Halfway to 2°C – halfway to hell on Earth or just a number?
Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The Met Office is at it again. Just in time for Paris, in a stunt co-ordinated with the unspeakable BBC, it issued a characteristically mendacious press release saying that global mean surface temperature was about to exceed 1 C° above the mean for the reference period 1850-1900 for the first time.
And this, said the excitable David Shukman, the BBC’s pseudoscience editor on the ten o’clock news, was the halfway milestone to 2 C°, which, he said, was generally accepted to be the threshold of dangerous global warming.
Here, in pictures, is the answer to the Met Office’s hysterical press release.
First, the near-zero HadCRUT4 trend for the reference period [1850-1900]:
Next, the warming since 1850:
The Met Office has used the questionable statistical device of subtracting the –0.3 C° baseline anomaly from the single +0.8 C° monthly anomaly arising from the current el Niño, when the correct approach is to determine the least-squares linear trend on the entire dataset since 1850 – whose trend, however, is only 0.81 C°, not 1.00 C°.
How quickly will the trend reach 1 C° above 1850-1900? One indicator is the warming rate since Man might first have had a noticeable influence on global temperature in 1950. The trend since then is equivalent to 0.113 C° per decade. If that warming rate were to continue, it would be the best part of two decades before global temperature reached 1 C° above the 1850-1900 reference period.
How likely is that post-1950 rate to continue? Not very. For the warming rate has slowed to a standstill. For the past 18 years 9 months there has been none at all:
The incurious Shukman did not mention this particular inconvenient truth. Nor, of course, did he mention that the first monthly anomaly to reach 1 C° above 1850-1900 was as far back as 1998. It is this fact, above all, that shows the Met Office’s press release to have been a pure stunt intended to contribute to the pre-Paris mood music.
The BBC has been continuously silent about just how far below prediction the warming rate is. Since the IPCC first made its predictions in 1990, all five of the longest-standing global temperature datasets – three terrestrial and two satellite – have shown warming rates well below even the lower bound of the IPCC’s very wide interval of predicted global warming.
On the graph, the orange zone shows the IPCC’s roughly straight-line predictions from 1990 to 2100. The IPCC’s central estimate is that from 1990 to the present there should have been about 0.72 C° of global warming. However, the observed trend even on the radically tampered-with GISS dataset is only 0.44 C°.
Remarkably, the IPCC’s predicted rate of warming is three times the UAH observed trend of just 0.24 C° since 1990.
How much warming would mainstream climate science lead us to expect between now and 2100? On IPCC’s RCP 6.0 “business-almost-as-usual” scenario, the central estimate is 2.2 C° warming from 2015-2100. However, extrapolating the much-overstated GISS warming rate to 2100 would lead us to expect only 1.45 C° of warming; at the lower bound, UAH would show still less, at just 0.95 C°.
However, one cannot safely use past trends as an indication of future warming, as the Pause demonstrates all too clearly. The IPCC admits that 111 of 114 models over-predicted future warming, not least because they contained a large element of extrapolation from past warming.
Let us apply mainstream climate-science considerations to predict the warming from now till 2100. Climate sensitivity to the 3.71 W m–2 radiative forcing from a doubled CO2 concentration is 3.3 K (AR4, Box 10.2, p. 798).
However, the feedback sum was cut from the CMIP3/AR4 value 1.93 W m–2 K–1 to the CMIP5/AR5 value 1.47 W m–2 K–1, reducing the central estimate of climate sensitivity by a third to 2.1 K.
The anthropogenic forcing from 2015-2100 on IPCC’s “business-almost-as-usual” RCP 6.0 scenario is 2.75 W m–2, about three-quarters of the forcing at CO2 doubling, so that the equilibrium warming from a 2.75 W m–2 pulse of forcing is 1.6 K.
However, only two-thirds of equilibrium response to a pulse of forcing occurs within 85 years, so that the transient response in 2100 to a 2.75 W m–2 pulse of forcing that arose today would be 1.0 K.
However, the 2.75 W m–2 forcing arises not in a single pulse today but in small, near-linear annual increments, halving the in-century warming to 0.5 K.
As the table confirms, the 21st-century warming likely to occur on the basis of the most realistic of IPCC’s four CO2 concentration growth scenarios is two-thirds of three-quarters of two-thirds of one-half of the 3.3 K equilibrium sensitivity to CO2 doubling in IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report: i.e., 0.5 K.
IPCC, of course, says the warming over the rest of this century will be 2.2 [1.4, 3.1] K on the RCP 6.0 scenario. IPCC’s central estimate of warming to 2100 is thus, inexplicably, four and a half times greater than its own mainstream methods, data and results would lead it to expect. So grossly overstated is its central estimate of 21st-century warming that it is actually greater than what it would expect equilibrium warming to be in response to a CO2 doubling.
IPCC’s flagrant and manifestly deliberate overstatement of 21st-century predicted warming has gravely misled the governments that have been foolish enough to believe its predictions. As the step-by-step calculation in the table shows, there is no need whatsoever for any action this century to make global warming go away.
For the 2 C°-above-1850 target that the Met Office and the BBC say we must avoid (though there is no rational scientific justification for what is purely a political target) is not going to be reached this century, even if little or no mitigation of global warming is attempted.
Now, when will the BBC or the Met Office ever admit that the mainstream science outlined above shows just how very little anthropogenic warming we should expect this century?
And when will the nations of the Earth realize they have been fooled by a small clique of well-placed, extravagantly-funded, powerfully-protected fraudsters surrounded by a host of useful idiots?
Pigs might fly.
first – as Paris nears – WUWT is becoming quite problematic to open, navigate & comment.
Lord Monckton: similar thing is happening in Australia. all the MSM is shrieking HEATWAVE:
16 Nov: SMH: Peter Hannam: Three-day heatwave forecast for eastern Australia
“We’re seeing this warmth a bit earlier than usual,” Mr Meyers (Tristan Meyers, a meteorologist with Weatherzone) said…
Bureau charts indicate the hottest period of the heatwave is still expected around 5pm, AEDT, on Thursday, when roughly half the country will be sizzling in 40 degrees or warmer conditions…
While the El Nino event in the Pacific may be one factor behind the heat, early season warmth across north-western Australia is consistent with climate change, ***climatologists say…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/scorching-temperatures-ahead-as-dome-of-heat-shifts-eastwards-20151116-gl05e9.html
***no climatologists quoted.
16 Nov: ABC: AFP: Paris climate talks: France cancels side events as world leaders ‘vow to seek 2C degree climate deal’
But he (French prime minister Manuel Valls) said the conference would “probably” be reduced to the official negotiation.
“We are in the process of looking at that but everything which was outside of the COP (climate talks), a whole series of concerts, of rather festive events, will be without a doubt cancelled,” Mr Valls said…
Leaders of the world’s top economies have vowed to seek a deal to stave off catastrophic global warming at the Paris conference, according to a draft statement drawn up on Monday.
Negotiators at the Group of 20 summit haggled though the night on the text of the statement as Saudi Arabia and India initially refused to include specific climate goals like curbing global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, sources said…
France, with the backing of the European Union, has worked furiously to make the climate talks a success and Paris officials bristled at the reluctance by certain countries at the G20 to include its basic objectives in the statement.
“At a certain point there was a feeling that we were not living on the same planet,” an exhausted European negotiator told reporters after more than 20 hours of talks with his G20 counterparts.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-16/world-leaders-vow-to-seek-2c-degree-climate-deal-in-paris/6945848
Heatwave? Australia? Not here. We had to light the fire again (slow combustion) last weekend. We live halfway between Sydney and Canberra.
It’s even worse here in NZ. We have had a really cold spring. Today’s temperature is 13 deg C. But I believe Melbourne is as hot as… I know we shouldn’t confuse weather with climate, but surely global warming should manifest itself sometime soon?
New Zealand is surrounded by oceans which mitigate climate extremes, so we should be a good test bed of global warming. But there has been only 0.68 deg warming since 1852 in my city (in spite of some urban island effects), and if the most recent years are taken into account, there has been even less warming or even none.
Hannam is the resident environment editor at the SMH. He now seem to no longer allow comments on his articles because he has been proven blatantly wrong time and time again. I no longer read any of his articles.
Pat says:
WUWT is becoming quite problematic to open, navigate & comment.
Especially re: comments that end up in the wrong place. WordPress time stamps are not working properly. I’ve emailed them, but more input is needed.
Any help appreciated. Please contact WordPress, if you’re not happy about this problem.. Thanks.
Yet another thing to consider when comparing OLS trends in surface temperature is that the “inherent chaos” in surface temperature data can render OLS trends unstable and unreliable. Here is some evidence of the presence of long term memory and persistence in the data
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2689425
Robust tests for trends may be used to overcome the limitations of OLS
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2631298
You can always use a different metric, such as minimizing L1 (absolute deviation) as opposed to L2 (OLS). Matlab and Mathematica have these functions built in. There is no a priori reason as to why we should minimize squares of errors as opposed to absolute values.
Observed reality (green zone) for time being terminates at 2015; its extension beyond the present time makes no sense, even more so as the starting point is taken from 1990.
A fair point: one cannot extrapolate a past trend into the future without making it clear that all one is doing is showing what the position would be if the discrepancy between prediction and reality were to persist for a century. This was not made clear. I do apologize.
Lord Monckton
Thank you for your reply with the explicit clarification.
“And when will the nations of the Earth realize they have been fooled by a small clique of well-placed, extravagantly-funded, powerfully-protected fraudsters surrounded by a host of useful idiots?” ~ C. Monckton
I am afraid that the nations of the earth want to be “fooled”. This “catastrophic anthropocentric global warming” nonsense gives ever more power to the governments of the world — and more reason to control every aspect of our lives. I am not so sure that the nations are really being fooled.
Some bright guy once said something like … it is hard to get a man to see the truth when his status and/or paycheck depends on him not seeing the truth.
We are in a political war against collectivists — not a science debate where the facts and observations count.
Even if you believe this, it will take 200 years to reach 2C. (400ppm / 2ppm per year) at current emission levels. Why the hurry? Given that there has been virtually no increase in temperature, (on the planet, as opposed to in models or data records that have been tampered with), would it not be prudent to wait?
If we are going to spend trillions of dollars, wouldn’t we be better of spending it on thorium reactor or fusion reactor technology that will solve the problem once and for all (assuming a problem actually exists in the first place), as opposed to pouring it down the current alternative energy rat holes?
The hurry is that the whole thing is a scam that is falling apart. When people are freezing because they can’t afford the power to keep warm in winter as cold and snow worsen in the northern hemisphere, it becomes increasingly difficult to convince them about the scam. Polls in western countries show this is happening. They have less and less time to shove fascist idealogy down our throats without sparking riots and revolution. Remember, CAGW is a political and religious matter to greenies, something to always keep in the back of your mind. I used to argue with their converts at the local college where I am taking courses. I don’t bother, anymore because they aren’t open to hearing about real data.
Agree! I would also be more concerned if the CO2 levels were less than 200ppm, too close to plants being unable to photosynthesise, which would be a lot more catastrophic than a fictitious 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature.
Guess.
They must be just trying to rally the troops because the mass of people in the UK don’t give a tinkers cuss about climate change and the majority of them have no more clue what cop21 is than they have about what the G20 or the G8 does. From my position here in France at the moment it does not appear that the French have it as a priority either. 23 people were arrested this morning, 169 searches were carried out and to the best of my knowledge there were no Exxon executives, oil company offices, climate d*ni*rs, climate contrarians or scientists involved. For some reason they have been targeting islamist extremists. (For the benefit of the Americans,,,,that last sentence was irony)
They are dictating the terms of any discussion that might cross a person’s mind.
Nobody in the US cares either except among the far left. Climate change ranks dead last among all issues, if it was an issue. Winters are as cold and brutal as usual, it’s a reprieve when we get a warm one, the Antarctic isn’t melting anytime soon, no nations have been flooded out, still can’t sail the Arctic without an ice breaker nearby. Does anybody think the general American public is that stupid? For a politician to state global warming is more important than terrorists, is the height of stupidity. It’s the left who are in power of the government right now and are leading the charge. They are so far left they’ve made the right look main stream. I’m not enamored with the tea party, but I’m not following the left over the cliff either. Obama care anyone?
Does anybody think the general American public is that stupid?
Gullible is a better word.
Yeah, we get the news over here too. I wonder if any of the searches were conducted in the Muslim no go zones that surround Paris?
Thank you, Ivor, for that information. Good to hear of those arrests!
A lot of time, effort, and data dumps are spent splitting this hair of global temperature. Meanwhile, there is the unsaid premise that this is somehow harmful. I reject that premise from the start.
Amen.
– – – – – – –
jpatrick,
Yes, indeed.
And I not only reject that hidden premise but I also reject the fundamental reason it’s holders have that premise.
John
Jihadists beleive the West is destroying the world through global warming. Bin Laden even chimed in with a special video. They’ll have to make due with Baghdadi this time.
Rough but true.
I did ponder over the weekend what special mental tunnel vision madness it takes to make a jihadi and to carry out such atrocities but, in its own way, AGW is similarly like a religion to some who show the same tunnel vision and intolerance of all who don’t subscribe to their view. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that jihadis would be happy to adopt this perspective as further evidence of western evil.
The more carefully you select your cherries, the more “special” the pie.
Wow – you just reminded me of the most stupid thing ever said by a human being.
Fond memories of the early days of awakening skepticism.
And now, we have a vast pie containing a select number of very dubious looking cherries.
Personally, I prefer Curry.
Indeed it is true that the believers cherry-pick their data, mentioning only the terrestrial temperature datasets and never mentioning the inconvenient truths shown by the satellite datasets.
That is why I thought it would be interesting to show the outturn in the quarter-century since 1990 on all three of the longest-standing terrestrial dataset as well as both the satellite datasets. One can see clearly just how extravagant and unrealistic the IPCC’s original predictions were. By showing the temperature trends determined on all five datasets, I was able to avoid all allegations that I was cherry-picking.
Of course, the IPCC has since 1990 all but halved its medium-term predictions: but the rate of warming has dropped to zero at the same time. So the discrepancy between prediction and reality continues to widen.
Yes, the short term warming appears to be zero.
Although, I suspect that we may discover a continuation of moderate long-term warning, when we obtain another few decades of satellite data. (Note the proviso, “may”)
But – event this event, should it occur, will tell us little regarding attribution and sensitivity.
Perhaps, in the absence of GHG forcing, the world would be cooling currently. We should admit that we do not know.
I think that it is very important that the skeptic position is not backed into a corner of being held to be reliant on a long term zero trend.
Rising seas and rising temperatures should be expected during the era following glaciation.
So, the reaction to evidence of gradual warming and gradual sea level rise should be, “yes, and so what?”
Somehow we need to get the message out, that warming and sea level rise are not unusual or unprecedented.
Monckton of Brenchley – have you considered obtaining a nice reconstructed map of the coastline of Northern Europe and the British Isles, at 18,000 to 6,000 years ago.
I believe that the general public do not have a firm grasp of the rapidity of change within a relatively short historical timescale. They have been shown graphs, or given explanations containing words such as mesolithic rather than specific timescales in 000’s years.
For most of an audience, I suspect that this material goes in one ear and out of the other.
But a short introduction explaining the recent presence of habitation and culture in areas that are now deep under the waves – would potential aid an audience in seeing why current changes should not needlessly startle them.
My partner and I have greatly enjoyed your talks via Youtube.
And I would like to thank you for these occasions of illumination and entertainment.
Here is the kind of material which I think may aid comprehension and context. Forgive me if you have already included this in presentations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
Is this what Bin Laden told you at your last meeting?
I’ve never spoken with him but, my guess is he would have said anything (told any lie) to stop western growth…wdyt?
What? I’m sure it’s just me but that is mumbo jumbo.
troe, you are at least 5-10 years behind the ordinary person in terms of the importance of CAGW and jihadism. Get real. Jihadists don’t give a damn about global warming. They do share one goal with CAGW proponents: destroy western civilization, destroy democracy, destroy capitalism. Yeah, they would probably sign on to anything that would hasten the result.
Anyone else uncomfortable with “observed reality” extending out to 2100?
But it was a computer that observed it! Has to be so!
/snark
Yeah – “extension of observed/current trend” might be a better label.
When it comes to observing the future, a certain amount of patience is required.
Right now, observations of 2100, seem a little premature.
With EU/UN refugee programs, I wouldn’t extend the trend beyond about 2040 after which your vote may not count.
Mods: Typo alert for the sentence above the first graph.
“First, the near-zero HadCRUT4 trend for the reference period 1850-1990:”
Should be:
“First, the near-zero HadCRUT4 trend for the reference period 1850-1900:”
It’s Not
The United Nations Climate Change Conference, is really, The Mafia Convention on ClimateFurthermore, never ever end an essay with “Pigs might fly!” Firstly, pigs will never fly, so there is no “might” about it. But now that you’ve wrote it, you will be open to an attack against yourself, Mr. Monckton. The morons will think that, you do believe that pigs do have the possibility, i.e. “might”, of flight. Now they can discredit your entire essay. Such is the moron’s thinking process.
Besides that small faus pax, nice work. But you are dealing with liars, thieves, crooks and scum. Truth and reality don’t mean squat to them. They have an agenda, to steal more money from the taxpayers. They will do and say anything so they can get more money. That’s what the Mafia Convention on Climate in Paris is all about; mafiosi coming together in their annual convention to get their fraudulent stories correct so that when they go back home they use each other as references and supporting claims for when they swindle more money through grants funded by the taxpayer.
We don’t need more essays, we need a honest justice and police system: white collar crime is not being punished as blue collar crime. But then, what can anyone expect, the judges and cops are all paid by the crooks in government too. Corruption is rife.
Afterthought: nix the “Pigs fly!” with sarcasm, too, morons don’t understand sarcasm, they confuse it for emphasis! Hmmm, might just explain how this global warming BS all started in the first place….just a thought.
‘might’ has a nuanced meaning (among several) of ‘have permission’ in addition to ‘may’ or ‘strength’. It can also be used sarcastically, etc. I’m sure Lord Monckton could offer more varieties of meanings. Pigs ‘can’ fly is more restrictive.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/might
“The Mafia Convention on Climate”?
I prefer the World Science Fiction Writers Convention myself…
In a recent news bulletin the BBC said that November was the mildest we had since Nov }1946,
one could detect a hint of glee in the announcers voice! I was a small child then and remember
what was one of the worst winters of the 20th century. There were huge quantities of snow and ice
skating on flooded fields and rivers lasted for weeks during which I learned to skate.
Travelling by road and rail was extremely difficult, food rationing was exacerbated by the frost
damaging crops. Then we endured some of the worst floods ever, many lives were lost on the East Coast. People were very relieved when Spring 1947 arrived, followed by one of the hottest summers on record which was very welcome after a winter of power cuts.
As regular readers ofWUWT will know extreme weather conditions never existed until Global Warming began in the 1990s. Just pray and hope we don’t a repeat of 1946/7.
Rudolf Well said, one of the prerequisites to believe in human induced global warming is no knowledge of the past climate, after all the climate only changed in the last half of the twenty century. Dr Mann proved that a long time ago. Yet when you tell them Mann’s work was a sham and that the Romans grew grapes in England as far north as York and you get a blank stare, or a retort that you are now able to grow grapes England again, and somehow today way was due to humans and the Roman warm period was due to god only knows what in their book and it does not matter that the temperatures are returning to past temps after all it got to be humans fault, it could not possible be nature doing it on its own.
Mark, you make a valid point in that most people have scant knowledge of past climate. We climate change junkies are quite familiar with global cooling of the seventies or the rapid warming a century ago. But, your average joe has no such familiarity and is therefor clueless. Such is the nature of the masses. We all have different interests and not everyone is going to be clued into agw (let alone agw skepticism)…
I get a great deal of pleasure from watching the surprised expression on people’s faces when I tell them about the astonishing changes that have occurred in the last 20,000years.
Or when people suddenly grasp that coral atolls must have tracked the ocean surface.
It’s a pleasure to inform. But also interesting to see how people who have formed strong views regarding the threat of “sea level rise” have no idea of the context of currently measured trends, or of their magnitude relative to the recent past. Here’s a nice map, with which to blow the minds of the ill-informed!!!!
http://www.disassociated.com/2013/09/03/there-was-once-a-place-called-doggerland-in-europe-check-this-map/
The irony about the analysis by Lord Monckton is that it doesn’t take into account the fact that climate temperatures and data upon which the predictions are based have been doctored and adjusted to be totally unreliable. Forget all the theory relating to CO 2 having a correlation with global temperature.QED. The theory has failed miserably. The emperor has no clothes and one day someone important will actually acknowledge that. Global Warming alarmism is the greatest moral dilemma of our time. ( although ISIS also is pretty serious)
There is also the error summed up in this quotation: “Never make predictions, especially about the future.” Casey Stengel
In my math classes many decades ago my teacher Pythagoras (just kidding, I’m not that old) deprecated both prediction and interpolation. Boy, the stasis of the last 19+ years have shown how right he was. It shows the climate system is affected by a number of variables, not just CO2.
So how do we get the Emperor to realise he is naked?
Kelvin Duncan:
Your metaphorical “Emperor” wishes for his metaphorical “subjects” to believe him when he claims that the UNIPCC climate models make “predictions.” We can force “him” to realize that he is metaphorically “naked” by proving to his “subjects” that the UNIPCC climate models make only “projections.”
Mr Oldberg may care to read the head posting, in which the prediction made by the IPCC in 1990 is preceded by the words “We predict”.
Monckton of Brenchley:
Thank you for taking the time to respond. That the IPCC said “We predict” in 1990 is not at issue. The issue is whether climate models predict.
Under usage established by Kevin Trenberth circa 2007, a “prediction” is a kind of proposition. Thus, the issue of whether a model makes predictions can be resolved by determination of whether each such “prediction” is a kind of proposition. If not, the proper term is “projection.”
When a “prediction” is a kind of proposition this state of affairs leaves a trail that includes probabilities, relative frequencies, a statistical population, events, sampling units, a sample space, a condition space, mutual information, falsifiability and possible validation. No such a trail is left by the models on which regulation of CO2 emissions is based. It can be concluded that these models make projections.
A model that makes projections is non-falsifiable and insusceptible to being validated. However, it is susceptible to being “evaluated.” In an “evaluation” a selected set of projections is compared to a selected global temperature time series.
Leaving aside the alarmists’ latest pathetic attempt to prove the Sun orbits around the Earth – as it’s beyond contempt, I fully support the above contributor’s suggestion that the world would be better served diverting the horrendous sums of money being wasted on fraudulent CAGW/CLimate Change policies to R&D studies on Thorium Reactors. That would solve all our problems, regardless of whether CAGW is the true religion!
I forgot , though! The Chinese already have such a programme with a target of a full scale operational commercial Thorium Power Station within 15 years.
What do the inscrutable orientalists know and believe that we don’t know and believe?
My experience with Chinese technonology in my field (physical metallurgy, hydrometallurgy) is that their thorium reactor will be an accurate copy (probably just larger scale) of Oak Ridge’s Th reactor of the 1950s. Much of their process industry is built upon US patents – many old ones. I’ve toured plants and in some cases I questioned outmoded steps in the processes and couldn’t get an understanding of why the step was even necessary from the plant manager. Their lithium metal making was something to behold: people in safety, oxygen fed suits in semi darkness moving around antique cells.
I bought a couple of wind turbines from China about a decade ago.
Whoever constructed them had a “creative” approach to engineering.
Suffice to say that they needed significant re-aligning, re-machining and some parts replacing altogether.
One hub had to be replaced by the manufacturer, due to the fact that the hole was way off dead centre.
Somebody needed to but those poor guys a decent set-square and a vernier caliper!!
Anyway – I’m sure that they are catching up fast.
But sometimes by learning on the job.
The Director of Oak Ridge published the definitive text on Thorium reactors, and was sacked because the politicians want reactive by-products for weapons, but these were not given by Thorium reactors.
Kelvin Duncan:
The containment vessels of light water reactors cannot sustain rupture of the reactor pressure vessel. Federal licensing of LWRs is predicated upon the premise that rupture is impossible. Years ago, I published a peer-reviewed article ( http://www.ndt.net/article/v04n05/oldberg/oldberg.htm ) proving that rupture was possible. After being advised of the publication of this article the government ignored it.
Thank you for that! That really makes me feel good. They have just contracted to build the next UK nuclear power station.
This week contains the 6th anniversary of the release of the CRU emails; known as Climategate.
Lest we forget.
John
Meanwhile, the pigs are getting fat at the government trough. See Shukla’s Gold
It’s far worse than that. Shukla is small fry: http://greencorruption.blogspot.co.uk/
It is a bit rich of the BBC to start quoting the Met Office after they refused to renew their weather forecasting contract with them because they could not forecast the weather with any degree of accuracy. And why can’t the met Office get accurate forecasts? Because they have programmed their supercomputer to take into account global warming, which we all know hasn’t been happening for 18.75 years!
I am at a loss to what we are actually measuring in the land based time series thermometer record. as Richard Courtney often points out, it is meaningless.
But how can we make a comparison with 1850, or 1880, when we are not using the same data that was used to collect and formulate the 1850 or 1880 temperatures?
Throughout this time series data sets, the number of stations, their locations and spatial coverage is a constantly moveable feast that we are never comparing apples with apples.
In 1850 there were less than 300 stations, and I think less than a dozen in the Southern Hemisphere. By about 1880 this had grown to a little under 500 stations with a little over a dozen in the Southern hemisphere. Gradually, in the 1950s/60s the number of stations peaked at somewhat less than 6000. and then from the 1970s it fell in number and is now down to about 2,500.
If we wanted to make some comparison with the 1850s, we would have to identify which stations were then in existing and reporting temperatures and then look at the data from these stations and only these stations throughout the entire period to 2015. Obviously, some of these stations will have dropped out and will not have continuous records throughout the entire 165 years. may be there will be only a couple of hundred that have continuous records, and one would have to evaluate the data just from those stations, and consider the impact of siting issues and UHI, and possibly TOB.
We would have to do something similar if we wanted to make a comparison with the 1880s, or the 2930s.
One would need a series of time series data sets, each one covering a different period but being based only on data from stations that have reports covering the entire period. So you have the same station data throughout the entirety of the period over which one is making a comparison.
In any event, the claims regarding global temperatures is farcical. In the 19th century we have all but no information on the Southern hemisphere. heck, even today, we are not measuring the globe but instead we are looking at very poor spatial coverage heavily biased to the USA and North West Europe. See for example:
👍
Again, a well written accurate and meaningful assessment by Lord Monckton. But it’s beside the point. Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote a book “Knowledge and Power” some years ago. One item covered was what appears to be “crazy” decisions or policies. If a decision appears to be divorced from reality, then you don’t know the reality wherein the decision was made. While there may be true cultist believers, I believe that CAGW is a convenient fraud to take billions of dollars away from stupid people and give it away to third (and first) world kleptocrats. The science is beside the point.
In response to Jon Jewett, the truth will reassert itself faster if we speak it than if we don’t, and we should not be fearful of speaking the truth merely because the truth is transiently unfashionable with the governing elite. The science is by no means beside the point: the science is the point. It is by science that the scaremongers and profiteers of doom will be driven squealing and sniveling back into their noisome lairs.
Paris climate change conference will be given all its asked for and more, President Hollande calls the conference itself a moment of “Hope and Unity” any thing less than complete capitulation will be deemed as negligence.
It’s no wonder soldiers are expected to toe the warmist line – if they it don’t it’s dereliction of duty.
ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “I think if you go up to anybody in the military who’s been paying attention as well, they will tell you that one of the biggest challenges to national security is the challenge of climate change. And, they are partnering with us to make sure that they’re delivering on their promise of addressing national security by changing the work they’re doing to reflect a change in climate as well.”
https://youtu.be/KLZ-LRWZ1A4
oops!!
It’s no wonder soldiers are expected to toe the warmist line – if they don’t do it, it’s dereliction of duty.
ISIL will get and use nuclear material. That is when governments will come together and push for wartime control. Co2 emissions will skyrocket. War is the great political leveler.
With loss of human life Co2 may just stay level as it does seasonally.
The juxtaposition of an ISIS attack in Paris and an idiotic world climate meeting to seek agreement to end civilization, might suggest to some observers that European open door immigration policy, and the low indigenous fertility rate could make global warming moot long before halfway to 2100, no matter how warming plays out. If it gets another LIA on top of it, it will be more than a strain on civilization.
I would second that. I certainly don’t deny that the climate changes.
And I would like to propose that we should be alarmed.
But not about the climate.
Thank you, Lord Monckton. You always give an entertaining and very informative analysis.
For more coverage of the BBC’s climate folly, the high priest of public funded alarmism, Roger Harrabin, is hosting a three part series ‘Changing Climate’ at 8pm on BBC Radio 4 this evening.
Put all loose objects in a drawer and and, if you’re prone to self harm, tie yourself up. The BBC are letting the lunatics run the asylum for an hour.
I can’t bring myself to listen. I don’t have the strong constitution required.
It’ll make “thought for the day” look like a refuge of sanity and clear minded wisdom.
It was appaling. The only sceptic interviews were a few heavily edited Matt Ridley quotes and someone who believes in creation. The rest was all scaremongering and speculation against a end of days soundtrack. Standard BBC bias and why I don’t pay the licence fee.
Nooooooooo!!! I can’t bear it anymore.
I used to listen to BBC radio 4, whilst working from home.
Slowly, it began to annoy me more and more. Until now, when I can not risk turning it on for even a few minutes in case somebody says something so palpably daft that it spoils an entire day!!
I tend to agree with David S above. People here and elsewhere keep using the doctored surface data to prove that its NOT warming significantly. Please use only CET, satellite or radiosonde data ONLY otherwise we are feeding the AGW trough everytime