No global warming for 17 years, 6 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months. Miss Brevis, send a postcard to Mr Gore:

Why did none of the vaunted models predict this long hiatus, stasis, pause, halt, rest, interval, intermission, break, time out, vacation, furlough, gap, plateau, or flat spot?

296 thoughts on “No global warming for 17 years, 6 months”

1. Baa Humbug says:

“Halt”. Describing it any [other] way is wrong

2. David Smith says:

When I’ve asked pupils at the secondary school (that’s limey speak for “High School”) that I’ve taught at how much the earth’s average temperature has risen in their lifetimes I get all sorts of wacky answers. Whatever they say, the rise is always positive.
When I then tell them it hasn’t risen throughout their whole lifetimes they are gob-smacked. Some have even looked rather annoyed about how they have been fed a lie by other teachers in the school that, “the globe has got a fever!”

3. If you huff and puff you get warmer but the climate not so much.

4. In Sydney recently, in response to a question, the warmies admitted that there has been no warming for 17 years and they acknowledged that the models are increasingly diverging. The question pointed out the increased certainty that man-made CO2 causes global warming. The excuse as to the discrepancy was the ASSERTION that the heat has gone to the deep oceans-nearly impossible to prove or disprove. Now we hear IPCC chief Christiana Fugueres declaring that Democracy is not well suited to dealing with global warming. Chinese Communism is the best model. All this hinging on the ASSERTION of where the inconvenient heat has gone.By not criticizing her for this outrageous comment, the UN is revealing their true motivations.All so revealing-the UN condones the iron fist of totalitarianism justified on an unprovable assertion..

5. Remember Lord Monckton its a cherry pick unless it supports the idea that the Earth is on fire and it is all our fault :-). If you measure hot days in the vicinity of Timbuktu between January the 26th and January the 30th between 1980 and 1998, you will see that the world is overheating at a dangerous rate, and it is all our fault!

6. RichardLH says:

If you were to use a continuous function rather than a straight line

you could observe that RSS is now on a downward trend rather than just ‘flat lining’.

7. Gordon Cheyne says:

“Miss Brevis, send a postcard to Mr Gore”
I worked some years ago with a nurse called Vita, who (of course) I jokingly called “Vita Brevis”.
Before long, I heard the surgeons calling her “Nurse Brevis”
When I explained that I only called her that because her ars was longa, all I got was a blank look . . . . .

8. Patrick says:

This is sure to upset Walter K.

9. stan stendera says:

Milord Monckton. Thank you. How stupid are the global warmists??

10. Mike McMillan says:

Climate Change Climate Same.

11. For Sydney readers, the next warmie-fest is at Sydney University on April 1(how appropriate) on AR5. Hopefully we can get an evil question in again and turn their warmie-fest into a squirmy-fest.It will be on APAC channel(foxtel) a couple of days after the event.

12. Rob says:

Global means global. RSS and UAH provide that.
Flat out. The Models are “severely” in error. No global warming
for 18- years cannot(under any prevailing circumstance),
physically explain such a lack of warming. The data speak
for themselves.

13. School children don’t know what global warming feels like… :-)

14. ConfusedPhoton says:

“Why did none of the vaunted models predict this”

Because climate “science” = pseudo-science and the models are crap!

15. Green Sand says:

“A perfect lull then”

H/T – Alan Reed @ BH

16. dccowboy says:

matfromdevon says:
March 4, 2014 at 3:13 am

Thats a bit od a cherry pick. If you look at the RSS data like this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1983/to:2014 ist more like warming up till 12 years ago when it started cooling.
======================

Your chosen starting point could also be described as ‘ a bit odd cherry pick’ as well, as can the 1979 starting point chosen by IPCC and others.

17. luysii says:

Have the other 4 global temperature datasets yet to report also shown the same sort of thing? Also their names and where to find their data would be nice

18. johnmarshall says:

And atmospheric CO2 is still increasing. What great confirmation of a theory. A theory that never stood up to the laws of physics.

19. John Thompson says:

Greenhouse radiative forcing conjectures would require a sensitivity for water vapour (WV) that is at least 10 degrees per 1% increase in WV.

There is absolutely no evidence that WV does in fact warm by anywhere near this amount. In fact it cools. If it did warm by 10 degrees per 1%, then a desert with 1% WV would be 30 degrees colder than a rain forest with 4% WV above it.

That indicates the phenomenal extent to which the greenhouse garbage is incorrect.

20. george e. smith says:

“””””…..matfromdevon says:

March 4, 2014 at 3:13 am

Thats a bit od a cherry pick. If you look at the RSS data like this: ……”””””

Well the only problem with your cherry pick matfromdevon, is that it includes data from years before 1997, when anomalies were lower.

You clearly have just arrived at the game, and looked at the score, and you want to include the scores from earlier games.

The rules for Lord Monckton’s “RSS Game” are even simpler than the axioms of Projective Geometry.

Rule #1…Obtain the MOST RECENT RSS anomaly data.

Rule #2…Determine the EARLIEST PREVIOUS MONTH for which a conventional statistical trend analysis yields precisely ZERO TREND of course with the properly calculated uncertainty.

Rule #3…Subtract that earliest date from the most recent date, to obtain the total months of zero trend.

QED Fine.

That is the RSS Game; it’s not rocket science. You are in violation of rule #2. You are Red carded.

Christopher has not monkeyed with the rules, since he invented the game. So why introduce all this legally irrelevant pseudo evidence.

If you believe Christopher has watered the pitch, then show us your proof, that he has.

You are of course free to invent your own game, and see if it is more popular than Lord Monckton’s RSS Game. Good luck on that

21. Kurt in Switzerland says:

Here’s an exercise in extrapolation (which any schoolchild can perform) of the long-term temperature profile, just in case someone accuses you of cherry-picking again. The above graph was made using the HadCRUT4 dataset, as presented by the MetOffice (part of the Royal Society National Academy of Sciences joint report).

Let’s assume “Business as Usual” means a continuation of the long-term (60-y avg.) profile. Now print out a copy of this graph and extend the x-axis to what would correspond to the year 2100. Then take a straightedge and extend the 60-y avg. profile to the right. You’ll probably find yourself somewhere near the interface between the light blue and green-shaded portions of the image, which would correspond to approx. 1.5ºC above the 1970 level (assuming current long-term trends continue). Yet the RS/NAS report would have us believe that the temperature will rise to 3.7ºC (+/-1.1ºC) “in addition to that which has already occurred” under a business-as-usual scenario.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-basics.pdf
See Figure B5 (last page).

Now try to imagine a curve which would bring the 60-y avg. temperature up 3.5ºC between now and 2100 (which would correspond to the top of the orange-shaded portion). That would require a radical increase in pitch – an increase by a factor of four between now and then – something which would appear highly unlikely to happen, given the well-acknowledged pause for a decade and a half and the fact that CO2 IR absorption capacity is logarithmic in nature.

Equally silly is the premise that “aggressive emissions reductions” would result in a flat temperature profile between 2050-2100. This is pure conjecture, and has no place in science.

Kurt in Switzerland

22. Village Idiot says:

Of course the RSS data set (known by Sir Chris as the “Received Data Set”) is looking by all accounts as a bit of an outlier when compared to other global temperature estimates.

This can easily be seen, for example, when comparing the temp trend around the years 2002-2006 for all 5 data sets. The simple running 37 month average highlights this nicely – only RSS showing a downward trend.

http://www.climate4you.com/

Ought he RSS crew to look again at their data processing and adjustments to see where the problem lies?

23. Dodgy Geezer says:

@Gordon Cheyne says:

I worked some years ago with a nurse called Vita, who (of course) I jokingly called “Vita Brevis”.
Before long, I heard the surgeons calling her “Nurse Brevis”
When I explained that I only called her that because her ars was longa, all I got was a blank look .

This is a succinct illustration of the lowering of educational standards. In my day everyone in the medical profession would have had a smattering of Latin at least, and usually Greek…

24. One bad year and they will have to explain why their models did not predict 20 years of global cooling, unless it is kept out of the newspapers in which case they will not have to explain anything.

25. Peter OBrien says:

Simplistically, the theory of CAGW (which, by the way, is the term that sceptics should always employ rather than playing into the hands of the warmists by talking about ‘climate change’) says that it is not just the warming effect of CO2 that is a problem but, more so, the amplification due to increased water vapour. But that amplification should be apparent whatever the cause of warming, whether CO2 or natural. Whenever sceptics point out the pause since 1998, the warmists counter that 1998 was a particularly strong El Nino year and that, because it is a natural forcing, it’s ‘cherrypicking’ to use that as a start point. But why didn’t the amplification kick in then?

26. RoyFOMR says:

I’d love to see that graph overlaid with all of the Wayne’s World post-hockery(hockey) ‘corrections’
AkA All models are wrong and here’s why ours were spot on after all!

27. Cheshirered says:

Eric Worrall says:
March 4, 2014 at 3:42 am
“School children don’t know what global warming feels like… :-)”

Ha! Nice one Eric.
There must be a nice little presentation in that for the worlds school children, and their teachers, too.

28. outdoorrink says:

HighTreason said on March 4th, 3:36am

“Now we hear IPCC chief Christiana Fugueres declaring that Democracy is not well suited to dealing with global warming. Chinese Communism is the best model.”

Up here in Canada, we have a fiberal politician by the name of Justin Trudeau. He’s got really nice hair and girls swoon when he smiles. He’s also leading in most polls. He was recently asked in a fluff interview, what country other than Canada he admires, and why. His response was;

“There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green, we need to start, you know, investing in solar.”

Do these people meet at Starbucks every night? Why do they all seem to read from the same script all the time?

29. tom0mason says:

AGW alarmism continues despite this lack of warming, and –

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” Obama told the Chronicle . “Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

30. Bruce Cobb says:

Mother Nature – the biggest climate d*nier on the planet. The True Believers must be thinking of ways of sanctionionig her even now.

31. The thing that can go unnoticed is the fact that we’re really dealing in tenths of degrees. Also, what’s the point of all this if you don’t even know what a normal temperature “should” be?

32. son of mulder says:

Be very afraid of melting permafrost because of climate change could release “new viral threats”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26387276

“Since the 1970s, the permafrost has retreated and reduced in thickness, and climate change projections suggest it will decrease further.”

It doesn’t say “thankfully for 17 years and 6 months there has been no warming”.

33. MikeB says:

luysii March 4, 2014 at 3:54 am

Have the other 4 global temperature datasets yet to report also shown the same sort of thing? Also their names and where to find their data would be nice

….and from the drop down list called ‘Data Source’ select your own dataset.

34. Richard Barraclough says:

george e. smith says:

March 4, 2014 at 4:01 am

Well done. You have clearly explained the rules of the “RSS trend game”!

Since the zero-slope clearly only goes back as far as 1996, I thought I would look at the slope for some longer periods.

Last 20 years (from Feb 1994) 0.030 deg C/ decade
Last 30 years (from Feb 1984) 0.146 deg C / decade
Maximum trend (from Dec 1983) 0.148 deg C / decade
Whole data set (from Jan 1979) 0.125 deg C / decade

Although these longer trends are positive, none of them could really be described as particularly significant for the well-being of life on earth, and is more of a statistical exercise. During the last 12 months, the longer period trends have inched downwards with changes in the 3rd decimal place. For example, in July 2013, the trend for the whole data set was 0.129 deg C / decade. You can also question the validity of applying a linear fit to a dataset which is not behaving in a linear way, even though the maths is straightforward.

Congratulations to the administrators of this RSS data set for releasing the previous month’s figures so promptly. The others all keep us waiting for a couple of weeks at least.

35. Box of Rocks says:

Kurt in Switzerland says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:11 am

Are you sure you are using a valid data set to begin with?

Remember the 1930’s were warmer than today.

36. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:

Do you think we should henceforth refer to warmists as ‘Flat Deniers’, or should we just go with ‘Climate Nazis’?

REPLY: I think we should take the high road, and not label them with either. While I disagree with Dr. Spencer’s use of ‘Climate Nazis’, I defend his right to say it. – Anthony

37. jauntycyclist says:

the machines are giving false readings…..the heat is in the oceans……never mind the facts green is ‘the right thing to do’…if we wait long enough it will go back to warming….

can i have my tax money back? Oh now i know why the co2ers wanted immunity from prosecution

the trouble is in the future it will discredit any science in the eyes of the public who will think its ‘just another global warmers’ scam?

38. Peter Miller says:

I hear the alarmists are about to start sacrificing virgins in an attempt to trigger a big El Niño, so they can ‘prove’ global warming is happening and that the ‘pause’ is now definitely over.

Apparently, Mann, Trenberth and Hansen have consulted some specially designed computer models, which show this will work.

39. Leo G says:

Hockey’s playing hooky!

40. richard says:

Record snowfall in Scotland may allow skiing into summer,

Earlier in the week Iain Sykes, the founder of Nevis Range Ski Resort claimed that the resort had more snow than ever in the history of skiing there.

A HIGHLAND snowports resort which enjoyed its busiest day in a decade this week has unveiled plans to “ski into summer” if conditions allow.

eeek the start of a mini ice age.

41. richard says:

A glacier was still in place in Scotland within the past 400 years,

42. Kurt in Switzerland says:

Box of Rocks –

I’m using THEIR dataset and THEIR long-term trend analysis! Even so, the long-term trend is NOT threatening. It is FAR from their loud prognoses. Yet they keep saying the earth’s atmosphere will warm by 4ºC between now and 2100 (with a straight face, hoping nobody will challenge this “expert view”).

This is just silly. As is the bit about mitigation with restrictive CO2 emissions policies.

Kurt in Switzerland

43. No matter what the cherry pick, the question of how long a pause has to happen before it invalidates the models remains and those who are advocating the man-made catastrophic warming theory seem remarkably averse to answering it. It’s a very simple question that establishes that what they are doing is falsifiable and therefore science. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Mattfromdevon is correct. Does a 12 year pause invalidate the models? NOAA says no but they’re an outlier because they give a number, which I recall being 16 years. Then again, in 2008 when they gave that number, they said that they considered the question because of the decade long pause at that point.

The vast consensus of the CAGW scientific elite regarding these questions is shut up. They do not give a number. There is no consensus for measuring out how long a flat trend would take to invalidate their models, nor is it easy to find out how great a divergence between model and measurement would do the trick. This puts them into the category of the placebo effect and shamanism for as long as they refuse to answer such questions. Assertions are not science if they are not falsifiable.

Once the falsifiability standards are established, it’s mostly a waiting game to see if they’re ever breached. When they are, that particular model is falsified, just like any other scientific prediction.

44. Excellent article Christopher! When will people finally get the message that mankind is not destroying the world!
Slightly off-thread on the BBC radio news this morning there was an item about a 30,000 year old virus that had been discovered in the permafrost that had been brought back to life and had infected amoebae, (it was harmless to humans)! They then went on to tell us that due to climate change, as more permafrost melts we might start seeing smallpox viruses and other nasties coming out of hibernation to infect us. So now they have found another reason to stop something which is not happening in the first place and scare the cr@p out of the amoebae!

45. Steve Hill (from the welfare state of KY) says:

Obama says so, he is never wrong…..PS send more welfare to Ky. 25% of population on it.

46. James says:

How far back can you go before you get statistically significant warming? 17 years and 6 months is nice, but I would suggest you could at least go back to the Roman warm period. “No warming for at least 2000 years!” would be quite the slogan…

47. Kasuha says:

The funny part on it is that in these 17 years, despite wasting unbelievable amounts of money on renewables, CO2 concentrations not just didn’t stop growing, they accelerated. Regardless what temperatures are doing, somebody should finally notice that what we are doing about it is wrong and completely futile.

48. Yes, Millionaire Obama has nothing to worry about as he has just guaranteed his income for LIFE, all at taxpayers expense. A cost that the US taxpayer has been coughing up since that free-loader was born obviously.

49. Many of the teenage climate alarmists were not even alive the last time the Earth warmed.

50. Chris D. says:

This link was shared over at Bishop Hill, citing Santer, et al 2014:

“Their Fig 1 shows raw lower temperature data (a), that with the El Nino removed (b) and that with El Nino and El Chichon and Pinatubo removed (c). Looking at 1c one sees that the lower atmosphere shows a standstill since 1993, that is 20 years! This is in itself a remarkable graph extending the ‘pause’ into the start of its third decade.”

http://www.thegwpf.org/volcanoes-20-year-pause/

51. Village Idiot says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:16 am

Of course the RSS data set (known by Sir Chris as the “Received Data Set”) is looking by all accounts as a bit of an outlier when compared to other global temperature estimates.

This can easily be seen, for example, when comparing the temp trend around the years 2002-2006 for all 5 data sets. The simple running 37 month average highlights this nicely – only RSS showing a downward trend.

http://www.climate4you.com/

Ought he RSS crew to look again at their data processing and adjustments to see where the problem lies?

——————————————————————————————————————

‘It might be more producive for them to look at the other sets’ processing and adjustments to see where the problem lies ;)

52. “Why did none of the vaunted models predict this long hiatus, stasis, pause, halt, rest, interval, intermission, break, time out, vacation, furlough, gap, plateau, or flat spot?”

Perhaps because they are incorrect, erroneous, mistaken, unsound, untrue, defective, faulty, fallacious, misguided, or flat wrong.

Perhaps.

Mostly.

53. Roy says:

Don’t the models invalidate the measurements?

54. Marc77 says:

So did CO2 prevent climate change during that period?

55. “The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value…”

Can’t show the others until they are released. Doh.

56. Roy says:

March 4, 2014 at 6:14 am

Don’t the models invalidate the measurements?

Impressive. That kind of thinking will get you a seat on Apple’s Board of Directors.

:)

57. Richard M says:

The reason one calculates this trend is to test climate models. See Knight et al (BAMS 2009) … “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more”

How can one “cherry pick” when you are testing a scientific hypothesis where ANY “zero trend” of 15 years or more falsifies the hypothesis? Since the 10 models used were representative of the family of models that show moderate to strong warming, this period of non warming has essentially falsified everything but small beneficial warming.

58. If you choose a different starting date, say March 1998 or so, how negative is the trend?

59. Jim Bo says:

Other than as fodder for debunking one another’s climate theories and at the most regrettable risk of offending our congenial host and assorted honored guests, could anyone kindly offer an answer for the “climate science” ignorant (such as myself) as to ANY practical advancement of the human condition that might have been accrued from the billion\$ already invested in “climate science” research? I’m quite serious. It is, indeed, a “puzzlement” to me and would appreciate a forthright response.

60. Village Idiot says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:16 am
as a bit of an outlier when compared to other global temperature estimates.
=============
The problem is that daily and seasonal temperatures fluctuate 10 times greater or more that the “warming” signal over a century. As a result you can never be sure that the trend is due to signal or due to error.

For example, imagine that you are standing in a noisy room and someone is talking to you at a level that makes them hard to hear and even harder to understand. Can you trust what you believe they said to be accurate? Would you trust your future to this conversation?

Did they just say “sell your stocks” or “like your socks”. It makes a difference if you are going to act on what you heard them say.

61. George Lawson says:

The news must be anthema to the ‘climate experts’ at the University of East Anglia.

62. @ Jim Bo –

Uh, does coming up with a more efficient way of extracting ethanol from corn count?

:)

63. John Craig says:

I find the argument that in a warming world the air will hold more water puzzling. When I was growing up we were in a cool phase and it always rained. When we were in that wee warm phase it rarely rained.

Was the water actually in the atmosphere during the warming and it just decided to keep a hold of it, or was the water just not there.

64. Jim Bo says:
March 4, 2014 at 6:26 am
could anyone kindly offer an answer for the “climate science” ignorant (such as myself) as to ANY practical advancement of the human condition that might have been accrued from the billion\$ already invested in “climate science” research?
==============
A number of middle rate PhD’s that would have otherwise gone on to teach high school have been elevated to positions of great influence in the world’s economy.

Al Gore was able to able to expand his carbon footprint to the size of a small country, while telling the rest of us to be happy with our shrinking footprints.

Super rich people have been able to buy super expensive electric cars thanks to the generous tax donations of the poor.

Tens of thousands of elderly in cold climates have sacrifices their lives to energy poverty, thus helping halt the “population bomb”.

65. Jim Happ says:

That is 122.5 dog years.

66. Joe Born says:

Dodgy Geezer: “This is a succinct illustration of the lowering of educational standards.”

I have no basis for arguing that educational standards haven’t fallen, but to me the current rarity of Latin and Greek in the schools is a sign of improvement.

I’d be interested in hearing how your experience may have differed, but my years of Latin and Greek have proved largely to be a waste. I have never profited from knowing the finer points of supine-particle or middle-voice usage. And I’m sure I got more out of Vergil and Homer translations than I did out of the originals.

67. william says:

I’m sure someone has done this, but based on the data on the link for Great Lakes Water levels found below, there seems to be some clear cycles in the water levels in those lakes even after people monkeying with what drains in and out. It seems intuitive to me that world climate would also be on some overall cycle that drives the regional level. Water levels began to really tank after 1998, about the same time as all the global warming fuss. But water levels were also very low from 1956 to 1967 but went up again after that. Any thoughts about a posting on this?

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/dbd/GLWLD1_0.html

68. here is another benefit
============
NASA funding for space exploration was diverted for a “trip to planet earth”. After landing on the moon, NASA now lacks even the capability to launch a human into orbit. having spent \$150 billion to build the ISS as a first step in permanent space exploration, NASA now plans to de-orbit the station. which is no big deal since only the russians have the capability to go there. with events heating up in crimea, the US will be forced to eat crow before they can next service the ISS.

didn’t anyone ask, “what happens if the ruskies don’t play nice”, before the shuttle fleet was scrapped?

69. At this rate, we may see a 20 year flat lining within the next 18 months.

70. oh and yet another benefit
=========
with all the tough talk in the US and EU about Russia and Crimea, consider for a moment what happens to the EU if Russia turns off the gas. Is the EU going to make up the difference with windmills and solar panels?

If Russia turns off the gas the EU will quickly understand the benefits of fracking, but it will be much too late. Crimea will be a done deal and Putin a national hero. The US and EU will look like toothless old tigers, still able to make a noise, but lacking any real bite. This lesson will not be lost on the rest of the world.

71. “philjourdan says:

March 4, 2014 at 6:56 am

At this rate, we may see a 20 year flat lining within the next 18 months.”

Is that Warmist math:

17.5 plus 1.5 equals 20

:)

• @JohnWho – LOL! Nope. But the span of no warming increases at both ends as the lack of warming continues. So the starting point is pushed farther back – statistically – as it each present month shows no warming.

I am a long way from Lambda Calculus, but I can still do the simple stuff. ;-)

72. Non Nomen says:

Rumour hath ist that a certain Mann is now sueing an elderly Mother with the name of Nature for not complying to the rules he had so meticulously carved from tree rings into the form of a Hokkeyschtikk.

73. Neil says:

This simply can’t be right.

I re-ran my Global Climate Simulator on my ZX-81 in FAST mode this morning (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/02/new-atmospheric-model-says-tail-wags-dog/) so I could get the results to check this assertion, and found that global warming was proceeding faster than ever!

So, obviously, since your observations don’t match my models, your observations are wrong.

Now, if you excuse me I’m off to model a new window for jetliners. My simulation indicates that right-angled corners are actually a better design.

74. Betula says:

Lull, respite, coffee break, truce…

75. Come on people – just admit it.

The heat passed through oceans surfaces (without appreciably heating those surfaces) down to where it can’t be compared to prior temperatures.

Stealth Heat.

Like bacteria that have adapted to penicillin, heat has adapted and is cunningly avoiding our technology!

Clearly the threat is worse than we previously imagined!

Science! Moar Reserach!

76. G. Karst says:

Warren Buffet has begun to talk sense on GW:

OMAHA, Neb. — Warren Buffett says the rate of disasters that Berkshire Hathaway’s insurance companies see hasn’t changed because of extreme weather.

Buffett says insuring against hurricanes in the United States has been extremely profitable in the past five years because few storms have made landfall.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4394509-buffett-says-climate-change-hasn-t-affected-insurance-calculations/

Maybe we are about to turn a corner. GK

77. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

It’s quite simple, really. There are three types of people:

There are people who (like yours truly) know of the physics of radiation transfer, can solve the equations, fill in the numbers (no big computer needed, by the way), and then deduce that CO2 is not a climate driver.

And there are people who don’t know about those things but instead look with honesty at the data and infer that CO2 is not a climate driver.

The rest are either ignorant or charlatans.

78. JJ says:

JohnWho says:

Is that Warmist math:

17.5 plus 1.5 equals 20

No. Its the standard math of trends. If temps stay low, the length of the zero trend period grows from both ends. Even more pronounced if temps continue and/or accelerate their decline.

79. john robertson says:

@Jim Bo 6:26.
The massive waste of public treasure and massive abuse of public trust via propaganda?
Sure ,it has gone to remind us, that fools and bandits do not serve the public.
CAGW, created by, orchestrated by, promoted by and frantically being protected from investigation by; Our professional civil servants.
Our governments seconded their staff to make up the UN IPCC.
One would note, that after these people have shovelled our money into the furnace, accomplishing nothing of benefit to us, they will retire and demand we pay them a pension.
Being indebted due to their incompetence and robbery, I figure on sending them their share.
Interest owed indeed.
So the benefit of this, is that the fools and bandits are fully exposed for all tax payers to see.

80. GeeJam says:

For what is worth, when warming up the Earth,
It mustn’t dilly dally on the way.
Off went Gore and Mann with “it’s Warming!” every minute,
I followed on ‘finkin that us Skeptics would win it,
And yes it dallied and it dallied, it dallied and it dallied,
For seventeen years and six months it did pause,
Well you can’t trust those models when the old time weather,
knows that ‘Cee-oh-two’ ain’t never ‘bin the cause.

GeeJam
Adapted from FW Leigh & C Collins 1919 song ‘My Old Man Said Follow The Van’.

81. Cold in Wisconsin says:

My kids are wondering when winter will ever end. Soccer season starts in 2 weeks and there is still about 20 inches of snow on the ground! Do you just plow the field and play on?

I recall when my son finally realized the true identity of Santa Claus and he gave me a roundhouse punch, exclaiming, “You lied!” How long will it be before the schoolchildren of the world realize that the Global Warming Santa is a fraud and “science” lied to them? Growing up is a painful process.

When will western media driven society grow up?

82. Daniel G. says:

Andres Valencia writes:

Thanks Christopher, Lord Monckton.
The temperature trend for RSS MSU lower tropospheric global mean from 2002 to 2014.18 was -0.78°C per century. I have updated my pages to show this.

What the hell! Someone should check Stokes trend calculator. How much cooling qualifies as statistically significant cooling?

Oh, by the way, it is plausible that in a few months, the RSS monthly TLT dataset will have more pause than FREAKING WARMING. Because as of right now, we have 212 months of warming and 210 months of pause.

[For all the angry skeptics. I call the “halt” that way to mock Phil Jones, it doesn’t mean I know the future]

It is such a travesty that all the warming has gone to the deep oceans. /joke

83. Robert W Turner says:

My money is on this being the peak of the modern climate optimum. I hope I’m wrong.

84. jauntycyclist says:
85. James Strom says:

Jim Bo says:
March 4, 2014 at 6:26 am

>>>could anyone kindly offer an answer for the “climate science” ignorant (such as myself) as to ANY practical advancement of the human condition that might have been accrued
____

I can’t, and from the answers above the likelihood is that the “benefits” have been negative.

However, if you classify meteorology as a sub-discipline of climate science, the benefits have been huge to farmers, sailors, futures traders, insurance companies, and commuters, to name just a few. The expectation should be that, as we expand our knowledge, climate science proper will make a contribution.

And it must be pursued, because it is important. If the 1970’s fear of global cooling had been correct the damages in terms of lost crop land and starvation, mass migration, and war would have been in the trillions of dollars. So it is imperative that we try to have some idea of what is happening to climate. As a comparison, consider the danger from asteroids. You would have been right to argue, fifty years ago, that there is nothing we can do about them. However, as our technology has advanced, the claim of our impotence has become false, so the years of study of asteroid trajectories have not been a waste. Similarly, it makes sense to develop a competent theory of how climate works.

That said, it appears that mainstream climate science up to now has been perhaps worse than worthless because so much of it is wrong and because it flows from a political motivation that is unrelated to how nature actually works. So to the question, what is really valuable in mainstream climate science, the answer might be, the work of skeptical climatologists poking holes in the mainstream theory.

86. Steven Mosher says:

“Why did none of the vaunted models predict this long hiatus, stasis, pause, halt, rest, interval, intermission, break, time out, vacation, furlough, gap, plateau, or flat spot?”

because all models and all theories exhibit anomalies. Sometimes the anomaly is small.

Here for example, an anomaly was ignored for over 14 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

“Both Pioneer spacecraft are escaping the Solar System, but are slowing under the influence of the Sun’s gravity. Upon very close examination of navigational data, the spacecraft were found to be slowing slightly more than expected. The effect is an extremely small acceleration towards the Sun, of (8.74±1.33)×10−10 m/s2, which is equivalent to slowly accelerating to a velocity of one kilometer per hour (0.6 mph) over a period of ten years. The two spacecraft were launched in 1972 and 1973 and the anomalous acceleration was first noticed as early as 1980, but not seriously investigated until 1994.[1] The last communication with either spacecraft was in 2003, but analysis of recorded data continues.”

You did not see people trot out feynman or popper and demand that the laws of gravitation were falsified. There was an anomaly. Some people choose to ignore it. finally after over a decade of research, the anomaly was explained, or rather an explanation was accepted.

You see the same thing here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem

The existence of an anomaly tells you nothing. It doesnt tell you, on its face, whether the theory is wrong, or whether the observations are wrong, or whether the theory needs refinement.

Scientists face a pragmatic choice, not a predetermined decision.

1. Go check the data again .
2. Refine the theory.
3. develop a better theory from scratch.

when faced with an anomaly there is nothing in that fact itself that dictates what to do.
If the theory is well connected to many many many other theories ( like gravity) then folks
lean toward checking the data again ( see experiments that appear to violate speed of light for example) or running the experiment again. Or if the anomaly is small people can ignore it.. for decades. There is no popper machine that kicks out falsification every time you find an anomaly. Judgement is involved. Practical judgment. When the theory is less central to the rest of science, it makes sense to spend time looking for refinements. Here, the anomaly in and of itself does not dictate what part of the theory needs improvement. There is no machine no set of rules or laws that told researchers to look at the thermal recoil force. The art of fining which area of a model that needs refinement is not a simple rule. There is no guide that says. If a model fails, check this aspect. There is no rule that says, if the model has an anomaly throw it out. There is a choice.
Finally, if the model is loosely connected to all other theory, then wholsesale changes are much easier to make. But here too there is no rule about how much of the theory needs to be revamped and how much saved. Since all theory relies on logic and math, there is very rarely a situation where we would throw out a theory in its entirety , meaning all claims including logic and math that it depends on.

So, yes. there is an anomaly. Good thing is that its not being ignored as the Pioneer anomaly was for 14 years. Folks are working on it. This is normal science at work. Its always unsettled.

87. Box of Rocks says:

philjourdan says:
March 4, 2014 at 6:56 am
At this rate, we may see a 20 year flat lining within the next 18 months.

****

If they are lucky!

What happens if a cooling trend starts to manifest itself?

88. Mattfromdevon says:

Hey look, I still think the models suck and we could cherry pick from 5000 BC and get a nice cooling trend, but to me, it looks like it warmed til about 2002 then started cooling. Thats what I see in the data, thats all I am saying so keep your shirts on OK, :)

89. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

@ James Strom March 4, 2014 at 8:21

The basis of any science is intellectual honesty of its practitioners. A discipline that doesn’t have that, be it because of vested interest, political interference, stupidity or whatever degrades into a pseudo science with high priests and acolytes. That’s what happened to the study of climate over the past few decades. It will only end when enough people realise how much it has and still will cost them.

90. ColdinWisconsin:

My kids are wondering when winter will ever end. Soccer season starts in 2 weeks and there is still about 20 inches of snow on the ground! Do you just plow the field and play on?

Sorry old boy! Minnetonka MN, flat spot in front yard, 34″ of snow still there. Assuming normal dissipation rates, this is about 3 weeks worth, or almost the END of March to see the grass.

Max

91. Andrew says:

Excellent! Wayne and Garth the new climate experts – NOT!!!!!

92. Peter Spooner says:

Christopher,

I do not dispute your temperature record, although it should be noted that the exact trend depends on the record you choose. Also, despite criticisms on this site and others, the recent Cowtan and Way (2013) paper gives a legitimate reason why the trend could be greater than it is.

But you don’t actually answer this question yourself, and I feel that it should probably be more carefully worded.

“Why did none of the vaunted models predict this long hiatus, stasis, pause, halt, rest, interval, intermission, break, time out, vacation, furlough, gap, plateau, or flat spot?”

Firstly, there is no reason why the models should predict the exact timing and magnitude of any pause (or acceleration) in surface temperature warming, unless they are explicitly forced with the climate observations covering that period, which they can be (England et al. 2013). Otherwise, in the chaotic systems that are the climate system and climate models, exact patterns of internal variability may be expected to rapidly diverge from one another after similar starting conditions. Pauses are therefore likely to occur at different times in models compared with observations. In fact, numerous simulations show such pauses http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2150.html. Also to be considered is the effect of updating a variety of climate forcings on the models (Schmidt et al. 2013) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2105, which helps reconcile models with observations to some degree.

Of greater concern might be the apparent mismatches between observed and modelled internal variability, which arguably models do not do so well at.

93. outtheback says:

ferdberple says:
March 4, 2014 at 7:01 am
oh and yet another benefit
etc.

What this will show to the EU once more, as in the 70’s, is that energy independence is vital. While they can ramp up production of their own carbon based fuel reserves this will take time. If the Russians turn off the tap all the EU have in store will be gone in 3 or 4 months. Lucky that summer is coming otherwise the number of “climate” related deaths could soar.
Expect a further push for the need to go renewable.
Democracy will make fracking difficult in a number of European countries.
Nuclear is a no go.
New energy sources need to be found, the US can help but that will mean pain for the US consumer, is Obama prepared to do that?
They can buy more oil from the middle east but this can also come with unwanted requests and it will take time to accommodate the oil requirement. Oil prices will go up, pain at the pump.
There is only one thing worse then having uncompetitive energy that is having no energy.

This Ukraine situation must be a dream for European Greens and they will push it for all it’s worth. Expect more fib stories about the climate, the masses are conditioned to this now. It is a much harder sell to use the Crimea as the motivation to go renewable and the EU would not want to paint the Russians in the ways of old lest it starts another “cold” war and turns them ever more inwards.

In the meantime Europe can not afford the Russians to turn off the gas.
The lesson the rest of the world will learn from this once more is that energy independence is vital for any country/region that wants to make its own choices.

94. maguro says:

“You did not see people trot out feynman or popper and demand that the laws of gravitation were falsified. There was an anomaly.”

Well, maybe if the climate models had missed by the temperature equivalent of .6 kph over 10 years you could dismiss it as an anomaly and that would make sense.

But these climate models are way off and have zero record of predictive success, so why should they get the same benefit of the doubt as the theory of gravity?

95. Clifford G. Thies says:

I realize I am a bit late on this thread. If you look carefully, the first point in the satellite data, back in 1979, is at about the same level at the most recent point. In between, there’s a dip, then a rise (with a peak that is clearly not part of the secular trend), and then a plateau. To standard linear regression, the line of best fit through these points has a slight upward tilt. But, this is based on the (falsifiable) assumption that there is a linear trend in the data. (I believe the data would reject the assumption of a linear trend.) Thus, the regression line is not a proof of a linear trend but rather the result of an assumption of a linear trend. You climate guys have to learn more about statistical analysis. Climate is complex, with lots of cross-causation (or feedback), problems of measurement, and unknown factors (or randomness). While the National Academy of Sciences does not take issue with the argument that human activity has been the main cause of global warming during the second half of the 20th century, it does recommend more appropriate statistical analysis. Check it out:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13430

96. Village Idiot says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:16 am
Of course the RSS data set (known by Sir Chris as the “Received Data Set”) is looking by all accounts as a bit of an outlier when compared to other global temperature estimates.

This can easily be seen, for example, when comparing the temp trend around the years 2002-2006 for all 5 data sets. The simple running 37 month average highlights this nicely – only RSS showing a downward trend.

http://www.climate4you.com/

Ought he RSS crew to look again at their data processing and adjustments to see where the problem lies?
——————————
This blog has looked at these issues before. All 4 of the other data sets have been significantly fiddled with (‘adjusted’). Most of these adjustments are to suppress historic temperatures, and elevate modern temperatures. Of course this makes no sense. The main error that the ground based instruments exhibit are sighting, and UHI. Both of these usually inflate modern temperatures, while leaving historic temperatures about right. The temperature adjustments are in the wrong direction, and artificially increase the warming trend. So far, to my knowledge, RSS has not made adjustments. It would be quite hard to justify…

97. I look back to 1980, and see the anomaly at +0.2. I look at 2014 and see the anomaly at +0.2.

I see absolutely no reason to give the children nightmares.

Anyone who states they have been pushing the warming agenda “for the children” gets free double-hockey-sticks.

98. Bruce Cobb says:

Mosher’s post-normal science at work = Wayne’s top ten “reasons” for the 17 1/2-year warming halt. Impressive. Not.

99. @Christopher (or may I call you Chris?)
I have compared the RSS dataset with that of the SST data and they look remarkably in the same trend, and even have similar slope coefficients
Note that the yellow line is what you are quoting.
As stated before, you keep making the period that shows no warming longer, but what is happening on earth is different. The other lines that I have drawn should be telling you that it has actually started cooling.

Unfortunately the current US cold and freezing up of the big lakes is no outlier/
We are globally cooling as 4 major datasets are showing:

Currently, you would not notice much at the lower latitudes as more water vapor condenses which releases enormous amounts of energy. But I did pick up a definitive trend at the higher latitudes:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/01/southern-sea-ice-area-minimum-2nd-highest-on-record/
Even Nasa admits that antarctic ice is increasing
We are cooling from the top [90] latitudes down.
Danger from global cooling must not be underestimated.
According to my calculations we are about 7 years off from the start of a similar drought period as happened in 1932-1939.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

100. Dell from Michigan says:

No warming here in Michigan. We shattered low temp records for March that have stood for a hunderd + years.

Please Al Gore, where’s the heat?

101. Crispin in Waterloo says:

Average cooling for 8000 years!

With a small drop, 0.5 degrees, the 17 years will be pushed well back into the 60’s. Yet scream they will.

102. Peter Spooner says:
March 4, 2014 at 9:09 am

Pauses are therefore likely to occur at different times in models compared with observations. In fact, numerous simulations show such pauses http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2150.html.

Hmmmn. Funny thing though – That Nature article you cited does NOT explain nor demonstrate ANY global climate model series that duplicates the past 17.5 year flat-line i global warming.

Rather, your Nature story ONLY tells “how” climate so-called scientists are trying to change how they are trying “communicate” the demonstrably false results of their global models to show that global warming DOES exist even though the temperature has not changed!

Instead, why don’t you actually SHOW US the thousands or hundreds or dozens or even ten model runs that DO SHOW an 18 year flat-line in the global temperatures while CO2 increases at an ever-steady rate?

103. Crispin in Waterloo says:

@theoutback

“This Ukraine situation must be a dream for European Greens and they will push it for all it’s worth. Expect more fib stories about the climate, the masses are conditioned to this now. It is a much harder sell to use the Crimea as the motivation to go renewable and the EU would not want to paint the Russians in the ways of old lest it starts another “cold” war and turns them ever more inwards.”

The increase in the use of renewable and gas while dropping coal has place the Europeans in a difficult position. They need the gas-fired back-up stations to fill in for the renewables. Condemning coal has promoted gas (as is the wet dream of the US CAGW crowd). A lot of that gas comes from Russia. The pipeline runs through the Ukraine. If the Ukraine splits into two parts you can bet your a\$\$ the Ukrainians will try to cut off the money flow to Ru\$\$ia from the EU by disabling that pipeline. Cold war indeed – the EU will have to boost electricity production using coal. The public will have the Green\$’ heads if they refuse.

104. Box of Rocks says:

Gotta luv it –

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13430

“Authors
Committee on a National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling; Board on Atmospheric Studies and Climate; Division on Earth and Life Studies
Description
As climate change has pushed climate patterns outside of historic norms, the need for detailed projections is growing across all sectors, including agriculture, insurance, and emergency preparedness planning. ”

Since when has the climate been pushed outside of historic norms?

Really?

105. Ed Zuiderwijk says:
March 4, 2014 at 7:28 am

It’s quite simple, really. There are three types of people:

There are people who (like yours truly) know of the physics of radiation transfer, can solve the equations, fill in the numbers (no big computer needed, by the way), and then deduce that CO2 is not a climate driver.

And there are people who don’t know about those things but instead look with honesty at the data and infer that CO2 is not a climate driver.

The rest are either ignorant or charlatans.

One of the best comments this week, Congrats.

106. Frank says:

When you analyze the trends of RSS the correct question is: Has the trend since 1979 changed significantaly? The answer is: no! Look http://www.dh7fb.de/reko/rsstrends.gif and compare the failurebars at 95% confidence-level. The trend since 2001 is negative, since 1993 not significantly positive…anyway: we do not see a significant difference in the trends. Of course you should use 12-month avererages because of autocorrelation… and so the answer to the thesis of the article is: you are right, the data of the lower troposphere don’t show warming for 17 1/2 years…anyway: so what? It’s randomly!

107. Will Nelson says:

ferdberple says:
March 4, 2014 at 6:54 am

here is another benefit
============
NASA funding for space exploration was diverted for a “trip to planet earth”. After landing on the moon, NASA now lacks even the capability to launch a human into orbit. having spent \$150 billion to build the ISS as a first step in permanent space exploration, NASA now plans to de-orbit the station. which is no big deal since only the russians have the capability to go there. with events heating up in crimea, the US will be forced to eat crow before they can next service the ISS.

didn’t anyone ask, “what happens if the ruskies don’t play nice”, before the shuttle fleet was scrapped?
*******************************
With benefits like you list, who needs liabilities?

http://www.universetoday.com/109721/next-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-gets-landing-legs-for-march-blastoff-to-space-station-says-elon-musk/

108. JJ says:

Bruce Cobb says:

Mosher’s post-normal science at work = Wayne’s top ten “reasons” for the 17 1/2-year warming halt. Impressive. Not.

Mosher has OCD for his smarmy little complaint about the scientific method. He has to trot it out every week or so, or the itchiness overwhelms him. If a somewhat relevant post doesn’t offer itself up for him to attach his nonsense to, then he will simply make a non-sequitur of it, as he has done here.

109. Joseph Murphy says:

Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am
——————————————-
Sort of a strange analogy Mosh. Likening a single, small anomaly in a theory that has been precisely understood (for prediction purposes) for over a hundred years (or 300) and been successfully replicated countless times to a theory that has a large anomaly, is not well understood, constantly evolving to fit the data, and has never been successfully replicated. I think a more appropriate response to the post you quoted would be “because they are most likely all wrong.” And, for whatever reason, your response made that answer quite clear.

110. coldandhungry says:

I have been perusing the pages of Watts Up With That for some years and it has become clear that the following points are indisputable:
1.The theory of green house gases was raised in the nineteenth century and, as far as carbon dioxide having a significant effect, was debunked not long afterwards.
2. Those who resurrected the theory did so for political reasons.
3. Having staked their political, academic and/or financial careers on the theory these people are forced into predicting ever more dire consequences of “global warming” and have at every opportunity exaggerated, manipulated and falsified temperature records to bolster their account to the extent that if the globe were actually cooling, the world would be none the wiser, until it was too late to take effective action.
4. Global warming, if it were indeed occurring, is historically always preferable for the growth and development of biological species than global cooling.
5. Warmism has taken on all the attributes of a religion in the sense that believers cannot be dissuaded from their belief system and simultaneously, they feel the need to attack those who disagree, calling them heretics and deniers. In this they are no further along the evolution of science than their ideological forbears, the Aztecs, who insisted that only human sacrifice could guarantee sunrise each day.

I applaud Christopher Monckton for his tireless efforts in combating the absolute balderdash the warmists spout. Good for you Christopher!

111. Thomas says:

Michael E. Newton (@pathtotyranny) says:
March 4, 2014 at 6:25 am
If you choose a different starting date, say March 1998 or so, how negative is the trend?

You’ve missed the point and are feeding the claims of cherry picked dates. First, the starting date is TODAY (more specifically the most recent month’s data). Second, and most important, is the other end is calculated not chosen – the earliest month in the data set providing a zero trend from today. Start and end do not have to run left to right.

112. sophocles says:

The CAGW predictions are in the same category as Johannes Stoffler’s
1499 End-of-the-World-as-We-Know-It prediction of a global deluge in
February 1524, because of the number of planetary alignments he calculated
for the year, 16 of which were to occur in Pisces, a watery sign of the Zodiac.

The prediction got around the known world about as fast and about as
credulously as CAGW today has. After all, “the science was settled!”
People sold low-lying land cheaply to less credulous purchasers.
Boatbuilders experienced a boom as the wealthy invested in arks and
the not quite so wealthy in sturdy floatables.

Come February 1524, and behold!
Across much of Europe, there was no rain. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Did those who sold their land in a panic get it back?
Did the astrologers go out of business?
Has mankind learnt?

Of course not.

113. Village Idiot says:

Jeff in Calgary: March 4, 2014 at 9:40 am

“All 4 of the other data sets have been significantly fiddled with (‘adjusted’)”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus#Defense_of_the_Textus_Receptus
All 5 datasets have been ‘fiddled with’ – adjusted, corrected, processed. UAH & RSS use the same raw data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
“Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analysed the satellite data have produced differing temperature datasets. Among these are the UAH dataset prepared at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the RSS dataset prepared by Remote Sensing Systems. The satellite series is not fully homogeneous – it is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital drift and decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.”

Lots more ifs, buts, maybes and excepts on the link

114. david dohbro says:

Thanks Chris!

Here are some more linear trend statistics of RSS data (though I shiver doing linear regression through none-linear data, it serves an informative purpose I guess…).
Last 5 years: y = -0.028x + 55.869, R² = 0.060
Last 10 years: y = -0.003x + 5.772, R² = 0.003
Last 15 years: y = 0.003x – 4.795, R² = 0.005
Since 1998 peak: y = -0.002x + 3.764, R² = 0.003
Last 20 years: y = 0.005x – 9.893, R² = 0.029
Since 1979 (all data): y = 0.012x – 24.757, R² = 0.349
First 20 years: y = 0.0153x – 30.358, R² = 0.184
Everybody is free to draw their own conclusions, but the data doesn’t support “accelerating global warming” or even “warming” over the past 20yrs…. Instead the data supports “an accelerating global cooling” (since the trend over the last 5yrs is more negative than that over the past 10yrs, which in turn is more negative than that over the past 15yrs)

115. AndyG55 says:

For those who want to compare the data sets, here is the WFT of all 5 since the 1998 ElNino settled down at the beginning of 2001.

You will note that it is UAH that is actually the odd one out, mainly because it didn’t register quite as large a jump from the 1998 ElNino.

116. Jimbo says:

Peter OBrien says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:27 am
Simplistically, the theory of CAGW (which, by the way, is the term that sceptics should always employ rather than playing into the hands of the warmists by talking about ‘climate change’) says that it is not just the warming effect of CO2 that is a problem but, more so, the amplification due to increased water vapour. ……..But why didn’t the amplification kick in then?

Shhhhhhh!

[I thought the same about the Arctic in Sept. 2013 – ~50% increase in volume & extent on 2012]

117. peakoilengr says:

Petere Says:

“Also to be considered is the effect of updating a variety of climate forcings on the models (Schmidt et al. 2013) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2105, which helps reconcile models with observations to some degree.”

Where I come from, this ‘updating’ is better known as “continuously fudging the model to try and maintain its validity” and is not considered legitimate scientific process.

Give me any data set, and I can create a model (and one much less sophisticated than the climate models) that fits the data near perfectly – FFT will do the job and take only minutes. But ask my model to predict the global avg temps a few years out, and maybe my FFT will not do so well. Although if I concentrate on low-frequencies and throw out the higher-frequency ‘noise’ – my FFT model (that would only cost a few dollars in labor to create) might must predict the global temp for the next few decades far better than the \$B climate models. Interopolation is easy. Extrapolation is a beech….

• Peter Spooner says:

It is kind of unfortunate that it does appear like fudging. But if you improve the data you give the model and it gives you an improved result back, isn’t that a good thing? I take your point that prediction is much more difficult, especially when we don’t know how some of these external forcings like volcanoes might behave in the future.

118. Alan says:

It is not a pause, hiatus, interval or any other word suggesting this, it has CEASED. Please let us all be precise. If it starts again, that will be a new start.

But for now, it has CEASED – There is no proof that it will restart, although the climate will continie to change as it always has.

119. Jer0me says:

Peter OBrien on March 4, 2014 at 4:27 am

But that amplification should be apparent whatever the cause of warming, whether CO2 or natural.

I agree. This is the fundamental flaw in the CAGW argument. If it were true, the temperature would always increase dramatically as soon as it started to warm. Historically it has not, therefore the theory is already falsified.

QED

120. We can spare us all the guessing. BS-ing and curve fitting exercises without determining the CAUSE, or the CAUSATION DRIVERS for the end of global warming….one hypothesis after another without CAUSE CALCULATION… whereas, it is all described and understandably calculated in the booklet on German Amazon: Joachim Seifert: Das Ende der globalen Erwärmung ” JS.

121. Go Home says:

matfromdevon

You seem to be the only one cherry picking. The authors 17 years 6 months claim of no warming starts with a point of today and works backwards to find the end point which creates the longest time in which there is no warming. Yours just takes an arbitrary past date and works forward to find trends.

Glad you found that it has been cooling the last 12 years though.

122. Chris R. says:

To Peter Spooner:

You stated that: “…there is no reason why the models should predict the exact timing and magnitude of any pause (or acceleration) in surface temperature warming…” and chided
Christopher Monckton for not answering the question of “why the models didn’t predict”
this phenomenon.

With all due respect, Christopher Monckton did not set the terms of the debate. The
terms of the debate were set by, among others, the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), when, in 2008, they stated:

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

And by Dr. Ben Santer, when he stated in 2011, that:

In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long…

Christopher Monckton is simply calling attention the fact that one of the satellite-
derived global temperature records has now met, and more than met, the criteria
that were laid down by prominent exponents of the cAGW hypothesis. The violation
of these criteria now strongly indicates that the current generation of models are
INCORRECT in how they model the enhanced greenhouse
effect. The burden of answering the question is not on Lord Monckton; he is
not the author of any of the computer models.

123. Robert A. Taylor says:

Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am
“Why did none of the vaunted models predict this long hiatus, stasis, pause, halt, rest, interval, intermission, break, time out, vacation, furlough, gap, plateau, or flat spot?”
because all models and all theories exhibit anomalies. . . .

As a confirmed skeptic on CAGW from the beginning I appreciate your continuing comments on this blog. I have learned much from them, just not what you would wish. I apologize for the fleering you and others are sometimes subjected to.

First, if you will check the literature, the possibility of something being wrong with general relativity gravity was acknowledged ab initio, especially in light of what is now called dark mass, in my Astronomy 101 class it was called “the problem of missing mass”. Where is the mainstream climatologist who will state openly for publication the climate models may be junk? Will you do so on this blog?

Second, what is the proportional size of the “anomaly”? The failure of the climate models is drastic, not just barely detectable. Almost all are nearly or actually outside their self defined 95% probability limits. As an aside 95% to me means highly suggestive, confirmation has to be more than three sigmas, preferably five or six.

Third, we have been given standards to judge climate models by accredited mainstream climatologists: 17 years, NOAA; 15 years, (lost the link – some noted climatologist). Prior to this we were always told “decadal ‘anomalies’” were to be expected; decade = 10 years. I will allow a 10% error and say 11 years. This means by mainstream climatologists’ own standards it is legitimate to see how long a so called “pause” has lasted.

Fourth, climate models are NOT the default theory, hypothesis, or conjecture – natural variation is. It is intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise. The correct, intellectual honest, baseline for natural climate change is not some 30 year period; it is the entire Pleistocene. The failure by mainstream climatologist to use this has been an obvious intellectual and scientific failing from the very beginning. Nothing has happened by any data set that has been outside the prior natural Pleistocene paleoclimate.

I’m out of time. TTFN.

124. oakwood says:

Reading this post, I am reminded, my daughter born in 1996 has recently reached the age of 18.

125. BLACK PEARL says:

The worst / sad thing that will come out of all this climate intrigue, innuendo, propaganda, lies etc in the future, is that when news reports / studies / research comes out with “scientists say” the trust will have been lost

126. James Ard says:

There’s still ice in the top of the tall pines in Baton Rouge. Another complete miss by the forecasters. Luckily, school is closed for Mardi Gras. That didn’t help anyone needing to get across the Atchafalaya today.

Models = Inquisition
Data = Galileo

@tomomason –
A perfect example of “hope and change” and “compassion,” eh? Too bad for the grandma raising her grandkids on a low income, here, now, today, not at some indefinite future time, that she will have to choose between feeding the kids or paying her electric bill. How socially just can you get?

129. Richard Barraclough says:

JJ says:

March 4, 2014 at 7:28 am
:
17.5 plus 1.5 equals 20

No. Its the standard math of trends. If temps stay low, the length of the zero trend period grows from both ends. Even more pronounced if temps continue and/or accelerate their decline.

Almost right – depending on future temperatures, of course. If the anomaly remains at February’s level until January 2016, then the zero (or minutely negative) trend finds its way back to January 1996, and there is your 20 years.

My earlier comment put the current 20-year trend at 0.03 deg C/ decade. As has been pointed out by David Dohbro, it is actually 0.05. In my excitement I subtracted 20 from 2014 and arrived at 1995, and so inadvertently stated the 19-year trend.

130. Gunga Din says:

Maybe they are not climate “models”. They are climate “divas”. They are out of touch with reality.

131. Joe R says:

[snip – we don’t tolerate “d-word” insults here the way you’ve used them, feel free to resubmit your comment without the hateful label – Anthony]

132. Steve O says:

When the 17 year pause is mentioned it might also be a good idea to add that warming will return at some point. A thousands years long climate trend isn’t going to stop, and neither could we stop it if we tried.

133. Larry Ledwick says:

Neil says:
March 4, 2014 at 7:03 am

Now, if you excuse me I’m off to model a new window for jetliners. My simulation indicates that right-angled corners are actually a better design.

Your reference is perhaps a bit too subtle for most to even catch, although any structural engineer that is familiar with the story of the De Havilland Comet would catch on quickly enough.

Square windows were the primary structural cause of those fatigue cracks developing by concentrating stress near the corners. The stress models of the day did not account for that concentration of stress.

Models are not always right especially when the model developer doesn’t know what they don’t know.

134. Refusing to fall in line with the proven scientific “fact” means that you are sexist, racist, bigoted, and stupid. Get in-line with the Democratic talking points and move on. Pay no attention to the facts…

135. TimTheToolMan says:

Mosher writes “because all models and all theories exhibit anomalies. Sometimes the anomaly is small.”

to the question…“Why did none of the vaunted models predict this long hiatus, stasis, pause, halt, rest, interval, intermission, break, time out, vacation, furlough, gap, plateau, or flat spot?”

But it was the wrong question.

The right question is “Why did none of the models forecast this hiatus when they claim to have been able to accurately backcast similar warming and cooling periods?”

Because that, Steve, cant be put down to an anomalie.

136. Fabi says:

Why does reality keep diverging from the models? How rude! Silly data…

/sarc (as if truly necessary)

137. Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am
because all models and all theories exhibit anomalies.
++++++++++
Mosh, what happened? You attend the Stokes school of hair splitting?

What you failed to mention was the size of the anomaly. To use your gravity analogy, imagine we are in the space station orbiting earth. The climate models predict that if we drop something, it will fall to earth (rising temps). But instead, when we drop something, it doesn’t drop at all. It simply stays where it is (the pause).

So, on that basis you wouldn’t reject the theory of gravity. Instead you would reject the models’ interpretation of the theory. The same with Climate Science. No one rejects the science, what we reject is the models’ interpretation of science because the size of the model vs observation anomaly is 100%.

100% percent of the prediction of rising temps is wrong. The anomaly in the climate models as compared to observations is so big as to be completely useless.

138. Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am
because all models and all theories exhibit anomalies.
++++++++++
Unlike climate science, Newton had the good sense to call his own theory a humbug and make it a Law. Newton himself argued that gravity could not work as his theory predicted. Because if it did, then if you waved your hand, every star in the universe would instantly wobble back and forth minutely, regardless of distance.

To this date no one knows how fast gravity travels. Einstein proposed that it would travel at the speed of light and we would see gravity waves as a result, but we have never seen gravity waves, so this remains an unproven prediction.

As well, no one knows what causes gravity. In an era where science insists that every theory must have a cause, we accept gravity as a revel without a cause.

And then there is the final problem. How gravity passes right through star and planets without the slightest effect on its strength, while even neutrinos cannot.

139. lee says:

Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am
because all models and all theories exhibit anomalies

AGW is an anomaly theory.

140. Dr. Strangelove says:

Anthony,
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study states that land temperature increased 0.9 C in past 50 years and UHIE is negligible. They separated the urban and rural sites and saw identical warming trends. I doubt it.

Let me quantify UHIE using Stefan-Boltzmann law. The average surface down welling radiation on earth is about 520 W/m^2. The emissivity of soil is 0.92. For concrete, it’s 0.95. If you replace soil with concrete, it will have higher emissive power and higher equilibrium temperature. 2.44 C increase in temperature for the same amount of radiation received.

Just put concrete structures like concrete ground, wall or house within 10 feet from the thermometer and that will do it, regardless whether the location is urban or rural. This explains why the BEST team could not detect UHIE. Both urban and rural sites may be affected. Assuming this happened to one out of three sites since 1950. The effect is 0.81 C warming in past 50 years. What percentage of weather stations do you think has this problem?

The BEST team ignored waste heat in their study. The world’s total power consumption is 1.5 x 10^13 watts. All this becomes waste heat with the atmosphere as the heat sink. The waste heat is concentrated in urban areas, which is about 3% of total land area. This translates to an average radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2. From SB equation, the equilibrium temperature must increase by 0.7 C.

Humans generate enough heat to account for the observed global warming on land since 1950. AGW theory is plausible. After all, concrete and waste heat are man-made.

141. Walter Dnes says:

I think we’re in for even more pausing. This is based on some “wiggle-matching”, what’s known in the stock market as “technical analysis”. I graph the Nino3.4 numbers at home. I just noticed something…
* when the Nino3.4 anomaly peaks in December
* there will be a drop of at least 2 C degrees in the following year

Given that the anomaly peaked at approx +.25 C degrees in December, this rule-of-thumb predicts that the Nino3.4 anomaly should drop down to at least -1.75 C degrees this year, which is solid La Nina territory.

142. William Astley says:

The warmists can hand wave away no warming for 17 ½ years, the public and media will not, however, accept a hand waving explanation for global cooling. If my understanding of the physics and the current situation is correct the planet will now significantly cool. There is now local indication of cooling in the regions of the planet that are most strongly affected by GCR modulation of planetary cloud.

There are two climate change anomalies to explain.
1) Why does the AGW mechanism saturate? (i.e. There are periods in the paleo record of millions of years when the levels of atmospheric CO2 where high and the planet was cold and vice versa. An mechanism that causes the AGW mechanism to saturate would explain the plateau with no warming for 17 ½ years and would require the majority of the warming in the last 70 years to be caused by solar modulation of planetary cloud cover.
2) What inhibited the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover (GCR mechanism)? (i.e. In the past planetary cloud increased causing the planet to cool when the solar heliosphere weakened (a weaker solar heliosphere deflects less GCR (Galactic cosmic rays are mostly high speed protons that strike the atmosphere and create muons which in turn create ions in the atmosphere, more ions more clouds and a change in cloud albedo, the affect is strongest at high latitudes of the planet due the affect of the geomagnetic field) and there were less (in frequency) and a reduction in magnitude in the solar wind bursts (the solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which remove cloud forming ions in the tropics and in high latitude regions, which affects the frequency and magnitude of La Nina and El Nino events, by modulating cloud droplet size in tropics which in turn changes the amount of long wave radiation that passes through the tropical clouds.

The explanation for both climate change anomalies is the same explanation as for a host of other anomalies such as the proton size anomaly, the solar earth distance decay rate anomaly (as the author’s of decay rate anomaly note a scalar field about the sun would explain the change in rate of atomic decay based on earth sun distance), the spiral galaxy rotational anomaly, the spiral galaxy evolution anomalies, the quasar clustering and evolution anomalies (a mass scalar field changes the red shifts the emitted spectrum which makes the quasar and its host galaxy appear to be farther away than it is), the geomagnetic field cyclic change abrupt change anomaly (significant rapid changes in the scalar field about the sun would explain the abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field), the correlation of the geomagnetic field abrupt change anomaly and the earth-solar orbit position and so on.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.0905.pdf
Abstract
The extremely precise extraction of the proton radius by Pohl et al. from the measured energy difference between the 2P and 2S states of muonic hydrogen disagrees significantly with that extracted from electronic hydrogen or elastic electron-proton scattering. This is the proton radius puzzle. The origins of the puzzle and the reasons for believing it to be very significant are explained. Various possible solutions of the puzzle are identified, and future work needed to resolve the puzzle is discussed.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
Evidence of correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance
Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of 32Si and 226Ra have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (32Si), and at the Physikalisch–Technische–Bundesanstalt in Germany (226Ra). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the time of year. We discuss both the possibility that these correlations arise from seasonal influences on the detection system, as well as the suggestion of an annual modulation of the decay rates themselves which vary with Earth–Sun distance.

143. Jeffrey Dean says:

People who keep repeating the lie that “global warming has stopped” should be shot

REPLY: Normally I delete such hateful and idiotic comments, but I think maybe yours deserves elevation to a full post. How about it Mr. Hoch? – Anthony

• More proof for Aanthanur DC. But I doubt he is reading any longer.

144. John Finn says:

TimTheToolMan says:
March 4, 2014 at 5:40 pm

The right question is “Why did none of the models forecast this hiatus when they claim to have been able to accurately backcast similar warming and cooling periods?”

Spot on. The ‘pause’ doesn’t falsify AGW – though it does raise question marks about sensitivity – but it does falsify the conclusions from the IPCC “detection and attribution” studies. These are the studies which claim to show that climate fluctuations over the past century or so can be explained by a combination of solar activity, lack of volcanism, CO2 effects and the ridiculous aerosol fudge factor.

It’s not now possible to claim with any sort of certainty that all factors have been considered and it is only by including CO2 that late 20th century warming can be explained.

145. William Astley says:

The below anomalies are (if I understand the mechanisms) related to and caused by the current solar magnetic cycle change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

Flyby anomaly
The flyby anomaly is an unexpected energy increase during Earth-flybys of spacecraft. This anomaly has been observed as shifts in the S-Band and X-Band Doppler and ranging telemetry. Taken together it causes a significant unaccounted velocity increase of over 13 mm/s during flybys.[1]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/16/earths-ionosphere-drops-to-a-new-low/

146. Michael E. Newton (@pathtotyranny) says:
March 4, 2014 at 6:25 am

If you choose a different starting date, say March 1998 or so, how negative is the trend?
—————————————————————————————————————
and if one goes back 2,000 years, what will that trend look like?

147. Peter says:

I’ve just plotted this months data. You can now go back to June 1996 (rather than last month when you could only go back to September 1996) and still get a flat trend line. So I think it’s 17 years 9 months without warming. (or have I got it wrong, I’m no expert in this sort of thing)

148. My previous comment on logarythmic link between CO2 conc and atmospheric temp seems to have lost. Can it be retieved?

149. Correction

….been lost. Can it be retrieved?

Dodgy Geezer (March 4, 2014 at 4:22 am)

The general ignorance of the specialist is most especially disturbing in this case as this is from a common (if approximate) translation of a line from Hippocrates whose famous oath Doctors still follow. Your comments stand but Doctors in particular should know at least this much.

From Hippocrates’ Aphorisms

“Life is short, and Art long; the crisis fleeting; experience perilous, and decision difficult.”

151. Gozo says:

152. William Astley says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/#comment-1583111
Henry says
As explained before, by looking at maximum temperature over the past 40 years you can see that we are on the Gleissberg solar weather cycle. Looking from the what we receive in energy (i.e. that which is coming through the atmosphere) we always have ca. 44 or 43 years of warming followed by 44 or 43 years of cooling. You will not find this curve by looking at average temps for a variety of reasons, not least because accuracy of temp. measurement and recording has changed dramatically from what it was more than 40 years ago.

Unfortunately the current US cold and freezing up of the big lakes is no outlier/
We are globally cooling as 4 major datasets are showing.

Currently, you would not notice much at the lower latitudes as more water vapor condenses which releases enormous amounts of energy. But I did pick up a definitive trend at the higher latitudes:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/01/southern-sea-ice-area-minimum-2nd-highest-on-record/
Even Nasa admits that antarctic ice is increasing
We are cooling from the top [90] latitudes down.
Danger from global cooling must not be underestimated.
According to my calculations we are about 7 years off from the start of a similar drought period as happened in 1932-1939.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

153. Vermont Yankee says:

Dodgy Geezer says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:22 am
… In my day everyone in the medical profession would have had a smattering of Latin at least, and usually Greek…

Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum viditur.

154. jlponce says:

I should say, “coitus interruptus”……..

155. Bruce Cobb says:

Steve O says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:53 pm

When the 17 year pause is mentioned it might also be a good idea to add that warming will return at some point. A thousands years long climate trend isn’t going to stop, and neither could we stop it if we tried.
What thousand years long trend are you talking about? The overall trend the past 3,000 years appears to be one of cooling. The LIA was an anomalously cool period, and we can hope there will be a continued recovery from that. But there are no guarantees.

156. Michael Whittemore says:

Congratulations Christopher Monckton! This is a fantastic post. Most people just simply say no warming for 17 years means that anthropogenic climate change has stopped, but not you. You completely explain that the models can’t possibly predict solar activity, increased ocean heat uptake, volcanic aerosols, increased trade winds and countless other natural climate processes such as La Nina and El Nino’s. Of cause science does take these processes into account and you can see this 2 minute video that graphs it perfectly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4

157. Gozo says:

[snip – policy violation there, bozo, aka “CostCo” in previous comments. Note that gozo@bozo.org is a fake email address:

MX record about ‘bozo.org’ does not exist.

MX record about ‘trek.net’ does not exist.

Per policy, a valid email address is required to comment here, and sockpuupeting isn’t allowed. Welcome to the permanent troll bin.

But it is interesting what the IP address tells us:

192.171.5.126
Decimal: 3232433534
Hostname: 192-171-5-126.esrin.esa.int
ISP: European Space Agency c/o Christoph Kroell Darmsta

I wonder how you’d fare against the ESA acceptable use policy?

– Anthony]

158. rgbatduke says:

In a recent exchange on CNN’s post-article blogging, I pointed out the lack of warming over an interval so long and profound that the IPCC felt obligated to devote an entire explanatory panel (Box 9.2 in chapter 9) of AR5 to it, and a devout member of the church of warming made the assertion that if one examined the temperature record over the last 30 years one would see that the climate has been warming at the torrid pace of some 0.25-0.4 C per decade. Presumably, of course, including the fact that it was flat over the last fifteen years (at least!) of that interval.

Out of sheer curiosity — since that implies that at least 0.75 C of warming happened since 1983 — I plotted this:

where I omitted 2014 at the end only because it is too early to consider it a “year” and W4T doesn’t do month by month entry on its interval selector.

Imagine my surprise! The temperature change from 1983 to 2013 is negative, both for HADCRUT4 and (less dramatically) for GISS LOTI.

Obviously this is a profound cherrypick, but it was particularly amusing in the context of the CNN discussion and assertion of “30 years” as that precise cherrypick by the warmist intoxicated on his own sense of world-saving self-importance.

If one wishes not to pick cherries in a discussion that from the beginning has been all about cherrypicking, confirmation bias, and a complete lack of shame associated with both (see D’Arigio’s remark to the effect of having to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie to the US Senate) one might instead plot:

Note that from 1945 to the present there has been approximately 0.4C of warming, end to end, with variation both up and down in between. Crudely, it was nearly flat from 1945 to 1977, rises by around 0.4 C from 1977 to 1997, and is nearly flat from 1997 to the present (a classic Hurst-Kolmogorov pattern). In the single twenty year warming interval visible in this record, temperatures went up at a rate of 0.2/C. Everywhere else in the record temperatures are basically flat.

These are facts, pure and simple. They don’t cherrypick anything, they simply make direct observations from the recorded data. One can do an excellent job of fitting the data with three straight lines on the intervals indicated, and while one could quibble about the exact year to start or stop the interval endpoints — 1977 or 1980? 1997 or 2000? — they do not alter the pattern or the magnitude of the rise, only how it is distributed. The entire rise occurred in an interval so short that it is at the limit that the warmists themselves are asserting as “necessary” to establish a climate trend. They are at the boundary of being doubly hoist on their own petard — being forced to stop moving the goalposts lest them move them to where their own argument loses all force! By their own words, the warming observed across the 80s and 90s is not a trend.

By the data, too.

If one averages the warming from 1943 to the present, it is a paltry 0.4/7 = 0.057C/decade. If one averages the warming from 1973 to the present it is a larger 0.4/4 = 0.1C/decade (because the global temperature was flat, of course, in between). If one averages the warming from 1983 to the present it is accidentally slightly negative — bad choice — but if one shifts the endpoint to the carefully selected year 1985, at the very bottom of the 0.6C drop in HADCRUT4 from 1983 to 1985 (a cooling rate of 3C/decade — good thing two years aren’t a “trend”, eh?) one can manage to get a 0.6C rise over 27 years, or a sizzling 0.22 C/decade, still lower than the “official” estimate of climate sensitivity. If one more reasonably (but still highly cherrypickily) picks the smoothish bottom around the negative 0.2 C spike in HADCRUT4 — which is almost certainly pure artifact, of course, for all that it is larger than their presumably 0.15 C “error” — one is back to 0.4/2.7 or around .15C/decade.

These, too, are pure observations. The absolute worst case, most optimal cherrypick of a warming interval in HADCRUT4 confines all 0.4C to roughly 15 years and is no worse than ~0.27C/decade to all the significant digits that could possibly matter if one hand picks the end points. 15 years is, we have been told, insufficient to establish a climate trend, but all longer intervals reduce the warming rate rapidly to 0.1C/decade or less!

How much less, of course, depends on how long an interval you choose. All the warming happens in a single 15 year stretch and is flat on both sides of it, so have fun watching the mean drop as one increases the sample size.

What, in the end, does all of this mean? The answer is profoundly simple. It means precisely what the data indicates, nothing more, nothing less. We cannot explain the data with any model, simple or complex, at this time. It means that from 1943 to the present the world has had temperatures that average out to flatlined for 55 of the 70 years, and went up 0.4C over 15 years — basically a step function increase. This is what it is. We can speculate as to the cause of the step function increase — increased atmospheric CO_2, a coincidence of two unusually strong solar maxima, the particular phases of atmospheric and oceanic circulation leading to strong ENSOs, all of the above working together. We can make equally unfounded claims as to why the temperatures were flat from 1943 to 1977 and why they’ve been flat from 1997 to the present. (“Unfounded”, in this context, means that one can assert all sorts of hypotheses but cannot combine the hypotheses into a quantitatively accurate predictive model that can be gradually validated or falsified by agreement with future data, and so one’s assertions have no foundation in observational science at this time.)

What we cannot do is use models that have already been falsified by the data to make predictions of future warming that exceed the maximum warming rate observed in the most carefully cherrypicked interval in all of HADCRUT4 that is marginally long enough to be considered a “trend” according to the modellers themselves. At the moment, the “median” climate sensitivity claims in AR5 of around 2.7C by 2100 exceeds warming rate of 2.66 one would obtain by extrapolating the rate observed from 1985-ish to 2000-ish (if we confine it still further to 1985 to 1998 — as we probably could — we can make it still larger, but only at the expense of using an interval so short that not even a one of the high priests of warmism could justify calling it an extrapolible trend).

Anyway, I thought I’d share the grins with you. A negative anomaly from 1983! Who would have imagined! (And only very, very slightly positive if you go to 2014).

rgb

[Recommend we consider promoting this message, appended to the one following, to its own thread. ]

159. rgbatduke says:

Damn, mod help please. Close the boldface after “year”.

160. Richard M says:

John Finn says:
It’s not now possible to claim with any sort of certainty that all factors have been considered and it is only by including CO2 that late 20th century warming can be explained.

Wrong. The +PDO explains the late 20th century warming just fine.

161. Ian W says:

Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am

Steven in March 2013 5000 people died in energy poverty because prices have necessarily sky rocketted…children are dying at the rate of one every 5 seconds from hunger and related causes while corn is grown to use as fuel….

Perhaps you can show how many people died because of the Pioneer spacecraft slow down or the astronomers puzzlement at galazy orbits. As soon as climate science started affecting people’s lives then an “oh whoops we got it wrong there’s a curiosity!” Is no longer appopriate. There should be a desperate and urgent search for the reason as millions of people’s lives literally depend on it. That search must be egoless lives of millions are worth more than reputations of climate scientists. At the moment getting the nexxt grant appears to be seen as more important than getting the science right – even if thousands of people die.

162. Mark Bofill says:

Anthony,

REPLY: I think we should take the high road, and not label them with either. While I disagree with Dr. Spencer’s use of ‘Climate Nazis’, I defend his right to say it. – Anthony

+1

Steven Mosher,
Thanks for the anomaly examples, I didn’t know about them.

Jeffrey Dean,
Thanks for demonstrating that the failure of the ADL has teeth.

163. rgbatduke says:

It’s not now possible to claim with any sort of certainty that all factors have been considered and it is only by including CO2 that late 20th century warming can be explained.
….
Wrong. The +PDO explains the late 20th century warming just fine.

Both wrong. The PDO is a plausible explanation. CO_2 is a plausible explanation. Neither assertion, nor any combination of assertions, has been turned into a predictive general circulation model in agreement with HADCRUT4 outside of the reference interval. Semi-empirical models do better, but they also do not predict extreme future warming.

See my post just above. The late 20th century warming is confined to a single interval that is, properly speaking, too short to form a “trend” even according to the failing GCMs. We have no good (that is, quantitatively useful) explanation for it — while one can build GCMs that predict the warming across this interval, this is the only interval in the climate record over the last 70 years in which warming occurred at all!

CO_2, on the other hand, has been steadily, smoothly increasing over the last 70 years, the concentration increasing by roughly 1/3 over this time frame. Furthermore, if one extends one’s examination of the data back to 1850 or so where HADCRUT4 begins, one observes multiple decadal intervals where the warming or cooling was on the same approximate scale as observed in the single 15 year interval warming occurred in during the latter 20th century — an interval that has now been exceeded by the interval where global temperature is once again flat. If one forms a distribution of all of the absolute temperature changes over all intervals of (say) 11 years to correspond to the solar cycle, an interval like the latter 20th century isn’t even that unlikely — one would EXPECT to see jumps of the magnitude observed as they have occurred before and will occur again, assuming no causality at all in the climate “noise”.

To put it another way, there really is no need of “an explanation”, as the late 20th century is not, in fact, “extreme” and is getting less extreme all the time as “The Hiatus” continues. Certainly not a glib, linearized explanation for something that is quantitatively predictable in principle only by solving the most difficult problem in computational physics yet attempted at an absurdly high resolution (compared to our computational capacity at this time) based on critical parameters that cannot be observed, let alone measured, in models that very likely omit critical physics by inadequately representing the behavior of named quasiparticles in the nonlinear dynamics such as “ENSO”, or the PDO, or AMO, or NAO, and possibly by incorrectly representing the critical physics of e.g. heat transport in thunderstorms too small to even be visible at the resolution of the GCMs, albedo variation and feedback, soot, possibly even solar magnetic state.

The entire discussion of global warming would be greatly improved if people would stop asserting certain knowledge of something that we cannot yet predictively compute in agreement with observational data past, present and future. All such statements, on both sides, are at best unproven hypotheses and at worst religion. At least, according to the rules of actual science.

rgb

164. Mark Bofill says:

Thanks Robert. I will remember that example next time somebody accuses me of cherry picking. (You want cherries, I’ll give you cherries buddy!) :>

165. Ian W says:

Peter Spooner says:
March 4, 2014 at 9:09 am

You sound very reaonable except that the question you are answering was answered before – which was how long a ‘pause’ (sic) in the real world would there have to be for the models to be invalidated. So the question had already taken the chaotic nature and parameterized variability into account and the answer was 15 years – then 17 years. I have no doubt that the goal posts will be continually shifted. There would probably be a glib answer to how many kiometers of ice over New York are required to falisify the models too.

166. As there has been no global warming for the past 17.5 years clearly atmospheric temperature change is not sensitive to changes in CO2 concentration, in fact there appears to be no correlation at all. The past 17 to 18 years RSS data are in complete contrast to Michael Mann’s hockey stick predictions. The fact is there is more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all the first generation photons from the Earth in the specified wavebands within the boundary of the atmosphere with umpteen thousands of metres to spare..

Atmospheric temperature changes are not proportional to changes in CO2 concentration; the latter could be halved or doubled with very little effect on first generation photon absorption and atmospheric temperatures. Absorption of second generation photons may be slightly affected by increasing CO2 concs but this would have a negligible effect on global warming as past history shows. In fact there is probably a logarithmic correlation requiring a very large increase in CO2 conc for a small increase in temperature.

167. Richard M says:

rgbatduke says:
March 5, 2014 at 8:03 am

John Finn:
It’s not now possible to claim with any sort of certainty that all factors have been considered and it is only by including CO2 that late 20th century warming can be explained.
….
Wrong. The +PDO explains the late 20th century warming just fine.
———–
Both wrong. The PDO is a plausible explanation. CO_2 is a plausible explanation. Neither assertion, nor any combination of assertions, has been turned into a predictive general circulation model in agreement with HADCRUT4 outside of the reference interval.

Plausible is all that was meant by my comment. The PDO+Solar is completely sufficient to explain all the changes in global temperature over the last 150 years. Each of the segments in this graph line up with a mode of the PDO. All upward trends are +PDO situations and all downward trends are -PDO. What are the chances of that happening by chance?

If we add just a little help from CO2 the slightly enhanced warming of the 1975-2005 warming is also explained. While clearly not proof, I suspect a GCM built to give CO2/Methane about 1/10 the currently assumed forcing strength and the PDO+Solar a strong role as I’ve mapped out previously and you will see a nearly perfect match to the temperature record.

• @HenryP – Oh I did get it. But my swag was a best case (for the warmest) scenario. I think it was Box of Rocks who said sooner if there is a cooling trend (as your graphs indicated may be commencing).

168. Peter Spooner says:

Ian W says: “You sound very reaonable”
March 5, 2014 at 8:28 am

Thanks Ian. Some of us ‘warmists’ do try and be reasonable.
I would be interested to hear what you think about this? If models were used to suggest that 17 years was the longest pause we could expect, but the internal variability within the models sometimes doesn’t replicate the real world exactly (“none of 48 climate model experiments examined in detail captures the magnitude of the recent acceleration in Pacific trade winds” (England et al. 2014)), then the estimates regarding maximum lengths of pauses may not be so relevant to the real world. This might mean that the climate system could exhibit longer pauses than predicted by the models, with observations remaining consistent with the warming theory. Of course it could work the other way too and I’m not saying I know the answer, just making a suggestion.

169. Andrew says:

By my count the downtrend is now statistically significant – the satellite is 95% certain that Global Cooling is Real and It’s Worse Than We Thought ™.

170. rgbatduke says:

So, yes. there is an anomaly. Good thing is that its not being ignored as the Pioneer anomaly was for 14 years. Folks are working on it. This is normal science at work. Its always unsettled.

Well said, sir! Now if only we could get the press and politicians to stop referring to Climate Science (out of all of the science being done on Earth!) as “settled” and started to make political and economic decisions on the basis of uncertainty and lack of confidence instead of absurd and indefensible assertions of certainty and high confidence Climate Science could go back to the normal plodding process of assertion and validation, assertion and falsification, where nobody takes any of its claims too seriously fifty or a hundred years out when it best models are still failing badly everywhere outside of the reference period.

rgb

171. @Peter Spooner
you are totally lost

@Andrew
You got it!
notwithstanding your mocking the global warmists
just do not underestimate the danger of global cooling yourself

172. rgbatduke says:

March 5, 2014 at 10:48 am

… and (we) started to make political and economic decisions on the basis of uncertainty and lack of confidence instead of absurd and indefensible assertions of certainty and high confidence …

Would those political and economic decisions then be to not waste time, effort, and money attempting to prevent something that we aren’t causing?

Do politicians ever do that?

173. rgbatduke says:

Plausible is all that was meant by my comment. The PDO+Solar is completely sufficient to explain all the changes in global temperature over the last 150 years. Each of the segments in this graph line up with a mode of the PDO. All upward trends are +PDO situations and all downward trends are -PDO. What are the chances of that happening by chance?

Pretty good, actually, but that is neither here nor there. To continue to pick nits — you observe that there is a strong gross correlation between PDO phase, and less convincingly solar state, and the general pattern of variation over the last 150 years. All well and good, and I agree. However, this does not explain them, sufficiently or otherwise. For example, it doesn’t extend still further in to the less-well-known past to explain the temperature variation over the last 400 years, 1000 years, 10000 years. It is by no means clear that it has predictive value into the indefinite future — we won’t know until the future happens. It could actually fairly easily be coincidence, or it could be causal but only causal when three other things just happen to be lined up perfectly, which was true for the last couple or three cycles but is no longer true starting tomorrow. It is a chaotic multivariate nonlinear system, so one almost EXPECTS transient quasi-patterns to briefly emerge and then disappear again, where the details of the “causality” are lost in a blend of multivariate coupled nonlinear phenomena.

However, we completely agree that it is absolutely not the case that it has been shown “necessary” to invoke CO_2-based additional warming to explain the current average temperatures. It is reasonably probable that CO_2 does contribute some fraction of the warming. It is almost certain that the lack of a UHI correction in HADCRUT4 contributes some fraction of the apparent warming. It is likely enough that a large fraction of the observed warming in the late 20th century was natural, not human-forced, and it is simply false to assert that the observed warming was in any way “unprecedented” or even unlikely based on the data in any statistically signficant sense — it isn’t even a significant outlier on the distribution of warming and cooling spells in the absurdly short thermometric record as represented by HADCRUT4.

rgb

174. In his article, Mr. Monckton makes an argument. At http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8566 the
statistician William Briggs exposes a premise to this argument. It is that the dependent variable (the global temperature in this argument) is normally distributed, that the mean of this distribution varies linearly with respect to the independent variable (the time in Monckton’s argument) and that the spread (aka standard deviation) of this distribution is constant.

According to Briggs, “nothing in the universe is ‘normally distributed’.” If Briggs is correct then were this premise to Monckton’s argument to be tested on a sufficiently large sample it would surely be falsified by the evidence.

175. Udar says:

Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:40 am

So, yes. there is an anomaly. Good thing is that its not being ignored as the Pioneer anomaly was for 14 years. Folks are working on it. This is normal science at work. Its always unsettled.

What makes you say that “Folks are working on it”?
All we hear is that it doesn’t really happening, or total silence, or misdirection. Which particular scientist from AGW camp honestly and openly acknowledges the anomaly and talks about it? In press?

176. Anthony VIOLI says:

Mosher, by working on it do you mean the models are being fed reality?

Wouldn’t the best way to refine the theory be to give the models the data of the last 17 years, or pick the models that were closest to what has occurred?

Then I’m sure the projections will come out a lot different. Doesn’t suit the agenda but if you want to be taken seriously then thats what has to happen.

177. rgbatduke says:

Would those political and economic decisions then be to not waste time, effort, and money attempting to prevent something that we aren’t causing?

May not be causing, or aren’t causing all of. Most skeptics who are actually scientists in their own right (including myself) understand that CO_2 is, probably, a “cause” of some fraction of the current global average temperature, and agree further that it may have a differential impact and affect temperatures in some places more than or differently than others. But there is a really big difference between taking the average temperature rise from 1943 to 2013 (of around 0.4C/7 = 0.06C/decade) and attributing 100% of it to CO_2 and taking the average temperature rise from 1985 and 1998 (same rise, but now over only 13 years, so 0.4C/1.3 = 0.3C/decade) and attributing 100% of it to CO_2 and then asserting that this rise rate will be maintained for 100 years, unless it ends up being even higher.

At the point the temperature has been more or less stable for longer after this rise than the rise itself took, and the situation is even worse when one notes that over half of the total rise took place in a single two year stretch from 1996 to 1998 in association not with gradually increasing CO_2 levels, but in direct causally verified coincidence with a super-strong ENSO.

Do politicians ever do that?

Sure. Right after the voters throw the rascals out, which they do periodically. They recently did so in Australia. Many of the European countries are coming to realize that they’ve exhausted the appetite of their populations for artificially imposed economic hardship to solve a badly predicted problem that doesn’t seem to be occurring at all the way it was predicted to occur. And do not be deceived — not even all climate scientists, including many that will freely admit that CO_2 is likely to cause some warming relative to whatever the temperature might have been without it, think that the warming by 2100 will have catastrophic effects. I’m not certain that there is currently even a true majority. AR5 represents a bit of a sea change where uncertainty is finally being acknowledged. It’s just a shame that nature had to literally bust the authors in the teeth before they would let go of what was, most unfortunately, a very advantageous hypothesis to climate scientists!

If global temperatures stubbornly remain flat — where I personally have no more idea that they will or won’t than any other human being alive, but am perhaps more honest about my ignorance than most — it will be very difficult to see how this won’t go down as the worst case of the more or less deliberate corruption of the scientific process in post-Enlightenment human history.

rgb

178. RichardM says
and you will see a nearly perfect match to the temperature record.
Where is the proof of calibration certificates of thermometers before 1950?
What about recording every second (automatic) now versus 4 times a day (if at all) before 1950?http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

179. Mac the Knife says:

rgbatduke says:
March 5, 2014 at 7:35 am
Excellent!
Clear. Concise. No embellishment or equivocation.
Thank You!
Mac

180. Richard M says:

rgbatduke says:
March 5, 2014 at 11:01 am
(Plausible is all that was meant by my comment. The PDO+Solar is completely sufficient to explain all the changes in global temperature over the last 150 years. Each of the segments in this graph line up with a mode of the PDO. All upward trends are +PDO situations and all downward trends are -PDO. What are the chances of that happening by chance?)

Pretty good, actually, but that is neither here nor there.

If by “pretty good” you mean less than 1% then we are in agreement. ;) It isn’t just that the trend direction matches up to the ~30 year half cycles, but each inflection point also lines up quite closely.

OK, I agree with about 99% of what you said. There simply isn’t enough knowledge to understand what might drive climate in the future. One of my favorite claims is “climate science is in its infancy”. However, I think a better job of attributing past climate changes would go a long way in moving the science forward. If the PDO+Solar does a better job of describing the last 150 years then it certainly makes sense for global policy makers to understand that reality. Even if some of them don’t want to know the truth.

181. Richard M says:

HenryP says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:00 pm
RichardM says
and you will see a nearly perfect match to the temperature record.
Where is the proof of calibration certificates of thermometers before 1950?

I hear you. Still, I think we have a good idea of the relative changes over time. Averaging takes care of a lot of potential errors as long as they are random and number of measurements is large. This all changed when the data manipulators took over. Now the errors are due to the bias of the manipulators.

182. Joe Born says:

rgbatduke: “If one forms a distribution of all of the absolute temperature changes over all intervals of (say) 11 years to correspond to the solar cycle, an interval like the latter 20th century isn’t even that unlikely — one would EXPECT to see jumps of the magnitude observed as they have occurred before and will occur again, assuming no causality at all in the climate ‘noise’.”

In that connection, you may find Paul_K’s post here of interest. If I read it right–and I’m absolutely inept at statistics, so maybe I didn’t–his reaction to claims that some temperature trend is significant is, What’s the null hypothesis?

His post made an impression on me because it seemed similar to my frequent layman’s reaction. My take on that type of statement, i.e., on a statement that a certain temperature trend is “significant,” is that it purports to say that the chances of getting the observed trend is less than one in twenty (or whatever number they use as the significance threshold) if such-and such (the null hypothesis?) were true–except that I almost never see any definition of what that null hypothesis is that they purport to rule out. Moreover, they don’t give much of an indication of how they computed odds based on those assumptions.

Well, basically I just wanted to bring Paul_K’s stuff to your attention in case you had missed it, but I ended up venting my frustration at almost never understanding what folks mean when they use “significance” in these discussions.

I feel better now.

183. Regardless of what the future holds for global temperatures, climate science has been deliberately corrupted. The moment at which this happened is revealed by Vincent Gray’s article “Spinning the Climate,” version dated 11 July 2008, pp. 8-10 ( URL = http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SPINNING_THE_CLIMATE08.pdf ).

When Gray pointed out to IPCC management that past IPCC assessment reports claimed climate models to have been “validated” though these models were actually insusceptible to being validated, the management should have alerted policy makers to the fact that global warming research had not been conducted under the scientific method of investigation. It did not do so.

Instead, the IPCC substituted the similar sounding but logically meaningless term “evaluation” for the logically meaningful term “validation.” Under today’s IPCC terminology, IPCC models are “evaluated” rather than being “validated.”; however, few people with an interest in the evolution of Earth’s climate exhibit awareness of the need to distinguish between these two terms.

Also, the IPCC substituted the similar sounding but logically meaningless term “projection” for the logically meaningful term “prediction. Under today’s IPCC terminology, IPCC models make “projections” rather than “predictions”; however, few people with an interest in the evolution of Earth’s climate exhibit awareness of the need to distinguish between these two terms.

A consequence from failure to distinguish between the two sets of terms is for professional climatologists, amateur climatologists, physicists, chemists, officers of scientific societies, policy makers, politicians, journalists, skeptics, deniers, warmists and members of the general public to draw conclusions about the evolution of Earth’s climate from equivocations, that is, from arguments in which a term changes meaning in the midst of the associated argument. To draw a conclusion from an equivocation is logically improper and an example of an “equivocation fallacy.” In AR4 and AR5, the IPCC’s conclusions are based upon applications of the equivocation fallacy. They are not based upon logic or the scientific method of investigation.

184. rgbatduke says:

In that connection, you may find Paul_K’s post here of interest. If I read it right–and I’m absolutely inept at statistics, so maybe I didn’t–his reaction to claims that some temperature trend is significant is, What’s the null hypothesis?

Interesting. One can also do a credible job of fitting HADCRUT4 from 1850 to the present with a single linear term and a single sinusoidal term with a period around 60 years. But the problem with such fits is that they are all various sorts of “kerfluffle”. And note how the eternal issue of the error bars on the data were once again neatly sidestepped, as were all the unaccounted for sources of systematic bias in the process that transforms the data — especially the older data — into a global anomaly average. It is difficult to keep actual instrumentation from experiencing a drift of zero across a mere decade, let alone keep a temperature reconstruction model with hand-picked temperature series and ever-widening regions of spatial interpolation from ever less precise instrumentation correctly centered not just on a single temperature zero — something NASA openly acknowledges is impossible to do within one whole degree C either way — but on an anomaly in the absolute temperature from an arbitrary late 20th century, UHI-corrupted baseline.

Note well that the total warming evident in HADCRUT4 from 1850 to the present:

is roughly 0.7 C, 0.4C of which is late 20th century and 0.3 of which is early 20th century warming. Note well the change in the annual/monthly variance of the data as one goes back into the past. HADCRUT4 acknowledges an error of 0.15C at the right hand edge of this graph in the modern instrumental era. This error estimate is almost certainly artificially low as it exceeds the difference between HADCRUT4 and GISS LOTI for much of the last decade, and HADCRUT4 does not correct for the UHI and hence is reasonably certain to contain a warming bias from the left side of this figure to the right. If they make the assertion of 0.15C on the right hand side without correcting its UHI bias, they have to add this bias onto the total error estimate of the left hand side, that is, to temperatures in the 19th century and early 20th century. Furthermore, the error estimate correction they must add is asymmetric reflecting the asymmetric bias of the UHI in the first place.

I think it is safe enough to say that the error estimate without UHI is at least 3x 0.15C, and 4x is probably still more reasonable. That is, unbiased instrumental error in the first third of this graph is very likely at least 0.5C, maybe even 0.6C. At that scale, the error envelopes from the 19th century to the present almost overlap, making assertion of any warming at all on the basis of this data alone a bit problematic. Bear in mind that one part of the Earth can be warming and another cooling, and in the 19th century huge parts of the Earth’s surface including entire continents were completely unsampled as far as HADCRUT4 is concerned (and at best anecdotally sampled otherwise). It isn’t until the latter half of the 20th century, in particular the satellite era, that we began to have halfway decent coverage of global temperatures, and by then UHI is a serious concern.

If one considers the lack of UHI correction on top of the probable error, it is by no means clear that any warming at all has occurred from the 19th century to the present. Even a UHI correction of a few tenths of a degree overall (during a time that the world’s population increased by six billion people, with a very real possibility of spurious rural warming as an artifact as forests were cut down and turned into houses and farms to house and feed the extra six billion people) would drop the overall warming from 0.7C to 0.5C or 0.4C, with most of the change/error occurring, as one would expect, in the last fifty or sixty years of the curve. HADCRUT4 might well require correction by means of subtracting a term that is monotonic in global population that removes as much as 0.2C over the last fifty years alone, halving the nominal late 20th century warming of 0.4C in one stroke.

This illustrates two issues. Before one fits a curve to the data, it helps to remove the commensurate systematic biases because with them in place, your model fit is fitting the bias, not the data and your model based conclusions can evaporate in a puff of kerfluffle-gas once they are accounted for. Second, it is silly to fit nonlinear, non-flat model to the data when the probable error in the data is so large that it isn’t even clear that the first order linear trend is truly significant. A linear fit to HADCRUT4 yields an absolutely systematic trend:

of 0.8C/16 = 0.05C/decade. This is remarkably robust — consider 0.4C from 1943 to 2013. The late 20th century adds perhaps 0.01 to the overall trend. This is a reasonable linearized assertion of the effect of increased CO_2 based on the unjustified assumption that all other things should remain equal — a whopping 0.01C of additional warming per decade. Hell, I’ll give you twice this — double it or treble it and I still don’t care.

To conclude, the comments made about “ignoring the physics” are entirely apropos, but they have to be moderated by the observation that one is rather justified in ignoring the physics as long as the physically based models get the wrong answer and fail to predict the actual variation of temperature. There is no guarantee that the physics used in the models predicting catastrophic warming is correct, complete, or being evaluated at sufficient resolution to have any predictive force whatsoever, and there is actual empirical evidence that they are actively failing to have correctly predicted the climate accurately over the interval following their reference period (basically, the model training set).

Looking at HADCRUT4 we can see why the models are failing — they selected a particularly poor interval to choose as a reference period. They would have done far better to select a much longer interval, one that included an entire 60 year cycle, and not just the short stretch in which all of the warming that was observed over the last 70 years occurred over a 15 year interval.

rgb

185. rgbatduke says:

March 5, 2014 at 11:58 am

Would those political and economic decisions then be to not waste time, effort, and money attempting to prevent something that we aren’t causing?

May not be causing, or aren’t causing all of. Most skeptics who are actually scientists in their own right (including myself) understand that CO_2 is, probably, a “cause” of some fraction of the current global average temperature, and agree further that it may have a differential impact and affect temperatures in some places more than or differently than others.

Yes, “may not be causing, or aren’t causing all of it” is both better and correct.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

The common sense based application of science you display in your posts here is both exemplary and enlightening.

186. Dr. Strangelove says:

rgbatduke,
Yes, the global temperature anomaly graph since 1880 looks like random noise. In fact I replicated the graph from 1950-2013 using a random walk function. The two graphs look almost identical. Further, the frequency distribution of the deviations from the mean value resembles a normal distribution. This is what you would expect from random variables. There’s no statistically significant deviation (2-sigma) in the anomalies, if you consider the data error range. Again this is the characteristic of random variables.

Does it mean global temperature is random? Not really. It means there’s no statistical proof that it is non-random. Consider coin flipping. We think it’s random. It’s actually deterministic and can be predicted accurately using Lagrangian mechanics. This is empirically proven by the mechanical coin flipper. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1697475

Climate is more chaotic than coin flipping but it is also deterministic. If we understand the physical causes, we can make predictions subject to probability theory. But the 95% certainty of IPCC is nonsense.

187. Dr. Strangelove says:

William Astley
On cosmic rays driving climate, the theory is sound

“the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19K”

but empirical evidence is lacking

“using a pion beam from the CERN Proton Synchrotron, they found that ionising radiation such as the cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has negligible influence on the formation rates of these particular aerosols.”
http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/10/cerns-cloud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

188. Dr. Strangelove:

Randomness is a not a property of a time series such as the global temperature anomaly time series. It is the joint property of the outcomes of unobserved events and the associated model. These outcomes are non-random if the probabilities of their outcomes are conditional. Otherwise, they are random.

In particular, the outcomes of coin flips are random unless the probabilities of these outcomes are conditional. It is difficult to make these probabilities conditional in view of the sensitivity of the outcomes to uncertain initial conditions. Persi Diaconis’s mechanical coin flipper evidently reduces this uncertainty to nil.

For the climate models of the IPCC assessment reports, there are no underlying events. Thus, the question of whether the probabilities of the outcomes of these events are or are not conditional is nonsensical.

189. Dr. Strangelove says:

Terry
A time series are points in a line chart where the Y-axis is a variable and the X-axis is time. How can you say randomness is not a property of time series? I can make a time series using the outcomes of coin flipping or some random events as the Y-axis. That’s a random walk function.

If unobserved events are the Y-axis of a time series, how can you plot the points? Empirical data are derived from observations. Even random number generators are observable. You must be referring to the regression line after the data have been plotted.

Conditional probability describes random events, or at least those appear to be random. If you can reduce the uncertainty of an event to zero, then by definition it is deterministic.

190. Mervyn says:

Why did none of the vaunted models predict this long hiatus, stasis, pause, halt, rest, interval, intermission, break, time out, vacation, furlough, gap, plateau, or flat spot?

Don’t laugh but I bet they will claim its because dangerous man-made global warming, itself, is responsible for making it difficult for climate models to predict anything!!!!!!

191. Michael Whittemore says:

HenryP says:
March 5, 2014 at 6:52 am

I read your post and it is perfect, cherry picking years and not taking into account any natural cooling or warming (weather) that has taken place. Christopher clearly explains all the possible reasons for a reduction in global warming that should be consider when determining the CO2 effects. Good questions to ask you are do you understand that volcanic eruptions cause cooling? And do you think that this cooling should be considered when trying to determine the effects of CO2?

192. Gregg says:

@Gordon Cheyne says:

I worked some years ago with a nurse called Vita, who (of course) I jokingly called “Vita Brevis”.
Before long, I heard the surgeons calling her “Nurse Brevis”
When I explained that I only called her that because her ars was longa, all I got was a blank look .

…aah, the benefits of a classical education. I had more of an ‘easy listening’ education, myself …

193. rgbatduke says:

I read your post and it is perfect, cherry picking years and not taking into account any natural cooling or warming (weather) that has taken place. Christopher clearly explains all the possible reasons for a reduction in global warming that should be consider when determining the CO2 effects. Good questions to ask you are do you understand that volcanic eruptions cause cooling? And do you think that this cooling should be considered when trying to determine the effects of CO2?

They are excellent questions indeed. Now add the other ten confounding elements of the climate. Do you think that ENSO causes warming and cooling respectively? Do you think that the effect of ENSO should be considered when trying to determine the effects of CO_2 AND volcanoes? The evidence for this is precisely the same as, only more dramatic and of more permanent action, than the evidence for volcanic effects. Do you think that the phase of the PDO has a causal effect on the climate that can augment or reduce any multivariate warming or cooling trend produced by the other factors, including CO_2? The evidence that it does is actually very strong, stronger than the combined evidence that CO_2 plays an important role, to the extent that one can extract a CO_2 “signal” from what is now three other natural factors that appear to have a significant impact on the time evolution of the climate. What about the NAO? What about the state of the global thermohaline circulation and complex feedbacks at the parts of the world where haline density overcomes thermal stratification and the surface current sinks to return at great depth or the parts of the world where the current at depth is displaced by high density haline sinking fluid to rise, carrying an image of system state laid down some centuries earlier to the surface? What about solar state, both the direct variability of the solar output power (which is small) and the solar magnetic interaction with the Earth that very definitely has observable effects on radiation screening and things like ozone production in the upper atmosphere (which is largely unknown in its effects on the climate, but is at least partially correlated with major climate eras of the past in the complex multivariate system)? What about the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit, which produces a 90 watts/m^2 variation of the total solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere over the course of a year, a variation that dwarfs all of the rest of the variability in forcing put together)?

Most of this is highly, highly, nonlinear. All of it is coupled. The effect (if any) of variable solar state could be dependent on the state of the entire Earth climate system and its past state as the time evolution of the climate requires either the completely detailed solution of every major heat source, sink and capacity from the mantel of the Earth on up to the TOA or one has to solve a non-Markovian problem where the climate today depends in part on what the climate was ten years ago or a hundred years ago when (for example) the water that is welling to the surface near Antarctica now was actually last on the surface where its state was directly coupled to the climate of that time.

The complexity of the problem is partially revealed in the Perturbed Parameter Ensemble runs of the GCMs. Tiny parameter changes relative to a given initial condition don’t produce bundle of solutions tightly bound to a nice, deterministic trajectory. It produces a diverging bundle of solutions. If one makes even major changes — completely rebalances the effects of CO_2 compared to other stuff — one simply gets a differently diverging bundle, one that very likely overlaps the bundle originally produced.

What that means — technically — is that the inverse problem is not solvable. One quite literally cannot look at the climate and infer the effect of CO_2 from the temperature series, or predict the temperature series even from a perfect knowledge of the physics of CO_2. One cannot even do a good job of producing probabilities that any given model’s assignment of a “total climate sensitivity” to additional CO_2 are correct, partly because the overlap and lack of an inverse allow inference to be used in precisely the wrong direction, as is the rule and not the exception in climate science.

The right direction is this. Nature is probably “right” — that is, what happens in nature is likely to be the most probably outcome of the physics, not the least probable outcome of the physics. Any other assumption is madness and an open invitation to confirmation bias, cherrypicking, storytelling, and all of the manifold abuses of science attendant upon a claim that a model is more likely to be correct than the nature the model is modelling. Models — as is the rule throughout all physical science! — must indeed be tested against nature (and not the other way around) in order to be validated as plausibly being correct models and sufficiently accurate to be of predictive use. When an untested model fails to agree with nature, we do not assume that nature is off on a comparatively improbable track, we assume that the model has failed unless and until it produces good agreement with nature.

Finally, as anyone who does modelling professionally well knows, one cannot validate any model with its training data, with a reference set used to tune the model parameters. Most complex models are effectively overcomplete bases and can easily fit almost any behavior over a finite interval while being completely wrong outside of that interval. That’s the fundamental problem with all of heuristic curve fitting of the temperature record to sine functions, linear trends, correlations across some finite segment with some proposed external causal agency (one at a time or all together). One can get an absolute perfect curve fit to a small segment of the data (as HenryP insists on doing) with some set of basis functions, but there is quite literally no mathematical reason to expect that the fit will extrapolate outside of the training set being fit. It might. It might not. It might for a while and then suddenly decide to change. This is absurdly true for chaotic trajectories, characterized by the property of never being able to be extrapolated forward with simple curves for arbitrary time intervals. (I could say much more about Taylor series, polynomial or non-polynomial representations, uniform convergence on intervals, and so on, but either you’ve taken real math and I don’t have to or else I’d have to give you a whole course in functional analysis with trivial examples of the substantial risk of building extrapolatory models without a sound physical foundation.)

So yes, please, think about volcanic aerosols, human aerosols, volcanic and human particulates, the interaction of the above with patterns of humidity, cloud formation, rainfall, vertical heat transport in the form of latent heat, and the substantial variation of effective albedo brought about both by the direct effect of the aerosols themselves and their effect on cloud nucleation in semisaturated air. Think about how the decadal oscillations, the global atmospheric oscillations and variations in trade winds and the jet stream vary the pattern of delivery of humid air to concentrations of aerosols (which are often not particularly well mixed because they are being produced by sources localized in space and time). Think about how the particular month of the year might matter since the Earth might be getting 90 watts/m^2 more TOA TSI at one time of the year compared to another, so a volcano that goes off in the northern hemisphere in the winter might have a completely different effect than one that goes off in the southern hemisphere in the summer, and both might have completely different climate impact compared to a tropical volcano at any time of year. Consider how that effect might be further modulated by what the sea surface and thermohaline circulation are doing, by modulation of stratospheric water content or ozone, by solar magnetic effects. Then tell me that this is settled science, that we know what the net impact of increased CO_2 in this non-Markovian whirl of natural nonlinear multivariate dynamics is.

I think not. I don’t think we even have a good idea.

But you, of course, are welcome to linearize, trivialize, and believe anything you like. Everybody likes a good story.

rgb

194. Gail Combs says:

rgbatduke says: @ March 6, 2014 at 8:24 am

We should still be trying to figure out the unknown unknowns instead of making far reaching economic policies.

Thanks for a great comment.

195. Michael Whittemore
Good questions to ask you are do you understand that volcanic eruptions cause cooling?

Henry says
My A-C wave for the drop in maximum temperatures
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
obviously does not reflect exactly at the same time what happens to temperatures on earth. Earth has an intricate way of storing energy in the oceans. There is also earth’s own volcanic action, lunar interaction, the turning of Earth’s inner iron core, electromagnetic force changes, etc. etc.
It seems to me that a delay of about 5 years either way is quite normal. That would place the half cycle time as observed from earth at around 50 years, on average. 50 years of warming followed by 50 years of cooling.
Not only volcanic eruptions cause cooling but more greenery causes cooling too. Or did you not know that to manufacture complex sugars from CO2 (photosynthesis) consumes energy?
however, all these factors are small when compared to the measure of energy

David Dohbro says

Instead the data supports “an accelerating global cooling” (since the trend over the last 5yrs is more negative than that over the past 10yrs, which in turn is more negative than that over the past 15yrs)

Henry says
You got that right. My data says the same thing.

@PhilJourdan
It looks like all the media and the whole world still believe that somehow global warming will soon be back on track again. Clearly, as shown, this is just wishful thinking. All current results show that global cooling will continue. As pointed out earlier, those that think that we can put more carbon dioxide in the air to stop the cooling are just not being realistic. There really is no hard evidence supporting the notion that (more) CO2 is causing any (more) warming of the planet, whatsoever. On same issue, there are those that argue that it is better to be safe than sorry; but, really, as things are looking now, they are now also beginning to stand in the way of progress. Those still pointing to melting arctic ice and NH glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2013-88= we are in 1925.

Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?

Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back. I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950. Antarctic ice is already increasing.

• @HenryP – you seem to be in agreement with Drs. Curry & Wyatt’s Stadium wave. At least the evidence agrees with their proposition.

196. Jack Mott says:

The data set used to get the 17.5 year pause was the TTS, which measure temperatures in both the troposphere (which is warming) and the stratosphere (which is cooling). So the lack of any trend is exactly what would be expected. It is flat over any time scale, not just 17.5 years. Greenhouse gasses cause warming only in the troposphere and the same RSS data, confirms that as well. You can play with it at a glance here: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

197. Daniel says:

Phil’s Dad says: “Hippocrates whose famous oath Doctors still follow. Your comments stand but Doctors in particular should know at least this much.
From Hippocrates’ Aphorisms
“Life is short, and Art long; the crisis fleeting; experience perilous, and decision difficult.””

Yes. a worthy quote, but Hippocrates also said

“Let food by thy medicine and medicine be thy food”.

Something the drug-dealing quacks ought to remember more often… though of course they don’t know anything about healthy nutrition since medical schools don’t teach it… and the mainstream nutritionists are full of dogma and food industry propaganda. Without healthy brains we can’t think right, people! Mens sana in corpore sano.
Fruit for the win! ;D

but my rant digresses… back to the excellent exposure of elitist ecocommie lies.

198. Daniel says:

typo… Let food BE thy medicine. Sorry.

199. Dr. Strangelove (March 5, 2014 at 10:42 pm):

You’ve posed some excellent questions. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer them.

In answering, I must employ the mathematical concepts termed “proper subset,” “Cartesian product” and “partition.” The definitions of these terms are easy to find on the Web.

According to Wikipedia, “randomness means lack of pattern or predictability in events.” In answering your questions, I’ll go with this definition of “randomness.” Under this definition, the information theoretic function that is called the “entropy” quantifies the randomness. In a univariate statistical model, the entropy is unconditional and is usually termed the “entropy.” In a multivariate statistical model, the entropy is conditional and is usually termed the “conditional entropy.” That a system is controllable implies that the entropy of the associated model is conditional. That the entropy is conditional implies that observation of the condition provides the controller with information about the unobserved outcome; otherwise, the controller has no such information.

In a univariate statistical model, an event may be described by the state of nature that is called the “outcome” of this event. In a multivariate statistical model, an event may be descibed by pairing of an outcome with a condition, where a “condition” is a state of nature. A “prediction” is an extrapolation from a condition to an outcome in which the condition has been observed and the outcome has not been observed but is observable. In a univariate statistical model, an “observed event” is an event in which the outcome has been observed. In a multivariate statistical model, an “observed event” is an event in which the condition and outcome have both been observed.

A “condition” is a proper subset in the Cartesian product of the values that are taken on by the associated multivariate statistical model’s independent variables. By the definition of terms, a multivariate statistical model features two or more conditions.

A condition is an element of a partition of the Cartesian product referenced in the previous paragraph. Under circumstances encountered in the construction of a multivariate statistical model of a complex system, Cartesian products of infinite number are candidates for use by the model builder. Each such Cartesian product is associated with a different value for the conditional entropy. A “pattern” is an element in that partition among the many which, in some sense of the word is “best.” A logically defensible definition of “best” is “conditional entropy minimizing.”

Associated with a time series is a set of event descriptions, each of which features a pairing of a value of a dependent variable of a model with a value of the time. Despite similarities, such a pairing must not be confused with a pairing of an outcome with a pattern. It is the latter pairing that gives rise to the ideas of conditional entropy and randomness.

In the first of your questions you ask: “How can you say randomness is not a property of time series?” I answer that “I can say this because the conditional entropy is the property of a multivariate statistical model referencing events described by pairings of patterns with outcomes. These events are not properties of a time series.”

In the second of your questions you ask: “If unobserved events are the Y-axis of a time series, how can you plot the points?” I answer that: “The premise to your question that ‘unobserved events are the Y-axis of a time series’ is incorrect.”

By the way, for the climate models of AR4 and AR5, there are no events that are described by pairings of outcomes with patterns. For global warming climatology and for the prospects for controlling Earth’s climate through modulation of the rate of manmade CO2 emissions, this lapse has consequences that are perfectly disastrous.

If you have further questions or comments please bring them to my attention so I can address them.

200. Michael Whittemore says:

rgbatduke says:
March 6, 2014 at 8:24 am

HenryP says:
March 6, 2014 at 10:27 am

Science is saying that CO2 is a green house gas that is increasing and causing more warming. Of cause the climate system is complex, which is why I tried to point that out to Henry. We can’t just simply look at the actual atmospheric temperature and pass judgment. Everything you said has to be considered. I have not read a paper that has taken everything you have stated into consideration, but the papers that do take in some of it have concluded that the Earth is warming and CO2 is the most likely cause. http://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=52

201. philincalifornia says:

Michael Whittemore says:
March 6, 2014 at 8:28 pm
Science is saying that CO2 is a green house gas that is increasing and causing more warming.
——————————————-
Michael, if you learn anything from this site, it will be that real scientists don’t lead with conclusions.

…. it can lead to the conclusion being contradicted within the same post.

I realize you’re not a scientist and I’d like to explain more, but probably won’t have time. Someone else might help.

202. Michael Whittemore says:

philincalifornia says:
March 6, 2014 at 9:24 pm

Are you suggesting that I have contradicted myself in my post?

203. the graph you quoted has been seriously doctored by all sorts of “known” effects and substances.
However, the actual reality is this:

We have started globally cooling, and as somebody else has remarked: the cooling is accelerating.
That more CO2 causes more warming has not been proven, at all. I suggest you try to follow
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
The truth has been turned around: More warming causes more CO2!!!
we know that there are giga tons and giga ons of bicarbonates in the oceans:
(more) heat + HCO3- => (more) CO2 +OH-

204. PhilJourdan says
@HenryP – you seem to be in agreement with Drs. Curry & Wyatt’s Stadium wave. At least the evidence agrees with their proposition.

Henry says
As far as I know, that would be the first time ever somebody was able to duplicate my results
although I have always known it is as easy as first year stats.
What paper/work are you referring to?

205. Henry says
I see that I ended quite abruptly
I meant to say in the last sentence that the effects of GHG’s and photosynthesis etc are all small compared to the measure of energy coming through the atmosphere

206. philincalifornia says:

Michael Whittemore says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:34 am
——————
Yes.

Your first sentence says that it is. Your last sentence says that it may be.

207. Peter OBrien says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:27 am

I prefer CACA, ie Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism.

208. rgbatduke says:

the graph you quoted has been seriously doctored by all sorts of “known” effects and substances.
However, the actual reality is this:

I don’t always agree with HenryP, as he has a tendency to worship extrapolatory curve fitting which is known to be bad science and bad statistics both, but his graphs are compelling if one accepts that the “trend” lines are merely a guide to the eye and will vary with the choice of endpoints. Monckton, of course, draws his trend lines back to 1997-ish because they are non-positive for dates (carefully) selected at least that far back. The data actually speaks for themselves rather well even with no guides to the eye or meaningless linear trend fits at all:

Here I added a single trend to emphasize the fact that temperatures were basically flat from the early 40’s to the mid-80’s (although they can also be cherrypicked to be actually descending from the early 40’s through the late 70’s just as easily). The slope of the trend is small, far smaller than the evident noise of short term and medium term fluctuations which by itself produces fluctuation extrema spanning a range of 0.6C over time intervals as short as two years in multiple places in the graph, indicating that this kind of short term fluctuation is natural. With or without this trend line, the planet has warmed around 0.4 to 0.5 C over the last 70 years, with nearly all of the net warming occurring in a single period of perhaps 15 years.

This warming is remarkably similar to:

where again I draw a single trend to indicate that temperatures were nearly flat for almost 40 years, and then went up by around 0.4 C over 20 years. Within the evident noise and probable error, the late 20th century warming and the early 20th century warming (rates) — that also produced an “alarming” melting of the Arctic ice as clearly documented in the news coverage of the 30’s — are empirically indistinguishable. Since some fraction of the late 20th century warming is pure UHI corruption of the land-based temperatures that contribute to it (and this corruption is a systematic warm bias in the thermometric data that HADCRUT4 does not correct for) it is probable that the late 20th century data at least (a time when the world’s population at least tripled) should have a monotonically increasing $\Delta T$ subtracted from it on the right, in addition to establishing a band of systematically increasing probable instrumental/sampling error as one moves back in time to the left.

Correcting for both, both the magnitude of the net warming in all of HADCRUT4 and the rate of warming or cooling throughout are in considerable doubt. The slope of the warming in the late 20th century is reduced by the slope of systematic UHI bias contributing to it. The reliability of any sort of trend fit to the reduced slope is reduced by widening error bars into the past. A good, scientific conclusion might be “we don’t know how much the world has warmed or cooled in the past, or exactly when it warmed or cooled, or why it warmed or cooled, but it appears likely that it has warmed and cooled by as much as 0.4 C distributed over as little as 1-2 decades at several points in the last 150 years, with an overall net warming of around 0.4 C.”

This is not alarming, not catastrophic, not extreme, not unprecedented. It is merely honest.

rgb

209. @rgb
there are no calibration certificates of thermometers before 1940? There was no automatic recording either….
the warming follows a clear trend if you study the energy coming through the atmosphere
(hint: look at maximum temperatures, it is a good proxy)

210. Michael Whittemore says:

HenryP says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:35 am

rgbatduke says:
March 7, 2014 at 10:40 am

Its cooling?. The oceans have to be considered. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

philincalifornia says:
March 7, 2014 at 9:01 am

I said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has! to increase the temperature of the Earth. The paper I referenced takes out some major weather influences to show a steady increase in global surface temperatures, you cant say that all of the warming they show is from CO2 but it has been shown that it is most likely all from CO2.

211. @PhilJourdan
Yes, they seem to come to the same conclusion as me
they say it will be cooling until 2030, I say it will be cooling until at least 2038, and most probably about 6 or 7 years after that as well.
However, they looked at different / difficult parameters.
They heard the bells ringing but I fear they don’t know why they make a noise.
I say it is because of the planets, and their relative position in space which either have a braking effect (cooling, happening now) or a speeding action (warming, ended 1998) on a certain type of energy emitted by the sun. This affects the manufacturing of ozone and peroxides and nitric oxides lying TOA. If the braking were not there we could have runaway warming.
How cleverly this was put together…..how big is our God?
Before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense, there was one man who had also figured this out correctly, back in 1985. It appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
I wonder whatever happened to William Arnold?
Obviously this reality does mean that if something happens to the balance of gravity in our planetary system, we are all dead.

212. Michael Whittemore says
I said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has! to increase the temperature of the Earth.

Henry says
First of all, I should tell you that skeptical science is not skeptical, because if they were why would they have banned me and censored all my posts??
CO2 is a trace gas and its concentration has risen from 0.03% 100 years ago to 0.04% now. If you want to claim that this change in the atmosphere causes any warming you have to come up with a balance sheet, showing us exactly how much warming and how much cooling is caused by hat very 0.01 change in the atmosphere. I queried a number of scientists on this, including dr Alley and others. None could supply me with the balance sheet. You can read my musings here:
:

If you really want to understand what GHG’s do – they are not only causing warming, they also cause cooling – then you should make an effort to try and understand what I am saying. Just follow the above link and try to get into my mind.

The proposed mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.

It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.

Now, if you were to carefully examine my tables that I have quoted earlier then you might stumble upon a few interesting facts. First of all, overall, globally speaking, minima have not been rising at all..The only places where I could find minima rising faster was in Las Vegas where a desert was turned into a paradise in a small space of time. OTOH, in Tandil in Argentine, where they chopped all the trees down, I found minima were dropping faster then anywhere on earth.

Now, what if anything, could we all learn from that?

Perhaps it is that if you want a greener world, it HAS TO BE a warmer world?

213. philincalifornia says:

Michael Whittemore says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:15 pm

philincalifornia says:
March 7, 2014 at 9:01 am

I said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has! to increase the temperature of the Earth.
————————————————-
Because you say so, off the top of your non-scientist head ?? Errrrrmmmm, no.

Why don’t you f-kin prove it with some data, and not just data that shows that the earth warmed for a few years recently ? We all know that.

You also didn’t address your lack of understanding of the English language when you said that it “has to” to quote you in this most recent post and then you said “maybe it has to” in your last sentence in that earlier post. Don’t run and hide. It doesn’t work in a public thread.

Don’t worry though, even people like Nick Stokes are arguing the semantics of court filings to prove that purported anthropogenic CO2 is causing anything other than immeasurable effects on the planet’s climate.

You don’t fool people on this site. Go educate yourself on the scientific idiocy of leading with a “top of the head” conclusion. It’s actually quite infantile, although you will never know it.

214. Michael Whittemore says:

HenryP says:
March 8, 2014 at 9:25 am

The reason I and others most likely disregard what you say is due to you not considering the big picture of anthropogenic climate change. Only 3% of global warming goes into the atmosphere, yet you seem to be fixated on it http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=12. I would just like to see you take into consideration the other 97%! When you see a cooling trend in all 100% of the warming (minus natural influences) then people will take you seriously.

philincalifornia says:
March 8, 2014 at 2:16 pm

I already referenced the paper I was discussing, so there is your data regarding what I am talking about. The paper says “[Global Warming’s] unabated increase is powerful evidence that we can expect further temperature increase in the next few decades, emphasizing the urgency of confronting the human influence on climate.” The paper infers that the warming is human induced and is why I have to state it is most “likely” the cause of the warming trend.

You seem to think that me stating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which will cause warming on the planet is not based on science. The science for that is well documented http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

215. @philincalifornia
I suggest we leave old Whittemore to cook in his own fat (in the SS!)
Once he sees that he will have to keep shoving snow later and later in Spring, maybe he will wake up. Clearly, he has no understanding of what sort of testing results we would require, neither does he want to find out for himself.

for example, one of the methods of identifying CO2 on other planets is to pick up the deflection in the relevant absorption region of CO2 in the UV. This proves that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere. It deflects solar radiation out to space. There are also absorptions of CO2 between 1 and 2 and between 4 and 5 um.

To finalize this matter we can ask Whittemore one simple question:
where is the balance sheet, based on all the absorptions 5-20 um showing the amount of warming caused by deflected earthshine and based on all absorptions of CO2 0-5 um showing the amount of cooling by deflected sunshine. If he does not answer these questions he has no right to speak.
He is simply just ignorant and wants to stay that way.

216. Michael Whittemore says:

HenryP says:
March 9, 2014 at 2:43 am

I remember reading in one of your comments about this, table, something about you asking others for it but they did not give you an answer, I would suggest because there is no science to back it up. A peer reviewed paper that has a table which explains CO2 causes a cooling effect on earth, right now, that needs to be considered and would disprove anthropogenic climate change? I hope you can hear how ridicules that sounds.

217. Michael Whittemore says:

218. Steve Keohane says:

Michael Whittemore says:March 7, 2014 at 8:28 pm
We all know skepticalscience is not. Posting links to there are a joke.

219. Henry says
the people in your video all claim that the warmth is now somehow “hiding” in the oceans.
So, how do you explain then that the sea surface temperature anomaly clearly shows that SST is cooling by as much as the land surface temperatures from 2001? see here:
The floats are still new and may well have calibration or other teething problems.
The reason I know that we will continue to cool in the future is because I understand how the distribution of energy from the sun will be in the future:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

This is my best fit based on the fall in maximum temperatures as reported in my tables earlier on.
Indeed, I hope this is the best fit fore my data, because any other best fit would have us end up in much more global cooling.
So, there is not going to be any more global warming. Not for the next 3 or 4 decades. There will only be more global cooling.

Currently, you would not notice much change in temperature at the lower latitudes as more water vapor condenses here which releases enormous amounts of energy. However, we can see that the jets have moved south, hence the flooding of England….

I did pick up a definitive trend at the higher latitudes:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/01/southern-sea-ice-area-minimum-2nd-highest-on-record/
Even Nasa admits that antarctic ice is increasing
We are cooling from the top [90] latitudes down. Lost arctic ice will all freeze back from 2025 to 2040 as also happened from 1935 to 1950.
Danger from global cooling must not be underestimated.
According to my calculations we are about 7 years off from the start of a similar drought period as happened on the Great Plains of America in 1932-1939.

220. Michael Whittemore says:

Steve Keohane says:
March 9, 2014 at 7:05 am

All Skeptical Science does is do a summary of peer reviewed papers on climate change? I could just link you all the papers that are in that one link I provided. Here is a portion of them..

HenryP says:
March 9, 2014 at 8:28 am

Not one person in that video says the heat is “hiding”?? They don’t say that because it’s not true. As what was stated by Lyman & Johnson (2013) “In recent years, from 2004 to 2011, while the upper ocean is not warming, the ocean continues to absorb heat at depth (e.g., Levitus et al. 2012; von Schuckman and Le Traon 2011), here estimated at a rate of 0.56 W m-2 when integrating over 0–1800 m.” As can be seen in this graph http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/BTK13Fig1.jpg

For everything else that you said, don’t give up your day job.

221. Michael Whittemore says:
222. @Whittemore
. Those still pointing to melting arctic ice and NH glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2013-88= we are in 1925.

Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?

Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back. I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950….
As the people in Alaska have noted,

the cold weather in 2012 was so bad there that they did not get much of any harvests. My own results show that it has been cooling significantly in Alaska, at an average rate of -0.55 degree C per decade since 1998. see here ( average from 10 weather stations from Alaska)

That is almost one whole degree C since 1998. And it seems NOBODY is telling the poor farmers there that it is not going to get any better.

NASA also admits now that antarctic ice is increasing significantly, see here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/#more-96133

We are globally cooling from the top [90] latitudes downwards
I pray to God that you all wake up soon, before it is too late. Danger from global cooling must not be underestimated.

WHAT MUST WE DO?

We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.

223. Michael Whittemore says:

224. Robert A. Taylor says:

Michael Whittemore says:
March 10, 2014 at 7:46 am
. . .
As what was stated by Lyman & Johnson (2013) “In recent years, from 2004 to 2011, while the upper ocean is not warming, the ocean continues to absorb heat at depth (e.g., Levitus et al. 2012; von Schuckman and Le Traon 2011), here estimated at a rate of 0.56 W m-2 when integrating over 0–1800 m.”

What is the mechanism that transports current heating directly to the deeper oceans without first heating the shallower levels. The only ones I am familiar will, such as the thermohaline circulation, take decades or centuries to do the transport. This would mean the warming, if actually present, would have been from shallower warming decades to centuries ago.

225. Michael Whittemore says:

Robert A. Taylor says:
March 11, 2014 at 1:09 pm

There are many processes that cause ocean heating, but a key focus is on La Nina’s. This process brings deep cold ocean waters to the surface and in doing so causes a vacuum effect for warm surface water (in other areas) to fill the void. Since the Hiatus there has been a strong La Nina presences http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/enso-global-temp-anom/201213.png

The next point that needs to be addressed is the deep ocean heat is not well distributed throughout the ocean. It is focused in key areas where La Nina’s form, trade wings blow and areas with high sea level rise. Willis Eschenbach has a good graph that shows the warming is spread out http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/trend-ocean-0to2000m-temps-argo-2005-2012.jpg. The idea is science found that the warming must have been sequestering to the deep ocean so they started measuring down to 1800m. They found that indeed the deep ocean heat content had been increasing http://skepticalscience.com//pics/LymanJohnson13Table1.png

226. Robert A Taylor says to M.Whittemore

Henry says
Clearly, unless you are a dummie chartered from the SS site, you have nothing to thank M. for.
He and his ilk are only keeping mankind behind as far as possible in (deep sea) ignorance…..
What you need to try and understand is the process whereby radiation from the sun is transferred to warmth in the water of the oceans. Do you know the process whereby light from the sun is transferred to heat in the water?

227. Robert A. Taylor says:

HenryP says:
March 12, 2014 at 10:42 am
Henry says

Clearly, unless you are a dummie chartered from the SS site, you have nothing to thank M. for.
He and his ilk are only keeping mankind behind as far as possible in (deep sea) ignorance…..
What you need to try and understand is the process whereby radiation from the sun is transferred to warmth in the water of the oceans. Do you know the process whereby light from the sun is transferred to heat in the water?

I have been a confirmed skeptic on CAGW since the catastrophism changed from the disastrous coming “ice age”, and I was skeptical about that. I will thank any warmist who actually presents evidence and rational arguments instead of name calling, which I deplore. This is supposed to be a science website. Why don’t you present the rebuttals to his comments and links? I do not have the time and Internet access to.

Michael Whittemore says:
March 12, 2014 at 4:32 am

Thank you for your totally unexpected reply. Most warmist ( I hope you do not mind the term ) who comment here are impolite, and refuse to stick to the point.

I understand what you are conveying in your comments and links and have since before warmists would admit how much they mattered. It is a shame that “settled” climate science refused to do so for years, and refused to acknowledge skeptics trying to point out how much natural variation there actually is.

Perhaps you should review the history and context of “d*e*n*i*e*r” ( Vide HenryP says:
March 12, 2014 at 10:42 am ) to discover why it is so offensive. Also be aware that using “climate change” instead of “anthropogenic catastrophic climate change or global warming”, or some such is an ancient dishonorable propaganda technique of using common words and phrasing giving one impression to the ordinary people while actually meaning something else entirely. In the case of CAGW skeptics, such as myself it gives the impression we are so stupid, ignorant, or insane that we believe climate does not change, and that is and always has been the obvious intention. It is also unfortunate that the warmists refuse to use the paleoclimate history of our current ice age with many glacials and interglacials as the basis of natural climate variability, and thus misunderstand the natural variability.

Calculations, logic, computerized models prove nothing; only observation and experiment offer tentative proofs. To say “pause” or a synonym is to assume an unproven outcome. Furthermore, the warming could resume, cooling could resume, there could be no significant change. We won’t know till it happens.

Is it proper to kill people now, injure people through sickness and horrible living conditions now, hold people living in destitution now, forcing others into destitution now, hold people in poverty now, forcing others into poverty now for the sake of possible unconfirmed damage in the far future?
Is it proper and rational for the U.S.A. to unilaterally or with the E.U. to limit its economy producing the above ( Vide fuel poverty in the U.K. ), when it is utterly unlikely the developing world will follow in this cruel policy?
Will you condemn and correct the demagogues using CAGW for their personal or political advantage.
What is your “carbon footprint” versus the median in the U.S.A. In other words do you practice what you preach. I was taught believe what people do not what they say. An ancient method of testing ethics and morality is: “What would happen if everyone did that?” So, what would happen if everyone went around preaching about CAGW, but no one personally did anything about it?
Are you in anyway paid or compensated by the warmist government, NGO, and industry? ( I am not any anyway paid or compensated by the other side. )
Are you in anyway paid or compensated for commenting here? ( I am not. )
What would happen to you if you became a CAGW skeptic?
And, would we CAGW skeptics be better off financially, professionally, and socially if we switched sides?
Will you comment on how SkS alters posts based upon skeptical commenters’ comments without identifying how and when, then leaves in the comments giving the impression the commenter is a fool?
I have yet to find one warmist who will answer those questions.

I would like to present the rebuttals to all you have commented and the links you have given in over abundance, but I simply do not have they time and Internet access to. I suggest you read the posts and comments on WUWT by Willis Eschenback, rgbatduke ( a physics professor ), justthefacts ( a retired physics professor ), and many others quite knowledgeable in the various fields. I suggest starting with “It Isn’t How Climate Scientists Communicated their Message; It’s the Message” and going to rgbatduke says: March 7, 2014 at 8:01 am , and “The group the ‘Right Climate Stuff’ says there’s no need to worry about catastrophic global warming”

There is always a lunatic fringe at the edges of all sides of every question. Do not take CAGW skeptics for their fringe group. Most are far more knowledgeable and educated, and have spent far more time investigating the issue than most warmists.

I’m out of time. TTFN

228. Michael Whittemore says:

Robert A. Taylor says:
March 12, 2014 at 1:29 pm

I do not mind the term, warmest.

Your comment about proponents of anthropogenic climate change not considering natural variation, they do the best they can. Climate models can’t predict volcanic eruptions, reduced solar activity, El Nino/La Nina, increased ocean heat uptake and many other climate processes. This is why climate models focus more on the upward trend that should be expected from increased CO2 downward radiation. Climate modelers know that even if the heat goes into the ocean or atmosphere, it is not going to disappear and over time the trend should be correct. But to try and prove their point, they have gathered all the data from ocean heat uptake, volcanic eruptions and solar influences to input them into climate models. Here are their findings http://www.skepticalscience.com/pacific-ocean-global-warming-puzzle-Kosaka-Xie.html

I understand the implications of using the word denier, I don’t use it but I do understand why it is used. In all my comments I’m usually very punctual to ensure that I use the term anthropogenic climate change. Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not a statistically right term to use as the consensus on climate sensitivity is about 3 degrees of warm. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Climate_Sensitivity_500.jpg

Your comment states “It is also unfortunate that the warmists refuse to use the paleoclimate history of our current ice age with many glacials and interglacials as the basis of natural climate variability, and thus misunderstand the natural variability.” This is an interesting comment because science has looked at our last ice age and has determined the mechanisms that made it happen. It also uses that information to determine climate sensitivity http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html. My previous graph has a section for paleoclimate based climate sensitivity studies which focuses on lots of different eras.

You mention that “the warming could resume, cooling could resume, there could be no significant change. We won’t know till it happens.” With increased downward radiation from anthropogenic CO2 it is expected that even if we see cooling in the climate system, the heat will just be transferring from place to place, as in there should not be a cooling over all until the Earth is in balance. With only 2.3% of anthropogenic CO2 warming going into the atmosphere, it is not the best place to consider when determining if the Earth as a whole is in balance.

“Is it proper to kill people now” Here in Australia we have one of the highest carbon taxes in the world, and its very simple. The money raised from the tax is given back to the people as income tax reductions. The remainder is given to funding green technology and also the developing world. The basic idea is, people look for cheaper, green options. My carbon foot print is low, I pay extra for my electricity because all my power is supplied from green technology, zero carbon. I have a small car that I drive to work. Society has to change first and that is best done with the introduction of a carbon tax.

No I am not paid, if anything I pay through the nose to go to university to learn about climate change. In saying that, it would be extremely hard for me to become a skeptic, I have the ability to research all the science and it seems straightforward to suggest CO2 is a greenhouse gas that will increase the temperature of the Earth, it is just a matter of how much. Another key finding was looking at the temperature of the earth over the last 500 million years and confirming that CO2 governed how warm the earth was http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm

Regarding skeptical science, from what you have stated does not sound that bad, the science is spot on there and is all backed up with peer reviewed papers. Editing comments sounds trivial and I would be nice to see proof of it happening.

I read rgbatduke comment and it does not disprove anything, only really points out that science is complex. The right stuff science guys, well that is just some peoples opinions. Of cause if the right stuff it is found to be true, that will be great, but you can see that they are talking about it without getting it peer reviewed, a clear indicator it won’t be published.

229. Robert A Taylor says
Henry says
I am sorry thinking you were a dummy. I can see you are quite clever.
I have tried on many occasions now to show Michael that the weather is governed by solar activity and planetary movement, as has been well known for a long time,

e.g.
I can refer to this study here:
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
which shows that are at least two known cycles that influence the weather.
The Gleissberg solar/weather cycle (87-88 years) was known for a long time.
Here is another study confirming it:
quote
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes

Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar-terrestrial, and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar-terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle appears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale ˜2000 years.

end quote

By studying the drop in the speed of maximum temperatures I have been able to pinpoint the exact point where we currently are in that particular cycle. Here you can see the summary of my results:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

The bottom for the curve appears to be in 2016. This corresponds with a similar point in history at around 1927. (one year error is fine) . The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml

So that is how I know. We are 7 years away from disaster. Unless we do something now.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/#comment-1587595

230. Michael Whittemore says:

Robert A. Taylor says:
March 12, 2014 at 1:29 pm

231. Henry@ Whittemore

You must be high up the in the SS hierarchies to know all these references….. It is apparent that you want to have the last word here, but clearly your last comment does not belong here. It is more appropriate here?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/13/an-article-from-1974-suggests-global-cooling-would-cause-more-extreme-weather/

I never said that an ice age was coming. In fact, I say that in 1972 we were at the height of global warming, where the speed of warming was at its highest. However, in those days we had many of those idiots in France and England and the USA who actually thought that it was OK to explode atomic bombs in the pacific. Hence, the man made global cooling around that time. (look at the destruction of pacific islands). We only see the biosphere going much greener in the past 3 decades (as observed from the satellites).
I also say that in 2016 we will be at the point where the speed of natural global cooling will be at its highest.We can only hope that there will not be another ice age.
Either way, there are ways for man to avoid the ice age trap if it comes.

232. Michael Whittemore says:

HenryP says:
March 13, 2014 at 10:51 am

That video was addressed to Robert regarding his comment “I have been a confirmed skeptic on CAGW since the catastrophism changed from the disastrous coming “ice age”, and I was skeptical about that.”

This next one is for you Henry.

233. Michael Whittemore says:

[trimmed]

[Do not submit video links without a description of that video’s content. Mod]

234. Henry@Whittemore
I don’t see the relevance of your video’s to me pinpointing exactly where we are in the Gleissberg solar/weather cycle.
You also still do not understand how we all figured out that the net effect of more CO2 is not causing any extra warming. We can see that from the development of minimum temperatures. If you look at the AR4 in 2007 you will acually find that they actually show / admit that the night temperatures (minima) have not been increasing, but they give a lame excuse for it. The mechanism of the GH effect implies that minima should be rising faster, pushing up the mean temperature. That is not happening, at all……..
\
hence my final report on this

http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

Due to the natural climate change (of the Gleissberg cycle) , more droughts will be coming
at the >[40] latitudes.

WHAT MUST WE DO?

We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.

235. Michael Whittemore says:

HenryP on March 13, 2014 at 11:47 pm

I have linked three videos to you, the first one was about cherry picking, the second explained the cause of increased sea ice in Antarctica and the third shows that the past temperature of the earth was governed by the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. My point is that even with the 90-year Gleissberg and ∼200-year de Vries cycles http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053624/abstract increased co2 is putting more energy into the system.

236. M.Whittemore says
co2 is putting more energy into the system.

Henry says
I wish it were possible, I am sure that more people would wish to have more of such a miracle substance. Unfortunately co2 is only a gas and it has only increased by about 0.01% in the atmosphere over the past 50 years or so. There is no mass for it to do what you claim it does?
In any case, you have not understood the very basics of the GH effect and you have not provided a balance sheet of each GHG, i.e. how much it cools and how much it warms http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/

we know that there are giga tons and giga ons of bicarbonates in the oceans:
Anyone who knows a little bit of chemistry knows that by warming the water you remove CO2 from it? So there is what we call a causal relationship. More warming causes more CO2.
(more) heat + HCO3- => (more) CO2 +OH-

The truth has been turned around: More warming causes more CO2!!!
The other way around has, i.e. that more CO2 causes more warming has not been proven.

237. philincalifornia says:

Michael, please do yourself a favor and stop trying to think that somehow you’re a scientist.

You cannot tell the difference between conjecture about how anthropogenic CO2 really, really should cause catastrophic global climate effects (the conjecture that has failed), and the empirical evidence, or lack thereof, that has demonstrated this failure.

I’m not even going to go back to my comments where I was trying to help you. Your responses are not just sh!t science, but are actually sh!t exercises in the English language too.

You’re like the guitarist in the Spinal Tap movie “These go to 11″.

238. Michael Whittemore,

OK, I read your link above. All of it. I didn’t want to, but I did in order to try and understand where you’re coming from. Your link has lots of assertions like this:

“A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects…”

That is typical anti-science from “SkepticalScience”. They use ‘studies’ as their Authority. But the real world flatly contradicts those ‘studies’.

You appear to be a hopeless True Believer. The world is filled with your kind of religious acolytes, but fortunately your numbers are dwindling fast — due in no small part to the fact that Planet Earth refuses to do what you endlessly predict.

Either the planet is right, or you are right. But you cannot both be right. The planet is decisively falsifying your cAGW nonsense. So who should we believe? Planet Earth? Or you?

I believe the real world. IMHO, that makes you a deluded nutcase.

239. Michael Whittemore says:

philincalifornia says:
March 14, 2014 at 10:27 pm

“You cannot tell the difference between conjecture about how anthropogenic CO2 really, really should cause catastrophic global climate effects (the conjecture that has failed), and the empirical evidence, or lack thereof, that has demonstrated this failure.”

This is very vague, do you have some facts?

240. Michael Whittemore says:

dbstealey says:
March 15, 2014 at 12:04 am

I am glad that you read the link. Your only point which you make is “The planet is decisively falsifying your cAGW nonsense.”. Can you give some examples of this?

241. That ‘explains’ nothing; all it does is impotently try to explain away the planet’s debunking of the repeatedly falsified ‘carbon’ scare, something that obviously still terrifies the Chicken Little crowd.

Please stop wasting my time with any more SkS nonsense. The fact is that throughout almost all of recorded history, there has been no correlation whatever between the rise in CO2 and a subsequent rise in temperature.

The only verifiable correlation shows that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T — not vice-versa. That fact alone debunks the “carbon” scare.

242. @M. Whttemore
here is the link with information that you should try to understand:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/carbon-rises-800-years-after-temperatures/
What this means is that temperature rises first, then CO2 rises proportionally, both reaching their peaks some 800 years apart. The culprit is the release of CO2 from the ocean via the thermohaline conveyor which cycles surface and deep ocean waters with periods as much as 1600 years. We do know that the deep ocean holds far more CO2 than the atmosphere – by a long shot – so the capability of being responsible for all of the excess CO2 presently in the atmosphere AND MORE is definitely there.
Anyone who knows a little bit of chemistry knows that by warming the water you remove CO2 from it? So there is what we call a causal relationship. More warming causes more CO2.
To put this in a chemical equation:
(more) heat + HCO3- => (more) CO2 (dissolved)+OH-
more (heat) + CO2 (dissolved) => CO2 (g)

243. Michael Whittemore says:

dbstealey says:
March 15, 2014 at 3:07 am

It cant be explained any better to you then the link I provided, Volcanic eruptions, la ninas, increased trade winds, reduced solar activity and many other processes, all reduce the temperature of the earth. They all need to be considered when looking at the atmospheric temperature record which only accounts for 2.3% of anthropogenic global warming from man made CO2. Just because you don’t understand the science and cant provide links to peer reviewed papers that back up what you are saying, does not mean we have to take what you say as anything more then an uneducated opinion.

It is amazing how much skeptics get it wrong, its a shame that skeptic blogs have to twist the truth and make up lies to try and prove a point. It means that people like yourself prate the information. Anyway science has shown that due to the earths orbit changing, it causes increased warming in the north that releases CO2 from the oceans. This CO2 then warms the whole plant (global warming). It is all explained here http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

The recorded climate history of the earth goes back over 500 million years! and yes, they have found that the temperature of the earth is governed by how much CO2 is in the air. I prefer the science to be explained in a video format when dealing with skeptics so here you go http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w5hs4KVeiAU

244. philincalifornia says:

Michael Whittemore says:
March 15, 2014 at 12:28 am
philincalifornia says:
March 14, 2014 at 10:27 pm

“You cannot tell the difference between conjecture about how anthropogenic CO2 really, really should cause catastrophic global climate effects (the conjecture that has failed), and the empirical evidence, or lack thereof, that has demonstrated this failure.”

This is very vague, do you have some facts?
——————————–

…… that would be all who have a modicum of comprehension skills, which excludes you.

245. Michael Whittemore says:

philincalifornia says:
March 15, 2014 at 5:50 am

So still nothing? Good luck with that Phil.

246. philincalifornia says:

Good luck to you too Michael.

247. Henry says
look Michael,
i think all of us have really tried our best to bring arguments towards all that nonsense being sold to you as gospel truth in that particular video, and clearly you have chosen to ignore those arguments as if they did not exist, or, most probably, you did not even read them, “because you know you are right”
Just as an example: the narrator in your video refers back to “tests” that were done 100 years ago by Tyndall and Arrhenius and others. However, they were all done in closed boxes….
So, that only refers to the absoprtion in the 5-20 um of the spectrum of the molecule’s back radiation to earth. In fact, in the case of CO2, there is only absorption in the 14-16 range and it is therefore most conclusively not a “powerful” GHG. What about the absorptions of CO2 in the 0-5 um region where the sun emits and that causes back radiation to space?
If you donot even understand how and why CO2 is also cooling the atmosphere, what can I do?
Perhaps if you were to study the behaviour of ozone, which crazy enough, is also classified as a GHG, you could possibly understand my argument?
I have explained it all in reasonable layman’s terms here
Good luck to you.

248. MW says:

“It cant be explained any better to you then the link I provided…”

You do not even understand your own links. In particular, you do not understand what scientific evidence means.

‘Evidence’ is empirical [real world] observations, or measured raw data. Evidence is not pal reviewed papers, or computer models, as you appear to believe.

So, post any evidence you can, showing that X amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere produces Y degrees of global warming. Any such evidence must be measurable and testable.

Everything you have posted up to now amounts to nothing more than baseless assertions. You have decided on the conclusion you want, so you cherry-pick whatever you can find to try and support your preconceived Belief. That, my friend, is not science. That is wishful thinking.

Now you have the opportunity to post what no one else has ever been able to show: specifically measurable, testable causality: how many degrees of global warming is caused by the addition of X amount of “carbon”?

Take your time, because if you can show that empirical measurement, you will be on the short list for a Nobel.

Otherwise, you are just floundering around like all the other climate alarmists who Believe in their own assertions, without any need for that pesky Scientific Method. But it is the Scientific Method — and not your self-serving, Belief-based assertions — that will convince scientific skeptics.

249. Henry said
I have explained it all in reasonable layman’s terms here
Good luck to you.
Henry says
I have noticed now that some ad comes in where I referred to the link with the picture in the above blog…. Nevermind all these things (outside people trying to “fix” my blog), I have now put in the whole picture that I was referring to, inside the blog. I don’t think anyone can put a block on that?

250. Michael Whittemore says:

Lets recap.. CO2 has been confirmed as a greenhouse gas and the amount of heat it radiates in the atmosphere can be measured. These measurements are then used to calculate how much warming the earth should see from a given amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. To try and best determine the amount of warming that can be expected from increasing CO2, science has looked at past CO2 increases and many other scenarios to determine this value http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Climate_Sensitivity_500.jpg

Because we know the amount of heat that is radiated from CO2, we can look back over the last 500 million years worth of climate records and determine if CO2 governed how warm the earth was. When we do this we see that CO2 was over 5000 ppm in the atmosphere 500 million years ago, compared to only 270ppm before the industrial revolution. The earth should have been extremely hot back then but it was not. Science found that the sun was 4% weaker 500 million years ago, and over that time to present, it has gradually increased to its current strength. When science looks at how hot the sun was and how much CO2 was in the atmosphere over the last 500 million years, it is only possible for the earth to be as hot as it was when you consider both the sun and CO2. If you only consider the sun, then the earth would have been an ice ball. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm

Now the question is, are the scientific predictions for antagonistic global warming from man made CO2 being observed, the answer is absolute yes. https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation-intermediate.htm

Some key points that everyone should know, only 2.3% of anthropogenic warming goes into the atmosphere, 97% of it goes into the oceans. What this means is, weather events like el ninos/la ninas, volcanic eruptions, ocean heat uptake, solar activity all need to be considered when looking at the atmospheric temperature record. Only then can you minus natural weather to determine how much warming is happening from anthropogenic CO2. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm

251. Let’s recap:

The major effect of CO2 occurs in the first 20 ppmv of the atmosphere. That is a measurable, testable fact.

As any fool can see, at current concentrations the effect of CO2 is so minuscule that it cannot be measured. It’s effect is simply too small to measure with current technology.

Next, the only correlation anyone has been able to measure shows that changes in CO2 are caused by changes in temperature. But Whittemore ignores cause and effect. He presumes that since changes in CO2 and temperature happen, that T is the cause. But as shown, that is simply not the case.

Effect cannot precede cause, no matter how much people like Whittimore Believe. There is simply no corresponding evidence showing that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T. That is a scientifically baseless belief. Thus, the only possible evidence-based conclusion is that temperature drives CO2; not vice-versa. Of course, that destroys the alarmists’ True Belief that “carbon” drives the global climate. There is absolutely zero measurable, testable evidence that it does.

If CO2 was the climate driver claimed by the Carbon Religionists, then this would not be happening. Instead, we would be observing a steadily rising global temperature. But Planet Earth does not agree with the wild-eyed catastrophists. Just the opposite: we have been in an extremely benign global climate for the past century and a half. Contrast the past century and a half with the wild temperature swings during the Holocene. Those T changes happened when CO2 was very low.

So the True Believers will continue to believe, because Belief is an emotion. It is not reason. And that emotion is why the crazies ignore the Scientific Method, the Null Hypothesis, and a multitude of real world observations that debunk their catastrophic AGW belief. They just cannot help themselves. Emotions control them; they are impervious to reason.

252. As explained before, the only time during my investigations where I did see minimum temperatures (minima) rising was in places where greenery was increasing. An example for this is Las Vegas, where, in a short time, a desert was turned into a lush green paradise. I observed exactly the opposite i.e. minima falling, there where people cut the trees away, as shown here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/11/10/de-forestation-causes-cooling/
So, in fact, the only (little) bit of AGW that I found in the temp. record is due to people wanting more lawns, more trees and more crops. So natural warming is a natural result of the planet becoming greener. So my question is: what do you want?
Now look at this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
More CO2 is better for the environment, because it enables more greenery. Hence the reason why the Dutch tomato growers are adding 1000 ppm CO2 to their greenhouses. It makes their tomatoes bigger.
More CO2 is OK. In fact, more CO2 is better. It is like dung in the air. Believe it.
God is good.

253. Henry P,

You are correct. CO2 is an airborne fertilizer, directly responsible for the measurable greening of the planet. The increase in CO2 has been entirely beneficial; there is no downside. With one-third of the planet’s population subsisting on \$2 a day or less, the rise in CO2 has literally made the difference between surviving and starvation for millions of people.

But some deluded true believers would, if they could, put a stop to CO2-induced prosperity. They would literally prefer to see people starve to death in order to be right, than to admit that they were competely wrong about the “carbon” scare. It is hard to imagine anyone more despicable than a climate alarmist who campaigns against that beneficial, life-giving trace gas.

As we here at the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” site know, all the hand-waving has been over a rise in CO2 from about three parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000. That rise has caused no measurable global warming. But even if it did, any such warming would be an added benefit to the biosphere. There is no downside to adding a little more CO2 to the atmosphere. None at all.

But Michael Whittemore says:

When science looks at how hot the sun was and how much CO2 was in the atmosphere over the last 500 million years, it is only possible for the earth to be as hot as it was when you consider both the sun and CO2.

“…only possible”?? That is complete nonsense. Dr. Lief Svalgaard is the resident Solar physicist and professor here, and he disputes the SkS nonsense about the Sun having that kind of an effect. So who should we believe? A nobody named M Whittemore, who argues by cutting and pasting pseudo-science written by a cartoonist? Or Lief — a published, peer reviewed solar physicist?

My money is on the credible scientist, not on the cartoonist and his acolyte.

Another credible scientist is Prof Richard Lindzen, the author of twenty dozen peer reviewed climate papers, and the head of M.I.T.’s Atmospheric Sciences department [but admittedly, he is not a cartoonist]. Dr. Lindzen writes that as measured at the equator, the planet’s temperature has remained constant, within ±1ºC for the past billion+ years. So much for “snowball earth” being controlled by CO2 and the Sun. There are certainly temperature fluctuations, but they have nothing measurable to do with CO2, or vice-versa. I have repeatedly posted charts, from time scales of years to hundreds of millennia, showing that CO2 follows temperature — not vice-versa. [I will re-post those charts on request]

Next, Whittemore opines: “…the scientific predictions for antagonistic global warming from man made CO2 being observed…”

More nonsense. Nothing like that is being “observed”. The fact is that not one prediction from the runaway global warming crowd has come to pass. Their central prediction — that the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2 will cause runaway global warming — has been so thoroughly debunked, discredited and ridiculed, that the alarmist crowd has stopped calling their failed prediction “runaway global warming”. Now, they use the vague term “climate change”. That change alone shows that they were wrong. They are just moving the goal posts, as always.

The climate alarmists’ central ‘catastrophic AGW’ prediction was based on always-wrong computer climate models. Not one GCM was able to predict the seventeen year HALT to global warming. Not one of them! Every model got that wrong. CO2 has continued to rise, even though the planet stopped warming many years ago. But because the climate alarmist crowd’s belief is based on emotion, not on rational thought, they are incapable of accepting that the Real World has falsified their beliefs.

Finally, Whittemore ends up parroting Trenberth’s ‘hidden heat in the deep ocean’ nonsense, as if heat doesn’t rise. They believe that somehow, heat has been lurking at the bottom of the cold ocean, just waiting to pounce. As if.

If it weren’t for constantly moving the goal posts, and “adjusting” the temperature record to always show scary warming, and engaging in psychological projection, and being afflicted with cognitive dissonance, and believing the ravings of a lunatic cartoonist, the alarmist crowd wouldn’t have very much to say. Not much at all.

When it comes to the Scientific Method, the Null Hypothesis, empirical observations, and simple common sense, those are the only times that the alarmist crowd goes silent. No wonder they have lost every public debate, and now they will not debate any more. Because they have no credible science, only their emotional True Belief.

254. Michael Whittemore says:

Is there a reason my comments are not showing?

255. Michael Whittemore says:

dbstealey says:
March 15, 2014 at 6:00 pm

CO2 has a logarithmic relationship but you have to take into account the rate of CO2 rise. This is why the IPCC has such a wide range of climate sensitivity values because they have to take into consideration how much anthropogenic CO2 will be released. Reference 1

Over the last 500 million years there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2, the only correlation that could be determined was that adding up the amount of sun hitting the earth and the forcing from CO2 added up to the temperature of the earth. If what you are saying was true, then CO2 and temperature would have correlated during this period, but it did not. CO2 can be reduced from weathering and increased from volcanic eruptions, completely independent of temperature rise. According to the Shakun et al. data, approximately 7% of the overall glacial-interglacial global temperature increase occurred before the CO2 rise, whereas 93% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase. Reference 2

Cherry picking atmospheric warming that only makes up 2.3% of anthropogenic global warming and not even taking into consideration any of the natural cooling process is truly pathetic. Reference 3. 4.

Before you start parroting climate skeptic stuff you should at least do your own research. Your Holocene graph ends 150 years ago, that is not the hockey stick at the end, it is hotter today. Reference 5. 6.

dbstealey says:
March 15, 2014 at 9:14 pm

Of cause it is not complete nonsense. Whats complete nonsense is you trying to claim that it is my opinion when I have referenced the papers numerous times! Reference 7. 8. 9.

What’s complete nonsense is you attempting to pass of what you claim are my opinions as skeptical sciences opinions and then trying to hit back with a, wait for it, an opinion from some lecturer at your university. That is what’s nonsense here db.

You are welcome to reference some of Lindzen’s work but I will most likely find many wholes in it. Sadly it seems to be the norm when it comes to his work. Reference 10.

Runaway warming.. Where did that come from! I have shown over and over that the climate sensitivity consensus is 3C warming. Reference 11.

I am just repeating myself now so I will just cut and past some of my older post from above. Climate models can’t predict volcanic eruptions, reduced solar activity, El Nino/La Nina, increased ocean heat uptake and many other climate processes. Climate modelers have gathered all the data from ocean heat uptake, volcanic eruptions and solar influences and inputted them into climate models. Here are their findings. Reference 12.

And then you go back to the halt, pause or hiatus. Reference 13.

Heat rises.. That really made my day. There are many processes that cause ocean heating, but a key focus is on La Nina’s. This process brings deep cold ocean waters to the surface and in doing so causes a vacuum effect for warm surface water (in other areas) to fill the void. Since the Hiatus there has been a strong La Nina presence. Reference 14.

The next point that needs to be addressed is the deep ocean heat is not well distributed throughout the ocean. It is focused in key areas where La Nina’s form, trade wings blow and areas with high sea level rise. Willis Eschenbach has a good graph that shows the warming is spread out. Reference 15.

The idea is science found that the warming must have been sequestering to the deep ocean so they started measuring down to 1800m. They found that indeed the deep ocean heat content had been increasing. Reference 16.

256. @Michael Whittemore

You still do not to understand or do not want to understand that the warming in the past was driven solely by increasing maximum temperatures.
If it or part of it, were due to more GHG in the atmosphere, the proposed mechanism of current AGW implies that this would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.
It follows naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.

I took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima. Here you can see the results.

http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima

0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.

(Note that my 0.014 or 0.013 for means over the past 30-40 years is very similar to that obtained by Spencer & others).
If the warming effect were driven by more CO2 or increased GHG we should see minima rising, pushing up the means. That is not happening. Any warming effect caused by more GHG would have to be found as a part of that 0.006 degrees C/yr
However, if you take the last 4 results in the minima table (bottom) , setting the speed of warming out against time you will find a best fit for a binomial with correlation coefficient 0.95 which looks exactly similar to the best fit for the drop in maximum temperatures, except that there is some apparent time delay .

Ergo, minimum temperatures on earth follow exactly what is dictated by maximum temperatures, earlier on, which in its turn is directly related to what energy is allowed through the atmosphere.
There is no AGW, or it is so small as to be indiscernible in the bigger signals.

Now, if you are as clever as I think you are, you must be able to do a similar experiment at some weather stations in your own country just to check if what I am saying is correct…….Alternatively you could get a class of students repeating my own results, going for a more global sample.

http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

I hope to hear back from you, when you have some results.
Best wishes
Henry

257. Henry P, you science just isn’t getting through to thias guy.

And he’s still using skepticalpseudoscience as his Appeal to Authority. Really, a cartoonist as an authority! As if. MW opines:

CO2 has a logarithmic relationship but you have to take into account the rate of CO2 rise.

That is an assertion. Nothing more. As usual, it is simply a Belief.

And:

…the only correlation that could be determined was that adding up the amount of sun hitting the earth and the forcing from CO2 added up to the temperature of the earth.

Nonsense. I will listen to Dr. Svalgaard before I accept the assertion of someone with no CV.

And:

Runaway warming.. Where did that come from!

Where did the UN’s 2º emergency come from? If you don’t think that runaway global warming is a threat, say so. As a matter of fact, global temperatures have fluctuated by tens of degrees in the recent geologic past, on only decadal time frames — and with no unsustainable impact on the biosphere.

And:

Heat rises.. That really made my day.

I understand that you don’t know about the 2nd Law. But FYI, heat does rise. There is no hidden heat lurking in the deep oceans. That is the raving of a lunatic.

And:

The idea is science found that the warming must have been sequestering to the deep ocean…

More of the same nonsense. “Must have been”?? Your “science” has found nothing of the sort. But it is pointless to keep arguing with a scientific illiterate. The fact is that the ARGO buoy array shows overall ocean cooling. The only *mild* warming they could find followed “adustments” of ARGO. Even then, there is nothing outside the parameters of natural variability.

I undertand that this guy is a True Believer, and that the Null Hypothesis is something totally outside his understanding. So I recommend one of the religious blogs. He would feel much more comfortable there.

258. Michael Whittemore says:

Studies show that with the predicted increase in anthropogenic CO2, there will be warming. http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html#table-spm-1

“A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is found both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indi-cating that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic.” http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf

Lyman & Johnson (2013) “In recent years, from 2004 to 2011, while the upper ocean is not warming, the ocean continues to absorb heat at depth (e.g., Levitus et al. 2012; von Schuckman and Le Traon 2011), here estimated at a rate of 0.56 W m-2 when integrating over 0–1800 m.” http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf

259. @DB Stealey

I find it interesting to exchange views with a “warmist” because we can do it completely free here (on WUWT) without any censorship
I find that on the SkS site and other sites this is not possible. You cannot argue on SkS. On SkS, many times when I come back, I find that my comments have simply been deleted…
MW is too deep in it. He could be the very cartoonist you are talking about. Most probably his income depends on the carbon scare being true. He cannot accept another opinion, even if the snow will be standing at his front door.
What puzzles me is that so few people (me and you being the “few”) are really able to expose the CO2 nonsense. Clearly, anyone can see that there is no AGW? In my case, I found that the major data sets did not have maxima and minima. When I started looking at maxima and minima (together with means) it was like looking at the Rosetta stone. I still don’t know why the major data sets do not report on it.

260. Henry P,

I do not understand how anyone can argue against your Wood For Trees link above. That chart shows conclusively that global warming has stopped. We are left to decide who to believe: M Whittemore, or Mother Earth.

That choice is what they call a “no brainer”. Honest scientists accept what Planet Earth [the real world] is telling us. That is empirical observation, and it trumps every pal reviewed paper and every computer model ever written.

Michael Whittemore says:

“Studies show…”

See what I mean? The alarmist crowd depends on assertions for their argument, while skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] use real world observations to make their case.

The skeptics’ case is air-tight: CO2 continues to rise, making the planet greener, while not causing any global harm. At the same time, global warming stopped many years ago. Only someone with a religious conviction could reject that reality.

Human-caused global warming is a belief now held only by religious True Believers, and promoted by self-serving rent seeking sciebntists and their crazed religious acolytes. Skeptics are the only real scientists.

As Prof Feynman said, we must be skeptical of every claim. If a claim is not supported by experiment or by observation: “…it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

Only those hypotheses that can withstand all attacks can be accepted as advancing scientific knowledge. But as we know, the catastrophic AGW conjecture has failed miserably, after being repeatedly falsified.

It is taking time, but the general public is coming around to the view that the climate scare is completely bogus. Because it is being debunked by the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth herself.

261. dbstealey says
Because it is being debunked by the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth herself.

henry says
true!
but the challenge due to the global cooling period
must not be underestimated.
I expect the period 2020-2040 to be similar to 1930-1950 as far as weather is concerned
Now i know we all came through that period but earth’s population has much increased since that time… Can we do without global warming for more crops?
It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml

262. Michael Whittemore says:

dbstealey says:
March 17, 2014 at 11:37 am

Levitus et al. 2012 “The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system [and the] 700-2000m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean.” http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml

Nuccitelli et al. (2012) “These deeper ocean data account for approximately 30% of the net global heating in recent decades, and thus must be taken into account in any evaluation of global heat flux” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960112010389

Levitus et al. 2012 “We have estimated an increase of 24×1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F).” http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml

Solomon et al. (2011) “an increase in atmospheric aerosols between 2000 and 2010 caused a -0.1 W/m2 radiative forcing, offsetting approximately 35% of the CO2 forcing and 30% of the net greenhouse gas forcing during that period” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6044/866.abstract

Church et al. (2011), “Ocean warming (90% of the total of the Earth’s energy increase) continues through to the end of the record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing. The aerosol forcing, inferred as a residual in the atmospheric energy balance, is estimated as −0.8 ± 0.4 W m−2 for the 1980s and early 1990s. It increases in the late 1990s, as is required for consistency with little surface warming over the last decade. This increase is likely at least partially related to substantial increases in aerosol emissions from developing nations and moderate volcanic activity.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048794/abstract

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) ”We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature […]three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). […] When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability) […] the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010

263. MW says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/#comment-1592687
Michael,
this is like the famous counting twice story that I came accross numerous times when I started my investigations.
We know the oceans heated up in the warming period which lasted until 1998 or 1999.
This is how earth stores its energy for the leaner years that are coming now.
I have explained this to you here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/#comment-1587595

perhaps you should take the time to read what I wrote there? Otherwise we keep going around in circles, and you still don’t understand how we know that we have started cooling down.
I am sure you are tired of that?
or it is because you want to have the last word here?

264. Robert A. Taylor says:

March 13, 2014 at 2:02 am
Robert A. Taylor says:
March 12, 2014 at 1:29 pm
I do not mind the term, warmest.

I just now spotted your reply. As I said, I do not have a lot of time for this, particularly enough time for a dialog.

Thank you for answering, or at least responding to, some of my questions.

I cannot give examples, and obviously not links, but SkS has to my certain knowledge done what I said. This is not a minor point, this is a method of othering used to make opponents seem fools. The correct method is to leave the comment in and refer to it in the altered post as the reason for the alteration, as is done here. The same is true of deleting relevant comments from opponents, giving the false impression there is no possible counterpoint.

To me what rgbatduke wrote meant the climate models are junk because they cannot possibly work due to known unknowns, unknown unknowns, and because the solution of complex chaotic systems is, even in theory, impossible. For my part I would add “unknown knowns”, meaning, “It ain’t what we don’t know that hurts, it’s what we do know that ain’t so.”

I have looked at the data over the current ice age with numerous highs and lows for temperature which may occur very rapidly in a geological sense (years to decades). As far as I can tell nothing that has happened in climate from 1850, 1950, or 1970 is in any way extraordinary or outside the natural variability. Unless and until climate models greatly improve their past and current ability and verifiabililty, I will maintain the null hypothesis is natural variability, and it has not been disproven.

As to peer review; back in the last half of the 1960’s and through the 1970’s I read many major physics journals in every area of physics. I was shocked at the triviality and poor quality of many papers. Even as a beginner I could find major flaws, even in simple calculus. Some professors told me what was going on, but I didn’t believe it till I found Feinman’s report on reviewing text books. What they said was if the reviewer had any status, he delegated this work to a grad student, and at most he glanced through the paper to see if it seemed on the surface reasonable. Peer review In my arrogant :-) opinion is essentially meaningless as an honest one takes much time and effort, and almost no one will do so.

I wish you would answer my other questions, and an additional one: Is the response to increasing CO2 logarithmic as stated by the IPCC?

Out of time again. TTFN

265. M. Whittemore once again posts his pal reviewed papers as ‘authority’, against the contradicting Authority of Planet Earth.

Who to believe? Whittemore’s pals? Or what the planet is clearly saying?

Because they cannot both be right…

266. dbstealey says
Who to believe? Whittemore’s pals? Or what the planet is clearly saying?

henry says
the reality is that most of the media is still on the side of MW’s pals
I am just wondering for how long? Until the snow is standing 10 feet at their own doors?
Just shows you again that science is not done or cannot be done by “consensus’,
as if it were some political election…..
You only need one man to get it right.
it is a pity though that the media are not involved yet in warning the farmers at the higher latitudes about the coming droughts.