24 Hours of Climate Reality: Gore-a-thon – Hour 7

A new post containing a cartoon from Josh will appear every hour. At the end of the 24 hours, everything will be collated on a single page. Readers are encouraged to post skeptical arguments below, as well as offer comments on what has been seen from the Climate Reality Project so far.


Where’s the warming?

Here’s why the graph is relevant:

Stunning Revelation From Santer et al. Study: Confirms Insignificant & Immaterial Warming By Year 2100

Read here. Santer et al. 2011 research supposedly determines that at least 17 years of data is required to “measure” humans’ impact on the climate. Not 15 years, not 16, not 18, not 19, not 20, but most assuredly, their cherry-picked 17-year span is the new gold-standard.

Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”

Soooo, what does 17 years of HadCRUT global temperatures and CO2 levels look like? Good question!

Using 17 years (204 months) worth of data through the end of July 2011, the plot on the left reveals that global warming since August 1994 is rather modest and non-existent since 1998.

The linear trend from this 17-year span indicates that global temperatures will be only 0.85°C higher by January 1, 2100. The light blue fitted curve suggests that global temperatures are actually moving towards a cooling period, not a warming. The grey fitted curve for CO2 keeps to a linear path (“business as usual”) it has long had.

Let’s identify what human CO2 impacts (past, present and future) have had on the climate per this 17-year period:

  • This 17-year gold-standard, blessed by the holier than thou team of Santer et cohorts, basically confirms that human CO2 emissions have had little, if any, impact on global temperatures.
  • This 17-year span confirms that climate models based on the myopic CO2-“science” are spectacularly wrong.
  • This 17-year span confirms that future global warming will at most be modest.
  • This 17-year data confirms what skeptics have been saying for the last 17 years: runaway positive feedback is a fantasy and future global warming is unlikely to be catastrophic.

Since this outcome is probably not what Santer et al. expected from looking at the most recent 17-year span, maybe they ought to retract their study for a major revision. It would seem the 17-year span might need to be changed – damn that pesky empirical evidence!


Josh put a lot of work into these, so if you like the work, drop by the tip jar. Unlike Gore’s CRP, he won’t spam you asking for more. Buy him a beer, he’s worked a long time bringing us enjoyment with only some “attaboys” sent his way.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave Dardinger
September 14, 2011 11:22 pm

Hey, come on guys! Anyone up for a game of Bridge?

Andrew Harding
September 14, 2011 11:31 pm

The graph confirms what our gut instincts tell us; that the world is not getting warmer. Here in NE England it is 6.6 Celsius at 07:30 with high cloud. Wind speed is 0mph, so yet again the “green” wind turbines disfiguring our landscape and making pots of money for various people on the AGW bandwagon are not making any significant contribution to our national grid

J. Felton
September 14, 2011 11:35 pm

A friend of mine posted a link to the CRP on his Facebook wall, and headed it ” Solid Data should trump idealogy.”
Well, here is the solid data. Wonder if the CRP will touch on that?

Rick Bradford
September 14, 2011 11:57 pm

Even when an ice age returns, Santer et al. will blame it on humanity one way or another.

September 15, 2011 12:29 am

I wish they’d stop putting political figures up as evidence against science. If they want to argue that politicians misconstrue science, then you can show every last one of them struggling with the most basic understanding. This is because, they aren’t scientists. This Climate Reality is pretty weak. I expected this to be in depth study after study showing all the evidence supporting the AGW hypotheses. Even some sort of demonstration of functioning renewable energy plants around the world which are yielding results. The “new normal” and other rubbish slogans just give deniers evidence to ignore it all. It’s really annoying that the stream keeps freezing.
Weather is not climate.. but wait, now onto how weather is connected to climate. This “climate reality project” has just provided a new forum for people to gripe at eachother about whatever incomplete fiction they’re interested in at the moment. It is deeply troubling how badly educated people are that this is the level of communication.
Did you know that it doesn’t match the other suspects well at all, but it matches the human greenhouse gas emissions almost perfectly? This is how we know it is humans causing climate change, well clearly that’s so simple it must be true. We can distinguish between the gases and the sun by looking for warming throughout the atmosphere, but greenhouse gases are found in the stratosphere where warming is occuring, so it’s the gases doing it. If it didn’t just pause suddenly, I wouldn’t have missed entire segments of what he was speaking about, when finally something resembling science was being said.
I can’t debunk these points when it keeps skipping sections. However, he did say that the downside probably outweighs any benefit of a warming planet… probably… well I will probably give him credit for the depth of that answer… probably.

Scottish Sceptic
September 15, 2011 12:51 am

The more we educate people to this argument the better. The scaling up of the scientifically based effects of CO2 is a complete scam which is only justified because they couldn’t otherwise explain the curve. In other words, they completely made up warming because the had to to fit the 20th century warming (I’m ignoring instrumentation errors).
Now if the justification for the massive scaling up of CO2 warming is that it HAD TO FIT THE 20th century temperature, then IT HAD TO FIT … do I have to repeat? … IT HAD TO FIT the temperature afterwards, otherwise the whole justification was wrong.
Put put it another way, if you deny all other possible drivers of climate and create a theory that says:
Then the proof that this theory is wrong is when
We can now turn this around. The average warming predicted by the models is around 0.35C/decade. There has been no net warming, which means the models are now out by an average of 0.35C/decade. (none predicted no warming).
If they then try to use the argument: “Natural variation caused the actual temperature to vary from predicted”, then we know the scale of that natural variation which is 0.35C/decade, which means you can certainly ignore e.g. 3 decades of warming of 0.2C/decade as being well within natural variation (and given the noise profile it is very likely to get runs of decades)

September 15, 2011 1:03 am

Great effort from WUWT to deal with the alarmist papers and talking points. The petard hoisting for the Team is imminent.

P Wilson
September 15, 2011 1:09 am

its getting time to turn the hockey stick upside down. (that’s been done before)

September 15, 2011 1:47 am

This reminds me from the my early years when I was forced to attend the service in church. The same gospel. Actually admitted, all it takes is to spread HOPE. The same object the religions so successfully did for hundreds of years. Most of the time by force and help of the governments. Comparable situation ?

Greg Holmes
September 15, 2011 2:16 am

UK 7.00 am 7 degrees celsius, Scout Moor wind turbines stopped, no wind, lovely dawn rising, rather chilly, cannot feel the latent heat from our summer, I suppose it must be a very isolated weather effect I am experiencing. If I hang around another 17 years perhaps it will be the same.
meanwhile, the UK Gonvernment is giving £1,7 billion of taxpayers cash to incentivise green investment whilst gas and electicity bills rise, watch the death rates from Hypothermia shoot up this next January.

P Wilson
September 15, 2011 2:23 am

I agree Greg Holmes. It is a sick joke

September 15, 2011 2:37 am

‘Not 15 years, not 16, not 18, not 19, not 20, but most assuredly, their cherry-picked 17-year span is the new gold-standard’,
To be fair he does say at least 17 Years. Otherwise the claims of the warmists are of course unsustainable.

Viv Evans
September 15, 2011 4:33 am

A rather chilly morning here in Blighty, with heavy dew on the grass.
However, the sun is still nicely hot, so it has turned into a lovely day – pity it feels like October, though, especially as we’ve still got some days to go to the equinox …

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead
September 15, 2011 6:20 am

I’m gonna celebrae by hitching up my little Boler Trailer, going north into Alberta, and turning on the furnace, as it will hover around the freezing point at night for the weekend.

Bob Diaz
September 15, 2011 7:57 am

The model is 100% accurate, it’s just that the real world got it wrong!!! 😉

Septic Matthew
September 15, 2011 9:35 am

This is a truly clever use of the Santer et al result. I’m pleased. 🙂 However, they said that at least 17 years was necessary ; they did not say that it was sufficient . AGW promoters have never been consistent, though, sometimes citing single years, even single events, as evidence for accelerated change.

Septic Matthew
September 15, 2011 9:40 am

Scottish Sceptic: If they then try to use the argument: “Natural variation caused the actual temperature to vary from predicted”, then we know the scale of that natural variation which is 0.35C/decade, which means you can certainly ignore e.g. 3 decades of warming of 0.2C/decade as being well within natural variation (and given the noise profile it is very likely to get runs of decades)
Very good. When the occasion arises, I shall spread that argument around.

Brian H
September 15, 2011 2:08 pm

The Gore-a-Thon is enough to make me question the accuracy of the venerable marketing and political adage, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.”

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights