By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Now that the UAH satellite data are available, we can update the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index, a devastatingly simple measure of how well (or badly) the IPCC’s official predictions of global warming are doing.
The 2013 Fifth Assessment Report backdated the IPCC’s predictions to January 2005. The interval of predictions, equivalent to 0.5[0.3, 0.7] Cº over 30 years or 1.67 [1.0, 2.33] Cº per century, is shown in orange.
By now, as a central estimate, there should have been 0.15 Cº global warming since January 2005, a rate equivalent to 0.5 Cº in 30 years, or 1.67 Cº per century, gathering pace rapidly after 2035 to reach 3.7 Cº over the full century.
However, the trend on the mean of the monthly RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies is, if anything, falling, leading to an over-prediction by the IPCC of 0.17 Cº – a sixth of a Celsius degree – in the 111 months January 2005 to March 2014.
The models’ overshoot over 9 years 3 months is equivalent to more than 1.8 Cº per century.
Though the IPCC has finally realized that the models are unreliable as predictors of global temperature change, and has slashed its 30-year projection from 0.7 [ 0.4, 1.0] Cº in the pre-final draft of the Fifth Assessment Report to 0.5 [0.3, 0.7] Cº in the published final version, it has not cut its centennial-scale prediction, an implausibly hefty 3.7 Cº on business as usual (4.5 Cº if you are Sir David King, 11 Cº and a 10% probability of the Earth not surviving the 21st century if you are Lord Stern).
It is also interesting to compare the IPCC’s original global-warming predictions in the 1990 First Assessment Report with what has happened since. At that time, the IPCC said:
“Based on current model results, we predict [semantic bores, please note the IPCC uses the word “predict”, and, if you don’t like it, whine to ipcc.ch, not in comments here]:
Ø “under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 C° to 0.5 C° per decade). This is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 C° above the present value by 2025 and 3 Cº before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors.”
The IPCC’s best-guess near-term warming prediction in 1990 was equivalent to 2.78 Cº per century.
Real-world temperature change in the 291 months since January 1990 has been spectacularly below what was predicted. There has been just 0.34 Cº global warming, equivalent to a mere 1.39 Cº per century. The IPCC’s overshoot since 1990 amounts to another 0.34 Cº, or more than a third of a degree in 24 years 3 months, equivalent to 1.39 Cº per century. It predicted double the warming that has actually occurred.
Once again, the IPCC’s interval of predictions for global temperature change since 1990 are shown as an orange region. The lower and upper bounds for its 1990 near-term warming estimate were 30% below and 50% above its central estimate, equivalent to 1.94 and 4.17 Cº per century respectively. The real-world outturn, equivalent to just 1.39 Cº per century, is appreciably below the lower bound of the IPCC’s very wide prediction interval.
In 1990 the IPCC’s “Executive Summary” raised the question “how much confidence do we have in our predictions?” It pointed out that there were many uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:
“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”
One look at the graph of projection against outturn since 1990 reveals that the IPCC has proven startlingly incapable of predicting the “broad-scale feature” central to the debate about greenhouse gases – the change in global temperature itself.
Here is a question that the legacy media should be addressing to IPCC director Pachauri, if they can distract him from authoring fourteenth-rate bodice-ripping pot-boilers for long enough.
Given global temperature rising for almost 25 years at half the central rate predicted by the IPCC in 1990, given no global warming at all for half the RSS satellite record, and given only 64 (or 0.5%) of 11,944 scientific abstracts published since 1991 stating that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade, on what legitimate scientific or other rational basis did the IPCC recently increase from 90% to 95-99% its “confidence” that recent warming was mostly manmade? Answer me that.
http://labs.enigma.io/climate-change-map/ (model-free data – I guess) appears to tell a different story for the US at least.
Touche to all that and answer me this. If man-made CO2 has caused the atmosphere to warm in the past decades, what the hell caused it to warm equally in the decades before that?
Well, it’s rational if you are in the nomenklatura class or aspire to get there.
Seriously the IPCC finally tied itself into the Great Transition as the OECD, the New Economics Foundation, and various UN entities already have. I really do not think it’s coincidental that the new website http://greattransition.org/ premiered virtually at the same time as the WG2 IPCC report.
alleagra
“…for the US at least.”
6.6% of global land mass. Either it is global warming, or it’s not. Or, is this one of those “climate change” moments.
@alleagra – Excellent! Graphs with no scales on the axis, and no error bars. Definitely produced by climate scientists. Provides almost no information at all.
Where are the confidence limits on your observed data???
This is very easy to account for, once you accept that it is all due to the Will of Gaia, Blessings be Upon Her Name.
They have been wrong every time, since the very beginning….
Temperatures have been at or below every projected scenario…every one of them since the beginning
THANKS Robbcab for this!
http://bit.ly/1mIpjmY
alleagra
UHI?
“JBJ” asks about the magnitude of the measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties on global temperature data. A suitable value is 0.15 Celsius degrees.
I see today’s “no warming” timeline is 9.25 years, vs. almost 18 years vs. about 13 years as claimed in prior posts. lol, place your bets on tomorrow’s timeline. Seems that MoB is responding to well deserved flack concerning earlier misleading postings.
The Greenies at Grist are talking about a new type of science fiction called “climate fiction”. My nominees for best climate fiction writers are: Joe Romm, Michael Mann, James Hansen, and “Dr.” Jones of East Anglia U…
http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-change-the-hottest-thing-in-science-fiction/
Yet over the decades since 1990 we have continually been told by the world’s leading climate scientists and others that things are “worse than we thought”.
It doesn’t seem surprising to me that models using varying assumptions in one part but similar in others might produce results which are consistent with each other, and yet not because of that be in any way validated (using the more general meaning of “validated.”
John@EF read the text and you will understand that the choice of the extent of each timeline was driven by IPCC published statements, rather than any attempt to be misleading. Read the text.
John@EF says:
April 10, 2014 at 2:51 pm
“I see today’s “no warming” timeline is 9.25 years, vs. almost 18 years vs. about 13 years as claimed in prior posts. lol, place your bets on tomorrow’s timeline. Seems that MoB is responding to well deserved flack concerning earlier misleading postings.”
You don’t keep up very well do you John? Lord Monkton’s previous post dealt with the RSS satellite data (the only other satellite based temperature set)…indeed it does show 17 years and 8 months of totally flat temperatures. This is the UAH (actually handled by two well-known skeptical scientists and it shows the least amount of pause of any of the data sets. That happens to be just over 9 years. The average of all 5 most trusted data sets is about 15 years of no warming.
WUWT Global Temperature Page shows two graphs from UAH and four from RSS, and says they are incompatible, because they use different base periods. Which data sets do you use, and how do you combine them together ?
John@EF says:
April 10, 2014 at 2:51 pm
“I see today’s “no warming” timeline is 9.25 years, vs. almost 18 years vs. about 13 years as claimed in prior posts. lol”
This isn’t no warming, this is 10 years of cooling. The other ones are no statistically significant warming. I’m sure you couldn’t LOL at this after having been LOLing for 30 years at the predictions of the IPCC. Well, chances are you weren’t old enough to laugh that long ago. You’ve bought the IPCC figures and you are sticking with them.
I see the trolls – John@EF – are back after a welcome absence. The head posting plainly states that the IPCC backcasts its predictions to January 2005, which was – whether you or I like or not – 9 years 3 months ago. Naturally, therefore, I compared 9 years’ 3 months of predictions with 9 years and 3 months of data, not with some other period.
On the RSS dataset, the first to report each month, there has been no global warming for 17 years 8 months. I reported that at the beginning of this month. On the mean of all five datasets, usually available by the end of the month, there has been no global warming for 13 years 2 months. I reported that at the end of last month.
The vaunted models predicted there would be significant near-term global warming. In the real world, however, global warming has occurred at a rate significantly below their predictions, and recently at a zero rate. Get over it. All I do is report what the data actually show. Don’t blame me if you don’t like the data: blame the Forces of Darkness for misleading you into thinking that the modelers knew what they were talking about when they made their silly, exaggerated predictions.
In his latest article, the author continues in his past practice of drawing logically illicit conclusions from equivocations. That the IPCC is guilty of the same practice does not excuse it. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I suspect the IPCC correctly estimated the chances of funding being withdrawn if they didn’t up the confidence estimate… 🙂
Terry Oldberg
In his latest article, the author continues in his past practice of drawing logically illicit conclusions from equivocations. …
I say you are waffling BS – or do you plan to substantiate your accusation?
My dear Christopher Monckton, yet another fine post filled with real world data. Always a pleasure to read your work. Thanks for taking the time.
Rather, a minimum uncertainty in surface air temperature is (+/-)0.5 C; stemming from systematic temperature sensor measurement error.
The simple fact there is no warming. Lukewarmers etc.. should start reconsidering their position if the cooling trend continues. Also those who believe that C02 does cause some warming but we don’t know how much should also start reconsidering. As i understood it, during the ice ages C02 was 3000ppm or more. It would seem that C02 has absolutely no effect whatever on weather, climate etc. Its time to become a complete AGW DENIER me thinks… LOL
“There has been just 0.34 Cº global warming, equivalent to a mere 1.39 Cº per century.”
Pretty devastating, and yet not enough to kill the beast. There are only two things that might do that.
.
1: Actual cooling. I’d say 5 years if trend breaking , actual cooling ought to do it.
2: Failing that, a well designed survey conducted by a neutral, well respected national firm…Gallup comes to mind…of qualified scientists to determine their true position on CAGW. Every alarmist screed I’ve ever read refers to the supposed “overwhelming consensus.” It’s the beating heart of the alarmist argument. Destroy it, and you’ve altered the debate in a fundamental way.
alleagra
“http://labs.enigma.io/climate-change-map/ (model-free data – I guess) appears to tell a different story for the US at least.”
uh…
It looks like pretty much the same story for the US. Look how flat the graph is since 1997. A slight uptick in 2012, then back down.
Skeptical Science also says “Predictions”. In fact they used it quite a number of times as I noticed too, yet Trenberth swears they have never made any predictions.
Anonymousbot says: April 10, 2014 at 2:55 pm
‘The Greenies at Grist are talking about a new type of science fiction called “climate fiction”. ‘
Heh, not all cli-fi is alarmist. Some is skeptical: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/273983
(This plus Michael Crichton are listed at the wiki cli-fi page, so it’s not a Consensus clean sweep).
Veering back towards topic, as ‘the pause’ continues deep into its second decade and observations are dropping out of the bottom end of model projections, I’m continuously surprised at how modest an impact this has had on the entire social phenomenon of CAGW.
I can’t help thinking that clean air acts might be more responsible for some of the warming since the late 70’s until 2000-ish? Once dirty emissions were as good as we could get the trend then just flat-lined…
Have China and India undergone any regional cooling consistent with their less than pristine industrialisation since the 70″s? If they really did clean up their act would they also undergo some regional warming?
Honestly not a leading question. Just thinking.
Jones
Terry Oldberg says:
April 10, 2014 at 3:21 pm
In his latest article, the author continues in his past practice of drawing logically illicit conclusions from equivocations. That the IPCC is guilty of the same practice does not excuse it. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
_____________________
Bold words, prove it.
Because they see their slipping opportunity. The window for acting now is closing so they pretend that it’s worse than we thought. They must think everyone is on psychotic drugs.
It’s a con job, don’t be fooled.
@allegra That is a wonderful graph demonstration, but if we have warmed and then plateaued and even cooled a bit that graphic is almost a mathematical necessity.
What is doesn’t say is the most interesting and what is says is misleading and rather unimportant.
Think of it this way. You’re a struggling student and you are getting some reasonable grades and a lot of bad grades and a few good grades. That is the left side of the graph.
Next you picked up your game and now you are getting average grades but the top marks vs. the bad marks have shifted so top marks are predominating. About 2/3 thru the graph. But now, you have early onset Alzheimer’s and you are beginning to fail. Bad right? But you will still have many reasonable grades, and more top grades than bad, but do you like your future?
That graphic basically says we warmed a while back and now we have plateaued.
This graph was apparently created by a group that wants to convince you of something when the math doesn’t support what they want to say but the image, like the polar bear on a small ice flow, gives implied meaning.
@Bryan
““http://labs.enigma.io/climate-change-map/ (model-free data – I guess) appears to tell a different story for the US at least.”
You get that slight trend if you start from a cooler period, such as the 1960’s. The trend would be quite different if you started from 1950.
“fourteenth-rate bodice-ripping pot-boilers”, I’m not quite sure what that is, but I like it.
It seems that climate predictions are not going too well especially, as someone said, those concerning the future. The UK Met.Office has in fact predicted an even greater temperature rise
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-met-office-global-temperature-standstill-continues/
OK, it’s not the end of 2014 yet, so the prediction of it being 0.3 degree warmer than 2004 still has a chance. But, as one of Murphy’s Laws states ‘That’s not the way to place your bets’.
As for ‘half the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than 1998’ I’m afraid that’s bit the dust already.
Apologies from the Met. Office are expected at the end of the year because they are very honourable people.
An interesting and well described post, with the bonus joy of some troll slaying by the Lord, this site is a like a haven from the stench of corruption and misinformation that surrounds me these days.
Thanks John@EF
Bigger thanks to Christopher Monckton
Eliza says:
April 10, 2014 at 3:40 pm
The simple fact there is no warming. Lukewarmers etc. should start reconsidering their position if the cooling trend continues. Also those who believe that CO2 does cause some warming but we don’t know how much should also start reconsidering. As i understood it, during the ice ages CO2 was 3000ppm or more. It would seem that CO2 has absolutely no effect whatever on weather, climate etc.
You may be right. I am always reconsidering my position, which has been that CO2 causes some minuscule warming at current concentrations. But any such warming is too small to measure, and it is swamped by many other effects.
I agree that CO2 has no measurable or quantifiable effect on the weather or climate. I constantly ask anyone like John@EF to post evidence if they have it, but so far, no one has ever posted any such evidence. By now, I suspect the reason is that they have nothing. Nothing but their religious belief.
The entire man-made global warming belief is a religion, because there is no evidence whatever that CO2 emissions are causing any warming. All global warming in the past has been part of a repeated step change, with no correlation to CO2. Currently, China is emitting much more “carbon” than the West, with no discernable effect. But I note that people like John@EF are always silent regarding China, India, Russia, and a hundred other heavy CO2-emitting countries.
The carbon scare is based entirely on belief, not on science. We see that people like John@EF have nothing at all to back their belief. All John@EF has is snark. That gets him nowhere here at the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” site. John@EF needs to post verifiable evidence to support his belief, or get lost. There are religion-oriented blogs for people like him. SkS is a place he should retreat to. Lots of other religious true belivers are there.
MoB ignores where the majority of warming is going – the oceans. The stored ocean heat is going to bite him in the arse during the coming El Nino!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-08/el-nino-likely/5375798
mark in toledo says:
April 10, 2014 at 3:12 pm
John@EF says: April 10, 2014 at 2:51 pm
…
You don’t keep up very well do you John? Lord Monkton’s previous post dealt with the RSS satellite data (the only other satellite based temperature set)…indeed it does show 17 years and 8 months of totally flat temperatures. This is the UAH (actually handled by two well-known skeptical scientists and it shows the least amount of pause of any of the data sets. That happens to be just over 9 years. The average of all 5 most trusted data sets is about 15 years of no warming.
***************************
Believe me, my friends, I absolutely know what each of those timelines represents. The question is this: Why does MoB keep changing which individual temperature data set or combination of data sets to compare??? There’s no valid reason justifying a change.
“The question is this: Why does MoB keep changing which individual temperature data set or combination of data sets to compare???”
Well that is easy. It depends on the time intervals others have used.
Eliza says:
“As i understood it, during the ice ages C02 was 3000ppm or more.”
I believe the high levels of CO2 during ice ages is due to lack of vegetation. Normal vegetation like we have now, would have removed most of it.
I am always taken aback when I see Warmists here trying to defend 17 years of no global surface temperature warming. It wasn’t supposed to happen this way because the Climastrology models told us so. How much longer can you keep denying this discrepancy?
Below is the earliest recognition of the problem that I have found.
Many more temperature standstill quotes up to 2013. I have others for 2014.
M Simon says:
April 10, 2014 at 4:38 pm
“The question is this: Why does MoB keep changing which individual temperature data set or combination of data sets to compare???”
Well that is easy. It depends on the time intervals others have used.
**************************
Well, that makes no sense. In each case we’re talking about timelines inclusive within the satellite era. Explain.
Eliza says:
April 10, 2014 at 3:40 pm
———————————
Eliza,
your are correct, but the problem is that just like AGW believers, lukewarmers have climbed a tree and have no face saving way of getting down.
The basics of our planets climate in terms of net effects is simple –
The atmosphere allows the planet to retain its oceans.
The sun heats the oceans.
The atmosphere cools the oceans.
Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
That’s all you need to know to understand that AGW is a physical impossibility and that there is no net radiative GHE on this planet. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. It truly is that simple. And it truly is that embarrassing for lukewarmers who missed it. So they fight on, constantly seeking a “sciencey” sounding excuse for “warming, but far less than the IPCC said”. But at the end of the day, the error in the radiative GHE hypothesis is to far, far too big to be swept under the carpet.
The grievous error lays at the very foundation of the “basic physics” of the “settled science”. They treated our deep transparent oceans as a “blackbody” instead of a “selective coating” 5km deep over 71% of the lithosphere. Climastrologists calculated the temperature of the oceans in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling to be -18C. But as empirical experiment shows that figure is in error by around 98C. Remove atmospheric cooling and our oceans would turn into a giant evaporation constrained solar storage pond, with temperatures around 80C. The atmosphere is clearly cooling our oceans and the atmosphere has only one effective cooling mechanism – radiative gases. Climastrologis are not right, they are not even wrong.
It is time for Lukewarmers to reconsider. CO2 doesn’t cause warming and no amount of hand-waving will cover the mistake. The only question for lukewarmers now is whether to pull the bandaid off fast or slow.
” on what legitimate scientific or other rational basis did the IPCC recently increase from 90% to 95-99% its “confidence” that recent warming was mostly manmade?”
That 95% confidence was used In a published letter by 23 professors in The National Post today where you can also find a few comments by me. :
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/10/donner-harrison-hoberg-lets-talk-about-climate-change/
Here is something else interesting with the UAH temperatures. The lower stratosphere does appear to warming up now.
A key feature of global warming theory is that the lower stratosphere will cool off as it warms at the surface and the lower atmosphere. But if you look at the stratosphere data, one mostly sees the imprint of volcanoes and ozone depletion from volcanoes in the signal.
Lower stratosphere temps nearly reached Zero anomaly in March after getting step-changed down by the volcanoes. I’ve been waiting for a clear recovery pattern to emerge for the last several years and it now appears to be occurring.
http://s30.postimg.org/5h9be8s7l/Daily_UAH_LT_LS_Volcs_Mar14.png
John@EF asks why I don’t cherry-pick the datasets I use in my temperature analyses. Asked and answered in my earlier comment on this thread. He should stop blubbing and do his own graphs rather than moaning about mine.
Martin says the global warming is hiding in the oceans and is going to come out and say Boo during the forthcoming El Niño. Well,it has been doing that for thousands of years, and one should not try to imply that the fact of an El Niño is somehow evidence of man made warming. In a recent posting I pointed out that an El Niño was overdue (I had expected it in January), and that it would shorten the Pause, but only temporarily.
I am grateful to MikeB for drawing my attention to the failed Wet Office prediction of ten years ago, and to many other kind commenters who have said they enjoy these regular updates on global temperature trend.
Mr Mallett asks which RSS and UAH datasets I use. In each case I use the lower-troposphere dataset. The areas of coverage and methodologies of the two records are sufficiently close that little error arises if one is taking their mean for determining a global trend. Jones at East Anglia does it, and I usually do my best to use the methods the Forces of Darkness use, because that gives them one less thing to argue about.
Mr Oldberg, who does not like what these simple but devastating graphs show, should by now understand that he knows nothing of logic. If he disagrees with the IPCC’s use of the word “prediction” when it is making a prediction, then let him whine to the IPCC about it, not to me.
Big Climate, Big Cholestorol, Big Statins and now Big Flu under the pump-
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/health/government-spends-192-million-stockpiling-roche-drug-tamiflu/story-fni0diad-1226880199762
At the risk of catching LewLew’s conspiracy ideation do I sense a pattern emerging from the data with all these professional worryworts and their nanny state empires?
Martin says:
MoB ignores where the majority of warming is going – the oceans.
That is an evidence-free assertion. The ARGO buoy array does not show nearly the warming required to validate that belief. In fact, most areas of the ocean are cooling. It would be astonishing indeed if there was such a violation of the 2nd Law, where heated water was collecting at the bottom of the ocean and staying there, hidden from all scientific instruments.
‘Deep ocean heating’ is a last desperate attempt to salvage something from the litany of failed runaway global warming predictions. It, too, will be debunked in the near future.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Sandi says:
I believe the high levels of CO2 during ice ages is due to lack of vegetation.
So what? The debate is over the assertion that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. As Eliza pointed out, that didn’t happen even when CO2 was many times higher than now.
++++++++++++++++++++++
John@EF says:
The question is this: Why does MoB keep changing which individual temperature data set or combination of data sets to compare??? There’s no valid reason justifying a change.
John@EF doesn’t pay much attention, does he? Lord Monckton explained exactly why he used that time frame.
The shrinking alarmist clique still believes that “carbon” will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. So they ignore the real world. Their swivel-eyed position gets more ridiculous every day.
Sandi says:
April 10, 2014 at 4:40 pm
I believe the high levels of CO2 during ice ages is due to lack of vegetation. Normal vegetation like we have now, would have removed most of it.
===
nope, oceans
This is a genuine question, and I’m hoping that Anthony or someone else can give a definitive answer with some kind of reference from a relevant IPCC report.
When I first started engaging in debates about global warming back in 1998, I remember the alarmist graphs that showed a truly horrifying trend due to the ongoing El Nino. Of course it was obvious to me then that it was a short-term spike but that didn’t stop the predictions of up to 9C by 2050. That was when I first heard the opinion that warming in excess of 2C would be catastrophic. My recollection isn’t clear, but I seem to remember that it was always “2C above present values”, which of course seemed like a lock at the time. Now that global temperatures have stabilized, it’s being expressed as “2C of total warming over pre-industrial levels”, which of course means that we’re almost halfway there.
Is this another “watch the pea under the thimble” example, or is my recollection simply mistaken?
Thanks!
Martin says:
April 10, 2014 at 4:19 pm
MoB ignores where the majority of warming is going – the oceans. The stored ocean heat is going to bite him in the arse during the coming El Nino!
===
It don’t work that way….if you believe the oceans are “storing” the heat..then for our purposes the sink is infinite
Monckton of Brenchley says:
April 10, 2014 at 5:03 pm
John@EF asks why I don’t cherry-pick the datasets I use in my temperature analyses. Asked and answered in my earlier comment on this thread. He should stop blubbing and do his own graphs rather than moaning about mine.
***********************************
Stick with a consistent combination of data sets applicable over the timelines under consideration across head postings. Stop cherry-picking.
Yet the sad fact remains that the views we read here get no airing in the MSM at all, climate sceptics are presented as bordering on the criminally insane. Governments are deaf and determined to continue along the path of trying to mitigate climate change at the expense of developed economies. Here in Hong Kong all we read and hear are warnings from our weather bureau (HK Observatory) that we must decarbonise, dire warnings from our local greenpeace office about impending famine, the IPCC chief was recently given space in our top English newspaper to spout his nonsense without fear of editorial dissension, a recent minor hailstorm was caused by global warming, there will be more landslides due to global warming and our schools no longer show ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ now it is ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ – all within the last week or so. I fear we are hitting our heads against a brick wall.
Gib
I, for one, am unhappy about all this cooling. Yes, it proves these fools utterly wrong and if it continues it eventually will push them out (granted, they might bankrupt us in the process). But it sucks otherwise.
John@EF says:
Stop cherry-picking.
A textbook example of psychological projection. If anyone needs an excellent example of cognitive dissonance, John@EF provides it.
Lord Monckton has repeatedly explained in detail exactly why he used that particular time frame. But John@EF still cannot understand. The explanation has repeatedly whizzed right over his head.
Frankly, the whole global warming scam is an insult to anyone’s intelligence…
Plot the whole thing on this ice core
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo2.png
John@EF says:
Stop cherry-picking.
====
THIS is cherry picking…..
http://bit.ly/1mIpjmY
dbstealey says:
April 10, 2014 at 5:23 pm
******************************
You’re not catching on. I’m talking about cherry-picked data sets, not timelines …
Johns’ wording and logic process to divert the discussion seems very similar to “Gareth”?
I say we all ignore him and he may go away…
@John@ef
I think I see your dilemma. You want the same answer regardless of the question asked. So if someone asks you the color of the sky – you say john. If they ask you where you pee, you say john. If they ask you what time it is, you say john.
Fortunately most people actually address the question asked. Perhaps you should try it.
Nice one phil!
MikeB says:
April 10, 2014 at 4:08 pm
OK, it’s not the end of 2014 yet, so the prediction of it being 0.3 degree warmer than 2004 still has a chance.
No way! Here are the facts so far. The anomaly in Hadcrut3 in 2004 was 0.447 where it ranked 7th. In the first two months of 2014, Hadcrut3 is averaging 0.367 where it would rank 13th if it stayed this way. In order to be 0.3 warmer than 0.447, or average 0.747 by the end of 2014, the average for the remaining 10 months would need to be x in the following:
(12)0.747 = (2)0.367 + 10x. Then x = 0.823. The all time record for Hadcrut3 is February 1998 where it reached 0.756. So in order for 2014 to be 0.3 warmer than 2004, the all time Hadcrut3 record needs to be broken for 10 straight months as an average. See the following. Do you think the all time Hadcrut3 record of 1998 can be shattered this year?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1996
I’d say two years of cooling will kill the warmists’ momentum.
I’ve been recommending a re-survey (ideally by George Mason U., which has done two earlier ones) every two months or so here for four years. It’s not only the MSM and mainstream politicians that are deaf, it’s Heartland and the freres Koch and free market think tanks generally and “Big Oil.”
@dbstealey
I believe the high levels of CO2 during ice ages is due to lack of vegetation.
So what? The debate is over the assertion that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. As Eliza pointed out, that didn’t happen even when CO2 was many times higher than now.
Correct. I was pointing out why the CO2 level would be 3000ppm or more, not that it was pertinent to warming.
The IPCC was even more off-the-mark that Mockton says, because this was their business-as-usual scenario. I don’t have the numbers they expected for CO2 emissions, but it’s safe to say actual emissions have outstripped those due to exploding coal use.
John at EF: I see today’s “no warming” timeline is 9.25 years, vs. almost 18 years vs. about 13 years as claimed in prior posts. lol, place your bets on tomorrow’s timeline. Seems that MoB is responding to well deserved flack concerning earlier misleading postings.
Not so. Lord Monckton picked the dates that the IPCC made the predictions, or the dates that they backdated the predictions to. That’s the least arbitrary choice you can make for testing a prediction.
Terry Oldberg: In his latest article, the author continues in his past practice of drawing logically illicit conclusions from equivocations.
Not so. He simply and directly tests model-based predictions with the most relevant out of sample data.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley: “Based on current model results, we predict [semantic bores, please note the IPCC uses the word “predict”,
Good reminder. Thank you.
“what legitimate scientific or other rational basis did the IPCC recently increase from 90% to 95-99% its “confidence” that recent warming was mostly manmade?”.
It’s projection, they are 95-99% sure that’s what they want the data to say. They left reality a long time ago.
I am not a scientist, but can read, write and reason fairly well, and I am flabbergasted at John@EF’s willful ignorance. John, in yet another attempt at reasoning with you, note that the MoB reports on a variety of data sets using a variety of timescales and they all show a lack of warming not “predicted” by the “consensus”. The “variety” of failures over almost any timescale using any data set is what makes his argument compelling and worthy of attention (yours). That is not “cherry picking” my friend, it is proof.
the common people which I am one off have heard the predictions of doom for thirty years now one but the MSM still believes they may say they do to avoid argerment
philjourdan says:
April 10, 2014 at 5:45 pm
@John@ef
Stick with a consistent combination of data sets applicable over the timelines under consideration across head postings. Stop cherry-picking.
I think I see your dilemma. You want the same answer regardless of the question asked. So if someone asks you the color of the sky – you say john. If they ask you where you pee, you say john. If they ask you what time it is, you say john.
Fortunately most people actually address the question asked. Perhaps you should try it.
*************************
I see you’re having difficulty with logic, too. Again, what justifies constantly changing the data sets used by MoB from one posting topic to the next when in each case all 4 major temperature data sets cover the timelines involved? All 4 data sets are available to “actually address the question asked”. Perhaps you should ponder that a bit. The recognized technical term describing MoB’s shifting data set selections is “situational science”.
@John@ef
Sorry to say for you, I am having no problems with logic. Indeed, MoB has explained himself several times. I and others understand it.
But your comment completely misses my point. Ergo, one can only conclude you not only lack logic, but reading comprehension.
Brad says:
April 10, 2014 at 5:43 pm
————————————-
+1
Note that none of his comments add any value to the discussion of what this 9.25 years of cooling may be signaling. This post makes sense to me. It is also nice to be updated with current stats as to the continued direction of regional and global temperature shifts.
Do you really think it makes a difference which data set he used? Lord Monckton used UAH. UAH trends the least cool. If he used any of the other data sets the model errors compared to data would be even worse.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005.0/to:2014.25/trend/plot/uah/from:2005.0/to:2014.25/trend/plot/rss/from:2005.0/to:2014.25/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2005.0/to:2014.25/trend
scarletmacaw says:
April 10, 2014 at 6:31 pm
…
Do you really think it makes a difference which data set he used? Lord Monckton used UAH. UAH trends the least cool. If he used any of the other data sets the model errors compared to data would be even worse.
***********************
I’m well aware of what each data set shows. In my opinion, he caught justifiable flack for selecting RSS alone, yet could not simply taking the average of all four (which is the WTI index) as it wouldn’t show a zero or negative trend.
@John@EF
Here is a perfect example of the difference between alarmists and science.
MoB did not select RSS – the data did. Scientist look to where the data leads. Alarmist try to lead the data.
Hi John
Would you please kindly show what it shows?
But that gap will be sustained by the thought police control according to Krauthammer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-thought-police-on-patrol/2014/04/10/2608a8b2-c0df-11e3-b195-dd0c1174052c_print.html
Monckton of Brenchley, thanks, Christopher. As always, you’re a pleasure to read.
Cheers.
John@EF says:
Again, what justifies constantly changing the data sets used by MoB from one posting topic to the next when in each case all 4 major temperature data sets cover the timelines involved? blah, blah, &etc…
There is no getting through to John@EF. He is wilfully obtuse. Lord M has EXPLAINED, repeatedly, exactly why he used that data set, and why he used that time frame. If he changed either one, alarmists like John@EF would make the same kind of trolling arguments. They don’t argue because they are making sense, they argue to avoid admitting that their failed CAGW conjecture is being falsified by Planet Earth.
John@EF still doesn’t get it. His mind is closed tight, like most True Believers. Planet Earth is just not doing what they want or expect. So they reject all real world evidence, and interminably split hairs. It is the only way they have to keep from admitting what everyone else knows: they have been so consistenly wrong all along that they end up sounding like swivel-eyed lunatics, arguing that white is black, ignorance is strength, and runaway global warming is right around the corner.
John@EF needs to either commit himself to the nearest psychiatric facility, or go back to SkS, whichever is closer. Because he is not getting anywhere here with his crazy ideas.
Finally, here is the RSS dataset. It shows clearly what is happening, beginning much farther back in time.
jones says:
April 10, 2014 at 6:50 pm
Hi John
Would you please kindly show what it shows?
**************************
My apologies to scarletmacaw, I stand corrected on 2005+ timeline – I should have looked at his link first. IMO, MoB should have used the WTI index in this thread, and in the invalid “17yr 8 month” thread, and in any other thread with a timeline covered inclusive within the satellite era. I’m asserting there’s no valid reason to keep changing the data sets used. Jones, is there any doubt in your mind why MoB only selected the RSS data set in the “17yr 8 month” thread – that timeline was the basis for my “I’m well aware of what each data set shows” comment?
Thank you for that John
However, I hope you can understand that I am not advocating your position and it should, therefore, be your own assertion to prove.
I am politely asking for you to provide me with what the WTI index shows, nothing more.
Please.
John@EF
You are the sorriest excuse for a commenter I have yet encountered. You have bought the low standards for trolls down even further.
Lord Monckton did not use ‘RSS alone’ in his above presentation. The choice of data set in the above presentation does not change his conclusion, so it doesn’t matter which data set he used, or whether or not he used a different data set here compared to a different post. To make a big deal of an insignificant triviality just shows how weak your position is.
The trolls are making more than usually spectacular asses of themselves this time. John@ EF, having been comprehensively answered, wonders why I regularly feature the RSS dataset. As I have previously explained, it is the first dataset to report each month. It is also the most accurate, in that it correctly represents the great El Niño of 1998 at its full magnitude.
The intellectually dishonest technique of sniping ineffectually and then reciting the same feeble point over and over again even after it has been answered merely serves to confirm that true-believers in the New Superstition are not amenable to reason. John@EF is wasting his time here, but, like Mr Oldberg, he advertises by his clodhopping, hand-dragging illogicality just how worried the Forces of Darkness are at the failure of the world to warm as ordered by the Politburo. There is some value in that, in that it serves to confirm that the truth does one lie in the often spiteful and always unconstructive comments of the trolls, If John@ EF wants to do his own graphs, let him do them. But let him know that I shall continue to provide these revealing performance indicators of the models’ failure whether he likes it or not.
John@EF, your response appeared while I was typing my last comment. Are you arguing that Lord Monckton should have used WTI in a previous article? You need to argue that position on that thread, not this one.
WTI is an average of all four data sets, so it includes the non-satellite sets. One can make a good argument that since only the satellite sets are truly global, WTI is not the best choice. In reality it doesn’t make a lot of difference, although GISS is questionable with the constant adjustments of past temperatures in a direction that always increases warming.
Hmmm, might be trivia but I watched a German movie last night, very late at night, and it was called ‘Tornado’ and it was about cold cells colliding with hot cells over Berlin. It was good but the message was early warning systems. With a cyclone Ita heading towards Northern Australia, we have adequate warning systems through our BOM. I have experienced very hot and humid weather, with or without storms, is often followed by extreme storms and drops in temperature.
There really is no gap. It is man made sumilation intolerance, not a real gap.
Quite visible too.
Could someone comment or explain why they labs.enigma data linked in the first comment differs from the data sets that Lord Monckton analyzes? Is it related to land based temperature vs. global, heat islands, adjustments to the data sets, etc? Just wondering how to reconcile the differences. It also would be interesting to see how an overlay of the IPCC predictions would compare to this enigma data.
They own global warming and we should ram that down their throat. Everyone knows climate varies so climate change is a redundant term they adapted and we have to get tough and with every chance, make sure they own THEIR FORECAST OF WARMING
Monckton of Brenchley: “given only 64 (or 0.5%) of 11,944 scientific abstracts published since 1991 stating that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade”
Could you define that universe a little more? Does that 11,944 number for scientific abstracts include everything scientific at all, such as, say, magnetotransport properties in gallium arsenide or the genome of the earthworm? If so, it would hardly be startling that the fraction stating that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade is modest.
scarletmacaw says:
April 10, 2014 at 7:41 pm
John@EF, your response appeared while I was typing my last comment. Are you arguing that Lord Monckton should have used WTI in a previous article? You need to argue that position on that thread, not this one.
WTI is an average of all four data sets, so it includes the non-satellite sets. One can make a good argument that since only the satellite sets are truly global, WTI is not the best choice. In reality it doesn’t make a lot of difference, although GISS is questionable with the constant adjustments of past temperatures in a direction that always increases warming.
*************************************
I’m arguing that MoB use a consistent temperature reference across all threads and that it be an average of the major data sets. It could be WTI, although that index does not include NCDC, so it may not be optimal. I don’t have a problem with MoB’s graph contained in the posting of 3/31 as it was based on the average of all 5 major data set. The timeline for this thread, however, should have been 110 months ending February 2014 to be consistent and represent the consolidated average. MoB’s monthly RSS-only temperature postings are nonsense and are simply an opportunity to repeatedly post a distorted and oportunistic statistical picture. If, for example, the GISS data set showed the longest non-warming least-squared trend, you’d never see MoB posting the RSS-only graph … perhaps the GISS-only graph instead, along with a BS narrative to justify it.
Joe Bastardi says:
April 10, 2014 at 8:19 pm
———————————–
They won’t just own it, they will wear it.
Global warming was a global IQ test with results permanently recorded on the Internet.
All of the Professional Left from one side of the planet to the other failed. Their shame can never be erased.
The rotting albatross of global warming advocacy and the vilification of sceptics will hang around their necks forever.
John,
I have been gracious in asking please can you tell me what the WTI would show?
I really do not know.
Jones
If John @ EF was merely a troll he would be tolerable, but he is far more than your average troil, he’s an idiot also. Most trolls when told, over and over again, that 2+2=4 eventually give up, but John is still asking how much is 2+2. Only an idiot could not understand that 2+2=4 .
It is a travesty that the oceans have been warming and massive el Nino is coming.
I have been trying to find it myself but I think I’m asking the search engine the wrong question..
jones says: April 10, 2014 at 7:24 pm
Thank you for that John
However, I hope you can understand that I am not advocating your position and it should, therefore, be your own assertion to prove.
I am politely asking for you to provide me with what the WTI index shows, nothing more.
Please.
******************************
Here’s WTI Jan 2005-Feb 2014 trend for this thread:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2005/plot/wti/from:2005/trend
Here’s WTI vs. RSS relative to MoB’s ridiculous April 5th (and monthly) RSS trend thread:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1996.58/mean:12/plot/wti/from:1996.58/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.58/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1996.58/trend
Thank you John.
Jones
Lord Monckton, thank you for your clear updates — and thank you for being a gentleman, which cannot be said about every contributor to this distinguished site.
Konrad says:
April 10, 2014 at 8:33 pm
.
“Global warming was a global IQ test with results permanently recorded on the Internet.”
I like it!
Hi John
If I’ve understood the graphs correctly the wti trends (from the links you kindly provided) if taken from 2005 show cooling and if taken from 1996 show warming?
Have I interpreted that correctly?
Not a trick question, honest. I’m just not too sure of myself (a good trait I’ve found!).
Jones.
Since the land based datasets are more subject to corruption than the Sat based datasets, what would the WTI bring to the table in terms of a better perspective? UHI, bad station location, lack of coverage all make the Sat record the more dependable. I suppose there is a bit of projection here in the request that the WTI be used. Monckton of Brenchley is accused of using the SAT datasets as being more favorable to the presented opinion just as the troll prefers the WTI be used as one must assume is more favorable to the troll’s position.
Myself, I like the ice core graphs best. Always appropriate in any of these discussions regarding such short term snippets of Climate History to put them in the context of our little break from the geologic ice age we are still in:
http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
Here we can see this modest warming including it’s recent pause or even slight decline depending on the time period used are just bumps in the road along our inexorable descent back into the return of the full on ice age. Note how our current warming is not as strong as the peaks of the prior warmings and if you line the peaks up they all point to the overall downward trend?
Ah, but believers in the climate religion can see that AGW signal and we should all keep the downtrodden downtrodden or even worse to support this religion which includes burning food for fuel. This is a sad, sad, sad period of science.
But not surprising at all. As most agenda based science isn’t really science anyway whether it comes from religion stating the earth is 6000 years old, or these climate activists staring at graphs and seeing the doom of man caused global warming reminds me of rites divining the future from the spilled entrails of a freshly killed animal. Do these alarmist trolls realize that in the full context of facts there is not a bit of logic to support their positions? The ‘signal’ of AGW is just like seeing a future in spilled animal entrails!
The fallacy being exposed here is correlation is not causation. The ice core graph linked above shows the minor current uptick since the end of the little ice age is part of natural variation, and pales in size, rate, and duration from past natural changes before man could have had any influence whatsoever. As this correlation vs causation continues to disprove the hypothesis I’m not surprised that the ‘facts’ required for the scaremongering come more and more from the “models show” type statements or that ridicules ‘the greater the scientific uncertainty, the more we need to react’ type papers and press releases coming out.
As for people in this thread talking about the El Nino we might get, that might lift their cause for a short time since that will allow the correlation vs causation fallacy to continue to blind their minds. But El Nino’s is one of the most efficient mechanisms the earth has to lose heat to space. Not sure they’ll like the cooling trend that will happen after the El Nino or the resultant flat or decreasing temp graph as we continue with the quiet sun and physical orbital changes that will overwhelm whatever supposed eco-engineering of our climate some of us arrogant humans think we are doing.
Anthony, thanks for letting the trolls linger – it’s very illuminating and entertaining
jones says:
April 10, 2014 at 9:18 pm
Hi John
If I’ve understood the graphs correctly the wti trends (from the links you kindly provided) if taken from 2005 show cooling and if taken from 1996 show warming?
Have I interpreted that correctly?
Not a trick question, honest. I’m just not too sure of myself (a good trait I’ve found!).
Jones.
******************
Yes, over a 9 year period. As is true of any short term trend in a noisy time-series, tho’, trends are volatile and provide marginal value. For example, if you start one year later the trend turns positive.
Hi John,
Thank you kindly.
Jones
Hi John
Did any of the models predict a nine-year cooling trend?
Just one please.
Jones
Jimmy Haigh. says:
April 10, 2014 at 9:18 pm
——————————–
You may like it but a lot of folks don’t 😉
For the climastrologists, activists, journalists and politicians of the Left it is an ugly problem. They cannot erase their record of AGW advocacy, propaganda and vilification of sceptics. And they are all going to be remembered as idiots as the global warming IQ test questions were so very simple –
Q. How much of our planet is covered by ocean?
A. 71%
Q. What is the primary heating mechanism for our oceans?
A. The sun.
Q. What is the primary cooling mechanism for our oceans?
A. Evaporation to the atmosphere.
Q. What is the primary cooling mechanism for the atmosphere?
A. IR radiation to space from radiative gases.
Q. Will adding radiative gases to the atmosphere reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability?
A. No.
Q. What is the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere?
A. Cooling.
But the AGW fellow travellers feeling like fools is one thing. The elephant in the room is the general public. When they find out how simple the answers were there is going to be trouble. I fear “Mr. Stampy” is going to have a full on trumpeting and stomping frenzy…
Decades of lies, fear, propaganda and vilification of any who dared ask questions. There is a price to be paid.
Konrad;
Q. What is the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere?
A. Cooling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If that were the case, Venus would be cooler than Mercury. But it isn’t. The earth would be cooler than the moon. But it isn’t. Tropical jungles would be cooler on average than deserts, but they aren’t.
What we need is more trolls trying to argue their case, for the debate exposes the weakness of their arguments. What we need less of is abjectly bad and demonstrably unsound science.
davidmhoffer says:
April 10, 2014 at 11:23 pm
————————————
Do Mercury and Venus have oceans? No. The problem at hand is our ocean planet and useless instantaneous radiative flux equations that treat the oceans as a “blackbody” when they are in effect a “selective surface” 5 km deep over 71% of the lithosphere are no good.
David those useless equations show our oceans at -18C in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR. Empirical experiment indicates the correct figure would be around 80C.
Are you denying that our radiative atmosphere acts to cool our oceans?
Konrad;
Do Mercury and Venus have oceans?
>>>>>>>>>>>
Your claim is that radiative gasses have a cooling effect. I gave you three examples which falsify this claim, one of which is indeed on a planet with oceans.
Empirical experiment indicates the correct figure would be around 80C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now you’ve gone completely off the deep end.
To be frank Christopher, I don’t think the “Great Credibility Gap” yawns where you claim it does. If you are skeptical about that, here’s some recent evidence for my assertion:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/09/study-wuwt-near-the-center-of-the-climate-blogosphere/#comment-1609328
davidmhoffer says:
April 11, 2014 at 12:06 am April 11, 2014 at 12:08 am
———————————————————————–
“Your claim is that radiative gasses have a cooling effect. I gave you three examples which falsify this claim, one of which is indeed on a planet with oceans.”
Your examples were off planet or over the 29% land surface of earth and not relevant to my ocean cooling claim.
My claims laid out twice on this thread are very simple –
The sun heats the oceans.
The atmosphere cools the oceans.
Radiative gases cool our atmosphere.
“Now you’ve gone completely off the deep end.”
Excuse me? If our atmosphere can’t radiatively cool itself then how could it cool the oceans? They would become the equivalent of evaporation constrained solar ponds. Temperatures in these can top 90C. Anyone can check for themselves –
http://i40.tinypic.com/27xhuzr.jpg
You have called me a “troll” and claimed debate will expose the weakness of my argument. I am claiming our radiative atmosphere acts to cool our oceans. So please expose the “weakness” of my argument by answering the simple question –
Given 1 bar pressure, does our radiative atmosphere acts to cool our oceans or warm them?
So what? The debate is over the assertion that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. As Eliza pointed out, that didn’t happen even when CO2 was many times higher than now.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well that is not exactly true. If one believes the Snowball Earth theory (and I do) 400 million years ago the Earth was a giant snowball and the only thing that saved the planet from remaining a giant ice ball was green house gases emitted by volcanoes, mostly CO2. Since there was no/very little open water CO2 built up in the atmosphere. While the exact concentration of CO2 is not known I’ve read estimates as high a 12-14%. So at vastly higher levels then we see today CO2 can cause warming in our atmosphere. Also, was not run away warming, volcanoes again, a component of the Permian extinction event?
If I am correct in the above, then it is illogical to think CO2 does not cause warming. The question becomes, how much warming does 400-500pm cause as appose to 280pm? Right now I am thinking not much.
On another topic that warmests or going “all in” on a super El Nino. I fear if we do get a super El Nino we will hear lots of “I told you sos” for quite a while.
The first rule of climate science is when the models and reality differ in value it is reality which is in error. So this divergence is not a problem.
Terry Oldberg says:
April 10, 2014 at 3:21 pm
In his latest article, the author continues in his past practice of drawing logically illicit conclusions from equivocations. That the IPCC is guilty of the same practice does not excuse it. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
So, I took a look at your work. Hell’s teeth, but you’re out of date. What have you been doing for the last 4 years? Don’t answer; my question is rhetorical.
Citing this work
Title: Offerings of KnowledgeToTheMax, Third Edition
Author: Terry Oldberg
Publisher: KnowledgeToTheMax, Los Altos Hills, CA
Publication date: November 14, 2009
Copyright
COPYRIGHT © 2008, 2009 by Terry Oldberg
“Real-world temperature change in the 291 months since January 1990 has been spectacularly below what was predicted. There has been just 0.34 Cº global warming, equivalent to a mere 1.39 Cº per century.”
Smoke, mirrors and cherries. One might just as legitimately look at the projections stated by the IPCC in AR3, recorded here …
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/552.htm
Here, the IPCC projected a surface temp change of between 0.27 and 0.4C for the interval 1990-2010, with the scenario that best matched actual forcings, A1F1 predicting a rise of 0.32C. Indistinguishable from observations. The IPCC got it spot on. Gosh.
Secondly I’m sceptical about averaging RSS and UAH. These use the same input data from satellite measurements of the tropospheric temperature but apply different algorithms, and come up with different trends, with UAH markedly higher. Not many people live in the troposphere, and surface measurements for the same period agree far more closely with UAH than RSS.
Also, in the real world, the IPCC AR5 actually defined ‘near-term’ thus
‘Unless otherwise stated, ‘near-term’ change and the projected changes below are for the
period 2016–2035 relative to the reference period 1986–2005.’
So starting any ‘test’ in the single year 2005 has zero validity.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf
My drawing attention to http://labs.enigma.io/climate-change-map/ was a bit of a
devil’s advocate move.
If you’re interested in seeing what others from a general population of people
who mostly make well-argued comments (on IT subjects at least & very often general subjects as well) try this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566553
Awww come on moderators! Two hours?!
Are we descending to the level of John Cook’s Sceptical Science here?
What’s the point in defending the lukewarmer position? AGW is a physical impossibility. Bandaid off fast or slow. Those are the only choices. Sure it’s going to embarrass lukewarmers. But it’s going to hit the AGW propagandists harder.
Just tear the damn thing off quick and get it over with.
Buk. Buk. Bukawww!
[Two hours – Yet, are you complaining about chickens? Or eggs?? Mod]
“Jim s” raises the interesting question how much CO2 was in the air in the early climate. He says he has seen values as high as 12-14%. In fact, in the Neoproterozoic era, 750 million years ago, there was at least 30% CO2 in the air, for otherwise the dolomitic limestones could not have precipitated out of the oceans.
“Konrad” says greenhouse gases have a cooling effect. They have a warming effect. It was demonstrated by experiment in 1859. Try to catch up.
“Jones” asks whether any of the models predicted cooling since 2005. A tiny handful of model runs allowed the possibility of the current Pause, but the devastating Fig. 11.25a in IPCC (2013) shows that measured temperature change has now fallen below the 95% confidence interval of the models’ predictions.
“Jones” also asks whether the combined trends on all the major datasets show cooling since 2005 but warming since 1996. Yes: but neither was statistically significant. The warming since 1996 as the mean of all five datasets, for instance, was 0.1 Cº.
“John@EF” continues to whine about my having used the RSS satellite data in another posting, showing – inconveniently from the trolls’ viewpoint – that there has been no global warming for 17 years 8 months. Yet I had already explained a) that RSS is the first dataset to report each month, and I try to prepare the graph within hours so as to be topical, and b) that RSS is the most accurate of the datasets, in that it correctly represents the magnitude of the Great el Niño of 1998, which we know was similar to the two previous Great el Niños of the past 300 years because of the widespread coral bleaching all three events caused.
“John@EF” also says short-run trends are not valuable. Yet in the present head posting we are concerned not with trends in isolation but with comparisons between what the models predict and what has happened in reality. One of those comparisons dates back to 1990. That is plainly long enough. And it is the IPCC itself that has dated its latest predictions from 2005. If “John@EF” says it should not have done so, let him take the matter up with the IPCC secretariat, not with me.
John Mason raises the question whether doing the comparisons based on the terrestrial temperature series rather than the satellite series would have made any real difference. It would not have made much difference: for instance, the combined satellite data series show no global warming at all for 13 years 2 months, while the three combined terrestrial series show no global warming for – er – 13 years 2 months.
Bottom line: whichever dataset one uses, the growing discrepancy between the models’ exaggerated predictions and the far less exciting observed outturn can no longer be concealed, explained away or hidden among the trolls’ complaints about cherry-picking. Like it or not, ever since the inadvertent delegate from Burma first announced that there had been no global warming for 16 years, the world has come to realize that the models were wrong. Even the IPCC realizes they were wrong. That is why it has explicitly abandoned them and slashed its warming forecast for the next 30 years to a rate barely greater than we have seen in the last 30.
If even IPCC’s predicted acceleration in the near-term warming rate is as slow as it now is notwithstanding the record emissions of greenhouse gases over the period, its centennial forecasts, which it has not adjusted downwards, are obvious nonsense. We have now been running the CO2 experiment for long enough to get some idea of whether we are likely to see 3-4 Celsius degrees of warming this century. The answer is No.
Joe Born says:
April 10, 2014 at 8:24 pm: Asks about the “11,944 scientific abstracts “.
If he was to ‘drag his mouse’ over the “11,944 scientific abstracts” then ‘right click’ on the highlighted area, the option to search for that exact phrase will appear.
As it happens, the first link revelled by Google is from Joanne Novas website with full details of what you need to know and a copy of the letter from Lord Monckton.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/monckton-honey-i-shrunk-the-consensus/
Basically, the idea of confidence interval is simple. We have some population and take random samples of a certain size. Each time we compute some statistic and finally determine an interval in which the statistic is found to be in 95 (99) percent of the samples. If we finally consider one random sample, and the statistic lies outside the interval, we may decide that this sample was taken from another population, etc. What could the model be for the IPCC confidence statement? To give them all benefit of the doubt, we may consider a non-AGW world and an AGW-world. From the first we may take random samples of information and determine a sphere in which 95 percent of several statistics are found. In our real world the statistics lie outside this sphere. So we likely live in an AGW-world? As likely all information we have is a biased sample from a non-AGW world.
It would be interesting to get Lord Monckton’s view on the balance between the warming effects and cooling effects of CO2.
Lab experiments show’ the warming effect of CO2 and it fits with the science.
However, as the earth system can only dump heat energy into space via radiation, CO2 must be a major player.
Does anyone have a view or even calculations as to the cooling effect versus heating effect and could any of the possible answers inform the debate about why the earth system regulates its climate so well?
I was pleasantly surprised to hear an Abbott govt. Spokesman arguing with the greens about eliminating the Carbon tax. He said that it is clear the latest IPCC statement exaggerates the scientific data.
steverichards1984 says:
April 11, 2014 at 3:44 am
———————————
Well the answer to that is simple. In terms of net flux radiative gases emit over twice the amount to space than they absorb from surface IR and direct absorption of incoming solar radiation.
The net effect of these gases is clearly cooling of our atmosphere.
They are emitting to space not just the radiation the atmosphere absorbs, but all the energy the atmosphere acquires via surface conduction and the release of latent heat of evaporation.
Radiative gases cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
Sorry for the slow response, but this will have taken a few hours to get through moderation…
steverichards1984:
Thanks a lot for the pointer. I’ll have to admit that I may have let the skepticism I’ve come to harbor regarding the meticulousness of Lord M.’s (otherwise admirable) efforts lead me to pass over that particular post of his at JoNova.
For my penance, I’ll commend that post to the attention of anyone still paying attention to this thread–but recommend that you first just skip down to the letter at the end and in particular to the table with the blue highlighting.
[snip . . posting on multiple identities is against site rules . . mod]
Thinking more about this ‘cooling effect’ of CO2,
We appear to have a body of evidence, some strong, some weak, some wrong, describing how CO2 etc interacts with radiation from the sun, causing the planet to warm.
I can not find, in the last hour, anything of note, describing how the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA) is couple to space for the purpose of dumping the suns thermal energy by radiation.
To me, this is crucial.
We need details of both ends of the cycle, energy in – energy out, and the thermal delay in between.
Does atmospheric CO2 concentration affect energy out at the TOA as it appears to affect energy in at the earths surface?
Does it self regulate? ie more in causes more out due to …….. ?
Does the ‘limiting’ ‘broadening’ and other phenomena give us our remarkably stable climate?
– – – – – – – – –
Joe Bastardi,
Yes, a simple but effective strategy.
It can be called the ‘unmask the chicken littles’ strategy.
It can also be called the ‘expose the exaggerationists‘ strategy.
I like the latter expression better.
John
[Two hours – Yet, are you complaining about chickens? Or eggs?? Mod]
They say patience is a virtue, perhaps I should have waited longer to check this 😉
Not all eggs hatch to be chickens, but those that do typically come home to roost.
For AGW believers and lukewarmers alike however, this may not be the case. The problem with the basic physics of the settled science is, as the old physics joke goes, it only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum. The problem with chickens in the hard vacuum of space is while they may rapidly become spherical, they don’t stay that way for long…
Monckton of Brenchley says:
April 11, 2014 at 3:29 am
“Konrad” says greenhouse gases have a cooling effect. They have a warming effect. It was demonstrated by experiment in 1859. Try to catch up.
———————————————————————-
Viscount Monckton,
while I may find occasional advantage in playing the fool, it does not necessarily follow that I am an idiot. I am well aware of Tyndall’ work. I am an empiricist, and unlike the Royal Society these days, I take no man’s word for it. Trust but verify. I have personally confirmed that CO2 can be heated with incident LWIR. Similarly I have confirmed that Tyndalls’s 1860 finding that gases can also cool be emitting LWIR. My most relevant combined experiment is here –
http://i49.tinypic.com/34hcoqd.jpg
Two identical identical chambers with double glazed IR transparent film. Matt black target plates under equal SW sources. In each chamber an air duct circulating air gas past a radiation shielded thermocouple. One chamber filled with air the other CO2. In this circumstance any warming of CO2 by radiation from the target plate is offset by its ability to radiate energy it has acquired by conductive contact with the target plate.
It should be further noted that standard NASA energy budgets show radiative gases emitting more than twice the net flux of IR to space than the net flux they absorb from surface or direct interception of incoming solar radiation.
But back to history –
In 1938 Callendar tried to breathe life back into the radiative GHE hypothesis with a paper to the Royal society. His paper was published along with the wise response of Sir George Simpson –
“..but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere..”
I believe these word are as relevant today as they were in 1938.
If you would be so good as to concede that radiative gases both warm and cool, I can take my horned cap and bells to other players, as I feel there are many far more deserving of a pigs bladder to the head.
knrad;
You have called me a “troll” and claimed debate will expose the weakness of my argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did no such thing. I welcomed trolls and suggested that people like you who spout complete bull and repeatedly demonstrate that they cannot understand the simplest of examples that falsifies their exceedingly poor grasp of physics are what we need less of.
But I’ve tried to point you at the fats before, to no avail. Everyone once and a while i take a new approach in the hopes that you’ll pause to consider that you may be wrong and the millions of engineers that design products that work, all over the world, every day, based on the physics you claim are wrong, are possibly the ones that know that they are talking about after all.
The examples I provided don’t need to be restricted to cases where there is an ocean transferring energy in to the atmosphere to falsify your claim. But since you don’t understand the physics in the first place, you don’t understand that. But since you insist on that condition, I will point you to the ERBE data where you will find that in the tropics, over oceans, where water vapour (a radiatively active gas) is very high, the earth is a net ABSORBER of energy. Over oceans, in the arctic, where due to cold temps water vapour is very low, the earth is a net radiator of energy, winter and summer. If you were right, it would be the other way around.
– – – – – – – – –
Christopher Monckton,
As shown by your increasingly frequent WUWT posts on GASTA** and SLTTA***, I enthusiastically encourage your apparent strategy. I interpret that your strategy is to keep the awareness high on the fictional aspect of the surreal modeling art used in the intentionally exaggerated IPCC assessments(s) by contrasting it (the art) sharply with all the datasets of scientifically observed reality.
It is important to always keep the “bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong” message of Richard Feynman in mind. So, Christopher Monckton, what “bending over backwards” have you done in your lead post to indicate possible quid pro quos, caveats, provisos and exceptions?
**GASTA = Global Average Temperature Anomalies
***SLTTA = Satellite Lower-Troposphere Temperature Anomalies
{apologies to Walt Disney for paraphrasing the expression of provisos and quid pro from their movie ‘Aladdin’}
John
@mod says: April 11, 2014 at 5:49 am
In which case please be so good as to reveal when “@jim Hunt says: April 11, 2014 at 12:38 am” was eventually released from your moderation queue.
davidmhoffer says:
April 11, 2014 at 8:32 am
“….people like you who spout complete bull and repeatedly demonstrate that they cannot understand the simplest of examples that falsifies their exceedingly poor grasp of physics are what we need less of”
————————————
I’m sorry David, your response was not entirely clear.
Are you claiming that given an atmospheric pressure of 1 bar, the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans or warming of the oceans?
Jim s says:
The question becomes, how much warming does 400-500pm cause as appose to 280pm? Right now I am thinking not much.
This has been shown repeatedly. Please take this opportunity to bookmark these links, they come in handy when debating carbon alarmists.:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi
CO2 causes warming. But at current concentrations and greater, not much. As we see in the charts, most of the warming effect took place in the first 20 ppmv of atmospheric CO2. At today’s levels, any warming from CO2 is far too small to measure. It is well down into instrumental noise.
Regarding your other comments, yes, CO2 was very high during past ice ages [although “high” is relative – look at the first link; ‘ice ages’]. And on all time scales, changes in CO2 are the result of changes in temperature. There is no evidence that changes in CO2 cause changes in T.
That is why the alarmist clique is wrong: they began with an incorrect assumption — that ∆CO2 caused ∆T, when in fact, ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2 on all time scales, from months, to hundereds of millennia. That is what the data/evidence tells us.
knrad;
Are you claiming that given an atmospheric pressure of 1 bar, the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans or warming of the oceans?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Every time I reply with a fact that falsifies your premise, you come back with another version of the question with another immaterial factoid thrown in. 1 bar wasn’t part of the discussion before, suddenly you’re trying to slip words into my mouth and pretend that is was.
Can’t help you bud. You’ve got the physics down to the type of thing Einstein used to call “that’s not right, that’s not even wrong”. But you don’t want to learn the physics, you don’t want to understand the very clear and simple examples I gave that falsify your premise, you don’t even want to have a discussion of the issues introduced already and discussed to death, you simply want to continually add yet another immaterial element to the conversation.
Done with you. When you are ready to learn something, then let me know. In the meantime, anyone who considers the examples i provided to you above will also see that you are wrong.
In response to Mr Whitman, my purpose in providing regular updates on global temperature trends is to report that which is so. My graphs are just about the only ones widely available that demonstrate two important facts for all to see. First, that contrary to suggestions that global warming is continuing it is not; and secondly, that the rate of longer-term warming is well below what was predicted. The IPCC itself, as the head posting points out, has accepted this by reducing its near-term global warming estimates. If Mr Whitman thinks it should not have done so, he should address his concerns to ipcc.ch.
I do not understand his question about offering one thing in return for another, or about ifs and buts. If he has any reason to doubt the methodology or conclusions in the head posting, let him make his reasons plain.
– – – – – – – – – –
Christopher Monckton,
I do not understand your reply “If Mr Whitman thinks it should not have done so, he should address his concerns to ipcc.ch.” in response to my statement to you “As shown by your [Monckton’s] increasingly frequent WUWT posts on GASTA** and SLTTA***, I enthusiastically encourage your apparent strategy. [. . .]” Please, would you advise as to what your reply meant?
In the spirit of Feynman’s “bending over backwards”, I was explicitly inquiring if you have additional aspects to what you wrote in your lead post that relate to alternate interpretation. You have answered without mentioning any, so I presume you have no unstated possible quid pro quos, caveats, provisos and exceptions. Your answer is sufficient to my question and I thank you for your answer.
John
From his statements, it appears to me that “John@EF” is essentially asking that Monckton only write about one subject.
Understandable, if you are only capable of following one subject. Most of us can understand that people can write posts/articles about different things.
Must be hell to read a magazine like that.
davidmhoffer says:
April 11, 2014 at 9:41 am
” anyone who considers the examples i provided to you above will also see that you are wrong.”
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Konrad asks you a question, and you respond by accusing him of putting words in your mouth. Your response does not seem warranted. Konrad has made good sense to me in his arguments, for as much as I am able to comprehend the issues.
John@EF
When MoB posts repeatedly answers you with an explanation:
MoB, “John@ EF, having been comprehensively answered, wonders why I regularly feature the RSS dataset. As I have previously explained, it is the first dataset to report each month. It is also the most accurate, in that it correctly represents the great El Niño of 1998 at its full magnitude.”
Why do you repeatedly keep asking why he used RSS?
It would be normal if you objected to his answer with some explanation.
Instead you keep reacting as if he never answered you.
That kind of behavior is not normal.
You must have some sort of ailment or derangement.
If you are just being a deceitful jackass then your affliction is worse than an ailment.
K*nrad asks you a question, and you respond by accusing him of putting words in your mouth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because he did. And go back over the examples I gave him Are any of them wrong? No? If they are right, then K*nrad is wrong.
Here is a link to ERBE:
http://eos.atmos.washington.edu/cgi-bin/erbe/disp.pl?net.ann.
Note that those areas of the earth with very high water vapour (radiatively active) like over the oceans in the tropics, are net absorbers if energy. In other words, more comes in from the sun than radiates back out to space. Then look at deserts like north africa at about the same latitude. They are net radiators of energy. in other words less comes in from the sun than gets radiated out. Since you can compare over ocean and over desert at the same latitude fairly easily here, we’re talking about areas where the preponderance of the difference between the two is that the areas over the ocean have much higher concentrations of radiatevly active gas. So if radiatively active gasses served to cool the atmosphere, we would see the exact opposite. In terms of average temperature, sure the deserts have higher peak day time highes than do same latitudes over oceans, but the AVERAGE temperature over the oceans and in tropical jungles is not just higher than in deserts at the same latitude, it is a LOT higher. Again, if K*nrad was correct, we would see the lack of cooling from radiative gasses over desert cause the exact opposite effect.
Observations trump theory.
John at EF: I see you’re having difficulty with logic, too. Again, what justifies constantly changing the data sets used by MoB from one posting topic to the next when in each case all 4 major temperature data sets cover the timelines involved?
You missed the point about testing a prediction (IPCC wording) against the most relevant out of sample data.
davidmhoffer says:
April 11, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Because he did.
——————————
Perhaps in your mind it seems that he did, but as an outside observer I don’t see it that way. First he states that he is unsure about something you said, and then he asks the question. All that the question required was a yes or no answer, or perhaps a further explanation of what you meant originally. Instead you go on a mild rant.
davidmhoffer says:
April 11, 2014 at 9:41 am
——————————————
“In the meantime, anyone who considers the examples i provided to you above will also see that you are wrong.”
Well David, let me review some of those examples –
“I welcomed trolls”
“abjectly bad and demonstrably unsound science”
“people like you who spout complete bull”
“Now you’ve gone completely off the deep end”
“cannot understand the simplest of examples”
“exceedingly poor grasp of physics”
“since you don’t understand the physics”
“that’s not right, that’s not even wrong”
“But you don’t want to learn the physics”
“Done with you”
I think these examples speak loudly to your character and motivation, but far less to my understanding of physics or any weakness in my argument.
Other readers will note the claims I made that you chose to attack related directly to atmospheric cooling of the oceans. You claimed to welcome the chance to expose the weakness of the arguments of “trolls”. Instead you have become increasingly aggressive when I held you to task, to debate my claims about the primary cooling mechanism for our oceans, not some other topic of your choosing.
You cast unfounded aspersions against my understanding of physics yet repeatedly refuse to answer the following simple physics question –
Given an atmospheric pressure of 1 bar, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans or warming of the oceans?
My claim is simple –
The sun heats the oceans.
The atmosphere cools the oceans.
Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
Word count – 15
Your responses so far –
Word count – 505
“The most reliable sign of truth is simplicity and clarity. Lie is invariably complicated, gaudy and verbose.” – Leo Tolstoy
goldminor says:
April 11, 2014 at 2:37 pm
————————————
If you can see it, so will others 😉
David has the unfortunate task of defending the radiative GHE hypothesis at all costs. “Poptech” had a similar task, defending the lines “but it must be peer reviewed” and “but you have to be a qualified climate scientist”. “Poptechs” weasel recently popped, but David should make it a few more times around the mulberry bush.
Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>
No they don’t.
3 words.
goldminor
First he states that he is unsure about something you said, and then he asks the question.
>>>>>>>>>
This isn’t the first time I’ve gone around in circles with K*rad. You’re entering into the conversation in the middle. As for the rest of it, engineers design and build all manner of things that work precisely as designed based on the exact same physics I am explaining.
I no longer care about debating K*rad, he has learned nothing from the various highly credible scientists from both sides of the debate who have tried to talk some sense into him. When PhD physicists, engineers and others who are warmists say exactly the same as PhD physicists and engineers who are skeptics about this topic, it ought to give you some pause to think about it and to think through the examples I gave you. I raise the flag non him from time to time so that newcomers don’t accept what he says with blind faith.
Here is a series of articles you may wish to read through by a PhD engineer that use actual measurements to demonstrate that the explanation is proven by the measurements. You may want to slog through the comments where you will find plenty of engineers and physicists saying “yeah, that’s how it work, I design stuff using those exact formulas and my stuff works as designed”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/20/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-a-physical-analogy/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
goldminor;
And you may want to ask yourself why K*rad can’t explain his ideas such that they match the ERBE data. Or the data in Glickstein’s articles.
Keep in mind that I am a SKEPTIC when it comes to this debate. But you can only wind the debate if you start on a firm foundation.
davidmhoffer says:
April 11, 2014 at 4:04 pm
“No they don’t.”
———————————
While I note a considerable improvement in the brevity of your argument, I fear it is at the expense of substance.
In terms of exposing the weakness of the argument of trolls, “no they don’t” seems a little light on.
Perhaps just a one word answer to the following question would suffice? –
Given an atmospheric pressure of 1 bar, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans or warming of the oceans?
“Monckton of Brenchley says:
April 10, 2014 at 2:42 pm
“JBJ” asks about the magnitude of the measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties on global temperature data. A suitable value is 0.15 Celsius degrees.”
OMG … time for you to do a basic stats course!!!
Given an atmospheric pressure of 1 bar, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans or warming of the oceans?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://eos.atmos.washington.edu/cgi-bin/erbe/disp.pl?net.ann.
The regions with the highest levels of radiative gases absorb more energy than they radiate. What do you call that?
@David
I do not call that a clear or direct answer to my simple physics question.
The Church of Radiative Climatology has decreed that given 1bar pressure, the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is warming. They claim that in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling, our oceans wold be at -18C.
I claim empirical experiment proves this false. I claim that in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR, our oceans would reach 80C or beyond. I claim our atmosphere is probably cooling the oceans.
You challenged me on my claims, yet fail to provide a clear and direct answer to the simple question –
Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?
“JBJ” challenges my assertion that +/- 0.15 Celsius degrees is an appropriate value for the combined measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties in the global temperature data, by suggesting (on no evidence, and without any explanation) that I should take a basic statistics course.
If “JBJ” challenges the value I gave, he should take the matter up with Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia, who publishes the uncertainties with his monthly HadCRUT4 dataset.
I find it baffling that trolls here shriek at me when I cite official data, rather than shrieking at the compilers of the data.
Konr@d;
I claim empirical experiment proves this false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Claim away. I’ve provided DATA that proves my position. You’ve claimed imperical evidence. By all means, produce it.
What is the conclusion? One can give heaps of so called scientific data that boggles most people’s minds, but the conclusion is that the planet has cooled and is not subject to CO2 excessive warming increases due to human activity ONLY. Gosh humans have made terrible mistakes in the past that have harmed us generally, but these alarmists get money to prove what is not credible and a fantasy.
Recently some joker called me a moron and should stop giving comments in a paper about the National Broadband network that uses optic fibre. I mentioned I was still attached to Wireless Network 3, that I was on before. But slightly faster. There is my computer telling me this. I have a different modem and connected to not cable but the wireless network. You can’t win them all Lord Monckton.
Why are we always shown linear trends? Surely as any engineer would tell you you use a best fit equation whether it be a straight line, a simple sine wave or a more complex function. For over half a century engineers have shown there are cycles clearly displayed in the Fourier analysis and using these gets a far better fit than linear. This site had a recent and well presented revival of that analysis.
davidmhoffer says:
April 11, 2014 at 8:37 pm
——————————————
“Claim away. I’ve provided DATA that proves my position. You’ve claimed imperical evidence. By all means, produce it.”
You were going to challenge the weakness of “trolls” arguments remember? My argument related to the primary cooling mechanism for the oceans. Your links to the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment are totally irrelevant to this. Further, as can be seen from the problems measuring incoming TSI –
https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/1366-and-all-that-the-secret-history-of-total-solar-irradiance/
– Your links cannot even reasonably support the supposed radiative imbalance you would prefer to discuss rather than the ocean cooling argument you actually attacked. (and don’t get me started on CERES)
If you want the empirical evidence to back my claims, I am more than happy to provide it. Better still I can provide simple instruction for actual empirical experiments for other readers including yourself to build and try for themselves.
But first an explanation for current and future readers. The reason a staunch AGW propagandist will never admit the truth, that given 1 bar pressure, the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is cooling, is that the whole of the radiative GHE hypothesis depends on the inane claim that the atmosphere warms the oceans. If the atmosphere is cooling the oceans, then the atmosphere in turn needs some way to cool. Empirical experiment proves conduction back to the surface ineffective, leaving radiative gases the only effective cooling mechanism for our atmosphere. Both AGW and the radiative GHE hypothesis are both utterly wrong.
Climastrologists claim that without atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR our oceans would be at -18C (255K). To understand why this is utterly incorrect the following points need to be understood –
1. Radiative gases can both heat and cool the atmosphere.
2. DWLWIR does not slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
3. Our oceans cannot be treated as a “blackbody” or even close, they are a “selective coating 4-5km deep over 71% of the lithosphere.
As to point 1, Tyndall empirically demonstrated this in 1859-1860. I have confirmed his results.
As to point 2 this simple experiment is all you need –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
Start with water samples at 40C in both containers and you will observe no change in cooling rate under the strong and weak LWIR sources. Both will cool at the same rate. Repeat the experiment but this time float a LDPE film on the surface of each water sample to constrain evaporation. Now the sample under the strong LWIR source cools slower.
So no, DWLWIR is not stopping our oceans from freezing. But how do they heat?
As to point 3 there is considerable empirical evidence as to how hot water can be driven by solar radiation in the absence of atmospheric cooling. Freshwater evaporation constrained solar ponds can reach 90C or beyond. (I have achieved 120C in transparent materials). You can try a simple check for yourselves –
http://i40.tinypic.com/27xhuzr.jpg
If you wish to be picky about eliminating all DWLWIR try this –
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
The thinner the water sample the more it conforms to the “blackbody” calcs of climastrologists. The deeper it gets the more it heats. How deep are our oceans?
To truly understand why 97% of climate “scientists” are assclowns, you need to understand the science of “selective coatings”, after all our ocean is a deep transparent selective coating over 71% of the planets surface and cannot under any circumstance be considered a “blackbody”. For this I recommend the following recipe –
“Shredded Lukewarm Turkey in Boltzmannic Vinegar”
Take two 100 x 100 x 10mm blocks of clear acrylic. Paint one black on the base (block A), and the second black on the top surface (block B). Spray both blocks with several layers of clear-coat on their top surfaces to ensure equal reflectivity and IR emissivity. Attach thermocouples to upper and lower surfaces. Insulate the blocks on the sides and base. Enclose each in a small LDPE greenhouse to minimise conductive losses. Now expose to strong solar SW.
As little 3 hours should result in a 17C average differential between the blocks. Block A with the black base runs hotter. SB equations will not give the correct answer. (caution – experiment temperatures can exceed 115C)
What would the priests of the Church of Radiative Climatology say? Both blocks are absorbing the same amount of solar radiation, both blocks have the same ability to emit LWIR, they should reach the same equilibrium temperature.
However block A reaches a far higher average temperature, why? The SW absorbed by block A heats from the base, and non-radiative transports (conduction) govern how fast energy returns to the surface to be radiated as LWIR. The SW absorbed by block B is absorbed at the surface and some is immediately re-radiated as LWIR before conduction can carry it down into the block below. Our oceans most closely resemble block A, however two shell radiative models that consider the ocean just “surface” model the oceans more like block B.
This is how solar SW alone is quite sufficient to heat our oceans. SW heating at depth is instantaneous, however the slow speed of non-radiative transport back to the surface allows energy to accumulate over the diurnal cycle.
Image of advanced version with intermittent halogen lights and air cooled IR shields –
http://i61.tinypic.com/2z562y1.jpg
To fully understand the unbelievably stupid error in the gospel of the Church of Radiative Climatology you just need to run one further variant –
– run the experiment illuminating blocks A & B with 500 watts of SW radiation until they reach their respective equilibrium temperatures.
– Now run the experiment again using 500 watts of LWIR radiation.
Same power of radiation, yet two very different results. This is the science of selective coatings. Guess what? You don’t need any maths to explain the difference, just an actual understanding of physics.
David, if you our any other readers want further empirical experiments to try I am happy to provide them. In the meantime I reiterate and further my basic claims –
The sun heats our oceans.
The atmosphere cools our oceans.
Radiative gases cool our atmosphere.
97% of climate “scientists” are assclowns.
And, as you have chosen to challenge me David, again I challenge you –
Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?
John@EF says: @ April 10, 2014 at 6:28 pm
“Again, what justifies constantly changing the data sets used by MoB from one posting topic to the next …”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The DATE! ===> Posted on April 10, 2014.
What does L.M. Say in the first sentence?
“Now that the UAH satellite data are available, we can update…”
He is talking about the dataset that has just come out and therefore has just been updated. He even says that in the first sentence.
The implicit question is “Has the new update changed anything” The answer is NO! There is STILL no warming and the IPCC is getting further off target.
It is a PROGRESS REPORT. Sheesh….
davidmhoffer says: @ April 11, 2014 at 1:31 pm
…..So if radiatively active gasses served to cool the atmosphere, we would see the exact opposite. In terms of average temperature, sure the deserts have higher peak day time highes than do same latitudes over oceans, but the AVERAGE temperature over the oceans and in tropical jungles is not just higher than in deserts at the same latitude, it is a LOT higher…..
Observations trump theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ERRRRrrrr careful with that analogy. Sleepalot and I looked at a desert vs a tropical jungle and found that the jungle on the equator was COOLER than the desert further north. (Latent heat of evaporation coming into play)
….
Sleepalot @ July 21, 2012 at 4:53 am @ WUWT pointed out the actual effects of the GHG water vapor on the temperature by comparing high vs low humidity. The humid Brazilian rain forest, Barcelos, Brazil, and the dry N. African Desert, Adrar, Algeria.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/some-thoughts-on-radiative-transfer-and-ghgs/#comment-1038793
My further comments expanding the idea:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/some-thoughts-on-radiative-transfer-and-ghgs/#comment-1040071
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/some-thoughts-on-radiative-transfer-and-ghgs/#comment-1041066
And yes I do understand CO2 absorbs and re-emits and 50% of that energy is radiated down. I also understand that is a tiny corner of climate.
Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Warming.
The examples you give of “empirical experiments” demonstrate quite conclusively that you are a victim of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Your very first link goes to an experiment that is irrelevant to the entire discussion. The experiment you did is entirely invalid because it ignores the sheer scale of atmospheric air column and the repeated iterative processes that occur from ground to TOA, and that these processes are skewed in order of magnitude compared to other processes that affect the same radiaitive spectrum due to water vapour being strong at the bottom and fading away to non-existence at the top. Further, your apparatus also isn’t tall enough to simulate a lapse rate, or the breakdown in a lapse rate, which is a major component of how the ghe works. Lastly, the apparatus isn’t tall enough that you can measure the change in effective radiating level to space, another major component of how the ghe works, and your experiment contains multiple points of energy transport via conduction that are larger than the radiaitve processes you are trying to measure.
In brief, your experiment measures A, B, and C from which you conclude that D doesn’t exist. You need to learn enough physics to understand how to design an experiment that actually isolates for D. Yours doesn’t hence your erroneous conclusions. The balance of the experiments you propose have similar flaws, they simply aren’t measuring what you think they are measuring.
For the record, stop lumping me in with the alarmists, I’m well known on this site as anything but.
I suggest you read carefully this rather detailed experiment which was published by arch skeptic John Daley.:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Once you have read the exepriment and understood its results, go back to the top of the page where there is a link to a zip file of criticisms of Hug’s experiment. Again, these were published by arch skeptic John Daley. Read them carefully. Once you understand both the experiment and the criticims of it, you’ll also understand why the experiments that you are alluding to don’t measure what you think they are measuring, and certainly don’t support your hypothesis.
Gail Combs;
And yes I do understand CO2 absorbs and re-emits and 50% of that energy is radiated down. I also understand that is a tiny corner of climate.
>>>>>>>>>
Nit, but it actually isn’t 50/50. Any direction that is horizontal compared to the surface below actually winds up at a higher altitude because the curvature of the earth below is away from it. In fact you could in theory have an emission that travels at a slightly downward angle, and if it travels far enough, it would end up at a higher altitude.
I read through those comments you linked to and there is merit there. But the first one compares two different latitudes for example. If you want to do the very simplest comparison, I think you need different areas at the same latitude. Hence I point to ERBE because it is very easy to compare tropical jungle in South America to Ocean to desert over North Africa. More importantly, these are very large areas geographically, so they tend to mask second and third order effects. When you get to comparing City A versus City B, local micro climate issues become more dominant.
Gail Combs says:
April 12, 2014 at 6:27 am
———————————–
Gail, the point you raise on evaporative cooling of forests is valid, but have a care. You have been dragged back onto land. David challenged my ocean cooling claims, then dodged and raised land ERBE examples (and even off planet examples). The AGW defender always wants to run back to land. Remember that the failed two layer radiation only models* of the “basic physics” of the “settled science” refer only to “surface”.
The primary cooling mechanism for the oceans is evaporation. A non-radiative atmosphere cannot provide this cooling for 71% of the planet’s surface as it cannot cool itself.
*As a side issue, the two layer radiation only model does work, and you can build and run the experiment for yourself –
http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg
– the target plate in chamber 1 will run hotter, but only with vacuum isolation. Introduce conductive coupling and convection and it’s game over. And evaporative cooling of the target plate? Please… 😉
davidmhoffer says:
April 12, 2014 at 7:48 am
Q- Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?
A – Warming.
————————————-
Thank you for finally answering that simple question in a clear and direct manner. That only took six tries…
However, you gave the wrong answer so POP! goes your weasel.
Climastologists have claimed that in the absence of DWLWIR or atmospheric cooling our oceans would be at -18C. Empirical example and experiment indicates this figure should be 80C or beyond.
Are you claiming that climastrologists are correct and the oceans can be treated as a ”blackbody” receiving a constant 240 w/m2? This is provably wrong. Our oceans are a “selective coating” 4-5km deep over 71% of the earth’s surface. They do not respond as a “blackbody” to UV/SW/SWIR radiation. Without atmospheric cooling the sun will drive them to 80C or beyond.
Are you claiming that climastrologists included atmospheric cooling in their calculations? This is provably wrong. Many go so far as to claim their -18C figure is for the “surface in the absence of an atmosphere”.
Are you claiming that DWLWIR can heat (or slow the cooling rate) of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool? The simplest empirical experiment proves this wrong.
And this? –
“Your very first link [….] don’t support your hypothesis.”
You ignored the simple experiments showing how hot water will get without atmospheric cooling. You ignored the experiment showing LWIR doesn’t effect water that is free to evaporatively cool. You ignored the experiment showing how transparent materials have a different response to SW heating than opaque. Instead you pick and experiment up thread that was shown to Viscount Monckton, not you, and try to use it to drag debate back to where you want it, not my ocean cooling mechanism claims you challenged. That experiment was merely a confirmation of Tydnalls work nothing more, and utterly irrelevant of my ocean cooling claims.
Then you demand –
“For the record, stop lumping me in with the alarmists, I’m well known on this site as anything but.”
My answer? Stop using their tactics then.
David you have claimed that excepting pressure, the net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is warming.
Your weasel is popped.
Re Jim Hunt says: April 11, 2014 at 8:38 am
I note that I have still received no answer to that enquiry. My own records show that the event in question took place “after 5:00 am” your time at the very earliest. Perhaps a “Snr. mod.” would be so good as to check WUWT’s own records, so that we can compare notes?
[Reply: there is nothing in the queue. I have no explanation for that either way. Since I can’t resurrect something that doesn’t exist, you can either re-post it to the best of your recollection, or drop it. ~ mod.]
Just a short note of thanks to the moderators, and a request that in future they should be vigilant in trying to keep these threads on topic by keeping those who say greenhouse gases do not cause warming at bay. Mr Hoffer has very patiently tried to deal with one of these irredentists, but the thread has become derailed in consequence.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
April 14, 2014 at 4:08 am
—————————————-
Viscount Monckton,
I take it by “irredentists” you are referring to myself, one who seeks to repatriate the territories of science, reason, freedom and democracy to the people of the developed world.
You may argue that my comments on this thread were “off topic”, but given they spoke to the underlying reason for the growing credibility gap and the failure of the climate models, perhaps not as off topic as they may initially seem. I would however acknowledge that the charge of “off topic” has been legitimately levelled at me here at WUWT before.
You ask that moderators keep those who say greenhouse gases do not cause warming at bay. I must admit to being a little surprised. This is a request for censorship, more in keeping with the BBC than WUWT.
Can you argue that my claims have been successfully dismissed in the past? No. No one has ever successfully challenged without censorship. Others who have claimed radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere have been successfully challenged, but as I have noted to our host in the past, I have often been one of those challenging. For the record, I have no association with “slayers” or “PSI”, except in the minds of those who can find no counter argument to mine. All my claims are based on my own empirical experiments.
My central finding is that the figure of 255K for the planet in absence of atmosphere is in error by around 98K for 71% of the planet’s surface. My empirical evidence for this is solid. I share my work by giving instruction for others to replicate my experiments. Nothing hidden. The error arises from the use of “blackbody” calculation for the oceans. Transparent materials respond to incident SW as what is known in engineering as a “selective coating”. This science is well understood and is applied to the engineering of spacecraft thermal control and evaporation constrained solar thermal storage ponds. Essentially if you remove DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling from our oceans, incident SW will drive them to 353K or beyond.
If the figure of 255K is incorrect, then the whole edifice of the global warming madness falls. I understand however than many object to ending the madness this way, as it has consequences for both believers and lukewarmers alike.
I would ask you to consider the risk of dismissing my argument solely on the basis that there is a “consensus” that radiative gases have a net warming effect on our planet. It may be that you can end the global warming madness with the lukewarmer argument, but what do you truly gain? An end to subsidy farming and carbon trading for sure. But the pseudo science of the net radiative greenhouse effect will remain. All you have done is turn the Lysenko dial from “high” to “low”, you have not turned it off. If you don’t turn it off, all the fellow travellers escape to try again with a new scare. Is avoiding the short term embarrassment of the lukewarmers truly worth so much? I would say science, reason, freedom and democracy are worth far more.
Steve Oregon says:
John@EF:
When MoB posts repeatedly answers you with an explanation:
MoB, “John@ EF, having been comprehensively answered, wonders why I regularly feature the RSS dataset. As I have previously explained, it is the first dataset to report each month. It is also the most accurate, in that it correctly represents the great El Niño of 1998 at its full magnitude.”
Why do you repeatedly keep asking why he used RSS?
It would be normal if you objected to his answer with some explanation.
Instead you keep reacting as if he never answered you.
That kind of behavior is not normal.
You must have some sort of ailment or derangement.
If you are just being a deceitful jackass then your affliction is worse than an ailment.
Steve, I think you hit the nail on the head WRT John@EF. I don’t understand some of the climate alarmist crowd’s thinking process. People like John@EF are so completely afflicted with cognitive dissonance that it is impossible to get through to them. They have decided that human-caused global warming is an irrefutable fact, and no contrary information can change their tightly closed minds. John@EF is a perfect example of what normal skeptics have to deal with.
========================
BTW, I am enjoying the sparring between David Hoffer, Konrad, and Lord Monckton. No one has really gotten out of line, and everyone is making good science points. Maybe some good information will be produced.
I have taken it for granted that CO2 adds some [insignificant] warming to the planet. That is still my view. But Konrad has me re-tinking that, too.
The central problem is that the effect of CO2 is so minor. That being the case, it is very difficult to identify any ‘fingerprint’ of CO2-caused global warming [and even harder to identify any putative human-caused warming]. Since the effect of CO2 is so very tiny, there is very little difference between a slight effect, and no effect. But the insignificance of CO2 warming certainly deconstructs the belief of the catastrophic AGW clique. Not that John@EF could ever change his mind…
…some things are just not possible.
@mod says: April 13, 2014 at 10:05 am
I wasn’t suggesting that there are currently any words of wisdom of mine in the moderation queue.
I was instead wondering what the explanation might be for the fact that my message that entered the queue on April 11, 2014 at 12:38 am did not become visible on this page until well after 05:00. After all Konrad seems to think 2 hours is a long wait!
REPLY: Here’s some words of wisdom: from 12:38AM to 05:00AM people sleep. Get over yourself. -Anthony
Well mine always appear, but being in Australia the time line is usually one day behind and the time adjusted to US time. Keep at it Anthony.