The group the ‘Right Climate Stuff’ says there’s no need to worry about catastrophic global warming

New Study; Earth is Safe From ‘Global Warming’ Say the Men Who Put Man on the Moon

The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world’s recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.

So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers – the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon – in a new report.

“It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,” says the project’s leader Hal Doiron.

Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts – who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.

During his stint as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen tirelessly promoted Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. He retired last year to spend more time on environmental campaigning and has twice been arrested with former mermaid impersonator Darryl Hannah for his part in protests against surface coal mining and the Keystone XL pipe line. While still head of NASA GISS he once described trains carrying coal as “death trains” “no less gruesome than if they were carrying boxcars headed to crematoria and loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.” Many NASA employees and former employees found his views an embarrassment.

Doiron and his team now hope to set the record straight in a report called Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity For Use In Regulatory Decisions.

Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the emission of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.

Doiron is similarly sceptical of the computer models used by climate alarmists. He and his team argue that the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed because they don’t agree with each other and don’t agree with empirical data.

Doiron says: “I believe in computer models. My whole career was about using computer models to make life or death decisions. In 1963 I had to use them to calculate whether, when the lunar module landed on a 12 degree slope it would fall over or not – and design the landing gear accordingly. But if you can’t validate the models – and the IPCC can’t – then don’t use them.

From James Delingpole at Breibart: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/08/Earth-is-safe-from-global-warming-say-the-men-who-put-man-on-the-moon

http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html

PDF here: ExecutiveSummaryBoundingGHGClimateSensitivityForUseInRegulatoryDecisions140228(1)

=============================================================

TRCS Conclusions & Recommendations
Jan 2013 & Feb 2014

Detailed proof and references available at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com
in Reports dated Jan 2013, April 2013, and Feb 2014

1. The science that predicts the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is not settled science. (Jan 2013)
2. Our US government is over-reacting to concerns about AGW. (Jan 2013)
3. It is scientifically embarrassing that the EPA has declared CO2 to be a pollutant that must be regulated, since it is a naturally occurring substance required to sustain human, animal and plant life, and for which there is no substitute. (Jan 2013)
4. We have concluded that the IPCC climate models are seriously flawed because they don’t agree very closely with measured empirical data. After a 35 year simulation the models over-predicted actual measured temperatures by factors of 200% to 750%. One could hardly expect them to predict with better accuracy 300 years into the future required for use in regulatory decisions. (Feb 2014)
5. We have developed a straightforward analysis, based on empirical data, not unproven models, which bounds the maximum possible global warming that could be caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. (Feb 2014)
6. We have defined and demonstrated use of a more appropriate Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) metric derived from empirical data for use in regulatory decisions requiring accurate predictions of global temperature changes due to changes of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. (Feb 2014)
7. There is no convincing evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) will produce catastrophic climate changes. AGW can only produce modest amounts of global warming that will likely be beneficial when the substantial benefits to crop production from more CO2 in the atmosphere are considered. (Jan 2013) and (Feb 2014)
8. Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, we have time to study global climate changes and improve our prediction accuracy. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause. (Jan 2013)
9. Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) calculations should be based on empirical data-based transient climate sensitivity metrics with much less uncertainty than the inappropriate IPCC Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) metric uncertainty range that is computed from the flawed IPCC climate simulation models. (Feb 2014)
10. ECS is computed from a hypothetical, unrealistic scenario, used only for comparison of computer model results, where CO2 levels are suddenly doubled in the atmosphere and the ECS temperature change is computed over 1000 years later. It is unscientific to base CO2 regulations on ECS computed from unproven climate models, as currently planned by EPA and DoE. (Feb 2014)
11. The ECS uncertainty statistical distribution used for justifying EPA and DoE CO2 emissions regulations is based on wild speculation, not reliable empirical data. (Feb 2014)
12. A market-driven transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels must begin by 2055 just to meet energy demand as dwindling reserves of economically recoverable fossil fuels drive up their costs. (Feb 2014)
13. Assuming an orderly market driven transition from fossil fuels to alternatives that do not emit CO2, atmospheric CO2 will remain below 600 ppm. (Feb 2014)
14. The maximum CO2 level of 600 ppm is expected to occur after 2100, probably about 2130, and will begin to decline thereafter. (Feb 2014)
15. Based on our analysis of empirical data measured over a period of 163 years, that provides a conservative TCS value of 1.6oC, the maximum expected Green House Gas (GHG) temperature rise from present levels will be less than 1.2oC (2.1oF) (Feb 2014)
16. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2-only, not the higher sensitivity to all GHG incorporated into the IPCC ECS uncertainty range. (Feb 2014)
17. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions, not climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels, such as in the ECS and TCS metrics, since a large fraction of CO2 emissions each year enter our oceans, not our atmosphere. (Feb 2014)
18. Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) has low uncertainty and is a more appropriate metric than ECS for predicting GHG global warming trends over the next few centuries since much of the uncertainty in ECS results from hypothesized climate changes that take place more than 300 years into the future. (Feb 2014)
19. High values of SCC computed by EPA and DoE using their flawed computational process, result from unrealistically high temperatures causing rapid melt of permanent ice sheets on the planet that have been growing for thousands, and in some cases, millions of years. The scientific reality of such speculation needs to be reviewed. (Feb 2014)
20. An independent and objective scientific review board should be convened to review the EPA and DoE methodology for computing Social Cost of Carbon used in regulatory decisions. (Feb 2014)

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News. Bookmark the permalink.

100 Responses to The group the ‘Right Climate Stuff’ says there’s no need to worry about catastrophic global warming

  1. Fabi says:

    Glad to see their response, although I hate to see them adopt the language of the cAGW crowd, especially terms such as the Social Cost of Carbon.

  2. Damian says:

    WOW. Reality + common sense. These guys should expect the vitriol and personal attacks to begin any minute now. And as always it will happen without any facts or accompanying data.

  3. Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
    Generally I don’t like credentialism, the error of uncritically accepting as true what someone with fancy credentials claims, but the guys who put Americans on the Moon using only the technology of opinions of the 60s and 70s carry a lot of weight with me. I’ll put them up against James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones any day.

  4. Aphan says:

    They are using the EPA and DOE’s terminology.

  5. Speed says:

    … a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.
    What’s that in degrees?

  6. Ralph Kramden says:

    “the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed”, dah ya think?

  7. NZ Willy says:

    I like this very much, but can they, or will they, submit to a peer journal?

  8. TimO says:

    …but that won’t go along with the climate crisis handbooks, so they’ll just ignore it…..

  9. Aphan says:

    Speed-
    “Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.”

  10. garymount says:

    The article mistakenly says the burning of carbon dioxide.

  11. Dan Fundo says:

    105 models and NONE of them agree ??? What is this….model du jour ? My only concern is where they get the “global” data from over 50 years ago. We didn’t truly get global weather data until the Earth resources satellites were launched in the late 1970′s.

  12. markstoval says:

    “… a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.”

    Imagine how much less than even that if we used the data before NASA “adjusts” it to show the warming they want to see. Imagine if we used honest data.

  13. Goldie says:

    Couldn’t agree more. If models do not reflect reality then they are wrong and either need to be modified or dumped. There can be no excuse for Governments who persist in implementing policy based on models that are shown to be wrong.

  14. Pat says:

    1.2% is about .65F.

  15. James Strom says:

    The first paragraph has 1.2 percent as the forecast rise in temperature, but later it’s stated as 1.2 degrees. I believe degrees is what is intended.

  16. daveburton says:

    Mr. Delingpole, the Breitbart headline writer has somehow morphed “1.2 degrees C” (in the story) into “1.2 per cent” (in the sub-headline). You need to fix that. It’s wrong, and it looks stupid.

  17. L Hampton says:

    You need to correct “There” to “There’s” in the heading

  18. michael hart says:

    typo in the title? missing “is” or ‘s?

  19. clipe says:

    garymount says:
    March 8, 2014 at 4:13 pm

    The article mistakenly says the burning of carbon dioxide

    bass ackword?

    “ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel”

  20. garymount says:

    1.2 percent would be about 3.5 C (or K). Remember, temperatures start at 0K not 0C, or 0F.

  21. pokerguy says:

    Bunch of loony deniers. PLus they’re old. Really, really old.

    (sarc)

  22. daveburton says:

    James Strom wrote, “The first paragraph has 1.2 percent as the forecast rise in temperature, but later it’s stated as 1.2 degrees. I believe degrees is what is intended.”

    What appears to be the first paragraph here at WUWT is actually a sub-headling in the Breitbart original article. Somehow the oversize font turned into regular size when the story was pasted here at WUWT, making it look like the sub-heading is the first paragraph of the story.

    The erroneous sub-headline was presumably added to Delingpole’s story by a Breitbart headline writer. (However, the “burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel” flub is Delingpole;s,)

  23. garymount says:

    Speaking of models; What would the skeptical community think of a skeptical community developed climate model? The world has vastly changed these past few years, whereas we have access to powerful computers and fast computer communications (the Internet). For example Intel has a new chip that has 15 cores and with Hyper-threading can execute 30 threads simultaneously, and you can put 4 of these on one mother-board for a total of 120 parallel executing threads.
    I’m waiting till Microsoft’s build conference in early April for more information on future computer language options before I personally begin a project that could be the foundation for this skeptical community climate model. I’m willing to personally put in 18,000 hours of work to the end of this decade to see this come to fruition. Anybody interested besides me?

  24. David L. Hagen says:

    Right priorities

    We went into the Apollo Program knowing that our success would depend on adherence to scientific discipline, personal honesty and integrity, and a lot of stressful hard work. Then as now, we grade on performance, not credentials. Then as now, our motto and the way we do our work is “In God we trust, all others bring data.”

  25. Berényi Péter says:

    Now I can see how these NASA old timers could make it to the Moon and back. Current folks there could hardly make it to the mall on the next block with no major accident en route.

  26. Doiron says: “I believe in computer models.
    I believe in them too. Obviously “computer models” exist. The question is rather the extent to which those models, you know, model reality.

    I have a very simple computer model. It’s called “Hello, world”. Provided that the computer running it is functioning correctly, it faithfully produces the sentence “Hello, world!”, which successfully models the existence of a world to which it can say “Hello”. There are these World Deniers who challenge the model on the basis that the world per se can not understand the message, but they’re out of the scientific mainstream.

    Check out this computer model:
    #include <stdio.h>
    main() {
    printf “Hello, world! ________/”;
    }
    It not only models the existence of the world, but also clearly shows a Hockey Stick in its output. I think that demonstrates why Big Oil is trying to suppress this inconvenient truth.

    I eagerly await my grant money to further study this phenomenon.

  27. Latitude says:

    “They then used 163 years of real world temperature data”…
    I seriously doubt that..it seems every historical temp data set has been jiggered to cool the past and increase the slope of warming.

    “The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C”…..
    Absorption bands are full…..

    I find it impossible to believe that 4% of the CO2 is responsible for anything at all….
    ..and no, it’s not magic or cumulative

  28. old construction worker says:

    I wonder when the EPA will sic the IRS on a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers like Obama handlers did the Tea Party?

  29. David L. Hagen says:

    garymount
    Re: Statistical vs deterministic models
    Appreciate your enthusiasm and commitment. Per your interest in alternative models, I strongly recommend evaluating stochastic methods before committing to deterministic methods. See:

    Koutsoyiannis, D., Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics and uncertainty, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 47 (3), 481–495, 2011.

    The non-static, ever changing hydroclimatic processes are often described as nonstationary. However, revisiting the notions of stationarity and nonstationarity, defined within stochastics, suggests that claims of nonstationarity cannot stand unless the evolution in time of the statistical characteristics of the process is known in deterministic terms, particularly for the future. In reality, long-term deterministic predictions are difficult or impossible. Thus, change is not synonymous with nonstationarity, and even prominent change at a multitude of time scales, small and large, can be described satisfactorily by a stochastic approach admitting stationarity. This “novel” description does not depart from the 60- to 70-year old pioneering works of Hurst on natural processes and of Kolmogorov on turbulence. Contrasting stationary with nonstationary has important implications in engineering and management. The stationary description with Hurst-Kolmogorov (HK) stochastic dynamics demonstrates that nonstationary and classical stationary descriptions underestimate the uncertainty. This is illustrated using examples of hydrometeorological time series, which show the consistency of the HK approach with reality. One example demonstrates the implementation of this framework in the planning and management of the water supply system of Athens, Greece, also in comparison with alternative nonstationary approaches, including a trend-based and a climate-model-based approach.

    See also:
    Markonis, Y., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Climatic variability over time scales spanning nine orders of magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch cycles with Hurst–Kolmogorov dynamics, Surveys in Geophysics, 34 (2), 181–207, 2013.

    An overall climacogram slope of −0.08 supports the presence of HK dynamics with Hurst coefficient of at least 0.92. The orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles) is also evident in the combined climacogram at time scales between 10 and 100 thousand years. While orbital forcing favours predictability at the scales it acts, the overview of climate variability at all scales suggests a big picture of irregular change and uncertainty of Earth’s climate.

  30. gnomish says:

    9. Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) calculations should be based on empirical data-based transient climate sensitivity metrics
    12. A market-driven transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels must begin by 2055
    16. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2-only
    17. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions

    right stuff? well, it sure is stuff.
    i see no mention of rights.
    with friends like this, carbon tax is assured.

    one hit wonders manufactured by the patriot industry are still statist mannequins, are still paid to play with their androgynous docking mechanisms and have been fattening themselves at the other end of the same trough. it’s a distinction without a difference. right stuff?

  31. geran says:

    well, duh….

  32. deklein says:

    garymount says:
    March 8, 2014 at 4:31 pm
    1.2 percent would be about 3.5 C (or K). Remember, temperatures start at 0K not 0C, or 0F.

    That’s my interpretation also. Global average temperature is around 290 K so 1.2 percent is approximately 3.5 degrees C.

    Pity Delingpole or whoever was responsible didn’t get somebody scientifically competent to review the text before posting. Same with the “burning of all the carbon dioxide” error.

  33. geran says:

    tic toc tic toc tic toc…

    last comment sent at XX:28

    be there or be square.

  34. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thank you, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team!

    Regards

  35. philjourdan says:

    I had to laugh at your description of Darryl Hannah. I guess that is just another fish tale! ;-)

  36. Aphan says:

    Don’t you mean fish TAIL? lol

  37. Aphan says:

    “Now I can see how these NASA old timers could make it to the Moon and back. Current folks there could hardly make it to the mall on the next block with no major accident en route.”

    If the mall is uphill, they won’t make it because they’re driving a Prius.
    If the mall is downhill, they won’t make it because they don’t understand declines.
    If the mall is in the Arctic, they won’t make it because they believe it’s already gone.
    If the mall is in the Antarctic, they’ll get stuck in the parking lot studying the lack of cars there.

    It’s probably a REALLY good thing that Obama defunded NASA…..if these people got loose in our solar system, there’s no end to the havoc they might cause.

  38. John Norris says:

    “But if you can’t validate the models – and the IPCC can’t – then don’t use them.”

    Well there it is.

  39. pat says:

    doesn’t have the catchy headline potential the MSM is looking for daily:

    9 Mar: Philadelphia Inquirer: How to reduce your pet’s carbon pawprint
    http://www.philly.com/philly/living/20140309_How_to_reduce_your_pet_s_carbon_pawprint.html

    8 Mar: Miami Herald: Bob Inglis: Climate change is a conservative cause — really
    http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/03/08/3981103/climate-change-is-a-conservative.html

    7 Mar: IOL South Africa: Tutu urges US to shelve ‘carbon bomb’ keystone
    http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/tutu-urges-us-to-shelve-carbon-bomb-keystone-1.1658255

  40. Michael Whittemore says:

    My friends brother said that he knows a guy that says the Earths temperature wont rise that much from increased CO2! This is basically what this post is saying, publish or move along.

  41. Matthew says:

    Nice try, really. I applaud the effort. But… the type that want to legislate & regulate us all back to the 18th century stopped caring about the truth long ago. It’s all about the power now. The power to force the “solutions” down our throats.

    I am certain that they will continue to silence those they can & discredit those they can’t silence.

    No matter how obvious it becomes what a colossal blunder climate alarmism has been, they will simply beat the CAGW drum with greater & greater fervor.

    It’s all showmanship at this point & through the hail of rotten tomatoes the bleating just drones on & on, no hook seems to be able to drag them from the stage.

    Our tax dollars at work.

  42. norah4you says:

    Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
    Läs: “It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,” says the project’s leader Hal Doiron.

    Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts – who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.

    During his stint as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen tirelessly promoted Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. He retired last year to spend more time on environmental campaigning and has twice been arrested with former mermaid impersonator Darryl Hannah for his part in protests against surface coal mining and the Keystone XL pipe line. While still head of NASA GISS he once described trains carrying coal as “death trains” “no less gruesome than if they were carrying boxcars headed to crematoria and loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.” Many NASA employees and former employees found his views an embarrassment.

  43. pottereaton says:

    deklein said: “Pity Delingpole or whoever was responsible didn’t get somebody scientifically competent to review the text before posting. Same with the “burning of all the carbon dioxide” error.”

    It’s a new partnership between Delingpole and Breitbart. Delingpole had some of the best editors in the business at the Telegraph and he’s probably accustomed to that kind of oversight. I’m sure he’s not pleased with the errors. They will figure it out.

  44. Henry Clark says:

    As unsurprising for a media source even if one of the better ones, the Breitbart article somewhat misreports this:

    They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the emission of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.

    Not quite. Rather, they estimated 1.2 degrees Celsius warming beyond present temperatures as an upper limit. If I say I have under a million dollars, it doesn’t mean I have a million dollars. Wording elsewhere, point 5 of their TRCS Conclusions & Recommendations, is an estimate which “bounds the maximum possible global warming that could be caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

    That is seen further in the PDF linked. Moreover, the upper limit is what would be so under two implicit assumptions:

    Assumption (fallacy) #1: All or the bulk of post Little Ice Age warming was from GHGs (not true).

    Assumption (fallacy) #2: HADCRUT4 temperature data, plotted in figure 2 of the PDF, is honest temperature history, e.g. for instance the global cooling scare of the 1960s-1970s happened magically for no actual reason since the revisionist HADCRUT4 has deleted about all the temperature downturn which happened then.

    The Right Climate Stuff Research Team shows the picture better in a different PDF of theirs which is not directly linked here on WUWT, including a solar comparison: http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/AGWScienceAssessRpt-1.pdf

    Anyway, if both fallacies are avoided, the fuller picture is rather the following, which implies that net warming from human activities was not even half of the 0.6 degrees Celsius temperature rise over the past century (and, if combined with more info about the coming Grand Minimum, a future of cooling):

    http://img213.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=62356_expanded_overview3_122_1094lo.jpg

  45. Bryan says:

    gnomish
    I think you’re missing their point.
    They maintain that the SSC should be based on empirical metrics. They claim that those empirical metrics predict only 1.2 C temperature increase after ALL available fossil fuels are burned. Thus the SCC would be calculated to be zero (or perhaps a “negative cost”, that is, a benefit). They further maintain that CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2 only (in other words, don’t regulate CO2 just because climate has a higher sensitivity to methane). Since the sensitivity to CO2 that they calculate is low, this would lead to NO regulations limiting CO2 emissions. Their point is that CO2 is harmless and should not be regulated AT ALL.
    As for their statement that “a market-driven transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels must begin by 2055″, they are saying that fossil fuels will be scarce enough and expensive enough by then that the transition will have to happen, not brought about by a tax or other government action, but brought about by actual market forces.
    So they ARE our friends, and friends of the republic.

  46. Larry Geary says:

    They still claim that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming. Is this much settled science? Because I’ve seen references indicating that historical increases of CO2 lagged temperature increases by hundreds of years. I’ve also seen charts indicating that temperatures fell at the end of previous glacial epochs while CO2 levels remained high. I’m not clear on whether we have cause and effect, correlation but not causation, or no correlation at all between temperatures and CO2.

  47. Alan Robertson says:

    I’d bet money that the likes of John Kerry makes these actual NASA heroes want to spit.

  48. daveburton says:

    Larry Geary wrote, “They still claim that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming. Is this much settled science?”

    Fairly settled. The (misnamed) “greenhouse effect” mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is pretty well understood. But:

    1. At current CO2 levels, we’re way past the point of diminishing returns, w/r/t warming from additional CO2. MODTRAN calculates that just 20 ppm CO2 would give us fully half of the warming we get from the current 400 ppm. The NCAR radiation code says 40 ppm, rather than 20, but, either way, we’re way past the point of diminishing returns.

    2. Straightforward calculation of the warming from additional CO2 suggests that taking CO2 to 600 ppm would have only a slight warming effect (at most about 1°C), and that includes the amplification effect of water vapor (~+65%). That’s obviously not enough to be worrisome.

    3. It is only by postulating huge additional temperature-change amplification though hypothetical “positive feedback” mechanisms that the alarmists can arrive at their alarming forecasts. The results of the “Right Climate Stuff” team seem to confirm that there are no huge additional positive feedback mechanisms amplifying temperature changes, which is no surprise.

    Larry also says, “I’ve seen references indicating that historical increases of CO2 lagged temperature increases by hundreds of years.”

    That’s true. But that only† shows that warmer temperatures cause higher atmospheric CO2 levels (mainly by ocean outgassing), and cooler temperatures decrease atmospheric CO2 levels (mainly by increasing CO2 dissolution in seawater). But it does not mean that the converse isn’t also true.

    And, in fact, the converse is also true. Warmer temperatures increase atmospheric CO2 levels, but it is also true that higher atmospheric CO2 levels cause (slightly) warmer temperatures.
     

    († And it also means that Al Gore’s famous chart, showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature, was massively deceptive.)

  49. Steve O says:

    Isn’t the problem going to solve itself after we “run out of oil?”

  50. William Astley says:

    In support to:
    “The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world’s recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.”

    There are at least 10 fundamental observations and analysis results that support the above assertion. For example the almost complete lack of warming of the tropical troposphere which is the region of the planet that is predicted to warm the most due to AGW (any greenhouse gas). The observational fact that there is almost no warming of the tropical troposphere indicates that there are multiple fundamental errors in the general circulation models. The planet clearly resists climate forcing changes (negative feedback) by an increase or decrease of planetary clouds in the tropics rather than amplifies forcing changes as is assumed by the IPCC’s general circulation models. If there is planet does resists rather than amplifies forcing changes there is no dangerous warming problem to solve. (Warming due a doubling of CO2 is less than 1.2C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which causes the biosphere to expand.)

    The idiotic spending of trillions of dollars on green scams that have had almost no practical impact on reducing CO2 has justified on Hansen like climategate scientific fabrication.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/
    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2

    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. … ….Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …

    … However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. Methodologically, this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, one would seek an observational test of the issue. Here we suggest that it may be possible to test the issue with existing data from satellites. ….

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

  51. Mike says:

    Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
    Shouldn’t the models have been validated before they were used to make predictions? One would certainly think so … yet, they weren’t.

  52. CureHouse says:

    Most read source on climate – cool. Here is a simple theory! Its probably a good idea to stop shitting in our own back yard. Isn’t it time to move away from our dirty reliance on carbon? Everything in moderation and ‘AGW’ is out of the equation. Knew I should have been a rocket scientist. So keep dirtying your backyards, but I know there is a better way. Quit wasting your mental energy. O’Yeah – I invented that by the way!

  53. gymnosperm says:

    Still chuckling @B.P. Yep, some people can screw up a shoot sandwich. But what is really amazing to me is how little reason there ever was to suspect the bewitched gas. HITRAN data from the sixties already clearly showed that the meat of the outgoing CO2 absorption spectrum was saturated by Beer-Lambert. Sure, there is some left on the shoulders, but to build an edifice of doom on that foundation?

    I know you guys hate this stuff because we can’t yet write equations for it, but we are dealing with a sociological phenomenon that speaks to human nature in a very troubling way.

  54. Scott Scarborough says:

    I shit in my own back yard all of the time. I have a septic tank and tile field. Do you shit in someone else’s back yard?

  55. alcheson says:

    When discussing SCC (Social cost of carbon) they also need to figure in the POSITIVE benefits of CO2, not just the possible negatives. 30% increased crop yields and possibly adding half of a degree C or so to earth’s temperature since the LIA is clearly a positive at this point.

  56. Patrick says:

    Maybe slightly OT, but is related to weather and climate and models and prediction. Just had an “expert” on Channel 10 TV News talking about two cyclones strickig Queensland, Australia, being difficult to predict what will happen. And the magic words used… “…the outputs from our climate models cannot predict what will happen…”!!! No $hit Sherlock!

  57. Brad says:

    “ICureHouse on March 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm” comment:
    Please explain the euphemism you used scientifically. Or were you just typing to produce more toilet paper?
    How many millions of people to you plan to take credit for killing due to higher energy costs?

  58. GregS says:

    The Monster (@SumErgoMonstro) said at March 8, 2014 at 4:59 pm:

    Check out this computer model:
    #include
    main() {
    printf “Hello, world! ________/”;
    }

    ——— End of Quote ——–

    Hmmm, probably won’t compile, try:

    #include
    main() {
    printf(“Hello, world! ________/”);
    }

    There you go peer reviewed. :-)

  59. En Passant says:

    Oh PLEASE! Who are you going to believe: an activist blinded by a cult, Al Gore (the politician inventor of the internet) or real scientists who have achieved the amazing and near-impossible

  60. Nigel S says:

    Speed says: March 8, 2014 at 4:00 pm… a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent. What’s that in degrees?

    This little joke started a few posts back. Check back regularly to tune into out host’s wonderful ironic sense of humo(u)r.

  61. Chad Wozniak says:

    If the evidence of the Sun’s descent into a Maunder Minimum-like phase is any indication, I would think it unlikely that there will be any net temperature increase globally by 2160. Of course, I don’t exactly expect to be around come the year 2160, so can’t very well prove my pint. But I think it’s a very reasonable possibility that we could be even colder than today, perhaps even plainly slipping into the next age of glaciation.

  62. ROM says:

    Those American NASA scientists and engineers did something that can never be replicated ever again.
    They landed men on another planetary body, the Moon, for the first time ever in human history and then went on to do it another five times ,.
    And brought those 18 astronauts, twelve of whom walked on the Moon’s surface home again to that cradle of mankind, the Earth.
    The other moon shot that never made it, Apollo 13, was an incredible example of ingenuity and extraordinary engineering skill when it all went wrong in deep space and the engineers had nothing but their own knowledge and skill to finally bring those three Apollo astronauts home in what should have been by any accepted standards, a fatally stricken space vehicle.

    When it went wrong they admitted it and fixed it or people died and those astronauts would have died in the full glare of the world’s peoples.

    Climate science with it’s totally unproven, unvalidated and unverified models and the claims that so many catastrophe advocating climate scientists have made of an imminent and impending human created disasters based on nothing more than the output of those unproven climate models is directly responsible for the implementation of highly restrictive energy policies that are aimed at making energy of every type grossly expensive and increasingly unaffordable in an all out effort to force the reduction in energy use to counter those unproven outcomes from those unproven, unvalidated and unverified climate models.

    Those same climate modellers and climate advocacy scientists are therefore directly responsible for the totally avoidable deaths of not a possible two or three astronauts as were the NASA engineers but the real deaths of tens of thousands of the elderly and weak and poor due to the grossly increased cost of energy, a cost increase proposed and supported by the radical extremist advocates of climate science and the disgustingly callous green organisations.
    It is called “heat or eat” as the poor can no longer afford to do both.
    In the UK where the cost of energy has been forced up by the polticals in accordance with the dictates of the climate catastrophe advocating scientists, in 2013 winter deaths rose by 29% over past winters.
    In Germany some 600,000 to 800,000 citizens are being cut off from power each year as is also the case in the UK, because they can no longer afford the cost of energy. Plus also the tens of thousands of avoidable deaths from the winter cold due again to the poor and elderly on very limited incomes no longer being able to afford that great and extraordinary development that has given mankind the Industrial Revolution and all the immense good that has entailed for mankind, cheap utterly reliable always available energy, the very foundation on which our civilisation is now based in it’s entirety.

    Even in the Lucky Country, Australia, the social service organisations are finding large numbers of the lowest earning are being cut off from power as they also can no longer afford to “heat or eat” thanks to the nefarious advocacy of the climate catastrophe scientists and the stupidity and moral turpitude of the Rudd and Gillard Labor and Green governments of the past.

    Those NASA rocket and space scientists and engineers all those 50 years and two generations ago over a period of less than two decades using little more than slide rules, rudimentary computers and good old fashioned brains and intellect not only landed Man on the Moon but they brought their nation, the USA and the world’s peoples together in that moment of time for the celebration for what is one of all of mankind’s truly extraordinary feats.

    Fifty years and two generations later Climate scientists using the most powerful computers on Earth and light years ahead in sophistication compared to the NASA engineers computers let alone those slide rules can’t even predict the most important climate affecting phenomena on Earth, the ENSO and it’s phase more than a couple of months ahead.
    They, after 30 years and the destruction of a trillion dollars worth of treasure and wealth due entirely to the unfullfilled and plain inept predictions to so called Climate Science can’t even provide an accurate figure by which increased or even decreased CO2 will affect and change global temperatures within a range of some 1.3C to 4.5 C or when this might happen if it does.

    In those old NASA engineer’s terms that same level of science applied to the Apollo space craft would have put the astronauts on the one way way trip to eternity and would have done so for every launch that was made.
    Today climate science and climate scientists, totally unlike those old NASA scientists and engineers, over the last two decades as well as being totally responsible for those tens of thousands of completely avoidable deaths from energy deprivation, have deeply divided nations and peoples and societies and families.
    They have no other currency except “fear: fear of future and fear of events to be as predicted by those climate scientists. Mamy of them have used that public Fear to enforce their own status and position.
    And it is all for what?
    The advocacy of those fear creating, climate catastrophe advocacy scientists is increasingly being seen as an outright lie, a lie that has no proof, no support, no direct evidence, only a correlation with the rise in CO2 and the increase in global temperatures over a 20 year period now almost matched by an equally long period where the supposed correlation has ben broken.

    The climate scientists and climate modellers have failed to provide a single verifiable prediction on the global climate let alone believable predictions for the future climate beyond those that the average witch doctor or shaman would be able to derive from some chickens entrails.

    The legacy of climate scientists and climate science will one day be seen through the eyes of the future as the most corrupt and corrupting episodes against humanity that science has ever embarked on in all of human history.

  63. Txomin says:

    The effort is appreciated.

  64. jauntycyclist says:

    Shame about the errors. In high finance if a report has a comma missing some directors throw the report in the bin even if its right because its like missing a comma in a program.

  65. Don Last says:

    I would contend that the existential energy involved in this planet’s course through the solar system, and the energies involved in the sun sunspots, earth’s oceans, earthquake, volcanic and tectonic activities, render any notion of the relative energy of “human activity” as having any measurable impact on this planet’s atmospheric and general condition as utterly preposterous.

    It is, moreover, a fallacy to argue from a particular phenomenon to assert a general proposition about a system as complex as the earth’s atmosphere and climatic causation.

  66. goldminor says:

    I might have found the Eureka moment that we have all been searching for. It occurred to me the other night. It is late now for me, so I will show my thoughts tomorrow, as it will take some hours to put together a cohesive story. I am still going over the many angles of this story in my inner thoughts. By coincidence I also just had to spend an hour and a half screwing with my computer due to some kind of interference. My antivirus had issues plus the stability was off on the computer. That could have to do with a sharp conversation, which I have been engaged in over at ‘The Conversation’. The ‘scientist’, one David Arthur, that I was debating was extremely, extremely annoyed with me. I notice that over at the ‘No global warming for 17 years’ page that a warmist has been enlightening everyone with his views. This coincided with my sharp conversation, and the word usage is very similar in content between the two. Coincidence? Maybe yes, and maybe no.

    I hope that this is what I think it looks like, because I then want to use it to beat these guys soundly about the head and shoulders with it. Keep your fingers crossed and a prayer in your heart.

  67. Bill Church says:

    Ah, but are we safe from global cooling?

  68. jauntycyclist says:

    Climate scientists want to interact more directly with the public

    http://phys.org/news/2014-03-climate-scientists-interact.html

    they want to unconfuse ‘the public’

  69. richard says:

    I am afraid that even if aliens from another galaxy far, far away who had learnt how to bend space, travel backwards in time , could build new Suns and learnt that co2 does not cause warming, came to this planet and announced this to the alarmists they would still call the aliens deniers.

  70. It is good to hear of scientists (and related field workers) standing up and telling the world that Hansen is an embarrassment to their professions. A few years ago most scientists were too cowed to make such public statements, and even on WUWT some scientists feel they must hide their identities behind internet identities. The big beasts in climate science have been more expert at intimidation than honest data analysis.

    Recovering the reputation of science is every bit as important as recovering climate science for science. Both have to go hand in hand. This sia good news story.

  71. ntesdorf says:

    These people who put Americans on the Moon using only the technology of the 1960s and 1970s had a lot of common sense as well as intelligence, which stood them in good stead under real life conditions. Compare them to the inhabitants of Ivory Towers of Ignorance like James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones. If these Climate Right Stuff Men had been using un-adjusted (by James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones) data, they might even have come up with 0 degrees C as the effect of CO2 on the temperature.
    Willis’ previous article on up and down welling radiation makes that look more and more like the real answer.

  72. johnmarshall says:

    I wish them well in their attempt to convey common sense and scientific truth. Two things sadly lacking in today’s politics.

  73. Hot under the collar says:

    And the motto of the Mission Evaluation Room engineers who supported Flight Operations:

    “In God we trust, all others bring data”

  74. Twobob says:

    So it’s getting cold in 200years.
    (most oil and coal gone by then?)
    I’m glad its warm now.

  75. Alan Robertson says:

    CureHouse says:
    March 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm

    ” Isn’t it time to move away from our dirty reliance on carbon?”
    ___________________________
    What energy source would you suggest we rely upon instead? Do the math…
    Would you decrease the reliability of power grids? What of the suffering and deaths which would result? Would you increase the price of energy through taxation and other artificial means to curtail consumption? What about outright government- sponsored banishment of energy production? What then of those who can’t afford the costs to heat their homes and who are already dying by the tens of thousands in first- world nations due to political acts supporting “green” agendas? Is the reduction of human populations through early deaths, especially among the poor, also one of your goals?
    Should we also ignore the true benefits which CO2 has on the biosphere?

    You aren’t doing yourself any favors with such crude remarks as you made.

  76. Jimbo says:

    [my bolding]

    New Study; Earth is Safe From ‘Global Warming’ Say the Men Who Put Man on the Moon

    These people are just like the moon landing deniers and conspiracy theorists. /sarc

  77. Jimbo says:

    Doiron is similarly sceptical of the computer models used by climate alarmists. He and his team argue that the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed because they don’t agree with each other and don’t agree with empirical data.

    Which reminds me of a famous physicist.

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

    The experiment is our growth in man-made greenhouse gases. The observations are of global surface temperatures. The IPCC made their central projections over the years and keep getting it WRONG. What other scientific field would put up with such garbage?

  78. James Schrumpf says:

    If the fear of losing grant money is not a driver, why then is it that RETIRED scientists, engineers, etc. make up a very large percentage of those who come out strongly against CAGW?

  79. gbaikie says:

    “12. A market-driven transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels must begin by 2055 just to meet energy demand as dwindling reserves of economically recoverable fossil fuels drive up their costs. (Feb 2014)”

    This a fundamental problem with socialist- they think government should control markets.
    Markets are driven by people. There idea is to scare people so as to control the markets.

    Lazy and ill informed history see the world driven by politician, whereas it’s obvious that politicians follow social change rather than cause social change- except politicians do tend to lead us into conflicts and oppression. Politicians can take credit starting wars, genocides, and such things as France’s Reign of Terror.
    In other words government is quite capable cause ruin, and little ability to much which could seen
    as desirable.
    The US government’s success can seen in it’s philosophy of democracy and allowing a free market. And Government against democracy and allowing a free market are places like Cuba.
    And China’s economic success can be understand in government acceptance of free trade.
    Whenever government accepts the alienable rights of it’s citizens, that nation always flourishes- without exception. And whenever government tries to control it’s people with “grand ideas” what follows is always disaster.

  80. David Norman says:

    Inspired by this article, I’m now busy working on the screenplay for a movie tentatively titled “Attack of the Global Warming Sharks”. I’ve already outlined two of the major protagonists, a James Hansen type character who uses ideological mind control to direct a Daryl Hanna, girl can mutate into mermaid like form, porpoise tale from the waist down (a mutation brought on by AGW). The basic plot has the Hansen protagonist having developed a way to communicate with and control monster man-eating sharks and crocodiles, by modulating the infrasound generated by Industrial Wind Turbines, to do his bidding. The Hanna character then seeks out his sworn enemies, climate skeptics, entices them to admit their skeptical ways with her siren wiles, luring them to their grisly fates in the mouths of the monster selachimorpha and crocodylinae. Could use any ideas offered for character development, plot twists etc.

  81. Rod Everson says:

    You will know that the global warming alarmist’s rat’s nest in NASA is finally being cleaned out when the dissenters don’t first have to retire before expressing their views.

  82. NotAGolfer says:

    “a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent”

    This makes no sense. Are you talking about 1.2% of the absolute temperature scale? Or what?

  83. Rod Everson says:

    Larry Geary says:
    March 8, 2014 at 6:50 pm
    They still claim that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming. Is this much settled science? Because I’ve seen references indicating that historical increases of CO2 lagged temperature increases by hundreds of years….I’m not clear on whether we have cause and effect, correlation but not causation, or no correlation at all between temperatures and CO2.

    There’s more than one phenomenon occurring. Yes, scientists generally agree that there is a CO2 induced greenhouse effect that can be demonstrated experimentally. So there ‘s causation between burning fossil fuels (thereby releasing CO2) and rising temperatures.

    But as someone already explained, higher CO2 levels can be produced by a warming earth as well, and that’s where you would get the lagged effect between temps and CO2. For example if the sun warmed the earth to a greater extent over the next millennial, atmospheric CO2 would also increase, but with a lag.

    And, in the past, significant changes in the earth’s temperature were undoubtedly caused by phenomenon unrelated to the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel burning causes a greenhouse effect, but obviously other factors have had much more dramatic influences on climate in the past.

  84. Their complaint about the IPCC’s models – that they cannot be validated – applies equally to the model of The Right Climate Stuff Research Team (TRCSRT). That a model is susceptible to validatation implies the existence of observed events in the underlying statistical population but this population exists for neither the IPCC’s models nor the TRCSRT’s model.

  85. Dan Pangburn says:

    It’s a start. After they account for ALL of the science, perhaps they will discover that CO2 change has no significant influence on average global temperature.

    Consider that during the late Ordovician, the planet plunged into and recovered from an ice age (the Andean-Saharan) while the CO2 level was approximately 10 times the present.

    During the last glaciation, increasing temperature trends changed to decreasing while CO2 levels were still increasing.

    In the 20th century, down, up, down, up, oscillations (64 year periods) of average global temperatures were measured while the CO2 level increased steadily and progressively. Lack of correlation demonstrates lack of causation.

    EMR is absorbed by ghg, mostly water vapor (and about 12% becomes thermalized). About the only effect of more ghg (increased CO2) is to move absorption a tiny bit closer to the surface.

    When the actual climate drivers are included in an assessment (two drivers explain more than 90% of measured average global temperatures), the influence of CO2 change is found to be negligible.

  86. goldminor says:

    OK, here goes a long thought from the unusual one. I am still quite a bit tired. I have not slept well for weeks, but with some nice fresh coffee I should be able to get the main thrust of this argument laid out in a reasonable fashion. I also forgot about daylight savings time, which always affects
    me adversely for a few days.

    My first epiphany in my climate change study came early on. The first time that I looked at a solar min max chart, it only took a minute or so to realize that the 9 year flood cycle in the Pacific Northwest was linked to the solar minimums. The realization sparked my thoughts as I realized that I might do well connecting the dots as I progressed in the study, and I became hooked into following this path to see where it would lead to. There have been further small successes along the path, and two nights ago I believe that I may have found the “key” to the Great Climate Change Argument. So, here we go. This is my 6th year putting my mind into this endeavour. Strange the 6th of anything has often had significance in my life.

    The core to this has to do with the Sun, and an obvious thought that probably first came to me around 4 years ago when looking at the Solar cycle charts, and prior to coming here to WUWT to read further. The question arose inside ‘why wouldn’t the high strong solar maximums that started in the 1940s and then continued up to 2003 be the reason for the warming trend that has been experienced since the late1970s. Everyone seemed to agree that the Sun is a very stable entity, and that the relatively small change of 0.1% from max to min could not possibly account for the observed warming. On top of that the Sun cycles clearly did not appear to fit in with the pattern of the warming trend. Several times I looked at temps charts and the solar cycle chart to eke out a possible link. Nothing came to mind, zero links. I also looked multiple times at ENSO and solar, and at ENSO, temps, and solar. Still there was no way to link or wiggle match any of the charts. I even made a comment some 3 weeks ago through my Disqus account at The Telegraph site, where I once again brought up the argument that the Sun must be influencing the oceans and that there had to be some ocean offset that allowed for the heat to arise at a later date in time. I was arguing with one ‘Blathra’ who occasionally joins the conversation there. I have a suspicion that ‘Blathra’ could be Ed Davies. Still, I wasn’t able to find a proper answer when he asked ‘how long does the heat hide, before reemerging?’. That all changed 2 nights ago.

    Late Friday evening, as I finished the reading for the day at WUWT, I had the thought to straighten up a few folders where I save stuff. As I was in the process of doing that, once again I found myself comparing several charts to refresh my thoughts. I took the chart of the Multivariate ENSO Index and set it on the desktop. Then I put a solar cycle chart from pics into the preview so that I could then compare the two. I could not find the copy of Dr Svalgaard,s great high resolution chart at the time. The other solar charts which I had were of a coarser image. I went online and saved a recent solar chart from Dr Hathaway, which had a better resolution and current data. As I perused the combination of the two charts and puzzled over where to start to find a first puzzle piece connection, the first connection came into view. My thought had been to use the grand max of 1959 as the first piece. That should have been the easiest one to fit into some other piece on the MEI. And then I saw a fit. The grand max of 1959 fit with the El Nino of 1990, which began right at the end of 1989. The connection was a spacing of 30 years +/-1. The reason why no ones connect the Sun with the warming is that the warming from the Sun enters into the oceans and then comes out of the oceans 30 years later. Then I started examining the MEI for further connections, and there they were. I started with El Ninos and solar maxs. Every one was there, solar max…El Nino starts. I quickly glanced at a few of the minimums and sure enough, solar minimum…La Nina starts. I started writing down the sequences and improving my approach to the exercise. Then I noticed that there were a few events that did not readily connect with the La Nina. All of the major El Ninos were looking good though. I knew that I had found something. Inspiration grew! Then I thought that I should look once more for Dr Svalgaard,s higher res chart. I had a little trepidation with that thought as his chart had refuted a previous ‘connect the dots’ idea that I had. Plus I had already left my cryptic message up above saying that ‘I found something’. Yet, I knew full well that I had to use Dr Svalgaard,s work, or I would be deceiving myself. I found his chart and went to work, and BINGO. It went way beyond my expectations. Every move and tweak on the MEI had the right 30 year phase offset pattern, and I do mean every little move. Connections that I could not make with Dr Hathaway,s chart were completely verified with Dr Svalgaard,s work. Next step, here is the data connections. I use the prefixes ‘pre’ and ‘post’ to denote a shift which occurs before or after the top of a max or the bottom of a min.
    Also note that, Note that the use of Nino and Nina only implies the changes in the MEI and not that the conditions for Nino or Nina were actually fulfilled.
    SSN pre Min-1919/20 Nina-1949/50
    SSN Min -1924/25 Nina-1954/55
    SSN Max -1927/29 Nino-1957/58
    SSN pre Min-1929/30 Nina-1959/60
    spike-up-1933 Nino-1964
    SSN min -1934/35 Nina-1964/65
    SSN pre Max-1935/36 Nino-1965/66
    SSN postMin-1936/37 Nina-1967/68
    SSN Max -1938/39 Nino-1968/69
    SSN pre Min-1940/41 Nina-1970/71
    spike-up-1942 Nino-1972
    SSN Min -1943/44 Nina-1973/74
    SSN Max -1947/48 Nino-1977/78
    1948-spike-down Nina-1978
    SSN postMax-1948/49 Nino-1978/79
    1950/51-spike down Nina-1981
    spike up-1951 Nino-1981
    1952-spike down Nina1982
    spike up-1952 Nino-1982
    1952.1/2-spike down Nina-1982.1/2
    SSN post spike 1951/52 Nino-1982/83
    1954-spike down Nina-1984
    spike up-1954 Nino-1984
    SSN Min-1954/55 Nina-1984/85
    SSN pre Max-1957 Nino-1986/87
    1958/59 spike down Nina-1988/89
    SSN Grand Max-1959/60 Nino+ -1990/95
    SSN postMin-1966/67 Nina-1996/97
    SSN Max-1967/68 Nino-1997/98 El Grande
    1968 spike down Nina-1998/99
    spike up-1970 Nino-2000
    1970-spike down Nina-200/01
    SSN Max end-1971 Nino-2001
    SSN pre Min-1972 Nina-2002
    SSN post Max-1972/73 with continued up spikes Nino-2002/03/04/05
    1974 spike down Nina-2004
    SSN Min-1976 Nina-2006
    SSN pre Max-1977 Nino-2007
    SSN post Min-1977 Nina-2007
    SSN Max 1978-itty bitty Nino-2008-itty bitty
    1978 spike down Nina-2008
    SSN Max-1979 Nino-2009/10
    SSN pre Min-1981 Nina-2010/11
    SSN Max-1982 Nino-2012
    SSN pre Min-1983 early Nina-2013
    spike up-1983 Nino-2013
    SSN pre Min-1983 Nina-2013 late
    spike up-1983 Nino-2013 late
    SSN Min-1984 Nina-2014
    and that is all she wrote for now, as the saying goes. That is every twist and turn of the MEI as correlated with Dr Svalgaard,s great work in his high res solar cycle chart.
    Further, as I consider this to be accurate that means that I should now be able to make a prediction for future El Nino and La Nina. Here it is. It looks like a definite la Nina for now. That is an easy prediction, See I am already spot on with that prediction. The first swing back towards an El Nino will be early next year, but that should be an El Nado and short. After that it should be a strong La Nina all the way till late 2016 and then another short small El Nado. Late 2016 should be the beginning of a true El Nino that will go through 2018, and then back to La Nina. The winter of 2016/17 is very probable for a very heavy rain for the Pacific Northwest. I will leave my prediction there for now. I am tired, and my eyes are bugging out from trying to follow the year by year chart by Dr Svalgaard, which has no larger indicators to show where one might be such as 1970, 1980, 1990, etc etc.

    Here are some other impressions from this exercise.The orbital shifts of the Earth with the consequent changes in w/m2 probably influences the size of Nino and Nina. Is this connected with the stadium wave theory? The 30 year pattern could be further influenced by planetary configurations and lunar tidal forcings. The MEI shows 1/4, 1/8, and 1/16 cycles very well. That reminds me of the conversation with Greg Goodman on the ‘Why Reanalysis Isn’t….” post from May of last year. In discussing that post, I had noted that there appeared to be a short cyclical pattern of approximately 3.5 years. Greg Goodman showed some of his great work, and that information of his added to my thoughts. Bob Tisdale is the obvious choice to flesh out what happens in the ocean with oceanic cyclical patterns after the heat enters therein. How does it end up to be a 30 year pattern? Dr Svalgaard, Dr Norman Page, and Vukvecic should be able to confirm and augment solar, gcr, lunar, and/or planetary influences to further flesh out the full details of how and why. That, of course, will be dependent on how they view this information that I am relating. Overall, this is for everyone who has contributed here at this site. Obviously there are other dynamics at play here. I could go on for several more pages I think, but I am going to stop here. I am tired and looking at all of those tiny little lines on the solar chart has me close to seeing tiny little objects everywhere.

    This should allow for anyone to predict future MEI conditions, and also hindcast MEI to ssn and vice versa.

  87. sinewave says:

    These guys successfully landed men on the Moon and brought them back. An even more impressive feat would be to land some common sense in the warmer camp. Maybe they can read their research as bedtime stories to the warmer congressmen having a sleepover in congress.

  88. goldminor says:

    I forgot to add Willis Eschenbach,s name into the above list. His ability with maths is a great skill.

  89. Dr. Strangelove says:

    Anthony
    I agree with all the points except No. 17. Climate sensitivity must be based on atmospheric CO2 level. If you based it on CO2 emission, the sensitivity will be higher since increase in atmospheric CO2 is only half the emission.

  90. Dr. Strangelove says:

    I agree with all the points except No. 17. Climate sensitivity must be based on atmospheric CO2 level. If you based it on CO2 emission, the sensitivity will be higher since increase in atmospheric CO2 is only half the emission.

  91. dave peters says:

    Richard Alley answered a similar “?” @ minute # 49, in an 2009 appearance before the AGU. He reached for a sea surface temp of 37 to 38 C. That’s ~ 100 Fahrenheit.

  92. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Bishop Tutu: If you can’t tell when you are being lied to, please don’t add your voice to the clamour. Carbon cults kill children by diverting funds away from social progress to inane schemes to erect expensive ‘alternative’ energy sources. Don’t borrow money to feed foreign banks.

    Two suggestions for South Africa:
    1. Build the Umzimkhulu-Tsitsa River hydro-electric scheme which will provide more ‘alternative’ power than the whole ZAR100 billion that is planned for German windmills and Chinese solar panels. If UJ can’t get the thin film solar cell plant running, dump it.
    2. Divert the allocated R100 billion ‘renewable’ budget to something useful like job creation in the Eastern Cape which would include a massive afforestation campaign (wood is renewable) and school classroom construction using appropriate construction methods and local contractors.

  93. I have read all of the comments above and have a few responses:

    1. Reading at least the Executive Summary (12 pages with no equations) will answer most of the critical comments. I recommend the full 84 page report version for those who want to dig deeper into our methodology and our very accurate (for the last 163 years) one-line of algebra climate model.
    2. We have several ladies on The Right Climate Stuff research team who contribute significantly to our research. They are much smarter and prettier than us old men who first put men on the moon.
    3. Don’t know where the 1.2 per cent came from. Our numbers are a max possible 1 deg C AGW-related temperature rise above current levels by 2100 and 1.2 deg C temp rise before we exhaust the planet’s economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves.
    4. Our report is all about recognizing naturally occurring climate cycles in the data and properly accounting for them in making maximum possible attributions of warming to AGW.
    5. Our bounding AGW climate model is:
    Delta Temp (year) = TCS*{Log[CO2(year)/284.7]/Log[2]
    where we define TCS = Transient Climate Sensitivity that is similar to the IPCC’s Transient Climate Response (TCR) metric, but where TCS can be extracted from climate data and is not dependent on un-validated climate models, as are the IPCC climate sensitivity metrics of ECS and TCR. That the IPCC doesn’t use a climate sensitivity metric that can actually be verified by actual data is very telling about how immature Climate Science is in the annals of good science.
    6. Our data analysis methodology is very similar to the method disclosed in “Jeff L’s” article posted at WUWT on Feb 13, 2014. However, our report is very tutorial in explaining why the climate sensitivity metric Jeff L extracted from the data was not ECS as he suggested, but instead what we have defined as Total Radiative Force (TRF) TCS that included effects of CO2, other GHG and solar irradiance changes. We demonstrate how to determine a CO2-only TCS or all-GHG TCS for use in regulatory activity.
    7. For those who in their comments criticized our use of EPA and DoE terminology “Social Cost of Carbon (SCC)”, we only did this to be able to officially submit our comments on the method the government uses to compute SCC to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that was accepting public comments on the methodology.
    8. For one of the latter comments from Dr. Strangelove that disagreed with our point #17 about the need for the Social Cost of Carbon calculations to be based on climate sensitivity to emissions, rather than climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, as measured by ECS, you were on the right track, but got it backwards. If the CO2 concentration rise in the atmosphere each year is only due to half the yearly CO2 emissions, with the other half of emissions ending up in the oceans, then the SENSITIVITY of temperature rise to emissions is only half the sensitivity to CO2 rise in the atmosphere, ie (DeltaT)/(Delta CO2) is smaller if you make the denominator larger. Over time, the ratio of 2:1 is approximately correct. I think AR5 will tell us what that yearly ratio is today.
    9. The critical plea I wish to make with all WUWT readers is that we get away from letting climate scientists focus on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) that really has nothing to do with the AGW climate change we could actually experience. The ECS temperature occurs more than 1000 years after CO2 levels are doubled in the atmosphere…a totally unrealistic scenario. The only practical use of the ECS metric is to compare results of the past and current crop of useless climate models. We need to shift the conversation to Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) that is the actual global average surface temperature rise due to slowly increasing CO2 in the atmosphere until it doubles the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm to 560 ppm, in the way it is actually happening. The similar IPCC TCR metric is for an idealized CO2 increase of 1%/yr. The current CO2 rise rate is about 0.5%/yr. TCS is for the actual history of variable CO2 rise rate in the atmosphere since 1850. It is a verifiable metric while ECS and TCR are not. TCS can be extracted from the data trends before the actual 560 ppm doubled value is attained, using our AGW climate model provided in my Comment #5 and the same exact and independently derived climate model Jeff L used. When we correct Jeff L’s “ECS” value for solar irradiance effects and recognize it is a climate sensitivity for all-GHG rise in the atmosphere, then we get the same exact value:
    TCS = 1.6 deg C

  94. Harold H Doiron, PHD:

    I’m unclear on the origins of your bounding AGW climate model and on the definitions of the terms in this equation. Can you derive it for us or provide a citation to a document where it is derived? Thanks.

  95. Terry Oldberg,

    The equation is based on Arrhennius’s original paper indicating the temperature sensitivity of the earth to atmospheric CO2 levels would be a logarithmic relationship to model the observation that some Tyndall gas IR absorption bands become saturated with a certain level of atmospheric CO2 and that higher levels of CO2 could not cause more IR absorption in those saturated bands. We just formulated a logarithmic function of atmospheric CO2 level that would have the value of the climate sensitivity temperature rise since 1850, the TCS value, when atmospheric CO2 levels doubled from the 1850 value of 284.7 ppm to 569.4. We estimate CO2 levels will reach 569.4 ppm sometime in the 2080 – 2085 time period: Therefore.

    DeltaT(2085) = TCS*{Log[569.4/284.7] / Log[2]} = TCS*{Log[2]/Log[2]} = TCS

    We found the constant, TCS, that best fits the actual long-term temperature rise since 1850. However, in finding the proper TCS value, either a “best fit” value as “Jeff L” demonstrated in his WUWT article on Feb. 13, 2014, or as we demonstrated in our report, one must take care to recognize the naturally occurring climate cycles in the data, that have nothing to do with GHG and properly account for their effect on the temperature data. We also show in our full report how to extract a conservative value of TCS that would be an upper bound value that can be extracted from the HadCRUT4 data, and that we used to bound AGW temperature rise for the future.

    For details and references, see our 84 page full report at:
    http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/BoundingClimateSensitivityForRegDecisions.pdf

  96. Harold Doiron:

    Thanks for forwarding the link to the document at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/BoundingClimateSensitivityForRegDecisions.pdf . Upon reading this document, I’ve found that it makes an argument which is refuted by the argument that I make in the document at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 . If you or any of your colleagues have the time and inclination, please read the latter document and act on the information in it. I’m available to you for consultation without charge. There may be a better way for you and your colleagues to serve our nation than by your current recommendations.

    Please direct email to terry at knowledgetothemax dot com and phone calls to 650-941-0533 (Pacific time zone). I’m the former head of the theoretical side of the research program of the electric utilities and government of the U.S. on the performance of materials in the cores of utility-owned light water reactors. In this capacity, I directed construction of statistically validated models of physical systems which, like the climate, were “complex.” Five years ago, I looked into methodology of the research by which the IPCC reached its conclusions and.found these conclusions to be unsupported.

    [Edits made to reduce spam attacks to automatically scanned email addresses. Mod]

  97. Re-reading all of the comments again.

    Gnomish, Bryan correctly understood the thrust of our arguments and explained them correctly to you in his March 8 6:44pm post.

    Larry Geary, We are not claiming CO2 warms the atmosphere any particular amount. We are saying if it does warm the atmosphere, then its effects are bounded at a maximum of 1.6 deg C above 1850 levels for a slowly rising CO2 level when the atmospheric CO2 level reaches a pre-industrial doubled value of 560 ppm. If 1.6 deg C temp rise from 1850 temperatures by 2100 isn’t going to cause a problem (1 deg C above current temp levels), then let’s get real about the AGW issue and be more rational in our response for how to deal with this Potential Problem. Global warming is not a current Problem (defined by a deviation from normal at some particular location on the planet) for which root cause can be determined, as explained in our report..

    Some of you with a deeper interest in what we are really saying should read the Executive Summary. If that gives you an idea of what we did and fosters interest in further details, then I recommend the entire 84 page report. In that report, you will find that we also considered the possibility that we are still warming from natural processes since the minimum temps of the LIA. In that case, we find lower CO2 climate sensitivity with TCS = 0.8 deg C. I admit the possibility that TCS = 0 or is negative, but I can’t prove it. However, we can bound it to the high side and we did….and it is not alarming. After studying this AGW issue in depth, I personally believe GHGs probably have a small warming effect, but I am not alarmed by it, and I would judge the warming so far to have been beneficial. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere is a definite benefit. All of this is discussed in much detail with references in our full report. (I also believe atmospheric CO2 levels will lag temps if the earth is warmed by effects other than GHG. That process and the process by which GHG may be warming the planet now, are different processes with different outcomes.)

    The Right Climate Stuff Research Team are not in favor of CO2 emissions control regulations and make that point very clear in our report. However, our government is already issuing such regulations based on their terribly flawed Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) calculations. Our report was written to show the government how terribly flawed are those calculations. Our comments about on what science CO2 emissions control regulations should be based were comments meant to show OMB, EPA and DoE and the entire Interagency Working Group that came up with the SCC calculation methodology, how erroneous their calculations really are and why they need to be formally reviewed by an independent and objective team of scientists, many of whom, like us, and some of you WUWT regulars, would not be climate scientists. We already know (we have run the numbers with one of EPAs cost models), and discussed it some in the 84 page report, if SCC were calculated by an accurate process, then within constraints of laws governing the regulatory process, the EPA could not economically justify its current pipeline of CO2 emission control regulations

    Terry Oldberg, we will certainly follow up with a study of the document you provided the link for.

Comments are closed.