By Ross McKitrick, opinion contributor – 07/27/17 07:20 AM EDT 814
© Victoria Sarno Jordan
Policy makers and the public need to understand the extent to which major scientific institutions like the American Meteorological Society have become biased and politicized on the climate issue. Convincing them of this becomes much easier when the organizations themselves supply the evidence.
This happened recently in response to a CNBC interview with Energy Secretary Rick Perry. He was asked “Do you believe CO2 [carbon dioxide] is the primary control knob for the temperature of the Earth and for climate?”
It was an ambiguous question that defies a simple yes or no answer. Perry thought for moment then said, “No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment we live in.” He then went on to acknowledge the climate is changing and CO2 is having a role, but the issue is how much, and being skeptical about some of these things is “quite all right.”
Perry’s response prompted a letter of protest from Keith Seitter, executive director of the American Meteorological Society. The letter admonished him for supposedly contradicting “indisputable findings” that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause of recent global warming, a topic for which Seitter insists there is no room for debate.
It is noteworthy that the meteorological society remained completely silent over the years when senior Democratic administration officials made multiple exaggerated and untrue statements in service of global warming alarmism.
When Secretary of State John Kerry falsely claimed in 2016 that “storms that used to happen once every 500 years are becoming relatively normal,” or when Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy claimed in 2015 that green house gases are behind upward trends in “extreme heat, cold, storms, fires and floods,” the meteorological society said nothing, even though the evidence clearly contradicts these positions.
When President Obama tweeted in 2013 that “97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” the meteorological society said nothing, even though no such survey existed and the meteorological society’s own membership survey the next year showed nearly half of its members doubted either that climate change was even happening or that CO2 played a dominant role.
But the meteorological society leapt to condemn Perry for a cautious response to an awkward question. Perry could not reasonably have agreed with the interviewer since the concept of a “control knob” for the Earth’s temperature wasn’t defined. Doubling CO2 might, according to models, cause a few degrees of warming. Doubling the size of the sun would burn up the planet. Doubling cloud cover might trigger an ice age. So which is the “primary control knob”? The meteorological society letter ignored the odd wording of the question, misrepresented Perry’s response and then summarily declared their position on climate “indisputable.” Perry’s cautious answer, by contrast, was perfectly reasonable in the context of a confusing question in a fast-moving TV interview.
Furthermore, Seitter’s letter invites skepticism. It pronounces confidently on causes of global warming “in recent decades” even though this is where the literature is most disputed and uncertain. Climate models have overestimated warming in recent decades for reasons that are not yet known. Key mechanisms of natural variability are not well understood, and measured climate sensitivity to CO2 appears to be lower than modelers assumed. Climate models tweaked to get recent Arctic sea ice changes right get overall warming even more wrong, adding to the list of puzzles. But to the meteorological society, the fact that these and many other questions are unresolved does not prevent them from insisting on uniformity of opinion.
Congratulations on Donald Trump for finding the right people to run these key agencies.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Any skeptic who has ever tried to contradict the status quo on an alarmist blog, exchanged views with a detractor on a skeptic blog or who has engaged in any communications with a main stream climate scientist has likely observed the bias exhibited by Seitter which is often accompanied with demeaning language presented with extreme self righteous indignation that you would dare question the ‘settled science’ of the consensus.
I would add that simply discussing this issue with friends and acquaintances shows the same thing. They are dissmissive and condescending about a skeptical view, even though when you ask them about people such as Mann, Hansen, Jones etc, and also McIntyre, Morano, Watts, etc they have no clue who they are or what they have done. The Public is absolutely brainwashed.
in 2009, two weeks before the ClimateGate emails came out in Nov, I think, I started a conversation with a co-worker in which I tried to bring up some very simple and relevant reasons why the “science” on CAGW was not just wrong, but not even science; not even wrong, as I’ve read some post here. He wouldn’t listen, and instead kept referencing all those scientists who say… I don’t know how, but before I knew it we were yelling at each other – in the office space! From my perspective, here was someone who wouldn’t listen to reason. From his perspective – all those scientists. We butted heads. Fortunately, I caught myself – who was probably most responsible for the ramp-up – and said, “well, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I later went to him to apologize for the argument. After ClimateGate, I wanted to revisit the topic with him, but I knew better. I had already had my rough encounter with someone I’ve known to be on the left, and now to hold an untenable position about AGW. And that is when I realized this subject has completely left the realm of science, it’s now all politics. I see other historically non-political issues morphing the night fantastic – going crazy and becoming political. WUWT?
I do the same. The first question I ask is “How much CO2 do you think is in the air?” Answers vary from “I don’t know” to “About 20%” (Yes, really) to “Billions of tonnes!”. I tell them it’s measured to be ~400ppm/v, their eyes glaze over. But then I say “Out only ~4% of that is from human activity. We exhale at ~40,000ppm/v CO2”. This is where the wailing and gnashing of teeth starts and the appeals to authority.
” I tell them it’s measured to be ~400ppm/v, their eyes glaze over. But then I say “Out only ~4% of that is from human activity.”
Where did you get your 4% figure from?
Patrick, I have the same experience. However, your 4 % is misleading. It is beyond doubt (with some exceptions, like Salby) that humans caused the CO2 levels to go up from 280 ppm to 405 ppm. That is more than 4%.
Patrick MJD, the guy who guessed ‘billions of tonnes’ was making a low-ball guess:
According to wikipedia (CO2):
As of January 2007, the earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 0.0383% by volume (383 ppmv) or 0.0582% by weight. This represents about 2.996×1012 tonnes, and is estimated to be 105 ppm (37.77%) above the pre-industrial average.
CO2 concentration by weight is obtained by the formula below:
0.0383 V% x [44.0095/28.97] = 0.0582 m% CO2
whereby molar mass=44.0095 g/mole
and mean molar mass of air=28.97 g/mole
Then, to obtain the total mass of CO2, via wikipedia: according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480×1018 kg.
Thus, the total weight of CO2 = 0.0582% x 5.1480 x 1015 tonnes
= 2.996×1012 tonnes.
And that was 2007!
Correction – format was lost in my cutting and pasting – read 1012 etc as ’10 to the power of 12′ etc where appropriate.
“Chris July 31, 2017 at 12:01 am”
Climate science, the IPCC and here;
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/
Is that enough for you?
“Chris Schoneveld July 31, 2017 at 12:43 am”
Yes. The change from one level to another. The annual contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere from human activities is ~4%.
Jack,
The absolute mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is a red herring. What matters is density. For example, less than .004 ppm of the Earth’s crust by weight is gold. The mass of the Earth’s crust is about 10^23 kg, thus it contains about 4E14 kg of gold which at $41K per kg is worth over 10 billion billion dollars which is orders of magnitude more than the net worth of every person, company and country on the planet combined. Why isn’t everyone out there looking for gold? Can you see how a big number relative to a much bigger number is still a very small number?
(anlinsky 101)…
A skeptic is someone that disputes science and then puts their science forward for others to examine. Saying i’m a skeptic without evidence is just saying stuff.
I wonder if you guys could point to some data from any scientific institution that have recorded temperatures that shows temperatures records are not increasing every year. 15 of the last 16 have been the hottest since records began. All I seem to hear is that they are being tampered with. That would mean that every country in the world must be tampering with their data at the same rate and at the same time as all other countries across the planet, really? Every country in the world? Please, go easy on the personal abuse, just the science and where it came form would be good. Thanks.
Steve,
Whether or not the planet is warming or cooling is irrelevant. The only thing that’s controversial is what effect CO2 has. Simply examining trends is insufficient as this adds an even more unknown to the mix which is what fraction of apparent warming is due CO2 and what is due to natural variability. And lets not forget the significant uncertainty added by unsupportable and weakly documented, if at all, data adjustments.
Steve,
No, it doesn’t mean that every country is tampering with its data. The tampering is done in England and the US, where the crooked, corrupt gatekeepers constantly fiddle with data new and old.
Fifteen of the last 16 years have not been the hottest since records began. Even when they have been warmer, it has been by statistically insignificant and meaningless amounts.
The 1930s were in fact warmer than now, but the past has been cooled while the present has been warmed. That’s what “man-made” warming really means.
Here are the satellite data from 1979:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2017_v6-550×317.jpg
Clearly, 1998 remained the hottest year until the super El Nino of 2016.
Steve:
First off, there is only one long duration global temperatures collection. The GHCN. It gets further mollested by others, such as NASA GISS and Hadley to make derivatives. Now there are satellite records, but they are short and recently “revised”. Prior to the revision they were not showing warming…
I have looked, in painful depth, at the GHCN and GIStemp derivative. The degree of crap in them is very large. There’s about 4 to 6 years work for you to dig through here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/ncdc-ghcn-issues/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/dtdt/
Now the thumbnail sketch is that the average of temperatures in any one place is sometimes going up, sometimes going down, and sometimes going nowhere. In the same place, some temperature averages are rising in some months, dropping in others.
In short, the only thing rising is the average, not the actual temperatures. THE big problem with that is just that temperatures lose any meaning AS a temperature when averaged. This is a fundamental physics property of intrinsic vs extrinsic properties and NOT subject to opinion. The “global average temperature” is a meaningless statistic about number collections, but NOT a temperature.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/intrinsic-extrinsic-intensive-extensive/
The next big hurdle is the “splice artifact”. The way disjoint records are merged to create a series gives a bogus trend where there is none. The GHCN is FULL of disjoint record series and ALL the major trend creation systems create a splice artifact ridden trend out of it. An approachable example of the problem is here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/mysterious-marble-bar/
There are LOTS more such problems. (In total, I’ve got about 6 years of such detail collected in various postings.) So IF you wish to claim perfection from GHCN or the derivatives of it, be advised you are by definition refusing to see those realities. That is just being lazy. It is there if you choose to see it.
Bottom line: the very idea of a Global Average Temperature is a mistake on the face of it. (So it cannot really be rising).This useless and meaningless statistic is created from biased and inadequate date (violates Nyquist for one), without correct error bands (error is in full degrees F in early records, minimum, and is NOT removed by averaging – see intrinsic property…) , creates false trends from splice artifacts, does urban heat correction backwards, and is prone to repeatedly making fixed recorded past temperatures colder…
Yet you choose to believe it without in depth examination.
“Good luck with that”.
Now, as you prepare to launch a bleat about “peer reviewed climate science”:
Please first look up “Climategate”, “Pal Review”, and “editor intimidation”. The very organizations of “Climate Science” were shown corrupt, partisan, and political BY THEIR OWN eMAIL.
So instead, just look at the data yourself, as I did, if you would find truth.
The dictionary defines ‘Skeptic’ as “a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.” There is nothing in that definition that requires the skeptic to come up with a better alternative, as you suggest. A good skeptic, however, should be able to state the reasons for his/her skepticism. In the climate change debate, the skeptics are giving far more reasons for their skepticism than the mainstream scientists are giving for their position.
Simply put, the mainstream stance is based entirely on the assumption that there is a large, positive water vapor feedback associated with the very unalarming temperature rise produced by increasing CO2. There ‘proof’ consists entirely of a logical fallacy called the ‘argument from ignorance’: “We don’t know any other way to explain the warming in the late 20th Century, so our theory must be correct.”
Skeptics generally accept that increasing CO2 should produce a very unalarming amount of warming, all else being equal, but find no scientific reason to blindly accept the assumptions of large, positive feedbacks. There are many compelling scientific arguments supporting the skeptical view. There is no history of such feedbacks in the geological record of the Earth. The ice cores actually show that CO2 is dependent on temperature, and not the other way around. Runaway global warming has never happened, even when CO2 concentrations were 10 to 20 times greater than they are now. More recently, a search for these feedbacks over the last 30 years has come up pretty empty. The ‘pause’ is very strong evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is much smaller than mainstream science is touting. According to theory, the observed pause in rising temperatures should be impossible.
The argument from ignorance, which remains the mainstreams sole justification for their warmings, is illegitimate just by itself. It is a logical fallacy. Couple that with the fact that temperatures warmed at the same rate in the early 20th century, when CO2 was not a factor, and even the facade of their argument collapses. They may not know of anything other than CO2 that could have increased the late 20th Century temperatures, but something other than CO2 must exist, because such warming occurred in the past, when CO2 wasn’t changing.
When a person or a group but forth a new idea, it is their responsibility to convince the rest of the world that their idea is better. They can do this with sound scientific reasoning AND successfully predicting future events based on the reasoning of their new theory. Climate science has done neither of these things. Their founding science is no more than an assumption that, to this day, alludes supporting evidence. Their projections of the future have been uniformly wrong, or so vague, that anything at all would fall into the scope of the projection.
As a skeptic, I have no responsibility to come up with a better working model of climate change, but I do have the right, and even the responsibility, to point out why the current model is a bunch of crap, and any policy derived from this crap would be a huge, costly mistake.
’15 of the last 16 have been the hottest since records began.’
Steve, that is what I like to call the Fallacy of the Infinitely Growing Teenager. Just because his height for the past five years has been the highest since records began does not mean he is headed for the NBA!
Steve says: “A skeptic is someone that disputes science and then puts their science forward for others to examine.”
I’m surprised no one has refuted this statement.
First, all scientists should be skeptical and try to refute any new science in their area of learning.
Second, all that a scientist need do is show fault with another’s research.
There is no need, none, zip, to put forward their own science (other than the refutation) on anything.
This issue has been discussed here at WUWT, and elsewhere, and need not be repeated.
Uff da!
but Gloateus, there are major scientific instituions in European countries, Russia and China, all of which do not question the temp record and put forward there own, independent research which also supports the science…
And the skeptic funded Berkley Earth also found that the surface temp data was releiable, there was no undue UHI influence and that yes, it is warming.
The RSS data set now also supports this conclusion.
and after decades of skeptic views on climate science, we still have nobody whatever blowing the whistle to reveal any faked data and nobody charged with faking data.
I passed through Ockham, a small village in Surrey, the other day and I think I know what its most famous past resident would conclude…
Steve: The “hottest on record since records began” is based on a statistical calcuation of the anomaly from a 30 year period, which often varies between researchers and graphs. It has no actual physical equivalent in the temperature record. If you remove “estimated” temperatures, that most likely changes the anomaly from average. It’s just a marketing term to sell global warming.
All countries need not tamper with their data at the same rate. There are multiple temperature datasets and all vary from the others. There is no single “hard and fast” record of temperatures used in these calculations. It’s quite clear scientists are trying to measure something that is not clearly defined and at this point in tiime cannot be measured with any degree of accuracy.
To add to what E.M.Smith wrote.
Prior to the last couple of decades, only the high and low for each day was recorded, and that only to the nearest degree as determined by the Mark I eyeball.
Furthermore, Only about 3% of the Earth’s surface come even close to being adequately sampled, with 30 to 40% with sampling sites so low that you might as well call them unsampled.
The idea that we know what the Earth’s temperature was 100 and 200 years ago to a few tenths of a degree is so laughable, that only someone who is deliberately trying to fool others would make it.
There goes Griff with his standard lies.
The so called scientific societies are run by politicians. None of them surveyed their membership before making their pronouncements. In fact many actual scientists have severed their relationships with these organizations precisely because of their descent into politics over science.
Berkley is not and never has been funded by sceptics. The head guy there made the claim that he was once a sceptic, but a casual review of his comments clearly puts the lie to such a claim.
co2isnotevil, Gloateus, E.M. Smith, jclarke341, John F. Hultquist, spot on! Couldn’t have said it better myself. So many logical fallacies from the Climate Fascists, who seem to be of the common belief that what they haven’t proven somehow needs to be disproved.
Steve, co2 is not the control knob, water is. Perry was 100% correct in his answer.
Now you wanted evidence https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/
MarkW said: “Berkley is not and never has been funded by sceptics.”
False. http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7/?IR=T
Steve: We are in an interglacial period in which the earth is expected to warm, and warm, and warm…until it doesn’t warm, and we go back into an ice age.
“and after decades of skeptic views on climate science, we still have nobody whatever blowing the whistle to reveal any faked data and nobody charged with faking data.”
It’s not “faked data.” it’s “adjusted output.” One can argue that there’s no basis for the adjustments, and that it’s improperly being applied, but barring a 100% accurate knowledge of what the proper temperature WAS, you can’t “disprove” the adjustments. The people making the adjustments argue that the initial measurement was wrong, so arguing that their adjustments don’t match the measurement just gets them to nod their head.
It’s an unwinnable argument… everyone knows what was done, it’s not hidden, there is just disagreement on whether it provides a more accurate assessment of reality. Skeptics tend to say, no, that the minute you start manipulating the data it’s no longer data.
While suppressing my self righteous indignation, can I point out there is no defence against silliness for Perry’s statement:
“most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment we live in”.
It doesn’t matter what the question was, that statement is plainly stupid. If he had said the ‘the sun is the main knob’ he could perhaps have argued that. To finger the ocean, which is obviously a receiver of heat and not a driver of temperature rise, and ‘the environment’ which covers everything and so says nothing about cause was, can I say it again, plainly stupid.
I hope that’s not too self righteous.
The control knob of climate fluctuations on a decadal time scale is more likely to be the oceans than the sun. And I suppose that Perry is referring to the recent climate hysteria.
There is a large lunar tidal influence of ocean overturning and currents. This can cause large cold or warm water surges (AMO and PDO / ENSO as examples) and a shift of the Gulf Stream looks causal for rapid onset of cooling in Europe with some warming in Florida as the heat backs up there.
To me, it looks like far more real evidence of ocean induced climate effects than anything related to CO2.
Now the question of what causes those ocean shifts is s bit more open… is it all lunar tidal, or does solar UV vs IR changes drive it? How much is wind driven and what drives changes in those winds?
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/d-o-ride-my-see-saw-mr-bond/
But clearly the mechanism runs through oceans and ENSO et. al.
“Chris Schoneveld July 31, 2017 at 12:55 am
The control knob of climate…”
In a chaotic system, there cannot be one “control knob”, or variable. There are too many variables. So we cannot say ~400ppm/v CO2 is the control knob and even less so ~4% of that due to humans. An analogy would be it’s the bacteria on the flea on the tail of the dog that is the cause.
The proper answer would probably be that there is no single control knob known at this time and it’s unlikely a single factor controls the climate. It would have made Perry look more educated. Whether or not the media would report such an answer or just make one up that they liked instead is unknown. Dealing with reporters whose understanding is “Fossil fuels are frying the planet. They are going to kill us all” makes an intelligent response unlikely to be understood or reported on. Sometimes I think politicians just blurt out whatever comes to mind because the truth will never satisfy the reporter anyway. I’ve tried correcting news media, even providing evidence that they were in error, and they DO NOT CARE. News is not about accuracy.
Jack,
I can’t really defend Perry’s understanding of how the climate works. After all, he’s a government official and few people in government, on either side of the isle, have demonstrated any grasp of the science (except perhaps Cruz). A case in point was all the misleading, vacuous and demonstrably wrong climate related rhetoric that came out of the Obama administration. At least Perry is exactly on point by understanding that CO2 is not any kind of control knob.
The ocean does drive natural variability locally and globally as energy is transferred in, out and throughout the whole system. Since the consensus seems to confuse natural variability with phantom trends arising from CO2, I understand the source of his confusion having been bombarded by so much disinformation coming from the alarmist camp over the last 3 decades.
Jack, Perry was 100% correct, it’s the ocean cycles
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/
Jack, your response is simply wrong. The atmosphere is a thin layer of gas sandwiched between the solar isolation and the oceans containing 1000 times the energy of the atmosphere.
There are only two ways to change the energy content of any system ( in this case the earths atmosphere, land and oceans) in a radiative balance; change the input, or change the residence time of disparate energy in the system. The atmosphere is the tail, the oceans and solar isolation are the dog.
It has been shown that CO2 rises because of the warming. The oceans warm and consequently they out-gas CO2. The current rise in CO2 to 400PPM is due to natural Ocean out-gassing caused by Earth’s recovery from the Little Ice Age.
This natural warming continues. So CO2 rise will also continue.
Remove EVERY Human Being from Earth and CO2 will still rise,
And it will still be beneficial.
RobRoy,
The ice cores tell us that CO2 changes follow temperature changes with a lag of centuries. This can only be explained by biology. Any extra out gassing consequential to increasing temperatures would immediately follow, moreover; the climate responds far, far faster to change, otherwise we wouldn’t see any difference in temperature between night and day and seasonal variability would be completely absent.
Life sequesters carbon in the carbon cycle and the CO2 in the atmosphere is along that path. More life means that a higher steady state concentration of CO2 will be present. It takes centuries for forests to arise and die and this is consistent with land becoming more (as ice retreats) or less (as ice advances) suitable for life.
Since the planets biomass is largely CO2 limited, Increasing CO2 will also result in further long term CO2 increases as biology gains efficiencies from higher CO2 levels and expands to cover less suitable parts of the planet.
Chaotic systems don’t have a single “control knob”, otherwise they would not be chaotic.
exactly
That’s not how chaos works. Consider x <- 4*x * (1-x).
I think Jim Hansen got it right: kick the whole thing out 150 years and just go away & die.
The article points out that Rick Perry is correct and the AMA is incorrect and inconsistent. What I don’t get is any indication that he’s ‘winning’, whatever that means. Am I missing something here?
“control knob” is the spin and manipulation of data to fabricate a false naritive that co2 causes AGW
It may be it’s a simplistic, unscientific term used because the media cannot comprehend or report anything more complex than that. Communication to the media trumps any scientific accuracy. It’s why we see “carbon” and not “carbon dioxide”.
“media” can not accurately predict the weather in a 72 hour time frame, yet they claim to know precisely what the weather will do in 100 years. That is why people need to ignore them and their hysterical religion of Man Caused Globall Warmining.
The AMS tried to troll Perry for not following the catechism of AGW. I have heard Perry on interview programs, and the 10 second clip of him in the 2012 Republican primary debate is not characteristic.
Lets hope not. Was beyond bad. We all have off moments, but that…
True… imagine your worst moment being witnessed by the largest possible audience.
Perry was a C-130 pilot in the USAF.
Sadly elites don’t realize that military pilots are among the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.
Elites like to hear people speak like they went to Haaaavad.
McKitrick’s excellent commentary got one thing wrong. ” Climate models have overestimated warming in recent decades (true) for reasons that are not yet known (false).” The reasons are known and involve unavoidable parameter tuning attribution. See my recent guest post here, “Why models run hot”, for irrefutable illustrated details.
IMO the biggest issue skeptics have is co-ordinated simple messaging at the ‘sound bite’ level. WUWT is an excellent place to refine and co-ordinate that messaging, then promulgate the results to main political player folks like McKitrick, Rep. Lamar Smith, EPA’s Pruitt, and DoE’s Perry.
McKitrick was being polite when it was unnecessary and obfuscates the point, namely, the models are junk, estimating and predicting nothing. Fundamentally, when your model is right for today because that is how you set it, and it constantly drifts with more error over time, then the conclusion is it does not work at all. If the models captured the right parameters even within an order of magnitude, then they would vary between to hot or cold, changing over time. This is not observed. So the models are going to infinity for warming. That means they are not models, they are junk. The flip side is that we have no clue what parameters drive long term climate.
The problem is not long term climate change, it’s what will happen over the next hundred years. There is an understanding of why the planet is warming over such a short period of time. Lots of scientists, 97%, are around 99% sure that we are doing it due to the burning of fossil fuels.
‘There is an understanding of why the planet is warming over such a short period of time.’
A periodic over active sun.
Steve,
Warming since the PDO shift of 1977 is not the least bit unusual. The world warmed more and more rapidly in the early 18th century, coming out of the Maunder Minimum depths of the LIA. The early 20th century warming cycle was practically identical to the late 20th century warming.
There is no evidence that fossil fuel use has had any measurable effect. The earth warmed just as much to more before CO2 took off after WWII. For the first 32 years after the war, earth cooled dramatically while CO2 rose. Then it happened accidentally to warm coincident with continued increase in CO2 for about 20 years. Since then, CO2 has risen even more, yet temperature has stayed flat.
No correlation implies no causation.
there is no such understanding: merely a delusion of such.
chaotic systems need no ‘reason’ beyond their own internal feedback.
“Lots of scientists, 97%, are around 99% sure that we are doing it due to the burning of fossil fuels.”
Steve, in the meantime you must have seen the refutation of this 97% thingy but parrot it anyway.
Come to THINK of it. There are at least 2 hurdles for “it” being true:
– the effects of changing CO₂ can be measured
– the human part, estimated 3%-4% of the naturally produced amount of CO₂ must be responsible for “it”.
…the models make CO2 the control knob. The models consistently run way to hot for the troposphere in particular; ground zero for GHG induced warming. The models compared to observations are informative evidence that Rick Perry is correct; CO2 is NOT the control knob.
It really is fascinating how trolls have to keep repeating the same lies over and over again.
The claim that 97% of scientists believe that CO2 is the major cause of warming has been eviscerated so many times that only the willfully ignorant still believe it.
PS, the claim was that CO2 was a significant factor, not 99%.
Even when you lie, you aren’t any good at it.
Successfully lying takes skill and practice. These environdiots should be paying Willie Jeff Clinton to train them, although, that will eat substantial amounts of their budgets, probably around 97%. But hey! That is a number they are used to, they should be good with it.
“Climate models have overestimated warming in recent decades (true) for reasons that are not yet
knownacknowledged.”If one uses such a method, it just ends up being a “King of the Mountain” game. Skeptics can use scary graphics and stories to scare people into believing the greens are out to destroy humanity, the greens trot out scarier stories, the skeptics up their game and on and on. It’s a temporary victory, constantly overturned. The only hope is to get genuine understanding out there. Plus, skeptics are skeptics for a multitude of reasons. There is no sound bite that covers why people became skeptics. Realize, too, that the warmists appealed to a crowd of unthinking followers who prize being liked over being right. Skeptics often are not followers and are more concerned about what is right than being liked. It’s two very, very different groups. Sound bites work best only on the warmists because their beliefs are simplistic.
(There really is no coordinated beliefs among skeptics, other than science has been high-jacked by politics in the case of global warming. Even that may not be universal.)
Like these, Mr. Seitter?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
**“Recent” = over 18 years ago.
CO2 UP. WARMING NOT.
Janice, a suggestion. Go grab and use from now on Fig. 2 from Christy’s March 29, 2017 Congressional testimony, available on line via an easy google to the congressional website. Two reasons. 1. Most up to date. 2. His written testimony deals devastatingly with the statistical significance of the divergence. Leaves no warmunist wiggle room for Schmidt and company. None.
I appreciate your suggestion, Mr. Istvan. In the future, I’ll do that.
Query: You send me on a little errand. Why do you not post that “easy google” Fig. 2 right now?
” Go grab and use from now on Fig. 2″
An interesting comparison. The second figure shows about twice the “observed” rise in temperature. What happened?
People may ask – why to we only ever get to see the tropical mid-troposphere temperature? A cherry-pick?
Talk about “whack a hippo” testimony! Thanks for the link – Christy proves the prediction models work IFF you get rid of the pollution. Revolutionary!
For Nick S.:
1)Why mid-troposphere:
a.
(Source: Donald Rapp, https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/29/tropospheric-and-surface-temperatures/ )
b. Further to that, the upper troposphere is NOT warming as AGW predicts:
(Source: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D., http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/ ; And see re: UAH V6 paper: At long last, our Version 6 dataset paper has been published, with the online version available as of today:…. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/03/uah-version-6-dataset-paper-published-online/ )
****************
2) You are mistaken. We DO get to see mid-T observations (I’m not going to come up with another, more recent example — one is enough to prove your assertion wrong):
Lower Troposphere
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
(Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/temperature-models-vs-temperature-reality-in-the-lower-troposphere/ )
*************
3) For “what happened,” please see Gloat’s graph posted below at 3:31pm today. (I’d post a link to that comment, but, I’ll bet good ol’ WordPress is going to toss me into the spam bin just for the links or the bolding or what-EVER already in this…. okay….. here goes! (shrug)).
Correction for Nick S.: “2) We DO get to see NON mid-….”
“For “what happened,” please see Gloat’s graph”
Well, that graph is global, but no-one seems to worry about such distinctions. My point was that the first graph shows a range of about 0.2°C in troposphere measures. The second shows a range of about 0.4°C, even if restricted to before 2011.
Here is the figure referred to by Rud Istvan at 2:58pm.
Unfortunately it shows the super El Nino rise in GASTA but not its fall after 2016.
Excellent point, Gloat..
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2017_v6.jpg
Gloateus, these are five year averages, so they probably won’t show any precipitous fall any time soon…
June recorded the lowest anomaly in two years (from WUWT this month):
?w=1024&h=591
Hope this will work:
Ms M, do you hate those little blue question mark thingies as much as i do?
Gloat: Re you at 3:53pm (and possibly, at 3:51pm, too)
Is my 3:31pm post invisible to you?
JM,
No.
Please look closely to see May and June anomalies. Yours ends at April.
Hi, Arthur,
WHAT little blue question mark thingies?
These??
If so, they do not look appetizing, but, if they taste just like pesto, I would not hate them. Wouldn’t order them, but, wouldn’t hate them. If they tasted like coffee, I would hate them.
Janice
Thanks, Gloat. lol. My mistake.
In your 3:31 comment, instead of getting Dr Roy’s graph there is a little blue box with a question mark inside of it. Click on it and it links to the graph. (does this only happen with mobile devices?) If i wanted links i’d still be at Dr Spencer’s blog. His software is awful in more ways than one. And that’s too bad, because a blog as great as his deserves the very best software. It’s nice to see that your new laptop is up and running. (looking forward to ‘moore’ spectacular comments… ☺)
Hi, Arthur,
Oh. No, the graph was published nicely on WUWT. I sometimes get those little blue squares instead of images (not a mobile device, per se, issue) when my Wi-Fi/internet connectivity is sllloooow or just messed up somehow. Images don’t load. Reloading the page usually takes care of it, but, not always. Bummer. I hope the page reload thing works well for you.
And, thank you! Your confidence in the quality of my future comments here is much appreciated! Yes, my laptop (0% 12 month financing! Yee-haw — or I would have been without for months!) is working well.
On Sunday evenings, I watch (on good ol’ “ME TV”) the double feature of “The Andy Griffith Show” (usually managing to whistle all or nearly all the entire theme, heh) with my mother. Barney can get on my nerves, but, I sure do enjoy that hour-long escape into a world where people are generally courteous, where acting honorably is the norm, and the bad guys get theirs (promptly!).
Take care. I am still praying about a new phone AND laptop and that the data transfer from the phone to each goes well. YOU (as well as Dr. Spencer) deserve the best tech..
Sign me: A Little Wishful Thinking Helps You Endure a Whole Lot of Troubles
One Minute and Twenty-one Seconds of “Happy” 🙂
(youtube “The Andy Griffith Show” theme)
P.S. To Arthur — try also a hard power off — wait 15 sec. — then on. Sometimes, my phone (or a laptop or the Xfinity (or other Wi-Fi dealio, the component that is that is plugged into the wall) too, sometimes) just needs that kick in the seat of the pants to get its little act together.
My usual comment – these graphs are also missing a vertical line on the date the models are run. Such a line, appropriately labeled, will permit a reader to determine what was hind-casting and what was forecasting/prediction/whatever we call it these days. Otherwise, the models look like they only recently stopped being accurate whereas in fact, they have only been successful with known data – which suggest they were tuned to match the existing data but are useless for predictive purposes.
We won’t win until the federal money for climate science dries up. And if you think that is drastic solution then consider this, most other scientific disciplines have been bled dry by the diversion of funds into climate science. It is time to swing the pendulum back the other way.
A, while not disagreeing with your sentiment (Lindzen’s advice was defund 90%), tend to be more sanguine. The CAGW wheels are coming off despite the funding, and continued funding seems to produce ever more ridiculous stuff. A house of cards will not stand long.
If Trump manages a second term, it’s a no-brainer. If not, the alarmists have hope, IMO.
It will go down faster if it is hosed with gas and lit. We need a gas&torch moment to truly kill the religion of Man Caused Globall Warmining.
Perhaps Monckton’s and Watts’s papers, when published, will provide the spark.
We can only hope, and stand by to fan the flames.
The US federal government spends four trillion dollars per year but takes in only three trillion in tax receipts. This can’t continue, so “climate” research needs to be cut at least by 25%, just to do its bit in reducing deficit spending. But 90% would be much better.
Since retirees getting $2000 per month in SS will cry bloody murder if that amount is cut to $1500, obviously many other expenditures will have to be slashed more drastically.
Being one of those SS people I won’t complain when I’ve gotten all the money and inherent interest back. I expect that to take another 15-20 years, by which time I likely will be dead according to SSA calculations.
Philo,
Those in our generation who live an average life span and have earned an average amount will get more out than we paid in, unless there are cuts. Young people paying into the system now, probably not so much.
“Since retirees getting $2000 per month in SS will cry bloody murder if that amount is cut to $1500, obviously many other expenditures will have to be slashed more drastically.” Here is already a cut in SS. It’s called inflation. What cost $1500 today will soon cost $2000. The Government’s Cost of Living Index is pure BS.
Old,
Yup. Inflation is the liberal’s sneaky way of taxing retirees and of making paying off the US debt easier, without cutting spending.
If Americans had to pay in taxes for the amount of government spending we have, they’d never approve it. Hence continuing resolutions in Congress, borrowing and inventing money out of pure air by the Fed.
Just curious Gloateus, have you adjusted the dollars we’ve paid in for the last 50 years for inflation and computed the compounded interest that those dollars would have earned over half a century of confiscation, I meant to say contribution, when you say we’ll get more out than we’ve paid in? For example what’s a 1966 dollar, the year I started paying, worth today? I’ve got just a gut feeling that a ’66 dollar would buy a lot more gas/food/roof-over-the-head than a ’17 dollar does. How much interest would it have accumulated if it and its accrued interest was invested each year for half a century in the highest paying government bond? The reason I ask is the oft repeated phrase, “get out more than we’ve paid in.” I can’t argue with a dollar to dollar comparison if I live for a few more years but I think there may be more to consider than ‘dollar in-dollar out’. Oh, by the way, I’d love to be getting $2000 a month. Hell, I’d settle for the $1500.
Far from “indisputable”, there is no actual evidence that human activity has more than a negligible effect on GASTA, let alone on “climate”.
Humans have observable local effects and maybe even some direct global effects, but we can’t even be sure of the sign of our effect, let alone that it is significant or amounts to a “control knob”.
CO2 levels have been higher than they are now during colder periods on Earth in the past. CO2 is essential for plant and tree growth.
We can’t ever “win” this conflict of science versus religion. The faithful will go to the grave claiming their religion is the only way. The unscrupulous will simply move on to a new way to collecting money and power. Eventually the data becomes uncontroversial in the link between CO2 and climate (it either has a low influence, a high influence, or somewhere in between) and this ugly fight will simply cease to exist, followed by new ugly and equally unscientific fights.
People seem to need a religion. They have replaced the older religions with newer ones. They seem to need to believe they are sinful (we must be punished for burning oil), they seem to require they have some control over nature (all we need to do is sacrifice our economic futures and nature will forgive us, much like our ancestors sacrificed food and materials to their gods), and they seem to require everyone believe like them or be shunned.
Those with an open mind but simply have not taken the time to actually dig into the facts will come around as data becomes obvious. (Yeah, I am an eternal optimist).
fighting is not winning, tho- and there’s the nub.
but truthfully, there is no ‘winning’ in any negotiation with a parisite.
what you need to do is stop losing.
negotiation is simply bargaining on how much you will agree to lose.
stop losing and the parisites nust cease to propagate – that might be called a win.
Exactky right. Well said.
Well said Robert. My mom will spend her SSN check to get into heaven 🙁
“Religion is the opiate of the masses” ….Marx. Or was it Lenin? Read about what GOD thinks about religion in “Conversations with GOD” Neal Donald Walsh Volumes 1-3. Very interesting and enlightening!!
The fact that the temperature has remained level over the last twenty years, while CO2 has continued to increase leaves the door open for just a smidgen of doubt. That “Climate Science” would respond by adjusting the temperature record screams “FRAUD.”
I have little confidence in Rick Perry, he is far too wishy washy on, well, EVERYTHING. He has shown in the past, repeatedly, that he will cave in faster than a hole on the beach at high tide. The only good coming from this is the fact this issue is being discussed on national TV and people are beginning to suspect all this climate change crap.
The late (in April, 2016) Dr. Bill Gray wrote an exposé of the takeover of the AMS (American Meteorological Society) by the enviroprofiteer-puppet scientists:
(Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ (there were 359 comments)) — emphasis mine.
You are missed, Dr. Gray.
Indeed!
I tend to agree with other commenters that the argument is likely to continue. My hopes are on blowing the whole thing apart via some easily reproducible experiments. I am thinking of things like experiments to measure back radiation, experiments to show how a cool gas can heat a warm rock, experiments to measure the real effect of bulk CO2 on radiative heat flow/transmission. Experiments should be able to produce some quantitive results. This should enable us to see which “belief” is nearest to the scientific truth.
The US should secede from IPCC and produce its own climate change document, demolishing the UN’s pack of lies.
Ummm, if it were not for the Karlization of ARGO data, there still would be no warming over the last few decades, if memory severs me ……
If memory severs you, you too will be sorely missed.
: > )
“there still would be no warming over the last few decades”
Your memory does have gaps. Karl did nothing with ARGO data. Nor with HADCRUT 4. Plenty of warming there
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/web_figures/hadcrut4_annual_global.png
Simply semantics Nick. You know it.
Some can start here. Much more in the wings on adjusting SST data to match ship intake readings. Just sayin, what is the made for purpose measuring device?
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/
Juan, my bad for not editing my text to speech better on my mobile device. Doh!
I should serve myself from it 😉
BTW Nick, why did you totally avoid my question on your solution thoughs on GW in a previous post?
You had plenty of other posted thoughts in the thread after the question. Nothin?
Cmon man…..
So it was “ideal” back in the 1800’s, Nick? Is that what you’re saying? I don’t know how else to interpret what you’re saying. And by the way, you should thank Janice for taking you to school!
Hadley persist in extending smoothed graphs beyond their formal end points, albeit dotted, which Prof Humlum describes as an “unfortunate habit”.
Nick,
just a daft few questions I’m sure you can answer.
What happened between ~1945 and ~1975?
Could that be considered a 30 year pause?
What was CO2 doing at the time?
What equipment was used to take the measurements? Presumably the data has been taken using the same equipment, in the same locations.
Thanks.
“HotScot July 31, 2017 at 1:31 am”
He won’t have adjusted data for that, yet.
Somewhat related
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ca20170730eda-870×493.jpg
I know why the climate models have overestimated warming: They are all wrong.
But, surely they are calibrated against the reconstruction of the global average temperature since the mid 19th century. And surely that reconstruction can’t be wrong…
+1,000!
Remember: In the 1970s C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization is reported to have said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” A couple of other scientists at big named schools also predicted terrible impacts from the cooling that had taken place and one even predicted by the year 2000 the world would be 11 degrees cooler.
Surprising how many scientists don’t know that trends reverse, so that extrapolation is unlikely to work at all time intervals.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) defines climate change as: “Any systematic change in the long-term statistics of climate elements (such as temperature, pressure, or winds) sustained over several decades or longer. Climate change may be due to: natural external forcings, such as changes in solar emission or slow changes in the earth’s orbital elements; natural internal processes of the climate system; or anthropogenic forcing.”
Under the AMS definition, “climate change” includes changes that may be entirely natural!
One thing that gets lost in discussions about whether AGW is happening is whether it’s dangerous. We don’t really need science to understand what is dangerous. A two degree plus movement occurs when one travels from Australia to Asia then back again if you go to Europe. When you are in a house you have the opportunity to make the temperature a cool 15-16 degrees or 28-30 degrees with the flick of a switch. No one dies because of these changes in temperature. What does kill people is making electricity so expensive that the poorest in our society cannot afford to heat or cool their house. AGW alarmism is the greatest moral challenge of our time and the policies implemented in its name kill.This would be bad enough if the world was really warming dangerously but it’s reprehensible to have this alarmism when it’s not.
People die in heatwaves, as the heat is more than their region is accustomed to/can deal with.
If there is an increase in heatwaves, as the science predicts, there are going to be a lot more deaths.
The onset of a heatwave is not like travel between climate zones.
People die in cold more often however.
Especially when socialist morons in their governments strip them of the ability to heat their homes and buy food at the same time.
As always, Griff demonstrates that he just doesn’t know what he is talking about.
A heat wave is defined as being a certain amount above the average for that time of year.
Even if CO2 did increase the average temperature, that doesn’t mean there will be more heat waves.
BTW, if little Griff’s logic was accurate, the entire population of Pheonix should die every year because it’s so much hotter there than it is in Maine.
This is what I’m talking about…
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4259-european-heatwave-caused-35000-deaths/
and there isn’t an increase in cold around the world.
Griff,
did you ever read YOUR link?
“August 2003 was the hottest August on record in the northern hemisphere. But projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict more erratic weather, the EPI notes. By the end of this century, the average world temperature is projected to climb by 1.4 to 5.8°C.”
The heat wave was FOURTEEN years ago, no repeat of that ghastly weather event. Since 2001 little to no warming,which doesn’t help the IPCC temperature projections for the first two decades:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
So it should have warmed about .45 C,but it is near zero instead.
Projecting far into the future is not science at all,it is scaremongering propaganda,which is indicative of that massive 4.4C temperature spread. AGW science are based on unverified climate models,which the short term climate models have already failed.
There have been FEWER Hurricanes since 2005,NONE of the 3+ category reaching the American mainland since October 2005. Fewer Tornadoes,less drought and so on. It is mostly in the reverse from what the IPCC and Eco loonies predicted/projected.
I showed you this before,Griff. Large areas of the world is MUCH hotter that France,with no unusual mortality rates,which are less than what France suffered in 2003.
Here it is again:
Phoenix Arizona
There are AVERAGE Summer temperatures
June 104 F High, 78 F Low
July 106 F High, 83 F Low
August 104 F High, 83 F Low
http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/phoenix/arizona/united-states/usaz0166
Las Vegas Nevada
June 99 F High, 75 F Low
July 104 F High, 81 F Low
August 102 F High, 79 F Low
http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/las-vegas/nevada/united-states/usnv0049
Two of many examples of cities with far hotter summers than in France,with low heat related death rates.
There have been no increase in heat waves.
People die in cold waves, as the cold is more than their region accustomed to/can deal with.
If there is an increase in cold waves, as the science predicts, there are going to be a lot more deaths.
The onset of a cold wave is not like travel between climate zones.
See? Clearly it is easy, you can do it.
“People die in heatwaves, as the heat is more than their region is accustomed to/can deal with.”
A damn sight more die due to cold Skanky, like the thousands that die every year in the UK due to being unable to heat and eat as a result of scum like you and you fellow virtue signalling scammers pretending to believe in CAGW.
But hey, they’re only the old, sick and poor, so what do that matter to the likes of you, right?
Perry is spot on. It is time to move on. The hockey stick controversy, “The Inconvenient Truth” and melting ice bergs reflect old thinking and irrelevancies. Rational thinking and climate science facts are rapidly overshadowing the thirty plus year false narrative of climate change alarmists.
1. U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, February 2,2016: John Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville, testified that out of 102 simulations of global temperature from 32 climate models, only the Russian model was close to actual temperatures but still too high.
2. Nature website, February 24, 2016: “There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”
3. Caltech: The next 125 years, November 2016: President Rosenbaum at Caltech posited that nature cannot be modeled with classical physics but theoretically might be modeled with quantum physics (http://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-next-125-years-53702).
4. Cerncourier website, November 11, 2016: “Early this year, CLOUD reported in Nature the discovery that aerosol particles can form in the atmosphere purely from organic vapours produced naturally by the biosphere. In a separate modelling paper published recently in PNAS, CLOUD shows that such pure biogenic nucleation was the dominant source of particles in the pristine pre-industrial atmosphere.” CERN is the European Organization for Nuclear Research.
5. My analysis of the HadCRUT4 time-temperature data indicates a high likelihood of the beginning of an absolute decline in the global mean surface temperature trend line within the next decade. The first derivative of the temperature trend line has been positive for the past 20 years but has decreased in value every month. The derivative is likely to become negative in the mid-2020s, i.e., the mean global surface temperature will decline. http://www.uh.edu/nsm/earth- atmospheric/people/faculty/tom-bjorklund/
The implications from these recent developments are that CO2 does not play a significant role in global warming, climate models used by the UN IPCC to estimate future temperatures are too high, and the models should be redone. https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisavery/2017/04/04/new-eurostudies-confirm-sun-dominates-earths-climate-n2308564
Climate science is far from settled. Solving the climate change conundrum before the world wastes 100 trillion dollars chasing rabbits is the major problem for climate science. Ill-advised environmental regulations must be rolled back before they destroy the U.S. economy. A rational environmental protection program and a vibrant economy can co-exist.
About the only things that has been warming this century is the heat generated by cities due to growth of population and consumption of vast amounts of energy, that heat energy sometimes gets trapped as increasing cloud forms over those cities. Then you get the Nick Stokes who must know all this, trumpeting tenths of a degree warming (in an adulterated temperature record) as some sort of evidence, when using common sense, simple UHI for cities is up 3 degree C, so any recorded high SHOULD be at least that PLUS the tenths of a degree that his lot and the Bureau Of Meteorology claim. IT is just not there! And when you factor in the algorithms that LOWER past historical record temperatures, The only man made record is in his convenient adjustments.
Berkely Earth examined whether the UHI was distorting surface temp records… and found it wasn’t. go look it up…
Berkley Earth got just about everything wrong.
Look it up …
Berkley Earth = Climate Fascists wearing climate skeptic costumes.
Griff, as usual you are wrong and probably lying since it is really easy to find published science papers showing that UHI effect is real.
Here is a what I found when looking it up………,
From No Tricks Zone,
4 New Papers: Modern Warming Is Substantially Artificial, Traced To Urbanization, Bias
“Scientists: Temperature Data Contamination
Accounts For 33% – 75% Of Modern Warming
Urban heat from paved roads, buildings, and machinery can artificially inflate temperatures substantially above measured temperatures from non-urban areas. This introduces a significant non-climatic warming bias into long-term records.
Heat from an urban (or highly populated) environment can artificially raise temperatures by as much as 3°C to 10°C relative to nearby rural locations. This is true even for villages in the Arctic.”
http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/24/modern-warming-is-substantially-artificial-traced-to-urbanization-bias/#sthash.iT55DES2.dpbs
There are a lot of science based comments in the thread, but here is one of mine in reply to the resident warmist loon who never answer it:
sunsettommy 26. July 2017 at 9:20 PM
“Sebastian writes,
“It is impressive how easily you get triggered and need to present your beliefs about manipulated data and El Nino as the master of temperature increase as a response.”
It is impressive that you keep ignoring that obvious reality since it warms ONLY when El-Nino’s come along,otherwise flat to a cooling trend comes after it fades away.
From Bob Tisdale,where he shows using the data that yes “global warming” are caused by ENSO events:
Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-1/
Seb,
“Should stop commenting again so you can all calm down and reassure yourselves of your strange beliefs.”
When are you going to stop ignoring the failed PER DECADE projections from the IPCC reports?
How much longer are you going to ignore well documented temperature data tampering?
How much longer are you going to avoid Kenneth’s well documented massive station drop outs?
How much longer are you going to ignore the Satellite data showing the failure of the Tropical Hot Spot and the less than 50% per decade warming as per the Satellite data rate of the IPCC projected rates?
Seb ends with this childlike prose,
“Keep repeating your mantras, but don’t act surprised if you get called what you are.”
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
You ignore most of the official evidence right off the bat,then the occasional time you make a sourced reply,it gets a detailed reply, you quickly drop it,to go to a corner of the room and curl up into a fetal ball.
Your whine about Dr. Lindzen,is a classic example of your low level behavior,who can’t provide a credible counterpoint to what he wrote,instead of the name calling you several times foisted on Dr. Lindzen. He has since been joined by many scientists who also show low to near zero CO2 sensitivity effect. You are indeed a cad!
Many here long know that you are a glassy eyed,slack jawed warmist troll. You bring very little to the debate,ignore the many failed IPCC projections,ignore the obvious El-Nino effect on global temperature,ignore the hundreds of published science papers in recent years,that shoots holes in the absurd AGW conjecture.
Why not surprise us with honest rational replies instead?
http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/24/modern-warming-is-substantially-artificial-traced-to-urbanization-bias/#comment-1223412
Massive Rural Station drop outs is a red flag that warmists ignore,since it would greatly damage their AGW religion.
Yep, removing temp monitor stations that were NOT located in the middle of pavement/concrete parking lots or large, black commercial building roofs was a definite give away on what the enviroloons agenda actually is about.
Not only in that paper but in all the subsequent work I’ve done.
Think Population matters? Easy, divide the stations into those with rural type populations ( even ZERO)
and those with non rural populations: Answer, no difference.
Think Human changes to the surface matter? Easy divide the stations that are located in areas where we
pave the surface versus those were we do not: Answer, No difference.
In BE we used 500 meter data from Modis.
I’ve repeated that with 300 meter data, 250 meter data and 30 meter data.
No difference.
Think being at an airport makes a difference? Nope.
How about just being CLOSE to an urban area? Tested that. NOPE.
What if we look at stations at very remote locations.. small islands, Atols, national parks..
No differrence.
The skeptical theory is busted
That is just so precious! Clearly you have not stood on any pavement in the summer or spent the day on a flat, black roof. Get back to me when you have.
That dry part of the beach.
Doing that this week on Cape Cod. Kickin’ it wid da Kennedys, yo!
“Griff, as usual you are wrong and probably lying “
Absolutely no “probably” about it.
Only doing his job, of course.
“Think being at an airport makes a difference? Nope.”
You really can’t possibly believe that.
Or perhaps you can…
Tragic if so.
There is even a House Climate Solutions Caucus –
that is bipartisan – that is composed of US politicians who agree that climate change is real, it is happening right now and time is running out to act to mitigate its effects [https://curbelo.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1487/]. Articles like this only serve to delay this action. An individual like Rick Perry is not qualified to give an opinion on the causes and effects of climate change. For more information visit: https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/
“climate change is real, it is happening right now”
Yes, trivially true.
“time is running out”
No, time isn’t running out. There are no facts in form of measurements (data) from qualified scientists on that web site you refer that show anything harmful. It’s all religion.
“climate change is real, it is happening right now” Yes indeed! As it has been happening right now for several billion years.
Look, man, you probably think I am a waffly airy fair Democrat and I probably think you are an ‘alt-right’ republican whereas in fact it should be a NON-PARTISAN issue. Did you take a look at these? If not, they are just examples of what is happening on this planet. Man has been burning since the industrial revolution and where do you think all that CO2 goes – it just disappears into the atmosphere or is soaked up by the oceans and end of story. I don’t think so my friend:
– Summary: Extreme weather hits Europe – scientists blame climate change [article and video] (07.2017)
From intense heat waves to severe flooding, Europe is a continent of extremes at the moment. Severe weather conditions have caused mayhem and destruction in many countries.
Link: http://www.euronews.com/video/2017/07/29/extreme-weather-hits-europe—scientists-blame-climate-change
–
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/climate-change-consensus-the-97/
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu6SE5TYrCM
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu6SE5TYrCM
Humans are not causing climate change and humans can not stop climate change. Period. Full stop. Destroying human energy production, manufacturing and agriculture because of a lie propagated by the political left is stupid.
Thank you ivan for proving the conservatives correct.
“Europe is a continent of extremes at the moment.”
No. The weather is pretty normal. We had floods and drier times as long as I can think back. And before that…
“scientists blame climate change”
They can blame it on everything they like. They have to prove what they pretend but they don’t do that.
“Severe weather conditions have caused mayhem and destruction in many countries.”
yes, since the earth has formed.
“Extreme weather hits Europe”
I’ve been travelling round Europe for nearly seven decades and I can assure you that it is most definitely not doing anything of the kind, the weather in Europe is pretty much the same as it was half a century and more ago.
You are either totally credulous and very deluded or totally mendacious and have very sinister agenda, YOU choose.
Who needs facts when you have ‘faith’
Mr. Seitter,
Don’t bother Sec. Perry with your ridiculous letter. He’s a busy man. Why don’t you instead debate your own Fellow of the AMS, Prof. Roger Pielke? I’m sure he disagrees with your letter. You cannot speak for AMS because many of your members don’t believe you.
Hey I guessed right! It turns out Pielke really opposed Seitter’s letter.
Professor Roger Pielke Sr. sent the House committee a response to Dr. Seitter’s letter, looking at key excerpts.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/04/06/climate-scientists-discuss-the-house-hearing/
Not an awkward question at all. Biased, though. As in, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
How can you claim that? Wife (Spouse. Women DO beat men too) beating does happen. Climate change driven by emissions of CO2 from human activity, not so much.
The only thing alarmists have in their arsenal is ad hominem attacks.
Facts are clear, man’s manipulation of them is clear as fog?
That just confirms for me that AMS is a fully compromised organization at the top. Perry is right to express doubt and uncertainty in the obvious cesspool of biased pseudoscience and advocacy-compromised professional organizations.
>”Doubling cloud cover might trigger an ice age.”
That would be impossible as we are now living in an “ice age” that began 2.58 million years ago. It is just wrong to imply that we are not currently living through an “ice age”.
We are now enjoying an interglacial period, a respite from the last glacial period. An “ice age” has two aspects: 1) ice covers large portions of the earth the enter year (think Antarctica, think now) and 2) “age” is a very long geologic time, on the order of million(s) of years.
Why is it import to use proper scientific terms? Because, we confuse the public when we are sloppy with them.
I think Perry should have replied with his own question, like “what do you believe the “correct” earth temperature and CO2 concentration should be, and why?”
The AMS should be discredited as a reputable organization in any way possible until it changes. Members should resign
The absolute certainty ought to be a huge red flag for any Scientist or Engineer, if not they’re either incompetent or dishonest.
Perry is spot on. It is time to move on. The hockey stick controversy, “The Inconvenient Truth” and melting ice bergs are old thinking and irrelevancies. Rational thinking and climate science facts are rapidly overshadowing the thirty plus year false narrative of climate change alarmists. Developments over the last two years have significantly redirected the climate science narrative.
1) On February 2,2016, John Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville, testified to the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology that out of 102 simulations of global temperature from 32 climate models, only the Russian model was close to actual temperatures but still too high. 2) John Fyfe, a climate modeler in Victoria, British Columbia was quoted on February 24, 2016 on the Nature website that “There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing, We can’t ignore it.” 3) In a November 2016 address, President Rosenbaum at Caltech posited that nature cannot be modeled with classical physics but theoretically might be modeled with quantum physics (http://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-next-125-years-53702). 4) On the November 11, 2016, the Cerncourier announced that “Early this year, CLOUD reported in Nature the discovery that aerosol particles can form in the atmosphere purely from organic vapours produced naturally by the biosphere. In a separate modelling paper published recently in PNAS, CLOUD shows that such pure biogenic nucleation was the dominant source of particles in the pristine pre-industrial atmosphere.” 5) My analysis of the HadCRUT4 time-temperature data indicates a high likelihood of the beginning of an absolute decline in the global mean surface temperature trend line within the next decade. The rate of increase of the temperature trend line is positive but has decreased in value every month for the past 20 years. The rate is likely to become negative in the mid-2020s and increase in negative value well into the 2030s, i.e., the mean global surface temperature will decline.
The implications from these recent developments are that CO2 does not play a significant role in global warming, climate models used by the United Nations Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to estimate future temperatures are too high, and the models should be redone. Climate science is far from settled. Solving the climate change conundrum before the world wastes 100 trillion dollars chasing rabbits is the major problem for climate science. Ill-advised environmental regulations must be rolled back before they destroy the U.S. economy. A rational environmental protection program and a vibrant economy can co-exist.
This sounds silly. That is not what is wrong with the models.
There are 2 fundamental problems:
The models fixed their failure to march warming by allowing either supersaturation of water vapor or they do mass conservation of water vapor at the water air boundary. Both allow them to put a dial on the amount of water vapor that escapes bulk water vs temp and radiation I would presume. So they fixed the low heating problem with an overheating problem, which they backcasted by adjusting aerosols.
Second, is the inherent difficulty in projecting the future location of all sorts of atm and oceanic features and parameters, the butterfly effect. QM simulations for protein was one of the science at home screensavers, because of how computationally expensive they are. Not way they are doing the atm. Might be a great advertisements for a new supercomputers though.
We need to model situations. The daily clear sky solar cycle. For an entire year, including water vapor. Thus would show that over most of the year in the mid latitudes water vapor acts as a heat pump, stores 4.21J/g during the day evaporating water into vapor, and the releases it at night reducing the amount of cooling at the surface.
Remember also that much water vapor created in the tropics are distributed to higher latitudes where it too has to release this stored energy to cool.
These kinds of analysis can be done, and would define how the atm works radiatively, the only way Earth sheds heat.
I appreciate the thoughtful comments, but model simulations are not useful if real data are not available to test the models. Without data, the models cannot be tested within the lifetimes of the prognosticators. Check out the CERN CLOUD experiment reference and their comments on the fundamental problems of models without real world data. They address exactly the issues you raise.
To use cost as an argument for not getting the science right does not work for me. If the science is wrong, all the work is just wheel-spinning.
There is data available or it could be taken. I have a lot of data on clear calm sky cooling.
Fact: there is not one single hard-data-based study in the peer-reviewed climate literature that actually confirms the link between an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide content and global warming. So much for “indisputable science!”