am.

    Why not provide the apology which you owe to Lord Monckton instead of the silly evasions and excuses in your post?

    Richard

  176. Patrick says:

    “richardscourtney says:

    October 27, 2013 at 6:43 am”

    An apology I owe? None is deserved, at all.

  177. richardscourtney says:

    Patrick:

    Thankyou for your answer (at October 27, 2013 at 7:01 am).

    I always enjoy a good laugh. And that answer funny; really, really funny. Thanks.

    Richard

  178. One notes that “”Patrick” does not have the courage to post here under his full name. He cowers behind the anonymity of a first name without a surname. He made the silly mistake of
    endorsing an argument by a third party that that party later had the kindness and common sense to withdraw upon being confronted with the evidence. He now lacks the grace to join the third party in apologizing. Instead, he compounds his error by blustering to the effect that in his opinion I am intolerant of other people’s opinions. It is science, not I, that is intolerant of mere opinions. The scientific fact is that the graph about which the third party had made (and has now withdrawn) an objectionable remark contained no error of any kind. “Patrick”, in failing to resile from an indefensible and now-abandoned position, is out of his depth and out of his league.

    The true-believers in the New Religion have the money, the power, and the glory: but we have the truth. If “Patrick” or anyone else here tries to divert attention away from the truth, he will not meet with approval: for the truth is our only weapon against the now-failing climate scam, which is why I and others here are vigorous and, where necessary, blunt in its defence. If “Patrick” still thinks there was any error in my graph, then let him stop sniveling for long enough to identify what he considers to be an error and explain why he considers it to be an error. Otherwise, let him be silent.

  179. george e. smith says:

    “””””……Monckton of Brenchley says:

    October 26, 2013 at 4:49 am

    I am most grateful to Goerge E. Smith for his kind apology. We can now draw a line under the affair, and he is free to choose whether it is logarithmic, linear or exponential……”””””

    Your words are much appreciated, but I still feel really silly. You mentioned that “A load of hooey” is very non-scientific. I agree, which is why I felt sure you would immediately discern that my post was a spoof. My point, to the extent that I had one, was simply that the recent historical data, covers such a small range of CO2 mole abundance in the atmosphere, that one cannot determine if it follows any formal mathematical relationship to the Temperature, and your first graph, in light of the rising CO2, suggests no relationship at all.

    For the record, I have NO idea, whether there is any cause and effect relationship between CO2 and Temperature, nor do I have any special insight as to what such a relationship might be. Your second graph, with the red trend line, and the blue staircase, makes the point that the interpretation of data, is often in the eye of the beholder, rather than any reality.

    The Physics, or Physical Chemistry of GHGs in the atmosphere; is rather well established; but how that influences global climate, is much less so. And my position really is; “I don’t know.”

    The 17 yr (almost) hiatus; or is it “recent maxima”, leads one to ask, when is the other shoe going to drop. Are we in for a deep cold snap ?

  180. Janice Moore says:

    “You still refer to me as ‘Patrick.’” (Patrick at 5:05am 10/27)

    Would you join the ranks of Mr. Ed? Mr. Bill?

    Brother Patrick? Citizen Patrick?

    Perhaps, you want Saint Patrick? Ah, but, you see while we agree on the essentials, some of us do not follow the Roman Catholic teaching about “saints” and, thus, balk at using such a title.

    You really don’t SOUND much like what one would expect in a “saint,” ….. . Hm.

    Heh, heh, heh, that was fun.

    Thank — you — Mis — ter — Patrick! #(:))

  181. Janice Moore says:

    The true-believers in the New Religion have the money, the power, and the glory: but we have the truth.

    Christopher, Lord Monckton

    Well said.

  182. Patrick says:

    “Monckton of Brenchley says:

    October 27, 2013 at 9:56 am”

    Posting one’s full name is one’s choice here at WUWT. You seem to have a problem with that, which is of course, YOUR problem. Take that up with the blogs’ owner if you have an issue (Pathetic and diversionary). In a previous post, if you were quick/smart enough, you would have discovered that I in fact DID post my surname. What is YOUR problem with that?

    I find your comments about “truth” rather hilarious as it was you who was, largely responsible, as “climate change adviser” in the early 1980′s to Thatcher, acting on advice from your “office” to “rubber stamp” the UN’s “interest” in climate change (EAU CRU and shutting down coal mines etc). So if anyone needs to apologise, it’s you!

  183. Patrick says:

    “Janice Moore says:

    October 28, 2013 at 11:10 am”

    You need to direct that post at the person who refers to me as “Patrick”.

  184. Patrick says:

    “richardscourtney says:

    October 27, 2013 at 7:15 am”

    You are welcome.

  185. “Patrick” does seem to have wandered from the point. One takes it, therefore, that he now accepts there was no error in my graph in the head posting. His knowledge of the history of the Thatcher era, like his knowledge of climate science, is erratic and insufficient.

    The coal mines were closed because repeated Communist-led strikes had compounded their unprofitability, and the closures predated Margaret Thatcher’s first major speech on the climate, in 1988, in which she announced the funding for what became the Hadley Centre for Forecasting.

    That speech was written for her not by me but by my successor, George Guise, who allowed her to predict warming at a rate equivalent to 10 K/century. My own advice had been rather more cautious, merely suggesting that it would be appropriate to find out more about the problem.

    During my time at Downing Street, the UN had not established its climate panel, so I am not sure what “Patrick” is suggesting when he says I advised her to “rubber-stamp” its then non-existent “interest” in the subject.

    One appreciates that “Patrick” made a clot of himself by endorsing a fatuity that its originator subsequently had the kindness to withdraw, and that he has been blustering ever since. My advice is that he is already in a deep enough hole, so he need not go to the exertion of digging any further. If he is too graceless to apologize, let him be silent rather than compounding his idiocy.

  186. Patrick says:

    “Monckton of Brenchley says:

    October 29, 2013 at 2:30 pm”

    “So, faute de mieux, it was I who – on the Prime Minister’s behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisors to the Government, from the Chief Scientific Advisor downward.”

    Nothing better to do between 1982 to 1986?!! That’s quite a remarkable, but not a surprising, admission from a former MP. During this time you suggested caution and to find out more about the problem, as you state above. The fact George Guise was the person who actually succeeded you in the job and delivered the speech to Thatcher is irrelevant. He would have presented whatever data/evidence existed at that time prior to that delivery, regardless of your suggested caution (You were not in the driving seat anymore). It is true that after 1988/1989, the evidence and data that was being collected, as stated at the time, was suggesting emissions of CO2 from human activity was not a problem, or at least a miniscule practically immeasurable driver of “warming”. We know you and Thatcher agreed, cautiously. But by then, it was too late! Approval for funding was “rubber stamped” by the UK Govn’t (Thatcher) and then the UN (IPCC – The formation of which NEEDED Thatcher to “rubber stamp” support for it’s inception). My language may not be as “flowery” as yours, so what!

    BTW, I recall the winter of 1988, in Portsmouth, UK, wind chill down to ~-25c!

    As for coal, it was pivotal in Thatchers goal to address local/global environmental issues (Acid rain “Dirty Man of Europe” label attributed, apparently, to coal fired power and heavy industry driven by it which, as we now know, was rubbish) and politics aside, she cunningly tried to reduce Britain’s reliance on coal. She could use CO2 reduction, just as Palme (Sweden?) did in the mid-70s, as an “excuse” to justify otherwise unpopular nuclear energy. A missed opportunity for the UK! Sweden now supplies ~35% power from nuclear.

    You will not find a post by “Patrick” anywhere at this blog claiming you to be “…compounding idiocy.” or “…graceless…” or any other such derogatory comment (I’d be snipped, and rightly so).

    My original post was a protest in reply to your accusation that George. E. Smith was a “troll”. He is not hence my post that you might want to retract. Talk of holes and digging. Maybe you should stop now “Christopher”?

  187. “Patrick”, having lost the argument comprehensively and yet having failed to apologize, descends to mere spite. Nevertheless, he now concedes that it was not I who advised Margaret Thatcher to back the U.N. (on the climate or on anything else).

    And he is incorrect to assert that I accused Mr. Smith of being a troll. Mr. Smith has since apologized for the troll-like comment that “Patrick” had unwisely endorsed. Perhaps “Patrick” had better go and play in someone else’s sandpit: he has nothing of scientific value to offer here.

  188. Patrick says:

    Lost an argument, when there was none? I descend to mere spite, where? History is not spite! The only person in this “exchange” who seems filled with spite is not me. I agree, you were not the adviser in the 1988 Thatcher speech, but that speech was based on the information the “Policy Unit” had available and that was largely your responsibility when you were in “service” between 1982 and 1986. In your own words;

    “So, faute de mieux, it was I who – on the Prime Minister’s behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisors to the Government, from the Chief Scientific Advisor downward.”

    Are you suggesting you had no influence? Are you suggesting that, keeping “…a weather eye on the official science advisors to the Government…” as you say, had no influence being the most “science qualified” MP with your Z80 computer at that time?

  189. richardscourtney says:

    Patrick:

    I write to ask for a clarification of your post at October 31, 2013 at 5:06 am.

    Please explain the relevance you see of
    (a) the political advice provided to the then UK PM in her preparation of a speech in 1988

    to the subject of this thread which is

    (b) the proximity of the present to meeting the ‘Santer 17 year warming test’.

    Richard

  190. Patrick says:

    “richardscourtney says:

    October 31, 2013 at 5:33 am”

    My original post in this thread was a suggestion to “Monckton” to retract “his” statement that George E. Smith was “troll-like”. Can you point to any error in my original post, and since, with “Monckton” and his replies?

    Aeternum vale

  191. richardscourtney says:

    Patrick:

    I understand your reply to me at October 31, 2013 at 6:05 am to say that your post at October 31, 2013 at 5:06 am has no relevance to the subject of this thread. In other words, it is trolling.

    Richard

Comments are closed.