# 18 annual climate gabfests: 16 years without warming

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY

DELEGATES at the 18th annual UN climate gabfest at the dismal, echoing Doha conference center – one of the least exotic locations chosen for these rebarbatively repetitive exercises in pointlessness – have an Oops! problem.

No, not the sand-flies. Not the questionable food. Not the near-record low attendance. The Oops! problem is this. For the past 16 of the 18-year series of annual hot-air sessions about hot air, the world’s hot air has not gotten hotter. There has been no global warming. At all. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

The equations of classical physics do not require the arrow of time to flow only forward. However, observation indicates this is what always happens. So tomorrow’s predicted warming that has not happened today cannot have caused yesterday’s superstorms, now, can it?

That means They can’t even get away with claiming that tropical storm Sandy and other recent extreme-weather happenings were All Our Fault. After more than a decade and a half without any global warming at all, one does not need to be a climate scientist to know that global warming cannot have been to blame.

Or, rather, one needs not to be a climate scientist. The wearisomely elaborate choreography of these yearly galah sessions has followed its usual course this time, with a spate of suspiciously-timed reports in the once-mainstream media solemnly recording that “Scientists Say” their predictions of doom are worse than ever. But the reports are no longer front-page news. The people have tuned out.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranational bureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.

IPeCaC is about to churn out yet another futile tome. And how will its upcoming Fifth Assessment Report deal with the absence of global warming since a year after the Second Assessment report? Simple. The global-warming profiteers’ bible won’t mention it.

There will be absolutely nothing about the embarrassing 16-year global-warming stasis in the thousands of pages of the new report. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

Instead, the report will hilariously suggest that up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in the past 60 years was manmade.

No, that is not a typesetting error. The new official meme will be that if it had not been for all those naughty emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the world would have gotten up to 0.8 Cº cooler since the 1950s. Yeah, right.

If you will believe that, as the Duke of Wellington used to say, you will believe anything.

The smarter minds at the conference (all two of us) are beginning to ask what it was that the much-trumpeted “consensus” got wrong. The answer is that two-thirds of the warming predicted by the models is uneducated guesswork. The computer models assume that any warming causes further warming, by various “temperature feedbacks”.

Trouble is, not one of the supposed feedbacks can be established reliably either by measurement or by theory. A growing body of scientists think feedbacks may even be net-negative, countervailing against the tiny direct warming from greenhouse gases rather than arbitrarily multiplying it by three to spin up a scare out of not a lot.

IPeCaC’s official prediction in its First Assessment Report in 1990 was that the world would warm at a rate equivalent to 0.3 Cº/decade, or more than 0.6 Cº by now.

But the real-world, measured outturn was 0.14 Cº/decade, and just 0.3 Cº in the quarter of a century since 1990: less than half of what the “consensus” had over-predicted.

In 2008, the world’s “consensus” climate modelers wrote a paper saying ten years without global warming was to be expected (though their billion-dollar brains had somehow failed to predict it). They added that 15 years or more without global warming would establish a discrepancy between real-world observation and their X-boxes’ predictions. You will find their paper in NOAA’s State of the Climate Report for 2008.

By the modelers’ own criterion, then, HAL has failed its most basic test – trying to predict how much global warming will happen.

Yet Ms. Christina Figurehead, chief executive of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, says “centralization” of global governing power (in her hands, natch) is the solution. Solution to what?

And what solution? Even if the world were to warm by 2.2 Cº this century (for IPeCaC will implicitly cut its central estimate from 2.8 Cº in the previous Assessment Report six years ago), it would be at least ten times cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to warming’s consequences the day after tomorrow than to try to prevent it today.

It is the do-nothing option that is scientifically sound and economically right. And nothing is precisely what 17 previous annual climate yatteramas have done. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

This year’s 18th yadayadathon will be no different. Perhaps it will be the last. In future, Ms. Figurehead, practice what you preach, cut out the carbon footprint from all those travel miles, go virtual, and hold your climate chatternooga chit-chats on FaceTwit.

Support CFACT’s mission here.

## 407 thoughts on “18 annual climate gabfests: 16 years without warming”

1. R. Shearer says:

Ironic that liberal atheist climate activists pray for calamitous weather events.

2. Joe Prins says:

Always thouroughly enjoy the play on words as plied lively by the lord. “rebarbatively” is masterful.
Well done, sir.

3. Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right? I hope you know that the vast majority of your readers are just curiosity seekers, wondering what the last deniers on earth will say and do to protect their turf. And should I be wrong, that you actually do beleive what you write, then you will publish this comment with a reply. Thank you.

4. Truthseeker says:

All true from the good Lord, but how do we stop the gravy train?

5. Disko Troop says:

I believe all the delegates are being sent to Poland on Ryanair for the next Jamboree. Sustainable reservations at Eurocamp are being taken now. No Liberals to be left unsupervised, and the conference will be conducted in Tagalog as more people speak that than Polish. I am polishing the old Trabant ready for the off .The theme will be “We almost had it made”, written by Adele.

Ivor Ward

6. ImranCan says:

Viscount Monckton ,,, I have never met you but I would like to …. please keep up the ascerbic commentary. Superb.

7. Oh, how they must love the smell of burning witches in the morning… Though not a single witch has yet caught flame, or even warmed around the edges…

8. Eugene WR Gallun says:

The strangest thing upon us yet
A sight to make the skeptics stare
The warmists all are in a sweat
They feel the heat that isn’t there

Eugene WR Gallun

9. Me says:

Pat with all of those on your side and you people still can’t “get her done” Must be some stinky solids you are pushing out of yer behinds Eh!

10. Graham says:

Even Monckton himself concedes that rising CO2 levels will result in some -albeit infinitesimal- warming. Yet taking into account the relentless, even exponential increase in human CO2 production, doesn’t that graph finally and incontrovertibly put any causal link whatsoever to bed?

11. cohenite says:

Christopher says:

“The wearisomely elaborate choreography of these yearly galah sessions ”

“galah”

Good to see he is incorporating some of the Australian idiom; there is nothing sillier than a galah; except a flock of the silly buggars.

12. “This year’s 18th yadayadathon will be no different. Perhaps it will be the last. In future, Ms. Figurehead, practice what you preach, cut out the carbon footprint from all those travel miles, go virtual, and hold your climate chatternooga chit-chats on FaceTwit.”

It would be ideal for them to join those hysterical chattering classes in order to create new imaginary problems and “world destroying” delusional situations. But, what’s the fun in that ?

No more overseas holidays paid for by the taxpayer is just unthinkable. That would just be, err, common.

13. JohnB says:

Actually Pat, your reading comprehension needs work, as does your basic grasp of what goes on at these meetings.

These are not meetings of climate scientists but meetings of governments and NGOs, the only scientists invited are those who will spout the party line. Very little in the way of science, but a lot of political representation and a large group of lobbyists.

It is these walking examples of microencephalopathy that he refers to as being wrong while his side is right. Please understand that a Greenpeace badge does not a scientist make.

I don’t think the Chinese, the Indians, and other big present and future emitters are all too keen to wield the climate change cudgel any longer. After all, if they themselves don’t cut emissions, it’s all a pointless exercise. With the US dropping down the world emissions tables, this game really isn’t much fun any more, is it?

15. “IPeCaC” love that reference, that conglomerate of rent-seeking-scum does have that effect. Good choice.

16. jorgekafkazar says:

Warmists are now saying that their puta-tive warming can also appear in the form of Climate Weirding, e.g., droughts or floods, wind or calm, hot or cold, with-out the higher temperature. They will soon claim that this is what their models predicted all along. And that it’s robustly worse than they thought, of course.

17. geo says:

Wow. They must really be getting desperate when they are willing to admit that natural variability can do .8C over multi-decadal. There goes their hockey stick. . . .

18. CodeTech says:

Pat Ravasio, you have no idea how hilarious your comment is. Really.

No desperation on this side, thanks. All the desperation is on the alarmist side, where they have forecast imminent catastrophe for years, then claim: “IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!”…. frankly, if that’s the case, then the planet will be melted before you even get a chance to read this.

Your belief that the majority of climate “scientists” believe in catastrophic warming is quaint, and amusing. Because, of course, until a few years ago there was no such discipline. It’s just been made up. And, since it was started by these self-same activists, their “science” is meaningless.

It has, however, been amusing watching them get schooled by every other science-related discipline, since AGW alarmists were wrong from the start and always will be. So say the statisticians, physicists, chemists, and now, Mother Nature herself.

By the way, ALL comments that aren’t abusive or way off topic get published here. Unlike, you know, those alarmist-run sites.

19. Werner Brozek says:

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right?…..And should I be wrong, that you actually do believe what you write, then you will publish this comment with a reply.

Here is what was said:

PDF document @NOAA.gov. For anyone else who wants it, the exact quote from pg 23 is:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Here is what happened:

Data sets with a o slope for at least 15 years:
1. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 10 months (goes to October)

See the graph below to show it all.

Now tell me: Who is right?

20. Keith G says:

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I saw some warming that wasn’t there
It wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish it would go away…

When I came home last night at three
The warming was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn’t see it there at all!
Go away, go away, don’t you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don’t slam the door…

Last night I saw upon the stair
The predicted warming that wasn’t there
It wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish it would go away

21. JB says:

“There has been no global warming. At all. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.” – You can say it in as many infantile ways as you like. It’s still not true. Joining two dots is a child’s game, not science.

“…official prediction in its First Assessment Report in 1990 was that the world would warm at a rate equivalent to 0.3 Cº/decade, or more than 0.6 Cº by now.” – And no, that’s a lie as well. You must be assuming that because you haven’t read the 1990 report, no-one else has either. And for the majority of commenters here, you’d surely be right. I’m sure you’re having a wonderful time preaching to the choir. In the real world, you’re a comical irrelevance.

22. ghowe says:

Hey Pat Ravasssio: Here’s my reply> “Nuts!”
Thank you

23. RossCO says:

“..the report will … suggest that up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in the past 60 years was manmade…”
So they admit that CO2 (coal) is stopping the world from slipping back into an ice age…
I predict that they are re-positioning themselves for the next Alarmist scare – “ICE AGE, ICE AGE crank up the coal power stations….”

24. intrepid_wanders says:

“They added that 15 years or more without global warming would establish a discrepancy between real-world observation and their X-boxes’ predictions. You will find their paper in NOAA’s State of the Climate Report for 2008.”

How *dare* you disparage such a computational device with NOAA in a following sentence, no less a “Climate Report”. Such reports are generated on “Play Station” ;)

25. Thank you to all of you who replied to my comment. I am truly and sincerely trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but I see what appear to be factual, indepth reports and comments from http://www.350.org, thinkprogress.com, and the United Nations Secretary General, among others. From you guys, all I’m reading are nasty snide remarks and poop jokes. Am I really supposed to take you seriously? I know it’s Saturday night, but could you put down the Scotch and provide some facts? A link to an actual scientific organization? Thank you.

26. intrepid_wanders says:

Now that I have had time to reconsider, the “Whiiiee!” machine is better with floating parameters than even the tried and true “Play Station”

27. kasphar says:

‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranationalbureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.’
Maybe Doha is not about ‘the warming’ at all but the redistribution of money from the developed countries to the under- and undeveloped countries – about 100 billion dollars, I believe.

28. Spillinger says:

Pat
why don’t you start by having a browse through the reference pages on this site? As Monckton has said many times before, do’nt take his word for it, or anyone elses’- check the data for yourself

29. Patrick says:

“Pat Ravasio says:

December 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm”

I’ve been to http://www.350.org, I have looked and looked and looked through pages of info, I still cannot see any facts at all at that site which supports their claim that 350ppm/v CO2 is “safe” for climate on this rock.

30. ghowe says:

Hey Pat Ravassio – No one is going to click on your world, no matter how bucky it is, so drop that please. And where above are these “snide remarks”, esp in replies to you? Besides mine , I mean. If my earlier reply caused offense, then don’t let the panties get so twisted, buckup! And if you say poop again I will ask for your banishment. Awad

31. RKurtz says:

“Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Thank you to all of you who replied to my comment. I am truly and sincerely trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but I see what appear to be factual, indepth reports and comments from http://www.350.org, thinkprogress.com, and the United Nations Secretary General, among others. From you guys, all I’m reading are nasty snide remarks and poop jokes. Am I really supposed to take you seriously? I know it’s Saturday night, but could you put down the Scotch and provide some facts? A link to an actual scientific organization? Thank you. http://Www.buckyworld.me

350.org is a seriously overexaggerated Joke. They’re such a bunch of Chicken Little loons. Same as the UN Control Freak Loons who’ve been grossly over exaggerated,and over estimating their GIGO and selectively cherry picking their junk climate science claims for maximum Goebbels style propaganda effect.

It’s so laughable how there was just as much or even more socalled extreme weather/climatic events when the CO2 levels were 350ppm or less during the 18th/19th/early 20th century than present. Including Hurricanes, Floods, heatwaves, droughts, etc, etc. BTW same events which caused far higher loss of life than such modern present day events!

No Pat it’s you whose been had.

32. Elizabeth says:

OT but can we safely say that solar 24 has now passed maximum SSN. Well done David Archibald!

33. CodeTech says:

Pat, if 350.org and thinkprogress (both of which are leftist propaganda outlets, not informative or discussion based sites) are where you get your “factual, indepth” information, then your cause may well already be lost. You could browse around the Reference and resource pages right here to learn all you need to know.

At the moment, however, you appear to be what is called a “concern troll”… which means that no matter what Science is thrown at you, you will reject it as being unconvincing or… whatever reason.

Meanwhile, JB is one that appears magically wherever Monckton posts to throw insults and spew venom. Great fact-free post there, JB. Joining two dots is a child’s game? So is drawing a ridiculous fictional straight “projection” line climbing up, up and away from chaotic weather noise.

Hey JB… speaking of “comical irrelevance”, how is YOUR life doing?

34. intrepid_wanders says:

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Thank you to all of you who replied to my comment. I am truly and sincerely trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but I see what appear to be factual, indepth reports and comments from http://www.350.org, thinkprogress.com, and the United Nations Secretary General, among others.

Pat, we shall not attempt to insult your cognitive intelligence, but consider this…

1. Greenpeace is not the organization it was 20 years ago.

2. If there was an easy solution, most of us here would be in the front phalanx

3. “You side” continues to lose patrons with organizations like “360.org” and “Think Progress” because they *LIE*. Name something of topic that is true from them…

20-30 years ago, it was a different venue. *IF* the “Anti-Nuclear” faction kept their pie-holes closed, this would have been a rout for everyone that cares about the environment. Nobody cares if your side may or may not captured the consensus…there is another consensus that says otherwise. See how that latest COP is going if you have doubts (13 times box cars, hmmm…).

All that, and not a drop of Glenlivet on the keyboard.

Enough troll feeding…

35. davidmhoffer says:

Pat Ravasio;
I know it’s Saturday night, but could you put down the Scotch and provide some facts? A link to an actual scientific organization? Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>

Facts regarding what? Explaining how the temperature record at the top of this post shows ZERO warming in the last 16 years? You’d think that would be obvious. What needs to be explained is why, if the CAGW theory is correct, that it doesn’t.

And BTW, a link to a scientific organization is not the same as linking to a fact. Werner Brozek has, upthread, posted the results of no less than three major temperature indices produced by three different organizations that study the global temperature record. There’s the data right in front of you. You can look at it and understand what it means, or you can wait for someone from an “organization” to tell you what it means. Frankly, if you are under the impression that an annual temperature trend requires a PhD in climate science to understand, you are mistaken.

The graph shows zero warming over the last 16 years, something that all the climate modelers 16 years ago insisted would not happen unless their models were wrong. Well Pat, that temperature graph is produced by pretty much the same cadre of scientists that produced the models.

So are you going to look at the data and draw logical conclusions on your own? Or are you going to wait for some organization to tell you what to think?

36. Matt says:

[snip . . OT . . mod]

37. george e. smith says:

“”””””……Pat Ravasio says:

December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm

Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right? I hope you know that the vast majority of your readers are just curiosity seekers, wondering what the last deniers on earth will say and do to protect their turf. And should I be wrong, that you actually do beleive what you write, then you will publish this comment with a reply. Thank you. http://Www.buckyworld.me…..””””””

Pat, the only turf in need of protection, is that ongoing scam of wasting billions of taxpayer’s dollars supporting all the leeches that have attached their lifelong sustenance by others, to a promise that if we fund their fun and games for 30 years or so; the usual recognised time quantum for climate data to be noticeable, they will periodically report to us that basically, nothing much is happening.

The most surprising aspect, is that after 30 years, anybody even remembers, what the original question was.

Climatism addicts are second only to the extra-terrestrial intelligent life nutcakes.

So they send out messages, including the first billion digits of pi (base 10 for some totally inexplicable reason) to show how smart they are, and then they ask for the solutions to the world’s great problems; nuclear war, aids, and hunger. So 200 years from now when the answer comes back from some galactic outpost, their great great grandchildren will ask:- “what dumbass asked these stupid questions, that we solved a hundred years ago.

Most people with real jobs, get paid from weekly to monthly or so, for actual results visibly achieved during those sorts of activity periods. Only Politicians and climatists engage in activities which don’t kick in, until they are safely retired on a nice pension plan.

38. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

Christopher, pithy and hilarious as usual. I really do wish you’d have a go at Pat Ravasio, but his outburst probably didn’t gain enough altitude to worry your radar. Pat, how can we sceptics enjoin you to turn down your compulsion to snide before thinking? Oh…sorry. Sniding and thinking are mutually exclusive mental exercises….sorry. My bad for even thinking of that. Of course the Conference of Parties has got it right. Sitting in a bubble that petroleum built, at that.

39. Christopher Hanley says:

If Monckton is correct that “… The new official meme will be that if it had not been for all those naughty emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the world would have gotten up to 0.8 Cº cooler since the 1950s …” which, with all due respect hardly seems credible, then it proves beyond doubt that for some time (if not longer) the main motivation of the scientists pressing the CAGW hypothesis has not been saving the planet or the welfare of mankind, but vanity and greed — i.e., despite their failed predictions, they were right all along and are still right.

40. P. Solar says:

Amazing, I was thinking before rising this morning that we hadn’t heard from MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY recently and here he is.

However, I am really asking myself if this text was actually written by Monckton. He is very well educated in classics and has a remarkable writing style that you have to admire even if you don’t agree with what he is saying. He is also decidedly British, with an accent that would get him called “toff” without it being a diminutive of his first name.

I find nothing of his usual eloquent writing style here.
” rebarbatively repetitive ” an ugly expression which is itself rebarbatively repetitive .

Frequent use of americanisms that is not his usual language: gotten ; upcoming ; it’s your call. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis, several times.

Either he thinks he’s playing to his audience or his travels are starting to affect his vocabulary.

“The smarter minds at the conference (all two of us) ”

Well, I’m not sure who the other smarter mind is but my guess is that his lordship has started subcontracting, which is a great shame. I find it hard to believe that Monckton wrote this text himself.

41. Jer0me says:

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm

Thank you to all of you who replied to my comment. I am truly and sincerely trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but I see what appear to be factual, indepth reports and comments from http://www.350.org, thinkprogress.com, and the United Nations Secretary General, among others. From you guys, all I’m reading are nasty snide remarks and poop jokes. Am I really supposed to take you seriously? I know it’s Saturday night, but could you put down the Scotch and provide some facts? A link to an actual scientific organization? Thank you.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume Werner’s reply to you https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/#comment-1161843 was not published when you posted this. Read it and see the facts as provided by ‘climate scientists’, and in this case, those who believe the the catastrophe that appears not to be occurring.

42. Pat Ravasio
“A link to an actual scientific organization? “
You must be joking surely?

I visited your site and apart from being a highly partisan site heavily leaning to the greeny-warmists., may I quite sincerely say that you are either colour blind or have no artistic talent whatsoever.

The site is very hard to read and the glaring black colour is actually hurtful to the eye.
But since it’s unlikely that I visit again please keep it if you are happy with it.

43. RES says:

Pat, you say you really are trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but you present a single viewpoint and then get indignant when others with a different viewpoint point out real facts posted by two organisations (NOAA & UEA), which you and your colleagues have readily used when it suits but totally ignore when they publish data that does not support the ‘consensus’ of AGW. You indignantly protest that you are open minded but nothing you say supports anything other than the AGM dogma.

44. P. Solar says:

cohenite says:

“galah” Good to see he is incorporating some of the Australian idiom; there is nothing sillier than a galah; except a flock of the silly buggars.

Again, strange he uses a term that is not from his usual classical british vocabulary and would be unknown to most of his readership. If the second “smarter mind” with him is an Aussie, I think we’ve just found the author of this piece.

45. RES says:

Opps and apologies

It really does pay to proof read properly!

46. george e. smith says:

It seems to be lost on the Doha rain dancers, that “GISSTemp”, reported here and there on some routine, is the result of some Algore rythmic process applying the standard laws of statistics; a branch of mathematics, to a particular set of input numbers. Those numbers do not come from a group of ping pong balls, as do those for the Powerball lottery; but they might as well. Supposedly each number comes from another “gizmo”, many of which are thermometers, which have a means of indicating some number in a restricted range. Nobody pays attention to when those indicated numbers are observed, and recorded for the process. Well even the Powerball ping pongs, are each selected at separate discreet times. That ensures, that each selection is uncorrelated to any previous selection. Any communication is presumed to have abated between each selection.
So Dr Hansen presumably knows roughly where each of these ping pometers is located; not that that matters much; evidently, so long as it is within 1200 km of where it is supposed to be, is close enough.

Well over time, some of these things move around, like the desert rocks that move when nobody is watching.

Well this is all well and good, Dr Hansen sometimes changes the numbers, to corect some back to what they should have been when someone should have been watching.

All of this is legitimate. Statistics is a mature branch of mathematics, and you can apply all its complexities to any set of numbers you like; even from the pages of a phone book. And you could do it for each page, and plot the changes from page to page. And then you can publish it regularly, just like a horoscope, and disciples will read it.

Since there is no time synchronism for any of the number gathering, then of course there is no cause and effect linkage between the numbers, by any physical laws for example. If you measure the Voltage between two points in a circuit today, and then tomorrow measure the current flowing in that circuit, the ratio will not give you the resistance of the circuit path; nor will the product give the power dissipation.

So nobody knows just when each GISSTemp thermometer actually indicated the number that Hansen uses in his recipe. His statistical output is correct for the set of numbers used. Some of the thermometers may even be Russian Christmas trees.

And the resultant product is “GISSTemp”. He could call it Hansenitis if he wanted to; but for now it is GISSTemp.

And of course, lik the numbers put into the hopper, it doesn’t mean anything at all; well no more than any horoscope does.

To have any physical meaning, the various readings have to occurr within the propagation times for whatever physical process can occur, as a result of those values.

If you know simultaneously, the Temperature at two points, you can calculate heat flows between those points, if you know some other parameters of the system. But absent any timing information, you can only use those numbers in some arbitrary meaningless recipe, such as GISSTemp.

So tell me again how the thirteen or so good GCMs are actually using the basic laws of physics to produce their predictions ; excuse me, that’s projections

47. James Allison says:

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Thank you to all of you who replied to my comment. I am truly and sincerely trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but I see what appear to be factual, indepth reports and comments from http://www.350.org, thinkprogress.com, and the United Nations Secretary General, among others. From you guys, all I’m reading are nasty snide remarks and poop jokes. Am I really supposed to take you seriously? I know it’s Saturday night, but could you put down the Scotch and provide some facts? A link to an actual scientific organization? Thank you.

———————————————–
Pat you reference pure advocay sites. No science there. Hang around WUWT for a few months, read as many back posts as you can. If you have a scientific bent go visit Climate Audit. Ask questions and join the discusion. And if f you aren’t wearing blinkers then you gain a certain enlightenment.

48. Manfred says:

Pat Ravasio, you are asking for a “scientfic organization ?

Here are quotes from the Interacademy Report, the IPCC’s investigation into itself after climategate. As you are asking for authority instead of evidence, you can’t get more authority than that. Needless to say, that NONE of the issues have been addressed for the current IPCC report.

“There were several findings in the IAC report indicating a failure on the part of the IPCC to ensure that the full range of scientific views are given consideration.
• The IAC warned against “confirmation bias” and recommended that “Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered” and that Review
Editors and Coordinating Lead Authors should check that “due consideration was given to
properly documented alternative views” (p. 20). The implication is that, at present, these things
do not happen: Lead Authors in some cases fail to give consideration to a range of scientific
views, and nobody verifies whether they have done so.
• The IAC pointed out that there is no formal process or criteria for selecting Lead Authors, and
cautioned that “The absence of a transparent author selection process or well-defined criteria for author selection can raise questions of bias and undermine the confidence of scientists and others in the credibility of the assessment.” (p. 18). They alluded to the problem again later when they observed “Having author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered.” (p. 20)
• They also called upon the IPCC to develop policies governing conflict of interest, including
intellectual conflicts of interest in which Lead Authors are in a position of reviewing their own
work, or have revealed through speeches, public statements or writings that they hold “fixed
positions” (pp. 46-47).
• The IAC commented that some of their respondent were concerned that “the Summary for Policy Makers places more emphasis on what is known, sensational, or popular among Lead Authors than one would find in the body of the report.” (p. 25). They went on to observe that the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers “is more focused on the negative impacts of climate change than the underlying report” (p. 26).

Treatment of uncertainty
The IAC was deeply critical of the way the IPCC, particularly Working Group II, handled and reported on uncertainty, especially in regards to statements about the impacts of climate change.The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers in the Fourth Assessment Report contains many vague statements of “high confidence” that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or are difficult to refute. (p. 37)
They found that the guidance for explaining uncertainty is not itself adequate, and is often not followed anyway (p. 4). They recommended use of a Level-of-Understanding scale for communicating uncertainty, rather than a probability scale, since it is inappropriate to assign probabilities and confidence levels to poorly-understood issues.
Many of the 71 conclusions in the “Current Knowledge about Future Impacts” section of the
Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers are imprecise statements made without reference
to the time period under consideration or to a climate scenario under which the conclusions
would be true….In the Committee’s view, assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not
an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty. If the confidence scale is used in this way,
conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore
statements of “very high confidence” will have little substantive value. (pp. 33-34).
More generally, the IAC noted that in some cases “[IPCC] authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely-quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020. Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot
be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive
finding was being presented.” (p. 36)
Basis of conclusions
The IAC concluded that “many of the conclusions in the “Current Knowledge about Future Impacts” section of the Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers are based on unpublished or non-peerreviewed literature” (p. 33). They also found that many conclusions stated with “High Confidence” by Working Group II had little or no scientific basis:
[By] making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach “high
confidence” to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers contains many
such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature. (p. 4).

NONE of the issues have been addressed for the current IPCC report. Worse, IPCC co-chair Stocker disturbingly worked in the opposite direction:

http://climateaudit.org/2012/01/12/stockers-earmarks/

49. The interesting thing about a scientific theory, is that if it is right, it is right every time. It isn’t right “sometimes”. That is not science.

AGW predicts increasing temperatures with increasing CO2. It isn’t happening. This is the hallmark of a failed theory. In science, ANY failed prediction means the theory is wrong.

Cold Fusion has at least as good a track record as AGW. Sometimes cold fusion has been observed to happen and sometimes it has been observed to not happen. If AGW is true because it is sometimes observed to be true, then by the same logic Cold Fusion must be true.

50. Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:

Thank you all for clarifying your positions. I guess it’s hard to know which temperature charts to believe. What I do know is that regardless of the position you want to substantiate you can find the numbers to do just that. But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment? Surely you don’t think that fracking, or deep water drilling, or dirty-no-matter-what-you-call-it coal, or high risk nuclear power are ideal ways to answer our energy needs? What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy? This activity can help stimulate the economy, and make us all healthier, less polluted people in the long run. The whole issue of fossil fuel induced climate change can be compared to Lewis Carroll’s famous evaluation of Christianity: It’s either a fanciful storydesigned to get us all to behave better, or it is the single most important fact of human existance. So come on, oil guys, what’s the harm in moving ahead and doing things a better way? Isn’t it time for all of you to come over to the side where there don’t have to be any real losers? It’s getting lots of attention and support and makes me feel like I am at least trying to do something. If you would like to look at a perhaps more relevant link, written by some seriously smart journalists, here’s a story on climate deniers. Some of you will see your name in lights!

[hi, you are new here so you may be unaware but the use of the word “deniers” isn’t acceptable. It is seen as pejorative and unhelpful in the debate . . mod]

51. Dave says:

Pat, you say you are trying to keep an open mind on this subject, but nothing you have said supports that claim.

Yeah and I don’t think it will warm much in the next 20 or so years either, due to a negative PDO overwhelming what very small increase in temperature C02 makes. (What alot of fun there will be in the next 20 years, as the alarmists, like Enron accountants, have to steadily increase their creative skills to justify the lack of warming).

Anyone who looks at the data can see the strong influence of the PDO on 20th century temperatures, yet it is barely mentioned in most alarmists blogs (eg skeptical science etc). Maybe they might start paying attention after another 20 years of non warming.

53. Zephyr says:

@R. Shearer: “Ironic that liberal atheist climate activists pray for calamitous weather events.”

– They aren’t true atheists, their statism is a worship for them. The liberals have also a paradise, the socialist utopia where everything is harmonious, sustainable, everybody lives in the same conditions so happy forever.

They replaced the traditional religion by another apparently Godless, but not really. In some cases their god is mother nature, in other cases the spirit of justice, or the spirit of the future generations to which, according to their doctrine we must pass on the best world possible even though they don’t even exist. You see, they do believe in ghosts.

Perhaps other illustrious personages like Genghis Khan or Julius Caesar showed such devotion toward their following generations beyond their close relatives?

Liberals are full of shit. I am offended that they have seized the concept of atheism to pervert its meaning. Now we need a new term that will exclude all the spiritual idiots who believe that human life has a high purpose that everyone must pursue.

54. tango says:

may they all R.I.P

55. ID deKlein says:

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Boy are you sounding desperate … I hope you know that the vast majority of your readers are just curiosity seekers, wondering what the last deniers on earth will say and do to protect their turf.

Why should anybody respond to you? You are just being offensive. There’s no indication that you are interested in facts or an informed discussion.

56. Its Me says:

Pat, if you are trying to keep an open mind it’s best to avoid expressions like the last deniers on earth; some people would interpret that as a “nasty snide remark”, as you put it, and a highly offensive one at that. And yes a focus on the actual science, rather than political propaganda and name-calling, would be most welcome, because there’s a big difference between the two. Does NOAA not count as a scientific organisation to you? The comments here have referred several times to their report indicating that a 15-year period without warming would be inconsistent with their climate models.

You’re confusing politics with science. They are not the same. 350.org is a campaign group. thinkprogress is a left-wing politics site. For example you wouldn’t know from thinkprogress’s section on extreme weather http://thinkprogress.org/tag/extreme-weather/ that NOAA’s own records show that tornado incidence in the US has if anything decreased since the 1970s; instead to make their case they have to resort to non-scientific sources such as assertions by politicians and Munich Re’s marketing material. The United Nations Secretary General is a politician, not a scientist.

57. AndyG55 says:

oh Pat, you deluded fool..

I notice you still think STEAM coming from a chimney is CO2… DOH !!!!!!!

back to kindy, little person !!

58. Peter Miller says:

Pat
The facts are:

1. The alarmist community has annual financial support at least 1,000 times that of sceptics and yet increasingly struggles to sell its brand of misinformation to all but the goofiest of our so called political elite.

2. A typical well informed sceptic believes there is some AGW (rising CO2 is partly the reason for this), but that CAGW is a hoax dreamed up to support and perpetuate the bloated (multi-tens of billions of dollars annually) Global Warming Industry’s gravy train.

3. Climate models are routinely produced with the results already pre-determined and/or are such poor representatives of how the incredibly complex machinations of our planet’s climate actually works that they are effectively useless.

4. Natural climate cycles, the arch heresy of the alarmist community, dwarf any effect that man can ever have on the Earth’s climate. These have been around for billions of years and will be there for billions of years to come. The current warming cycle (the past 150 years) in the Holocene (the past 10,000 years) is similar to its past six or seven warming cycles.

5. The alarmist community routinely manipulates/homogenises/tortures raw data records of temperature to always make the recent past cooler and the present warmer.

6. Why do the self-appointed leaders of the alarmist cult always refuse to publicly debate climate change with leading sceptics? Answer: Because they know they will have their ‘science’ shredded, so they hide behind pompous statements like: “I am not going to debate climate change with someone who is not a real scientist.”

7. Alarmists are obsessed with the totally false notion that we must return to a climate norm – sometime in the 1940s or 1950s. There is no such thing as a ‘climate norm’. Most of the past 2.6 million years (Pleistocene Era) it has been much colder than now, with the exception of the occasional inter-glacial period, such as the Holocene. Yet, the 650 million years prior to that – after the ‘Snowball Earth’ – have mostly been warmer than today. Into which, you have to inject the effects of natural climate cycles.

8. Rising carbon dioxide levels are largely beneficial, as they act as a natural fertiliser.

9. Why do alarmists keep churning out BS theories, which are so demonstrably incorrect, such as:

The polar bears are dying out because of global warming.
The rise in sea levels is accelerating
The glaciers have been melting since CO2 levels began to rise.
The oceans are acidifying because of rising CO2
The Arctic ice cap is melting because of rising CO2 levels – let’s stop for a moment here and consider:
a) no one really knows what happened with the Arctic ice cap prior to the satellite era.
b) There are records of sailing ships moving through a largely ice free Arctic in summer during the 1800s.
c) The Antarctic ice cap is growing
d) If the Arctic had the same higher salinity as the rest of the world’s oceans, it would probably be ice free during summer..
e) What about the effects of man made soot (lots more of it today than there was a 100 years ago)?
f) What about the effect of huge Arctic storms such as occurred this year, which went totally unreported by the alarmist press and broke up the ice pack?

The bottom line is climate alarmism is both a cult and an industry, solely interested in its self-perpetuation. The job of the sceptics is to keep that cult/industry honest and that is something they really don’t like.

59. AndyG55 says:

Has anyone done any calculations on the CO2 released to the atmosphere for this Doha conference?

– travel, by aircraft for many many unneccesary people.
– energy, oil fired I believed, for massive amounts of air conditioning, computers and local transport
– transport of people, foodstuffs etc to venues,
– transport for security people, and for the loony bin vans.

these are just a few of the CO2 releasing actions involved, bound to be many, many more.

The point iis that these people DO NOT CARE.. so long as they get their junket !!!

Al Gore, and his many, many hyper-hypocritical fanatics !!!

(seems one is visit here in this thread…. needs a pat on the head and sent back to school.)

60. Coke says:

God I love Monckton :D Does he have his own blog? If not, he bloody well should have!

61. AndyG55 says:

Hint, Patricia.. remove the picture of the steaming chimney from your bucky link.. it makes you look like a FOOL !!!

62. Steve C says:

Pat Ravasio – You want to see some facts? Spend awhile reading through these papers and reflect on what you have read. Sure, some of them mention your favourite “sky dragon” in passing, but you know how it is with government funding, if you don’t at least mention their obsessions du jour you don’t get the cash to do anything at all.

It is precisely through ascertaining the facts that many of us became “disbelievers”: I, for example, used to think as you seem to, until a friend put cash on the table for anyone who could show him a proof of catastrophic manmade climate change. After a couple of weeks’ searching, I became seriously worried at the quality of the “science” I was seeing; after a couple of months I realised his cash was completely safe; now, years later, I confidently assure you that “there’s nothing to see here, move along …”. Merry Christmas, and happy reading.

Lord Christopher – sweet! I love “IPeCaC”, although perhaps for acronymic accuracy the E should be an A. The effect of their “cac” is the same however spelt, though.

63. John F. Hultquist says:

I’d like to know more about the sand-flies and the near-record low attendance.

As for Pat R., he or she with the third comment started with an odd statement that should have been ignored. For example, who is sounding desperate? Some boy? Next line refers to “two” against all the climate and environmental scientists in the world. What a mixed up comment. Are there any actual scientists in that flea infested tree house? Unlikely. Next we get a reference to readers who are “curiosity seekers” interested in how “deniers” phrase their thoughts. Beg your pardon, Miss, but it seems as though the “vast majority” of your brain has been damaged by something. That seems to be your idea of an “open mind” because your use of the despicable term “deniers” characterizes you as a bigot. That you don’t know that you have just done this also characterizes you as mentally deficient. Bless your little heart. Then you infer that some one or more folks do not believe what they have just written, and a lack of a reply will show you are right. What a silly statement. Who did you expect to reply? You really are unaware and out of touch.

However, on a slow news weekend when only the weather** is interesting, you have provided entertainment. Thanks for that.

64. Grey Lensman says:

Pat, CO2 is not a pollutant, its the gas of life, how an earth can you clean that up. An old saying if it aint broke, dont fix it. You say, whats the harm. Well ask the 24,000 dead in the UK or the 500,000 without power in Germany.

Just look at the very simple maths of windmills. They do not work, simple. Whats the point more like it.

65. ID deKlein says:

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy? This activity can help stimulate the economy, and make us all healthier, less polluted people in the long run.

It’s the subsidies and the government-imposed tariffs that are harmful. “Cleaner” energy destroys more jobs than it creates, work that was viable is now uncompetitive. People are more concerned about pollution the wealthier they are. Green-imposed poverty is likely to result in actual pollution, as it falls in people’s list of concerns, compared with just surviving. That’s harmful.

CO2 isn’t pollution, it’s the one atmospheric molecule essential for life on the planet. Photosynthesising plants need it to survive.

66. Bertram Felden says:

JB 9:33 pm

Here is a quote from the IPCC 1990 Assessment report:

“Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade ”

Please explain how that is different from Monckton saying it said 0.3C per decade. I’d be really interested to hear your explanation.

Could it be that by the time of the 3rd report in 2001 they had then plumped for a take your pick approach from 40 different model outputs?

Essentially the IPCC and the modellers are chasing their tails – when outcomes differ they go back and redraw their models in an attempt to get them to follow reality; this, of course, is a good thing because the nearer they get to accuracy the better for everyone. What is a bad thing, however, is that such currently unreliable work in progress is used as a stick to beat the world with.

67. Gnomish says:

better way, is it? do you consider colossal waste a better way?
faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)* SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)* Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million) SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion) Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)* Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million) Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)* Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million) Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million) Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)* Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)* Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)* Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)* GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million) LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)* Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)* Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million) *Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy. 68. mogamboguru says: I admire Lord Monckton’s competence in playing with words enormously – even more so, as he is using his abundant lingual and intellectual competence to transmit irrefutable facts and information with an ironic twist. Having said that, I’d like to hint to another subject worth his attenton in the near future – namely: “Fourteen Is the New Fifteen!” By Arvind Kumar As seen on the blog “The American Thinker” http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html Disregarding the political rigorousness of this blog, I checked the sources mentioned there and found, that Mr. Kumar is correct in his assessment – that somehow the basic average global temperature in science and literature has – by an hence-unreported consensus of yet-invisible participants – been reduced from 15 to 14 degrees Centigrade around early 1998. Considering this and taking not 14, but 15 degrees Centigrade as baseline for the leading graph in Lord Monckton’s actual contribution to WUWT, I come to the conclusion that the world DOESN’T HAVE WARMED, BUT COOLED 0.5 DEGREES CENTIGRADE since the mid-1990ies, or so. I see massive propaganda from the warming-propagandists at work here. WUWT? 69. Gnomish says: how about that better way as shown by poster boy, al gore: Vice President Al Gore visited Fall River, Massachusetts to offer an Earth Day speech touting Molten Metals Inc. This company failed soon thereafter. Al Gore’s close confidant, Maurice Strong, was on the MMT board of corporate directors. Forbes has this note from Jan. 12, 1998: A member of Molten’s board, Strong sold some shares at around$31 apiece a month prior to the stock’s October 1996 collapse. Today the stock is at 13 cents a share and Strong is being sued by San Diego class-action shark Milberg Weiss.
What was Strong’s reward for his part in the MMT fiasco? The Democrats decided that he was eminently well-qualified to be bumped upstairs to the U.N., where he eventually founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

70. The pseudonymous “JB” says I was untruthful to say there has been no global warming for 16 years and that “joining two dots is a child’s game, not science.” If “JB” knows any elementary statistics and computer programming, he, she or it will no doubt be able to perform the not particularly difficult task of determining the least-squares linear-regression trend on any of the published monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets. To determine the linear trend, it is necessary to take account of all monthly values over the past 16 years, not just “two dots”. There has been no statistically-significant warming for 16 years. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis. Get used to it.

“JB” also asserts, libelously, that I lied when I wrote that IPeCaC predicted in 1990 that the world would warm at a rate equivalent to 0.3 Cº/decade, or more than 0.6 Cº by now.” The IPCC’s 1990 report indeed predicted 0.3 Cº/decade over the period following the report, but the outturn has been less than half of that. It also predicted that by 2025 there would be 1 Cº of warming compared with 1990, and that works out at more than 0.6 Cº by now.

“JB” goes on to assert, without knowledge, that I had not read IPeCaC’s 1990 report, and that no one else had either. No doubt “JB” has not read the report, but he should not assume that his own indolence and ignorance are universal. I have read the 1990 report, and that was why I was able to cite it accurately. The world has not been warming at even half of the rate that IPeCaC’s first report predicted, not that the forthcoming Fifth ASSESsment report will mention this fact.

Finally, a Mr Ravasio seems not to like what I wrote in the head posting, but has failed to identify any particular fact that I had gotten wrong. I realize that the facts in the posting are uncongenial and inconvenient to those whose blind faith in the now-disproven “consensus” is firm: but facts are facts, whether Mr Ravasio likes them or not. In future, he should either make factual statements about the science and economics that are discussed here or go and play in someone else’s sandpit.

71. And so we arrive at Doha. Notice how they always have these clam bakes in very nice places? Not for them the likes of Detroit, Dagenham, Kalgoorlie or Schweinfurt. No Siree baby, when you’re spending other people’s money, splash it out somewhere nice, not in places where real wealth is being produced by dint of something as unfashionable as sweat.

Pointman

72. Skunkpew says:

You think after all this time, they’d learn something and hold this convention in the middle of the summer when the alarmism is at its absolute peak. God help them, they can’t even get that right.

73. Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am

“The whole issue of fossil fuel induced climate change can be compared to Lewis Carroll’s famous evaluation of Christianity: It’s either a fanciful storydesigned to get us all to behave better, or it is the single most important fact of human existance. So come on, oil guys, what’s the harm in moving ahead and doing things a better way?”

Would you still bring this comparison to our attention if the analogy was about Scientology and not Christianity? If not, why not? I think your answer may be the same one that many commenters here would use to not destroy the world’s economies.

74. Kev-in-Uk says:

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am

Ok, – I’ll respond to that statement (and your others):
Firstly, being a climate skpetic does not automatically mean we all go out and pollute the environment with glee – far, far from it. On the contrary, most skeptics are usually extremely ‘green’.
With respect, I think you should spend some time – (like most of us here have had to) – to establish the believable facts for yourself.
FWIW, Don’t try and preach environmentalism here – it will simply show your ignorance of the actual subject of conservation and environmental protection. You need to get off the coat tails of the big NGO’s like Greenpeace and WWF and they are simply self supporting procrastinating bodies and advocacy groups……….try looking into their accounts, for a start!

Everyone is welcome here – but you will find no sympathy for being ‘stupid’. You may believe what ever you wish, have strong views on whatever you wish, etc – but you will be considered a troll if you cannot make a reasoned argument! Your first post demonstrates this admirably as you make no argument (defense) at all – I think you have got off quite lightly!
Stupid is as stupid acts. Now, you can go off and get all indignant and huffy, that’s entirely your choice – or you can seek the scientific truth, as far as possible. Anyone who really cares (and especially those of us who are real scientists) will want to establish facts for themselves and argue from a position of knowledge NOT from a position of spoonfed automatically regugitated IPCC based or ‘consensus’ garbage!

I trust you can take this comment with the respect with which it is written. If not, then I would simply suggest you have wasted your time (and ours) with your effort.
regards
Kev

• Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:

Thank you all so much for your thoughtful replies. You have inspired me, and I will be investigating your points of view more fully in the days to come. I must sign off for now, but I did put up a new post that I hope clarifies my comparison to Lewis Carrol’s quote about Christianity’s worse case scenario. It’s not about religion at all, but about calculating risks of doing nothing, versus the potential upside of facing what may indeed (and no one really knows) be the most serious issue our species will ever face. I would also welcome your comments on my blog, especially if any of you are versed in Buckminster Fuller, especially in his views on the importance of harvesting and banking “natural energy incomes.” Thanks again for your time this evening.

75. Coke says:

I’m sorry, Pat, but after clicking on your link, I stopped reading as soon as I got to the phrase “overwhelming consensus”.

Oh and I noticed also that you didn’t provide one single solitary viable alternative energy source to the ones that you have relied on all your life. Be sure not to omit them in your next post, please :)

76. AndyG55 says:

I wish I had but a fraction of your ability ! :-)

77. JP Miller says:

Patricia,
I do happen to think a combination of fracking, deep water drilling, coal, and nuclear power (as determined by market prices not distorted by government grants, taxation, etc.) are ideal ways to answer our energy needs. And, no, I have nothing to do with the energy industry except as a consumer.
And, unless you think Spain’s economy should be the ideal we shoot for (they have invested billions and billions in so-called “green energy”), I’d hazard a wild guess that pursuing “green energy” is economic suicide, which we don’t need on top of the struggles we have to compete with China, Korea, and other more capitalist countries.
So, yes, there is a LOT OF HARM in pursuing green energy “solutions” (that provide few jobs in the US, as per Solyndra — unless you are referring to the jobs our investing in green energy has created in China; don’t forget about that…).
Frankly, Patricia, you sound naive beyond words of both climate science and economics. I care deeply about our environment and our economy. Having lived and work in China, and having worked in 35 other (mostly developing) economies around the world, I can tell you our air and water and soils are cleaner BY A MILE than almost all other countries. And, I like it that way. I worry about our wild fish populations because of uncontrolled international fishing.
I’ve carefully read the climate science and with a PhD in science I think I have at least some basis for making an informed judgment. Bottom line, too many climate scientists have gone off the deep-end, for reasons of ideology (they had climate religion before they got their PhDs) and funding (if they didn’t find stuff supporting AGW, they would not be successful academics, possibly losing their jobs). The data are ambiguous about CO2 impact on climate. Plain and simple. And, as Monckton so eloquently, if derisively, points out, doing nothing about CO2 is a far better strategy than wasting precious resources when they could be put to far more important matters — even some having to do with real environmental issues.
If you really do have an open mind and if you read (all) the relevant science, it’s hard not to conclude that AGW has not been conclusively demonstrated. In any case, you’d better bring more to this site than what you have if you want respect from its posters. Most here know a thing or two. Good luck.

78. AndyG55 says:

I suspect that JB is a warmist nutcase from the central coast NSW. Australia.

He has continually proven, on other forums, that he knows basically nothing about anything !!!

His sole purpose is to TROLL , and he has admitted as such on other forums.

79. I have learned not one but THREE very useful new words today, thanks to The Right Honorable Christopher Viscount Monckton [:())) me, making a 370-pound curtsy]:
Truly, the language of Shakespeare is… what’s the word? Undrainable.

80. AndyG55 says:

Which organisations champion devices that obliterate avain wildlife?

Which organisation champion environment destroying, totally inefficient and economically vandalistic energy sources such as wind energy, often with zero environmental impact studies?

Answer.. It is NOT anyone who is welcome here…. it is the very people who purport to be looking after the environment, and who would deny the world plants their due source of nourishment.

Everything is ‘a’ over ‘t’. The people who really care about the environment are those fighting against the corrupt WWF, Greenpeace etc.. sure thing is, that these two bodies particularly, don’t gve a rat’s a*** …… unless there is money in it !!!

81. markx says:

Pat Ravasio: December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm

Says: “……. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world ….”

Pat, I know it is easier just to listen to things, but rather than just sitting still and accepting what is preached and sold to you, try doing a little reading on the matter:

Each particular area of climate science seems to be depending on the “facts” from the other areas to shore up the known shortcomings in their own particular area of research. Perhaps without realizing the major shortcomings in every other area.

But, as you work through each one you find:

1. TOA radiation measurements are very imprecise: theorized 0.85 w/m2 imbalance, measured 6.5 w/m2, modeled adjustment required.

2. Ocean heat content, where supposedly 93% of the heat (that 0.85 w/m2 imbalance)is going. So we see published a measured rise of 0.09 degrees C over 55 years for the top 2000 meters of the oceans.

3. Sea surface temperatures are probably accurate enough. But the understanding of cyclical heating and cooling behavior such as ENSO Ocean Atmosphere interactions seems to be in the early stages, and there are some issues with apparent recent cooling of the southern oceans.

4. Sea level rises: problems with satellites detailed in http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf. Problems with the accounting, groundwater contributions as here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1476.html. Problems with recent falls in southern sea levels (increased rain, now is in land reservoirs? Or…perhaps a pause in aquifer usage?) And note no MSM published sea level forecasts yet take into account Mitrovica’s work on polar ocean retreat. http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt

5. Ice losses, similar satellite problems to above, unresolved as yet. And the apparent contradiction that Antarctic may be gaining ice, or at least not losing it, while the Arctic is undoubtedly losing ice. They quickly flail around a find that a model somewhere predicted that, and push it up front and center.

Then there is the incessant touting of every storm, drought and wildfire as the final absolute proof.

Funny how previously all our scientific measures can always be added up with great certainty to explain sea level rises of various magnitude, and people at times went searching for and found “missing heat” … then along came the groundwater guys and they threw a small spanner in the works…but with the next set of figures it gets changed and it all still “adds up”.

I hope the GRASP project goes ahead, apparently GRACE has its share of difficulties, and I for one will be interested to see if they have finally got it right: http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf

As I like to say, they (our CAGW brethren) have put forward an interesting and plausible theory, and we are all now in the early stages of data collection.

82. Stephen Richards says:

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:

December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am

This is beyond the pale. You really must read more. There are plenty of peer revieved documents on the web (not just here ) that will help you understand our concerns.
Ignore the likes of Felden above and concentrate on the hypothosis of global warming. Look at past records, newspaper reports, etc (steven goddard’s site reprints lots of articles from the early 20th century. THEN, open your mind and come back for a sensible, snide free discussion.

Don’t get waylaid by strawman like 0.3°C/decade, it is irrelevent in the scheme of things.

83. Stephen Richards says:

Pointman says:

December 2, 2012 at 1:05 am

What’s your problem with Dagenham ( incidently pronounce dajen-ham). I spent all my youth near there and my parents worked for Fords. ;))

84. Coke says:

Upon reading the entirety of this thread, I have gained much insight as to why the supporters of CAGW theory dare not speak here! All that sciency, facty stuff slapping them in the face must be a loathsome experience for them.

85. Mike Post says:

Patricia Ravisio

You say: “What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy?” Nothing at all. Do all the research you like but don’t impose any form of energy supply that is expensive, needs subsidy and doesn’t work when it is needed.

Take wind in the UK. A Scottish professor, James Blyth, built the first wind powered electricity generator in 1887. In the 125 years since then nobody has found a way to cause the wind to blow reliably. As small islands, the UK has very limited capacity for hydro-electric schemes to pump-store surplus electricity when the wind blows. Even destroying our landscape by damming and flooding the Lake District and the Highlands would not help much.

If, in the UK, we had already replaced, as the government wishes, fossil and nuclear power that works with wind that does not, and which is not nearly as “clean” as you appear to think, we would be poorer and be killing people through fuel poverty and grid failure.

At midday on 6 February this year, which was a cold, still day over the whole of the UK, wind turbines connected to the national electricity grid were providing just 45Mw of power (out of approximately 6,000 Mw claimed capacity) which was 0.1% of grid demand or enough power to boil just 15,000 3Kw electric kettles.

If, as the result of being forced to invest in subsidised wind (to the benefit of all those rent-seeking, rich landowners) we end up with grid blackouts caused by investment in expensive, unreliable wind-power, not only will poor people suffer through fuel poverty but people such as the old and sick will be vulnerable to power loss. Since much of our society now depends on electricity to operate (computer controls, cash machines, the internet etc.), grid failure due to lack of wind could also disrupt our society.

Kind regards

Mike Post

86. james griffin says:

It is impossible for CO2 to be the driver to extreme temperatures as CO2’s ability to create heat diminishes as you stack it up. By the time 300-360ppm is achieved a further 60ppm for instance will only produce less than one tenth of one degree. Based on this we have already taken 75% of any of the heat we will ever get from CO2. This appears to be well known but kept from the public as are a number of other things. When challenged about the lack of warming in 2006 CRU said “our previous climate models did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variations”….in other words we have made no allwances for clouds, rain, volcanic ash, cosmic rays, tilt of the earth and the Iris effect for the next 100 years.
If that is not bad enough Jones signed off the IPCC report on the Urban Heat Isle Effect that clearly had not been done correctly and one of the oversights led to a reduction of 1.5C after Steve McIntyre sorted out an incrrect data screen with NASA.
And of course we have Michael Mann doing his tree ring data to try and prove the MWP never existed. Going against the historical fact that in England we had vineyards in Yorkshire (large parts to be covered in snow later today) and Greenland was covered in grass.
Th incredible faith the AGW crowd have in the thousands of scientists is misplaced. For there are only around 25 scientists who are AGW fanatics..Jones, Briffa, Santer, Trenberth, Mann et al who do their figs and tell the rest of the scientific community what they want them to think.
They have been caught out hiding declines and playing around with tree ring proxies and all manner of other things.
I could go on but the bottom line is this.
The theory is that excessive CO2 will cause CAGW….yet, over the last 15 years the temps have steadied and fallen back in line with the solar physicists predictions whilst CO2 has increased.
Therefore the theory is tested and fails the test,
Game over…litigation will follow as and when.

87. MikeB says:

I think that P. Solar asks some very good questions. Has this article really been written by Lord Monckton? The style is different – here it is more one of name-calling than of trying to present a reasoned or balanced argument.
And has our Lord actually succumbed to using the awful American word ‘gotten’?
It seems so. We now have a post from Monckton of Brenchley himself in which he reuses ‘gotten’. You have been too long in the States Sir, time to come home.

88. The noble lord doth spend too much time in the USA with Americanisms creeping into his prose. ”Gotten hotter”? do you mean ”increased”?
I still see an addiction to the GHE which physics can show to be impossible. Perhaps the noble lord should consult the web site http://www.climateofsophistry.com for an astrophysicists view of atmospheric physics.

89. Urederra says:

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right?

You cannot read and you pretend us to visit your sorry .me site?

1. Learn to read, (tip: “at the conference” does not mean “in the world”)
3. Extra points. Read about the scientific method. Focus on these two points.
a) The only valid data is empirical data (write about why computer generated data is not valid for scientific purposes).
b) Scientific theories have to be discarded when a set of empirical data that does not agree with the said theory is found. The task of climate scientists is to find a theory that agrees with ALL empirical data, not to find some data, empirical or computer generated, that fits their preconceived ideas and ignore the empirical data that does not agree with them.

90. @Stephen Richards

No problem at all. Dagenham trumps Doha any day. Why, I’ve even got friends from there.

Pointman

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm

Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right? I hope you know that the vast majority of your readers are just curiosity seekers, wondering what the last deniers on earth will say and do to protect their turf. And should I be wrong, that you actually do beleive what you write, then you will publish this comment with a reply. Thank you.

1) You are the desperate one. I’ve got a few friends that were Warmistas but now, since I’ve pointed out there’s been no global warming for 16 years, they’ve changed their minds.

2) If by “climate scientists” you mean the likes of Trenberth, Mann, and Jones, then they live on a rapidly shrinking world of deception; those rebuking the Warmistas are gaining the upper hand. Science trumps politics (and bad science) any day.

3) Precious few of the posters here are “deniers”–we enthusiastically accept increasing global temperatures as the natural consequence of warming after the LIA. We can’t see an anthropogenic component at all: if you have an article that demonstrates one, please cite it. (To be exceedingly blunt, you are the “denier” here, as your political climate activism is not science at all; indeed, it denies the science.)

4) The only “turf” we’re trying to protect is a more abundant biosphere responding to the additional life-supporting CO2 gas now found in the atmosphere. Plants are lovin’ it! You should learn to identify with the plants.

5) The final point is: you are wrong; I simply have to post these answers to prove it (as per your last statement).

Really, Pat–do you actually believe the tripe they feed you at places like COP17; COP18; future COP19, ad nauseam. The stuff is so bad any thinking person would reject it, which begs an explanation of your situation (ad nauseum comes to mind).

And to show the above is not delivered in a mean spirit, I wish you a good day! May your guiding light always be science and not all that other encumbering baggage.

92. Pat Ravisio.
I know nothing will really change your mindset, but seeing as how you asked for a link to a ‘s’cientific organisation, I was wondering…would the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia count as a ‘s’cientific organisation? What about Professor Phil Jones…do you think he might qualify as a Climate ‘s’cientist?

“Email 4195

Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.

I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.”

I love tormenting Warmists and watching their twists and turns and wriggles…so let’s sit back and watch their reaction to this little bit of climategate2.

93. Skeptik says:

“up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in the past 60 years was manmade.”

Sounds ike one of Wayne Swan’s budgets.

94. thisisnotgoodtogo says:

Pat, you asked on your blog what would be the harm if we all went German style.

You must mean getting into coal power and nuke power from the neighbours.

95. The significance of solar sun spots and flares this year . . . 2012. . . should debunk climate myths once and for all., and proves that the climate “scientists” are ignoring important facts that figure into all the calculations in their so called “models.” Solar luminence this year was extraordinary compared with the recent past and should have jolted us to the reality of our comparative impotence at controlling earth and its systems which are actually beyond our control . . . .approximately 93,000,000 miles beyond, as a measure of significance!

96. Jimbo says:

I maybe wrong here but the 16 years without warming is more serious than previously thought. Are we getting near to falsification as projected by the IPCC / Hansen style????? If not then how many years would it take?

References:

“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
14MB

“The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

Then there is the small matter of the predicted yet still missing hotspot. Or was it never predicted?

97. Christopher: Once again, thank you. Your posts and presentations are always informative and, at the same time, very entertaining. While I would catagorize mine as informative, I haven’t yet figured out how to make them entertaining. Maybe someday.

Regards

98. mpainter says:

Patricia Ravasio

First, you are welcome here, as an exchange of views and ideas is always beneficial. But please refrain from offensive phrases such as “deniers”, which really does offend. We say “skeptics” because we are indeed, quite skeptical. Study the temperature record of the last fifteen years and see if you detect a warming trend. If you do not, then you might consider whether this panic over global warming is a sensible thing involving sensible people. If you reach that point of thoughtfulness, you are on the verge of achieving independent thought and you will begin to understand why so many persons, formerly having accepted the alarmist point of view, have now rejected that.

Best Regards

99. Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7 says:

With all due respect I must submit a correction: these meetings are not “gabfests”. They are grabfests.

100. LetsBeReasonable says:

Werner, I must have done something wrong with the graphs. I changed the starting point at 1996 instead of 1997 and all the trend lines went up. What is happening?

101. davidmhoffer says:

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy? This activity can help stimulate the economy, and make us all healthier, less polluted people in the long run.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Patricia,
You jumped in demanding a discussion of science, insisting on credible facts to refute CAGW. You got a list of them in short order. So, did you learn anything from the facts and science that were offered to you?

Apparently not. Instead you just changed course. Instead of trying to justify your world view on the basis of CAGW, you proceeded to lecture us about justifying your world view on an entirely different set of criteria. Sounds to me like you’ve made up your mind that your world view is correct, and you’ll just keep changing your mind as to why when your reason of the day meets with facts that don’t support it.

What’s wrong with pursuing newer. cleaner forms of energy? Nothing. But that isn’t what the CAGW movement is advocating. They’re advocating anything except fossil fuels no matter the cost, and there IS a cost. Biofuels turn out to produce more CO2 than just using fossil fuels when all the processing factors are included. Al Gore has even reluctantly admitted this. So, what value a fuel supposedly “cleaner” that produces more of what we’re trying to reduce while reducing what is of value, which is food. Or do you consider less food to feed people with a good thing?

We must also consider cost effectiveness. You ask “what harm” but there is plenty of harm if the alternatives are not cost effective. Do you think there will be any harm to a family on a fixed income if their heating costs triple? Do you understand that forcing the use of alternative energies affects the economics of everything from harvesting to transporting to processing to storing and preparing for use every single thing we take for granted? A 10% increase in fuel cost might show up as a 50% increase in a loaf of bread by the time it gets to your table. Is there any harm to a family on a fixed income of food prices rising by 50%?

Our entire western economy functions on cheap energy. Mess with it in any large way and the economy will collapse, and the suffering will be measured in tens of millions, perhaps billions, of lives.

But most importantly Patricia, we HAVE cleaned up the energy we use, big time. Coal fueled plants have scrubbers on them that remove all the aerosol pollutants that we used to allow them to spew into the atmosphere. The same goes for heavy industry such as chemical processing plants. The entire auto industry is subject to emission controls, and if you haven’t noticed, the fuel economy of most vehicles has risen 40% in the last few years. There was a time when stand up comics made fun of smog in cities with lines like “I shot an arrow into the sky…. and it stuck there”. Not funny today because the problem is gone. We cleaned it up.

So yes Patricia, there is harm if you ignore the big picture, and lot’s of it. And yes Patricia, we ARE pursuing new and cleaner ways of doing things. What we are not doing is assuming that one particular energy source is inherently evil and hence should be eliminated, and changing our minds as to why each time someone explains an important fact that we hadn’t previously considered.

102. Pat Ravasio
I am sorry I did not got into this debate any earlier. I appreciate your point about the environment, but I would like to make the following points:

1) Mankind has been “abusing”( I cannot think of a better term!) for thousands of years, the planet recovers. We have large numbers of abandoned coal mines here in the UK, they were eyesores when they were being worked, now the spoil heaps have been grassed and they attract wildlife and are pleasant to look at. Quarries and tin mines are the same.

2) I was speaking with someone who erects these wind turbines. They have to be built in the middle of nowhere (usually in an area of outstanding beauty) because the noise they make is damaging to humans. Each turbine needs 700 tons of concrete in its foundations, roads have to be built over unspoiled land to buiild and service them. The roads need very deep foundations because the traffic using them is by noty stretch of the imagination “light” Finally they need a network of pylons all needing wiring up and foundations to connect them to the National Grid. Gas powered power stations need to be on stand by for when the wind doesn’t blow or blows too fast. They have a life of 25 years but if one of the blades has the slightest damage it has to be discarded due to the imbalance it would create in the bearings. The amount of CO2 created by making, placing, servicing and connecting these things does not bear thinking about! They then only produce about 25% of their claimed output, also they decimate the bird and bat populations, so they are not in the slightest bit environmentally friendly.

3) There has been no global warming for 16 years we sceptics know this as do the warmists. If CO2 was causing GW then the planet should have warmed, it hasn’t, leading to two conclusions:
a) CO2 is not causing GW, in which case the theory is flawed.
b) Other factors many times more influential on the climate are involved, in which case the theory is flawed.
4) Science on the hoof seems to be the mainstay of theory of AGW. Earth having a climate like the planet Venus if we don’t curtail CO2 emissions was one, Arctic ice melting and causing the sea levels to rise was another. Both scientifically impossible.

103. Dear Pat Ravisio,
Being an avid user of this Blog, even on a sunday afternoon without a scotch, I find the reactions to your contribution very interesting and enlightning. As you expressed views relating to the stance that the climate has become an excuse and a bugbear, while its future behaviour seems to be set in stone (based on what I believe is very sloppy “science”: the physics do not fit) you may consider the following.
The workings of our (including mine of course) brain (from Daniël Kahnemann: Thinking fast and slow, Penguin pockets 2011) can be explained by two systems. One, say the automatic or in other words intuïtion, the fast and easy one. The second one may be called “the rater” capable of thinking, defining, evaluating; in need of more effort to be kick-started. When placed in a position of fear, as is obvious from your contribution”: I paraphrase: “we are difiling our earth, the fertile topsoil is disappearing, we are paving our wilderness, fouling the biosphere and will end up killing ourselves in the process” we are limiting ourselves to the use of system one: intuïtion. We unfortunately limit our ability to transcend beyond pre-conceived ideas. Intuïtion may be right but more often it is not. The business of a precautionary approach is such a fear driven mechanism on which politics and other questionable businesses thrive.

104. Jimbo says:

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm

Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right?…………

Are you saying there are only 2 CAGW sceptics on Earth? You may want to re-think you statement in light of this and this.

But before you do calm down and read WUWT site policy and you will see that your comment was lucky to have got through – hint “last deniers”.

Secondly, read my comment here and give me an honest assessment of what YOUR climate scientists said about 15 years and 17 years being the minimum to discern the anthropogenic signal? Do you agree with 17 years? If not, how many years is the minimum? Simple questions that don’t require name calling. If you fail to answer then you may have embarrassed yourself.

105. eco-geek says:

I quote:

Trouble is, not one of the supposed feedbacks can be established reliably either by measurement or by theory. A growing body of scientists think feedbacks may even be net-negative, countervailing against the tiny direct warming from greenhouse gases rather than arbitrarily multiplying it by three to spin up a scare out of not a lot.

Even the IPCC acknowledge that CO2 causes cooling of the stratosphere. The Lapse Rate Law then requires that the lower troposphere cools also.

What is very interesting about the whole scam is that the warmists concentrate on radiation outgoing from the Earth’s surface being (partially) absorbed by GHGs and then half of this being back radiated back to Earth. In fact on a molecule for molecule basis by far the majority of “back radiation” comes from energy that left the Earth’s surface via “thermal pick-up” mechanisms i.e latent heat of evaporation, conduction and convection. All energy picked up by atmospheric gasses must eventually be radiated into space and half of all emission events produce radiation in the downwards direction. We can see therefore that the warmist mechanism for producing back radiation is far less efficient than the back radiation resulting from thermal pick ups from the Earth’s surface via the above mechanisms. This is mainly because only part of the outgoing radiation spectrum can be absorbed by CO2 whereas all thermal pick up is picked up (obviously)!

It is absolutely the case that if more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere then the amount of “back radiation” will increase (as CO2 is a better radiator than O2, N2 etc) but this increase will mostly originate from energy that left the Earth’s surface via thermal pick-up. In fact if we could somehow turn off the outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface and rely on thermal pick-ups only then the amount of “back radiation” would increase! We seem to have a contradiction: The more energy that leaves the Earth’s surface via radiation (and can thus be re-radiated by GHGs) the less can leave via the thermal pick ups and so less total back radiation can result.

There are two types of back radiation. The most significant one seems to have been forgotten. Neither of course warms the planet as the back radiation mechanisms are the same as the forward radiation (I.e. out into space) mechanism. Increase back = increase forward. Increased forward = global cooling via the first law, the gas laws and from them the lapse rate law.

More greenhouse mechanism therefore = global cooling.

Stay coo!

106. Aussie Luke Warm says:

Give it to them at Doha, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.

You da man!

107. knr says:

Jimbo ‘Are we getting near to falsification as projected by the IPCC / Hansen style????? If not then how many years would it take?’

Good question to which the answer is simply , AGW can never be disproved in relational to time scale becasue the ‘right ‘ time scale is constantly flexibly in nature depending on what time scale suits ‘the cause’ so a requirement for 15 years of data becomes a requirement for 20 years data if 15 years fails to support ‘the cause. Even better its two way process , so you can claim you need say 30 years of data but they say 10 years is more than enough to ‘prove ‘ AGW when it suits .

Bottom line , there is no known time scale its ‘length’ its a function of undefined but well established ‘usefulness ‘ ratio.

108. Gail Combs says:

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am

Thank you all for clarifying your positions. I guess it’s hard to know which temperature charts to believe. What I do know is that regardless of the position you want to substantiate you can find the numbers to do just that. But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment?
___________________________________
Most of us here have no problem with that. I, like others here, was a member of Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy…. I am also a scientist.

If you actually look at the facts instead of the hype, CAGW is not about cleaning up the environment, it is about diverting large sums of money into the pockets of large corporations and political cronies.

Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room. This was during my storied three-week or so stint as Director of Federal Government Relations for Enron in the spring of 1997, back when Enron was everyone’s darling in Washington. It proved to be an eye-opening experience that didn’t last much beyond my expressing concern about this agenda of using the state to rob Peter, paying Paul, drawing Paul’s enthusiastic support.

In fact, this case was not entirely uncommon in that the entire enterprise was Paul’s idea to begin with….

The basic truth is that Enron, joined by other “rent-seeking” industries — making one’s fortune from policy favors from buddies in government, the cultivation of whom was a key business strategy — cobbled their business plan around “global warming.” Enron bought, on the cheap of course, the world’s largest windmill company (now GE Wind) and the world’s second-largest solar panel interest (now BP) to join Enron’s natural gas pipeline network, which was the second largest in the world. The former two can only make money under a system of massive mandates and subsidies (and taxes to pay for them); the latter would prosper spectacularly if the war on coal succeeded.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/15/lessons-from-the-global-warming-industry/

Then you have WHO funded the CRU (Climate Research Group) of East Anglia. This time it is BP, Shell, Rockefeller foundations (Standard Oil) and some nuclear interests. The climategate e-mails show discussions about getting funding from BP and Shell too. On top of that you have Maurice Strong chair of Kyoto and the First Earth Summit (1972) who is a “Big Oil” CEO. That is why “Deniers” roll on the floor laughing every time they are accused of being in the “Pay of Big Oil”

Then we come to the environmental consequences of shifting to Wind and Solar.

NATURE
The Spanish Ornithological Society in Madrid estimates that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines may be killing 6 million to 18 million birds and bats annually. “A blade will cut a griffon vulture in half,” says Bechard. “I’ve seen them just decapitated.”

Wind turbines kill far fewer birds in general each year than do many other causes linked to humans, including domestic cats and collisions with glass windows. But wind power has a disproportionate effect on certain species that are already struggling for survival, such as the precarious US population of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos canadensis).

“The troubling issue with wind development is that we’re seeing a growing number of birds of conservation concern being killed by wind turbines,” says Albert Manville, a biologist with the US Fish and Wildlife Service in Arlington, Virginia.

It is the raptors that are normally killed because they use the same wind currents to glide on as windmills are designed to capture.

And then there is solar panels.

Rare minerals dearth threatens global renewables industry
Terbium, yttrium, dysprosium, europium and neodymium are widely used in the manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels, electric car batteries and energy-efficient lightbulbs. But because these “rare earths” are mined almost exclusively in China, it is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to source them in the required quantities.

Physics Org
To provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today,” said Thomas Graedel, Clifton R. Musser Professor of Industrial Ecology and professor of geology and geophysics at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies….

The term rare earths refers to a group of minerals with chemically similar properties that are important in the manufacture…
They are also crucial to new clean energy technologies, ranging from compact fluorescent light bulbs to electric cars to giant wind turbines.

Though the minerals are not strictly speaking rare — and are metals, not dirt — they have become a significant trade issue with China, which mines 95 to 97 percent of the world’s supply. Efforts to find alternative supplies have been complicated by the pollution that rare earth mining and processing creates — a factor generally overlooked by China’s producers.

In China, the true cost of Britain’s clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale

So I am afraid the “Environmental Card” backfires badly if you actually look into the environmental consequences of “Clean Energy” It is not clean it is a disaster for the environment.

109. Jimbo says:

Thanks to RossP comment which led me to this.

“The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes. The likely causes of these biases include forcing errors in the historical simulations (40–42), model response errors (43), remaining errors in satellite temperature estimates (26, 44), and an unusual manifestation of internal variability in the observations (35, 45). These explanations are not mutually exclusive. Our results suggest that forcing errors are a serious concern.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf

Are they now saying there could be a problem with the models? The likely “causes of these biases” could be co2 bias itself.

110. Doug Huffman says:

Thanks for the mention of “The Arrow of Time” as I will use it as inspiration to re-read E. T. Jaynes’ Probability Theory: The Logic of Science for his mention that the ‘arrow of logic’ is not so constrained in the application of Bayesian inference to forecasting.

111. richardscourtney says:

Paul Homewood:

You conclude your very good post at December 2, 2012 at 3:17 am by saying and asking?

Then there is the small matter of the predicted yet still missing hotspot. Or was it never predicted?

It is not “a small matter” and – before explaining it for the likes of Pat Ravasio – I point out its relevance to an important point made by the noble Lord but ignored in comments posted so far. He writes;

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranational bureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.

It is certainly not “an oversight”
The Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) have relied on the pseudoscientists who select the “scientific” information published in the IPeCaC Reports. This so-called “scientific” information was supposed to justify a successor to the Kyoto Protocol at the Conference of the Parties (COP) at Copenhagen in 2009. People may remember the fanfare and “X days to Save The Planet” prior to that COP. But the “scientific” information was insufficient propaganda to obtain a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, and the COP in Copenhagen was a failure so no successor to the Kyoto Protocol would ever be achieved.

The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPeCaC Conference in Copenhagen. I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.

Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.

Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.

As the AGW-scare fades away those promoting the FCCC will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity. And the present COP in Doha is part of the process which attempts to establish similar bureaucracies to those which enforce the LCPD in the EU.

That process has dropped the so-called “science” which failed to deliver the justification for the bureaucracies. Hence, IPeCaC was not invited to the COP in Doha.

And that brings us to the missing ‘hot spot’ which demonstrates the complete failure of the AGW-hypothesis to provide “science” which demonstrates a need for the bureaucracies.

The ‘hot spot’ is seen in Figure 9.1. of the IPeCaC AR4 soicalled Scientific Report at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
The figure is titled
Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
(a) solar forcing,
(b) volcanoes,
(c) well-mixed greenhouse gases,
(d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
(e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
(f) the sum of all forcings.
Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).

The big red blob in (c) and (f) is the so-called ‘hot spot’. It shows that the models predict that in the tropics the warming rate from “well-mixed greenhouse gases “ at altitude is between 2 and 3 times the rate at the surface.

Only plot (c) for ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ and (f) for ‘the sum of all forcings’ show the ‘hot spot’. And the reason (f) shows it is because the effect of ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ is so great that it overwhelms the effects of all the other forcings.

The modelled period is for 1890 to 1999 but the increase to ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ is greatest near the end of the period. Hence, radiosonde data from weather balloons (from 1958) and MSU data from satellites (from 1979) should show the ‘hot spot’ more clearly than the plot if the model is correct. And please note the severity of the ‘hot spot’: it is a factor of between 2 and 3 times the warming at altitude as is observed at the surface. This should be very clearly observed in both the radiosonde and the satellite data. It is not seen in either data set.

In other words, either there has been no global warming from ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ or there has been no global warming of the kind modeled and reported by the IPCC AR4.

That effectively destroys all projections of global warming according to the models. The models do not project warming of the past so they can’t project warming of the future.

Richard

112. Richards in Vancouver says:

The computer boxes the warmists use remind me of a TARDIS: warmer on the inside than on the outside.
Cue the FX.

113. DirkH says:

Gail Combs says:
December 2, 2012 at 4:15 am
“So I am afraid the “Environmental Card” backfires badly if you actually look into the environmental consequences of “Clean Energy” It is not clean it is a disaster for the environment.”

Thomas Jefferson said “only dumb ideas need the support of government”. My simple rule is: If something needs subsidies, it increases the inefficiency of an economy. If inefficiency is increased, we get a less efficient usage of resource, meaning more waste.

One can then look into the details and see how this plays out, but inevitably one finds more material is moved around, more stuff is produced (solar panels and wind turbines in this case, and the hulking concrete foundations for those wind turbines), more pointless activity happens to achieve not very much at all at a pretty high price.

So, a reneable energy crazy society like Germany for instance is squandering lots of stuff to get something they could have gotten much cheaper and with less fuel and resource usage – a little bit of electricity in this case.

I own stocks of a German concrete maker. They’re doing well.

Wind turbines need a lot of concrete.

Oh did I mention that making concrete produces loads of CO2?

Oops.

114. Phil Ford says:

Lord Christopher Monckton once again perfectly demonstrating why every mainstream media outlet is running scared – terrified – of him. Being the ‘common purpose’ cowards that they are, they dare not let this erudite, informed man speak on air about the folly of CAGW for fear of opening the climate-indoctrinated eyes of a wider viewing public (and this absolutely cannot be allowed to happen or the whole risible house of cards will swiftly come crashing down).

I once again tip my hat to Lord Monckton. Thank god this man speaks for the skeptic cause – along with the likes of Marc Morano and Jo Nova – and, of course, our own Anthony Watts – we have some very capable speakers and advocates. All are, of course, considered highly dangerous (possibly even fatal) by CAGW zealots who will never dare face them in open debate.

You know, because the science is so…settled. Or something.

115. richardscourtney says:

LetsBeReasonable:

At December 2, 2012 at 3:35 am you ask

Werner, I must have done something wrong with the graphs. I changed the starting point at 1996 instead of 1997 and all the trend lines went up. What is happening?

1.
The warming prior to 1997 has stopped so the trend lines do not “go up” for the period since 1997.
2.
If you include some of the period of the warming which was prior to 1997 then the new total period contains some warming so the trend lines go up.

What else would you expect?

Richard

116. Gail Combs says:

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am

Thank you all for clarifying your positions. I guess it’s hard to know which temperature charts to believe. What I do know is that regardless of the position you want to substantiate you can find the numbers to do just that. But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment?
_____________________________________
Then there is the second set of consequences. The human cost. Of course if you believe that humans (except for the privileged few) should be exterminated from the face of the earth or if you agree with Fabian George Bernard Shaw that useless eaters should be killed then this will not bother you until you are affected.

“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way…. Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …
A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”
Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910.

So what do we find in Fabian run UK?

Fuel poverty deaths three times higher than government estimates
The number of people dying as a result of fuel poverty is three times higher than government estimates suggest, according to new academic research.

Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day.

Fuel poverty is defined as when someone needs to spend 10 per cent or more on heating their home.

The new total – calculated using World Health Organisation guidance and official excess winter death figures – is four times as many fatalities as happen in road accidents each year.

End energy profiteering: The rich get richer, the poor get colder
Big Six suppliers heading for bumper profits and bonuses as more than 5.5 million UK homes hit by fuel poverty

More than 5.5 million households are suffering under fuel poverty, many being forced to choose between heating or eating.
Meanwhile the Big Six energy suppliers increased their profit margins by 733 per cent in just three months last year….

Nine out of 10 families will be forced to ration their heating this winter
The soaring cost of gas and electricity is forcing more households to turn off heating. Research from uSwitch suggests 89 per cent of families will ration their energy use this winter to save on bills.

Taking the blame is the 21 per cent hike in energy prices in the past 12 months…. “As the cost of our energy bills escalates people are being forced into making potentially dangerous choices,” warns Ann Robinson, director of consumer policy at uSwitch.

BRITAIN IS FREEZING TO DEATH
MIDDLE class families are among millions of Britons who cannot afford to heat their homes this winter, as elderly ride on buses all day to stay in the warm…

Dot Gibson, spokeswoman for pressure group the National Pensioners’ Convention, said: “Now that we have one of the coldest winters, older people are going to have to make the unenviable decision whether or not to put the heating on…

And since that is not killing off old age pensioners fast enough for the government we also have the Liverpool Care Pathway. (I wish I could use a /sarc)

Top doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year
* Professor says doctors use ‘death pathway’ to euthenasia of the elderly
* Around 29 per cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial ‘care pathway’

NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterda

117. Chuck Nolan says:

From Pat’s site:
“Does anyone really believe that fracking, or deep water drilling, or dirty-no-matter-what-you-call-it coal, or high risk nuclear power is a better way to answer our energy needs than solar, or wind, or other readily tappable, natural forces of nature? We know the technology to do this now exists, that it’s all just a matter of scaling it up. So what could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy, except that there would be a loss in profits for the fossil fuel industry? ”
—————————-
Yes!

You seem to think we’re digging our heels because of our love for Exxon and our desire to prevent Al Gore from getting richer (although an excellent reason) but, I believe the world has been working on alternative power have we not?
Batteries and electric generators since the 19th century.
Solar power, Bell Labs since the mid 1940s.
Wind mills since, forever.
My daddy had a saying whenever I would offer my sage advise of how to fix a problem. He’s say, “It’s like overdrive on a jackass. It’s a good idea it just doesn’t work.”
Unless you plan on giving up steel, you can’t run a steel mill off a solar panel.

Would you agree, all thing being equal, more people means more activity and more CO2 and therefore some degree of warming? More CO2 means better plant growth? Also, does it not make sense that more people will need more land and fresh water? Please remember, if the AGW theory is correct, we get a different coast line plus more usable land in North America and Asia. You don’t lose a coast line unless you lose the water.
It sounds to me like the system is working.

So, What’s wrong with global warming.

BTW. You’re not one of those people who ‘hates people and believe the earth will be a better place once the people are gone’, are you?
IMO these people are a problem.
cn

118. davidmhoffer says:

eco-geek;
In fact if we could somehow turn off the outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface and rely on thermal pick-ups only then the amount of “back radiation” would increase! We seem to have a contradiction: The more energy that leaves the Earth’s surface via radiation (and can thus be re-radiated by GHGs) the less can leave via the thermal pick ups and so less total back radiation can result.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Patricia;
We skeptics have our share of uninformed and/or confused who rant on about things just like the warmist side dies. There are several threads on this site by Ira Glickstein and Robert Brown that go into this issue in detail and deal with it properly. There are also threads specific to the logarithmic nature of CO2’s effects. Search for these and read through the articles is what I’d encourage you to d

119. Jimbo says:

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am

Thank you all for clarifying your positions. I guess it’s hard to know which temperature charts to believe. What I do know is that regardless of the position you want to substantiate you can find the numbers to do just that. But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment? Surely you don’t think that fracking, or deep water drilling, or dirty-no-matter-what-you-call-it coal, or high risk nuclear power are ideal ways to answer our energy needs?

Yes I do think they are the better ways to answer our energy needs.

If we adopted more solar and wind it would not reduce man-made co2 in the atmosphere. Power stations have to be kept running for when the wind ain’t blowin or the sun ain’t shinin’. If I see a suitable alternative I would be the first to jump on it. Who doesn’t want clean, efficient, reliable energy???? Find me realistic alternatives.

Toxic lake in China as a result of windpower manufacture. Farmers health damaged while you sit comfortably pining for wind.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

120. Chris D. says:

In RE:
What Jimbo says:
December 2, 2012 at 3:23 am
“Here is the paper for Santer’s 17 years minimum of lack of warming to separate noise.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

———————–

I would love to see Anthony add a countdown timer to 17 years of no significant warming and the death of the AGW hypothesis at the top of this website!

121. herkimer says:

It is worse than we thought

The winter temperatures for Contiguous United States has been dropping for 20 years since 1990 at -0.26 F per decade [per NCDC]
The annual temperature for Contiguous United States has been dropping since 1998 at- 80 F per decade[ per NCDC]

The winter temperature departures from 1961-1990 mean normals for land and sea regions of Europe have been flat or even slightly dropping for 20 year or since 1990

Yet the IPCC assessments of projected climate change for Europe was:
Annual mean temperatures in Europe are likely to increase more than the global mean. The warming in northern Europe is likely to be largest in winter… . A similar prediction was for the North American winters to warm

122. Dave says:

Too bad Lord Monckton could have fit “yakity yak, don’t talk back” into his essay :)

123. Urederra says:

Joe Prins says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Always thouroughly enjoy the play on words as plied lively by the lord. “rebarbatively” is masterful.
Well done, sir.

IpeCaC is my personal favourite. What they do it in there makes me want to throw up, just like the ipecac syrup.

thisisnotgoodtogo says:
December 2, 2012 at 2:52 am
Pat, you asked on your blog what would be the harm if we all went German style.

You must mean getting into coal power and nuke power from the neighbours.

…and cutting solar-power subsidies. I agree on that too.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html

124. @Joe Prins says: December 1, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Always thouroughly enjoy the play on words as plied lively by the lord. “rebarbatively” is masterful.
Well done, sir.
/////////////////////////////////////////

M’Lud demonstrates the benefits of a classical education. Once widely available in the UK, now only available, sadly, for the better off. I was lucky enough to study Latin from the age of 8 to 18 (and Classical History alongside it from 16 to 18), and Greek from the age of 8 to 12; I wouldn’t have missed it for the world, even though I ended up in IT.

125. David L says:

Pat Ravasio: it isn’t that hard. Your brilliant esteemed “sciientists” wrote computer models and predicted warming. Said warming has not happened. So they are wrong. Even laymen can see that.

126. Bruce Cobb says:

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:44 am

Thank you all so much for your thoughtful replies. You have inspired me, and I will be investigating your points of view more fully in the days to come. I must sign off for now, but I did put up a new post that I hope clarifies my comparison to Lewis Carrol’s quote about Christianity’s worse case scenario. It’s not about religion at all, but about calculating risks of doing nothing, versus the potential upside of facing what may indeed (and no one really knows) be the most serious issue our species will ever face.
Really, Pat? Given your first couple of comments, I find that doubtful. If true, it would be the fastest change-of-heart in troll history. Your final comment, though, is one we’ve seen many times before, and it’s simply a variation of the illogical “Precautionary Principle”. The “risks of doing nothing” are about the same risks as that of elephants stampeding through our houses, and of the consequent need, and indeed the forcing of everyone to buying “elephant insurance”, at a cost of perhaps $2,000 for every man, woman, and child. Finally, your hero, Bucky Fuller was a visionary, and quite possibly a genius, however, he understood very little about economics or indeed the electric grid, devoted as he was to solar, wind, and hydro power. One of the things he said was true: You can deceive others, you can deceive your brain-self, but you can’t deceive your mind-self for mind deals only in the discovery of truth and the interrelationship of all the truths. The cosmic laws with which mind deals are noncorruptible. If you are truly interested, and are willing to do a little work, meaning investigate, you will see how wrong you really are. Most of us weren’t skeptics originally, and simply accepted what was being continually trumpeted in the media. 127. Dan Pangburn says: Analyses that can be reached at the link (highlighted in red) given at http://www.switched.com/profile/2996642/ include an equation based on rational physics that, without considering any influence from CO2 whatsoever and using only one independent variable, has calculated average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 88% (R2 = 0.88, correlation coefficient = 0.938). Including the influence of CO2 (a second independent variable) increased the accuracy to 88.5%. I have checked the equation as a predictor (but using actual sunspot data) since 1965. It has never been off in predicting the average global temperature anomaly trend by more than 0.06°C. The equation is calibrated using measurements prior to a date and then used to predict average global temperature trends after that date. The predictions are then compared to the actual measurements to see how well the equation predicted. That I got it right is demonstrated by accurate calculation and prediction including the flat temperature trend since 2001. Results are shown in graphs. The equation predicts an average global temperature downtrend for at least two decades. 128. Pat, the only reason you post here is to drive traffic to your site… you are desperate for readers.. One post on WUWT gets more comments than your total site has had in years. 129. Gail Combs says: Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says: December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am … But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment? ____________________________ And the third thought about CAGW is Who Benefits? and Who is in control? Who is behind the “Global Warming” scare is pretty darn clear if you bother to look and so are their ultimate plans. If you go back to the U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947 you find J. P. Morgan bought controlling interest of the press. Nothing much has changed since then. JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations… GE owns 49% of MSNBC (a left-leaning news station) and J.P. Morgan was lead financial advisor to GE with Goldman Sachs and Citi acting as co-advisors At the Copenhagen climate summit Developing countries react furiously to leaked ‘Danish text’ The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank Why did the developing countries reacted furiously? Because the IMF and the World Bank is much hated. SEE: Structural Adjustment Policies and Mr. Budhoo’s Bombshell ” senior economist with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for more than 12 years, publicly resigned in May, 1988.” WHO had their sticky fingers in the IPCC? Why the World Bank of course: globalcentres.org Dr. Robert Watson (World Bank), has been designated as Chair-elect of IPCC and will take over from Professor Bert Bolin (Sweden) after the September 1997 Plenary Session, at which time a new Bureau and the leadership of the three Working Groups will be decided. Professor Bolin has very effectively chaired the IPCC since its organization in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. Top Senate Democrat: bankers “own” the U.S. Congress Sen. Dick Durbin, on a local Chicago radio station this week, blurted out an obvious truth about Congress that, despite being blindingly obvious, is rarely spoken: “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” The blunt acknowledgment that the same banks that caused the financial crisis “own” the U.S. Congress — according to one of that institution’s most powerful members — demonstrates just how extreme this institutional corruption is…. Then you have Pascal Lamy of the World TRADE Organization (WTO). If you have never read F. William Engdahl’s comments on the WTO I suggest you do so now. The WTO and the Politics of GMO Reviewing F. William Engdahl’s “Seeds of Destruction” – Part I Reviewing F. William Engdahl’s “Seeds of Destruction” – Part II Reviewing F. William Engdahl’s “Seeds of Destruction” – Part III (My problem with GMOs is that Monsanto’s lawyer Robert Taylor while working at the FDA waved them through the FDA WITHOUT TESTING declaring them to be equivalent to natural.) All that is saying is that the International corporations RUN the WTO. Then look at what Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the WTO, has to say about Global Warming and the current financial/economic crisis giving “Legitimacy” to “Global Governance” (aka world government) and the need to get rid of National Sovereignty. He uses the “worst-ever economic crisis” created by the bankers in the first place as one reason. And “our planet deteriorate due to global warming. We see droughts and violent floods. We see entire islands disappearing under water.” also hyped by banker media and the World Bank as the second reason. Both are CREATED to purpose crisis. SEE: Global Governance: Lessons from Europe “Global governance requires localising global issues” the international system is founded on the principle and politics of national sovereignty: the Wesphalian order of 1648 remains very much alive in the international architecture today. … In fact, the Wesphalian order is a challenge in itself. The recent crisis has demonstrated it brutally. Local politics has taken the upper hand over addressing global issues. Governments are too busy dealing with domestic issues to dedicate sufficient attention and energy to multilateral negotiations, be they trade negotiations or climate negotiations…. …There is one place where attempts to deal with these challenges have been made and where new forms of governance have been tested for the last 60 years: in Europe…. on the question of efficiency, Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law. …the issue of leadership. Europe has had a relatively good record in terms of leadership as long as the leadership of the Commission was accepted. Finally, legitimacy is the area in which, in my view, Europe scores less well. We are witnessing a growing distance between European public opinions and the European project. One could have expected that the European institutional set up, with growing powers entrusted to the European Parliament would have resulted in greater legitimacy…. Euros cepticism is on the rise, often encouraged by politicians who are tempted to use Europe as a scapegoat for the difficult decisions they have to take at home, a fortiori in times of crisis. Legitimacy remains a litmus test for Europe… Two other Lamy essays: Of What Use is Global Governance? Europe Needs a Legitimacy Compact 130. Gail Combs says: JB says: December 1, 2012 at 9:33 pm ….. In the real world, you’re a comical irrelevance. ________________________________ Is that the Real World of the 1%? The world of large Corporation CEOs, Bankers and Political Sycophants? 131. knr says: At a time when the first snows have fallen across much of the UK it worth remember the MET’s forecast that ‘children would never know what snow is like ‘ many a few years ago. The person that made that claim has never admitted they got it dead wrong and is still happily ‘forecasting ‘ away. 132. Vince Causey says: Good to hear from Christopher Monckton again. Non warming is becoming the new “inconvenient truth”, although I’ll doubt you’ll see Al Gore making any movies about it. 133. I live in Eastern Oregon amid forests of Chinese-made windmills (China exports but doesn’t use them, with good reason). They are economic, environmental, ecologic & aesthetic disasters. They not only kill birds & burrowing creatures, but bats. This increases the bug population, devastating nearby agriculture & creating road hazards. Because of their irregular power production & lack of storage ability, they require installation of new fossil fuel plants. They necessitate interruption of nearby hydropower, causing water to be spilled out of the Columbia River dams at exactly the wrong time for fish, transportation & local electricity needs. They are heavily subsidized by federal tax dollars, which sucks money away from productive investment (same as all “green” projects). And now the white satanic mills are breaking down much sooner than predicted when they were built. But at least many of my neighbors have gotten rich off the payments, just as we’ve profited from ethanol, while knowing what a waste & net user of fossil fuel energy that scam is. 134. Gail Combs says: kasphar says: December 1, 2012 at 10:37 pm ‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranationalbureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.’…. _____________________________________ A bit of background makes it a calculated insult. …In a secret ballot of 125 governments, 61 percent voted against Dr. Watson and for Indian engineer economist Rajendra Pachauri, currently the IPCC’s vice chairman…. Watson is credited with forging global scientific consensus on key issues within the IPPC. The IPCC in turn has played a strong role in galvanizing political support for policy responses to the threat of global warming. The IPCC is a joint project of the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization…. Watson, an atmospheric researcher and the chief scientist at the World Bank, is considered one of the world’s leading experts on climate change. He is a strong proponent of the idea that human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels are the primary forces behind the warming climate… Environmental group Friends of the Earth alleged his expulsion was due to lobbying by the U.S. government and American energy businesses. [snicker giggle] Exxon is the group’s main target for anger…. Then Good old Pachauri became a laughing stock with his Himalayan glacier melt fiasco and his “smutty” romance novel. So the World Bank by-passes the IPCC completely with their new Report: Turn Down the Heat: A 4-degree warmer world can be avoided When you add in Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak: The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank, it becomes pretty obvious who is running the show. Then include this graph showing a leap in loans for building NEW COAL fired power plants from$100 million in 2005 to $4,270 million in 2010. And it is obvious the World Bank does not believe in their own hype. All they are interested in is making $$and gaining more control over the world. Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) are economic policies for developing countries that have been promoted by the World Bank and IMF. …Structural Adjustment Policies are economic policies which countries must follow in order to qualify for new World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans and help them make debt repayments on the older debts owed to commercial banks, governments and the World Bank…. In the dozens of countries where the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have imposed structural adjustment programs (SAPs), the people who have seen deterioration in their standards of living, reduced access to public services, devastated environments, and plummeting employment prospects… http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html The hypocrisy is just amazing. 135. Silver Ralph says: . Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says: December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy? This activity can help stimulate the economy, and make us all healthier, less polluted people in the long run. _________________________________________ Patricia – you are so wrong in your fantasy land of Telly-Tubby** windturbines, it is not even funny. Please read my article on WUWT titled ‘Renewable Energy, our Downfall’. You might learn something about the grave dangers that Green fantacist advocacy groups pose to society and humanity. ** A UK children’s program . 136. Steve Jones says: I have posted this before but it should be compulsory viewing prior to the start of any discussion on climate change. This is the short version of Richard Feynman’s eloquent description of the scientific method. Watch it and weep for the contempt that the MSM and marxist agenda merchants show for true science. How anyone can claim to be a scientist and think that cAGW theory stands up to the scientific method baffles me. 137. The whole issue of fossil fuel induced climate change can be compared to Lewis Carroll’s famous evaluation of Christianity: It’s either a fanciful storydesigned to get us all to behave better, or it is the single most important fact of human existance. So come on, oil guys, what’s the harm in moving ahead and doing things a better way? Isn’t it time for all of you to come over to the side where there don’t have to be any real losers? First, it is C. S. Lewis, not Lewis Carroll. Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson) is a famous mathematician and logician who wrote Alice in Wonderland. Clive S. Lewis is a famous Christian Apologist who wrote the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Second, you have clearly illustrated the fact that the argument is religious, not scientific. You don’t really care if the science is correct or not, because it agrees with your personal political beliefs. If a scientific claim helps you convince those who are too ignorant to think for themselves, it is “good”; otherwise it should be ignored. I am a scientist (a physics Ph.D., actually, although I’m professionally competent in physics, statistics, mathematics, philosophy and computer science in addition to writing novels and poetry). I write extensively about the philosophy of science and what it is “best” to believe, given our experience and the data. Sadly, my personal philosophy forbids lying to myself or others in argumentation because nobody is served by either lies or errors, however “well intentioned”. To put it bluntly, we are all better off armed with a full knowledge of the truth (and a full acceptance of the limitations of our knowledge where it is shaky) and then making informed decisions than we might be basing those decisions on lies or errors by those who — with the best intentions in the world — try to impose their own beliefs on us. Don’t you agree? Third, C. S. Lewis was fond of advancing his own versions of Pascal’s Wager, and this has indeed — as you clearly indicate — become the fundamental subtext of the climate debate. Pascal’s Wager, you might (or might not) recall, is the idea that whatever it costs one to believe in God, and if you do and God does not exist, there is a finite loss. However, if you choose not to believe in God but God exists, the penalty is infinite. Therefore one should believe in God. Hopefully you can recognize your own argument above in this. Quite aside from the fact that this argument is the open expression of several logical fallacies (argument from fear, for example) that have no bearing on the actual probable truth of the proposition, here is the real problem. Your idea is a good one — cost-benefit analyses are good things, at least when one can reasonably accurately account for the risks — but it requires one to fairly count the costs and benefits! You seem to believe that it costs us little to politically pursue the abatement of carbon dioxide at all costs, because we derive at least some benefits from some of the actions being taken. Of course, in your reply you reject the one practical solution that we currently have available — nuclear energy — that does not generate carbon dioxide and is capable of sustaining civilization at a high level worldwide for at least centuries. If you truly believed in the catastrophe predicted, then you would believe that whether or not we might be able to make wind and solar generate enough energy eventually, we should be building nuclear plants as fast as we can now in order to stave off the disaster. But you don’t, not really, or else you haven’t really thought about the costs of the disaster versus the costs of nuclear power. The situation is actually far worse that this, of course. The current costs of Carbon Abatement — aside from not working even according to those that have designed them for any purpose that would suffice to prevent their predicted catastrophe — are a catastrophe in and of themselves. Consider: Europe is in the throes of a major monetary crisis. The money Europe spends in a single year on Carbon would eliminate the crisis in an instant, and if it had not been spending that money for the last decade and a half there might well not be any crisis. The money California has spent on Carbon over the last decade would have prevented 100% of the human misery of the economic collapse there at the end of the Bush administration. It would also make electrical power there cost around 2/3 of what it currently costs even now, putting money in every citizen’s pocket. But this is chickenfeed. The real human cost of carbon control is vastly greater; it is a catastrophe now, a certain, ongoing catastrophe. Perhaps you do not appreciate it, but something like half of the world’s population lives in abject, miserable poverty, energy poverty. They live in rude huts and cook on animal dung fires, and if they have light after dark at all it is in the form of crude oil lamps. They have no hospitals or refrigeration — those require electrical power and infrastructure and wealth. They have little or no industry — that requires electricity. Perhaps you have a “Noble Savage” illusion about the beauty and joy of life in this “natural” state, but if you do, walk to the master circuit breaker in your house and switch it off for a month, turning off your natural gas feed (if you have one) and dropping the keys to your car into a jar by your front door. Turn off your cell phone (you can’t charge it anyway). You may have two sets of clothes, but bear in mind that the only way you may wash them is by hand in a local creek or river — if you have one — so choose wisely. You may use a hibachi or small grill to cook food. If you get seriously sick I’m afraid you’ll just have to die — no medical care that requires energy to deliver, which is nearly all medical care. Live that way for a month. Then imagine living a lifetime that way. Imagine growing up in that sort of poverty, without any real prospects or way out of it without cheap and abundant energy. That’s reality for some two to three billion people — the ongoing catastrophe of the human species. Now you have a dollar to spend. You can choose to spend it all on measures that even proponents agree will not prevent a hypothetical and somewhat implausible future catastrophe, or you can spend all on improving our current energy generation infrastructure globally to try to reduce the costs of electrical power to where it is as cheap to those in the third world as it is to those in the first world, the world of energy wealth that you currently inhabit, or you can split the dollar up and spend most of it one way or the other but hedge your bets. If you are honestly informed about the probabilities of the competing disasters, both the ongoing one and the hypothetical future one, you can make sane decisions about what to do with your dollar given — as I truly do believe — that you have nothing but the best of intentions and wish to behave as ethically as possible. Misinforming others or yourself concerning the true risks and costs and benefits, however, makes you ethically complicit as the direct cause of human suffering. You cannot avoid the choice, you can only do your best to make the best possible one (or blow the whole thing off and ignore it, or rely on what people with a clear vested interest one way or another tell you, as most people do in religious argumentation). I cannot tell you what to do; I can only tell you what I myself believe to be the best choice. I think that the risk of the future disaster is small. The climate models that predict it have little statistical skill — witness their failure to accommodate the last fifteen years of effectively zero temperature growth. You are routinely being lied to in the most time-honored of ways (by presenting the truth — highly selectively) in ways that prevent you from learning this because those who are doing the lying are horribly sincere in their beliefs (and generally benefit in various ways from the hypothesis of disaster). For example, they trumpet Sandy as “proof” of anthropogenic climate change disasters, but fail to point out that we are in the longest stretch in recorded history when a category 3 or higher hurricane hasn’t made landfall in the US, with no end in sight. They fail to point out that last year had fewer than normal numbers of tornadoes. They exaggerate the drought last year to the worst ever even though it was not, in fact, even close to the sustained drought of the dust bowl years and was comparable to the completely natural cyclic drought visible in the historical record. Even many of the climate scientists who do think that there is some degree of anthropogenic global warming are starting to speak out about this horrible abuse of any sort of scientific objectivity to further a political end. So how would I spend my dollar? I’d invest a bit — a nickel, maybe as much as a dime — in continuing development of e.g. solar energy and improved energy storage. As you note, those things will be beneficial no matter what, so they are investments, not wasted money. In time, solar, nuclear, and storage will make the issue of carbon mostly moot, but that time is not for a couple of decades because the technologies are not mature. As they make cost-benefit sense, no one will have to push or subsidize them — people will make informed choices to implement them because they are the cheapest alternatives. The rest of the dollar I would spend to make energy — absolutely including carbon based energy — cheaper for everyone. Perhaps 40 cents to make it cheaper here in the US (as the fundamental scarce resource, cheaper energy is a direct benefit to every single aspect of civilized human existence, enabling everything from clean water to recycling to more, better jobs and improved, cheaper daily lives for every person). The rest to help the poorest of the poor overseas to have the things they so desperately need — especially access to cheap and plentiful electricity, which at the moment means electricity made by burning natural gas, coal or uranium. I’m perfectly happy for that energy to be generated in as clean a way as possible, but not in a way that treats CO_2 as a pollutant, because it is not. And I wouldn’t spend all of that money on electricity even for the poorest countries — they need other things — roads, schools, medical care, jobs, the entire infrastructure of civilization. Their children need hope — the hope that the world they grow up in will eventually make them precisely as wealthy as you no doubt are — wealthy in that they too will have instant access to energy that is so cheap compared to their income that they do not have to conserve it, they do not have to choose between electric lights and food or clothing or shelter. You have to do what you think best, of course. But inform yourself first; don’t suggest that we should all accept the great Climate Wager as a religious and ethical necessity. And by the way, an oft-repeated lie is that everybody that is a “denier” of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is either uneducated, or ignorant, or stupid, or in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal or the like. Please. You cannot possibly be that naive. I will cheerfully place my own educational and professional accomplishments up against anybody’s — I’m not stupid, not ignorant, not uneducated, and I am not in the pay of any energy-related company. I have a patent pending in a methodology involving the extremely advanced application of Bayesian reasoning in statistical analysis of certain kinds of problems. I teach physics at all levels. I have three physics textbooks I’ve written available online. I teach independent studies in computer science (and have a book on beowulf style computing available online). And while I — like Christopher Monckton — think that there is very likely some anthropogenic component to the global warming that the world has experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age (when global temperatures were at the lowest point of the entire Holocene — the last eleven thousand years since the glaciers retreated), I doubt that the warming the world will experience by the year 2100 will be catastrophic. If it will, there is damn-all sign of the catastrophe so far, and it is just plain silly to spend tens to hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide per year to avert an uncertain and dubious catastrophe when there is an ongoing and certain catastrophe — global poverty and ignorance — that is far more demanding of our attention. rgb 138. andrew says: Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997? Have a try yourself on wood for trees, use any dataset or start date. 139. Silver Ralph says: AndyG55 says: December 2, 2012 at 12:39 am oh Pat, you deluded fool.. I notice you still think STEAM coming from a chimney is CO2… DOH !!!!!!! back to kindy, little person !! __________________________________ Actually, Andy, since water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, perhaps the real devil is the cooling towers, and not the smoke stack!! . 140. Silver Ralph says: Mogaboguru the basic average global temperature in science and literature has – by an hence-unreported consensus of yet-invisible participants – been reduced from 15 to 14 degrees Centigrade around early 1998. ————————————————– In aviation the base-line average temperature is still 15oc. . 141. David Jojnes says: Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says: December 2, 2012 at 1:44 am “I would also welcome your comments on my blog, especially if any of you are versed in Buckminster Fuller, especially in his views on the importance of harvesting and banking “natural energy incomes.” Thanks again for your time this evening. http://www.buckyworld.me I did visit the link you gave, for about 1 minute! I could not take any longer. I guess my eyes are a good few years older than yours and they started to hurt trying to read whatever you had written on the page. Did noone ever tell you that if you want people to read what you have written; putting a deep gold color font onto a black background is not a good idea. Also, some sort of index to the topics you have written about is usually helpful. That way readers can get to subjects which are of particular importance to them, rather than having to sort through a heap of verbiage. It is difficult to see what you are campaigning for other than Buckminster Fuller and I am not clear why he appears, to you, to be right about everything. All in all, it was not a happy experience and I will not be visiting again unless you make it more so. These are my genuine thoughts and suggestions which I hope will enable you to improve the site. 142. Jean Parisot says: They’re doing one thing in Doha, spending tax or utility rate payer money that most of us could have found a better use for. 143. Patricia Ravasio, I was always a Bucky Fuller fan. Since seeing your site, I have been looking for one of his “quotes” about wealth. As I remember it, it is growing technology that increases wealth or something like that from one of his books. In the mean time: “Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we’ve been ignorant of their value.” R. Buckminster Fuller http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/r_buckminster_fuller.html Pat, hope you will continue the dialog on WUWT. 144. Jimbo says: Chris D. says: December 2, 2012 at 5:03 am In RE: What Jimbo says: December 2, 2012 at 3:23 am “Here is the paper for Santer’s 17 years minimum of lack of warming to separate noise. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml” ———————– I would love to see Anthony add a countdown timer to 17 years of no significant warming and the death of the AGW hypothesis at the top of this website! Warmists are not blind to this fact, nor to the 15 year non warming minimum. Expect a paper out soon extending the date from 17 years to say 20 or 25 or even better 30 years of no warming. They will do this with no shame or scientific scruples – there is simply too much money in the pipeline. I’m not kidding either, watch this space. ;-) 145. Silver Ralph says: AndyG55 Everything is ‘a’ over ‘t’. The people who really care about the environment are those fighting against the corrupt WWF, Greenpeace etc.. sure thing is, that these two bodies particularly, don’t gve a rat’s a*** …… unless there is money in it !!! ______________________________ Never a truer word said. I contacted Greenpeace UK about the ever increasing world population – which represents the greatest threat to the world environment, more so than any trace gas could possibly be. Their answer was that “Greenpeace never has and never will campaign on population issues”. So there you have it. Greenpeace will never address or debate the most important factor in the moders world – overpopulation. A factory that is: effecting the world environment, destroying valuable ecosystems, leading to the destruction of rainforests, placing water all supplies in danger, encouraging oil companies to drill in ever-deeper basins like the Gulf of Mexico, depleating fish stocks etc: etc: and etc: . 146. Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says: December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am … But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment? ========= Cleaning the environment is a noble cause. Much like the Crusades were 1000 years ago. The problem is that every noble cause provides an excuse to ignore the harm it does. Carried far enough, every “noble cause” ultimately kills people to save them. If your children lack food, shelter and clothing then there is great harm in spending your time cleaning the environment rather than tending to their needs. If your parents are dying of cold because the cost of heating in the winter is too great, there is great harm in spending your time cleaning the environment rather than supplying them with heating fuel. If your country is incurring great debts which, enslaving future generations to the banks, while millions are unemployed, there is great harm in spending your time cleaning the environment rather than restoring economic prosperity. 147. Tom trevor says: Dear Pat, Global warming has Zilch. Nada,. Zip,. Bupkis, to do with fracking or any other environmental issue. 148. Dear Pat, Global warming has Zilch. Nada,. Zip,. Bupkis, to do with fracking or any other environmental issue. 149. The graph at the top of the page says “14C world average” In point of fact, 15C was the average temperature of the earth quoted before the global warming scare. By dropping the average to 14C, alarmists created 1C of warming out of newsprint. New York Times March 1988 One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15C), as a base to determine temperature variations. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html 150. richardscourtney says: andrew: I write to answer your silly question at December 2, 2012 at 6:59 am in case there are any onlookers who fail to understand that it is daft. You ask Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997? I answer that this is because the overall trend has varied prior to 1997 but stopped rising in 1997. Nobody claims the overall trend was a constant before the global temperature stopped rising in 1997. The important point is that global temperature has not risen for the last 16 years while atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued its exponential rise. Surely, even somebody sufficiently stupid as to ask your question can understand why that is pertinent to the AGW-hypothesis. Richard 151. Further to the discussion about the pause in warming. If we are to go to catastrophic temperature levels by the end of this century, then sooner or later the rate of warming has got to exceed the 0.06 C per decade that has persisted for many decades, possibly back to the LIA. And this excessive rate of warming needs to persist for some time if CAGW is going to be seen to be real. It was supposed to have started around 1970, but it has not appeared yet. How much longer do we have to wait for this excessive rise in the rate of warming to appear, before we conclude that it is never going to appear? 152. tmlutas says: Pat Ravasio – At a certain point, when the rules of science are bent into pretzel to protect the global warming alarmists enough, the black humor comes out. The plain fact is that the 2008 NOAA statement can be researched independently. You even got the page number on the PDF (23) to shorten your research time. This is a reasonable scientific statement and a proper short term test upon which the entire edifice of climate change rests. The models can only get it wrong for so long in real science before it is admitted that they’re junk and we have no scientific basis to back global warming alarmism. If the science isn’t right then we’ve spent hundreds of billions and many many years of effort chasing a chimera. Something is going on but we wouldn’t actually know what it is. It’s a classic bit of honest science, the objective test where observation can invalidate theory in one easy to measure marker. This test time limit has just been exceeded in the recent past, but not so recent that all the alarmist bodies haven’t had time to address the issue. Actual scientific bodies would be expected sometime in year 14 of no warming to get together and work up a strategy and a statement and if the time is exceeded to pull the both out of a drawer and read the statement in a press conference and implement the strategy. Instead we have crickets. Mainstream scientific organizations are exposed to the danger of descending into pseudoscience by sticking to the models even when they have been invalidated. They have the alternative since 2008 of challenging the NOAA date and providing a longer date with scientific reasoning why the NOAA date is too short. So far as I know that hasn’t happened either. If you care about science, you can stroke out from anger or apply humor to try to get through this massive betrayal of scientific principles. Monckton is obviously going the humor route and doing it quite well. 153. Jean Parisot says: Werner, so they have falsified their own hypothesis by their own test, using their own data, and reported it themselves – but we are the deniers? 154. Matt G says: Pat Ravasio says: December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm Ha ha, you are the desperate one with only conjecture and no scientific evidence. Explain how a decline in Arctic ice cherry picked to ignore the SH pole sea ice, has anything to do with humans when there has been no global warming for numerous years? Explain the difference between warming naturally and warming by AGW? Explain how global decline in low cloud albedo has anything to do with increasing CO2. Explain what CO2 has got to do with the AMO because this is the main factor of trends in Arctic ice. Explain why the NAO and AO has changed over recent years with the jet stream further south, when it was suppose to move North with global warming. When you can scientifically describe the mechanism with scientific evidence for these points in favor supporting CO2, then you may have a point. 155. P. Solar says: December 1, 2012 at 11:21 pm I am really asking myself if this text was actually written by Monckton. He is very well educated in classics and has a remarkable writing style that you have to admire even if you don’t agree with what he is saying. He is also decidedly British, with an accent that would get him called “toff” without it being a diminutive of his first name. ………………. Frequent use of americanisms that is not his usual language: gotten ; upcoming ; it’s your call. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis, several times. Either he thinks he’s playing to his audience or his travels are starting to affect his vocabulary. Perhaps “the Americans got him [British ambassador Polk-Mowbray],” as “Antrobus” put it in Lawrence Durrell’s tale, “Case History,” in his his hilarious book, Esprit de Corps. A Kindle edition is under 5, here: http://www.amazon.com/Esprit-Corps-Faber-Covered-Editions/dp/0571056679/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1354460877&sr=8-2&keywords=esprit+de+corps Here is Polk-Mowbray before: (1937) “The thought that members of my staff are beginning to introject American forms into the Mother Tongue has given me great pain. I am ordering Head of Chancery to instruct staff that no despatches to the Foreign Secretary should contain phrases of this nature.” And AFTER returning from Washington, where he got embroiled with a drum majorette: [Antrobus speaking] I found a book by Damon Runyon in his desk drawer one day. I admit he had the good grace to blush when he saw I’d found it. But by this time he had begun to suffer from dreadful slips of the tongue. . . . I kept coming across expressions like ‘set-up’, ‘frame-up’, come-back’, and even ‘gimmick’. i ask you–gimmick. . . . Faucet, elevator, phoney. I ask you. . . . Hatchet-man . . . disc jockey . . . torch singer. …………. Do you know that he went to a Rotary meeting in a hand-painted tie depicting a nude blonde and referred to it in his speech as ‘pulchritudinous’? …………. I ran into him [in Rome] near the Fontana, sitting in a little trattoria. He was addressing a plate of spaghetti–and do you know what? . . . There was a Coca Cola before him with a straw in it. “Great heavens Antrobus, you are jesting.” My solemn oath, old man. . . . It’s the very end. I tried to cringe my way past him but he saw me and called out. He said, quite distinctly, Hiya, and made a sort of gesture in the air of someone running his hand listlessly over the buttocks of a chorus girl. 156. TRBixler says: rgbatduke Great rebuttal to the AGW catastrophe alarmists. I can only wait for their collective “switch off”. 157. Gail Combs says: kasphar says: December 1, 2012 at 10:37 pm …Maybe Doha is not about ‘the warming’ at all but the redistribution of money from the developed countries to the under- and undeveloped countries – about 100 billion dollars, I believe. ________________________________ It has never ever been about the redistribution of money from the developed countries to the under- and undeveloped countries. It has ALWAYS been about redistributing wealth from the middle class to the upper class. “Help” in “development” of third world countries has been going on for three or four generations. If it was really a “hand-up” there would BE no third world. Instead the$$$ has gone in to the pockets of corrupt officials or corporations have moved in and wiped out local business.

I am talking about food because without a decent stable food supply there is nothing that can be done to develop a country. Food and shelter are primary needs that must be filled before anything else.

Structural Adjustment Policies are economic policies which countries must follow in order to qualify for new World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans … Although SAPs are designed for individual countries but have common guiding principles and features which include export-led growth;

SAPs generally require countries to devalue their currencies against the dollar; lift import and export restrictions

SAPs encourage countries to focus on the production and export of primary commodities such as cocoa and coffee to earn foreign exchange. But these commodities have notoriously erratic prices subject to the whims of global markets which can depress prices just when countries have invested in these so-called ‘cash crops’.

By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is generally to hike prices up three or four times, increasing poverty to such an extent that riots are a frequent result….

This another example. I am using Mexico because it was tricky for the Multi-nationals like Smithfield of swine flu fame to move into Mexico because of historic legal protection for EJIDO LANDS, Mexican agricultural land held in common. Mexican Agriculture is also one of the biggest in the world and therefore a tasty target for the Ag Cartel.

Small Farmers And The Doha Round: Lessons From Mexico’s NAFTA Experience
…hoped for by designers of NAFTA, has been ‘modernisation’ – a sharp decline in the share of agriculture and allied sectors in the workforce. From nearly 27% in 1991 it declined to slightly less than 15% in 2006, losing more than 2 million jobs[18]. Again small and marginal farmers and agricultural labour bore the brunt, as evidenced by very sharp decline in the number of rural households. According to a study by Jose Romero and Alicia Puyana carried out for the federal government of Mexico, between 1992 and 2002, the number of agricultural households fell an astounding 75% – from 2.3 million to 575, 000.

There has been a significant increase in migration out of rural areas as livelihoods are lost and farms have been abandoned. The hope was that this migration out of low-productivity agriculture would be absorbed into higher-productivity non-agrarian urban employment. But anemic employment growth in the post-NAFTA period, particularly in manufacturing, put paid to that.

The other half of the equation

Food Processing & Distribution
Foreign investment has always been noticeable in food processing and distribution in Mexico. Among the companies in Mexico from abroad are the more outstanding of the world food industry (e.g. Nestle, General Foods, PepsiCo). Today the food industry in Mexico represents one of the fastest growing areas for foreign investment. For example, while the total number of new plants in the Maquiladora industry grows by single digit percentage, the number of food processing plants grows by double digit percentage percent.
http://www.mexicolaw.com/Agriculture.htm

Originally Mexican law does not allow foreigners to own EJIDO LANDS, Mexico’s largest form of property use. To get around this the transnationals corporations collaborated with Mexican nationals. Just before NAFTA the government changed the rules.

In 1993 the government was persuaded to allow ejidos to privatize their lands and, if they wish, sell them to foreign buyers. This has presented opportunities for the folks who have built homes (often expensive homes) to secure their investment with a bank trust. Once the ejido privatization is complete, each ejido member is issued a title for his or her respective parcel. The title can then be transferred to a foreigner in the form of a bank trust. Another option is to buy the entire campo and become a Baja developer. This can be done by establishing a 100% foreign owned Mexican corporation.
http://www.mexicomatters.net/mexicorealestate/04_propertytitlesforforeignersinmexico.php

Privatizing the Commons: Reforming the Ejido and Urban Development in Mexico
Most assessments of the reform of Article 27 have placed it within the context of structural changes to the Mexican economy which have promoted privatization and deregulation as part of a wider set of neoliberal policy adjustments, or more specifically, in the run up to the North American Free Trade Agreement (Cornelius and Myhre, 1997; Calva, 1993). This work has highlighted the impacts upon agricultural productivity, usually in negative terms, for those ejidos in the most marginalized regions which lack access to commercial markets, multinational corporations or irrigation technology, and which are already heavily in debt, or rely on the dwindling supply of government assistance for survival (Cornelius and Myhre, 1997; Stanford, 1994).

…Generically termed the reform of Article 27, the new legislation inter alia permits a number of important changes relevant to this paper: namely, for ejidos to convert ‘use’ rights into individual rights to sell, rent or mortgage land to non-ejido members; and to set up joint venture contracts with domestic or foreign private companies (see Goldring, 1995; Austin, 1994; Cornelius, 1992 for a more complete discussion).

So NAFTA wiped out protection for Mexican native farmers, 75% lost their livelihoods and the new 1993 law opened the way for the Ag Cartel to move in. This also explains the flood of Mexicans over the US border. A win-win for the Ag Cartel on both sides of the border.

158. Jordan says:

@ Patricia Ravasio

“What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment?”
If there are good reasons to do something, then we should assess the costs and benefits for those reasons. If we invent false demons to try to fool people into doing things for hidden reasons, things will not work out. Search for “Trofim Lysenko” to find out more.

“What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy?”
If newer forms of energy are intermittent, there will be an increase in deaths from hyopthermia and energy rationing – for example, would you be willing to see your own family denied urgent hospital treatment due to energy rationing?

“This activity can help stimulate the economy, and make us all healthier, less polluted people in the long run.”
There are UK government incentives for domestic wood burning of fossil fuels. Choking smoke now drifts around my neighbourhood on cold winter nights, and there is increased traffic to deliver solid fuels to peoples’ doors. It’s like being back in the 19th Century. Is this the healther, less polluting form of energy you talk about?

“The whole issue of fossil fuel induced climate change can be compared to Lewis Carroll’s famous evaluation of Christianity: It’s either a fanciful storydesigned to get us all to behave better, or it is the single most important fact of human existance.”
The predicted tropospheric hotspot is a characteristic pattern of warming. Ben Santer referred to one asepect of this as “vertical amplification” back in 2007 (warming aloft should be greater than warmning at the surface). Santer never observed the predicted vertical amplification, and neither did a more recent article. We should be able to agree that fossil-fuel induced climate change is fanciful storytelling.

“Isn’t it time for all of you to come over to the side where there don’t have to be any real losers?”
If you’ve already lost the scientific argument regarding the specific pattern of CO2-induced warming, why do you think there are no losers on “your side”?

I note how at the time of your first post, you were doubtful about whether your comment would be published. I guess that must be a reflection of the behaviour you see on “your side”. Since then, you have tossed-in a good handful of flame balls and sought publicity for your website. It is a compliment that you come to WUWT for publicity – clearly this is more fruitful ground than “your side”. And WUWT has been generous to have given you the opportunity.

159. richardscourtney says:

rgbatduke:

In your post at December 2, 2012 at 6:59 am you use Pascal’s Wager as an analogy,

In the context of your argument concerning use of energy sources, I think another useful analogy is the ‘famous last words’ of the great unbeliever Rabellais.

As he lay on his deathbed a Priest leaned over and asked him,
“Will you now renounce the Devil and all his works?”
Rabellais looked at the Priest and replied,
“This is not a time to be making enemies”
and he then died.

Richard

160. Patricia Ravasio,
Here’s the Bucky Fuller item I was looking for. Found it in Wackapedia:
Ephemeralization, a term coined by R. Buckminster Fuller, is the ability of technological advancement to do “more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing”. Fuller’s vision was that ephemeralization will result in ever-increasing standards of living for an ever-growing population despite finite resources. The concept has been embraced by those who argue against Malthusian philosophy.

Fuller uses Henry Ford’s assembly line as an example of how ephemeralization can continuously lead to better products at lower cost with no upper bound on productivity. Fuller saw ephemeralization as an inevitable trend in human development. The progression was from “compression” to “tension” to “visual” to “abstract electrical” (i.e., nonsensorial radiation, such as radio waves, x rays, etc.)
Doesn’t Ephemeralization agree with the stated policy of the 125 scientists to Ban Ki-Moon that “Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused”
I think Buckminster Fuller had it right in that technological advancement is the key to solving these problems and adapting to extreme weather events, etc.

161. DirkH says:

J. Philip Peterson says:
December 2, 2012 at 8:10 am
“Patricia Ravasio,
Here’s the Bucky Fuller item I was looking for. Found it in Wackapedia:
Ephemeralization, a term coined by R. Buckminster Fuller, is the ability of technological advancement to do “more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing”.”

Which sounds very much like Julian Simon in “The Ultimate Resource”. The book is free on the internet, here:
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/

162. MikeB says:

Andrew…you ask a very good question
“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”
Mr. Courtney thinks it’s a daft question because he clearly cannot answer it; so he decided to answer something else instead. He Probably didn’t read your question properly or maybe he was distracted by his mongoose. He also thinks that CO2 concentrations are rising exponentially. However, he is right about temperatures not having risen significantly over the last 16 years – but that wasn’t the question was it?
Does anyone have a proper answer?

163. From Pats comment https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/#comment-1161858 is this silliness about name calling.

Pat writes:

“From you guys, all I’m reading are nasty snide remarks and poop jokes. Am I really supposed to take you seriously? I know it’s Saturday night, but could you put down the Scotch and provide some facts?”

This after you post a link to a website that continually call skeptics names in EVERY post they make about what skeptics thinks.You also bring up two other warmist sources that have a history of producing ad homonyms against skeptics in their drivel grade babblings.

In my long experience on this topic I see you as a classic ignorant thinker of the subject matter.I have tangled with the likes of you since the early 1990’s when it became clear to me that there is an element of the population that LACK sufficient skeptical and reasoning skills to employ on the subject of climate science.

I have withdrawn from many places now because the level of warmist ignorance and stupidity is so unbelievable that I wonder if this is evidence of mass brainwashing to think like a turgid greenie environmentalist who have no idea what a total fool they make of themselves in propagating their absurd warmist tripe because they are part of some gian crowd.

Facts such as the unending modeled predictions of the last 34 years that have been part of a proven track record of failures? The missing “Hot spot”,The lack of the predicted warming trends that have been predicted over and over starting from the 1990 IPCC report to the last one in 2007.The lack of an accelerating sea level and temperature change increase from 1990.The lack of the widespread positive feedbacks that was strongly predicted over 25 years ago.

Those “facts” you clearly support?

ROFLMAO!

What about the NULL HYPOTHESIS Pat, that you and your deluded CAWG believers keep ignoring where there is no unusual deviations from the trends of the last 150 years after the LIA was thought to have ended.

Here is a temperature chart and comments by a prominent warmist I posted in a forum thread in the tireless effort to help the resident CAWG believer see reason.He is one of the very few warmist left that I bother to spend time trying to help bring him back to a rational state on the climate.He never did address what Dr. Jones said to Roger Harrabin in an interview:

Buzz’z reaction in the forum thread (The resident CAWG believer) to the chart DR. Jones that was created by Jo Nova using his supplied data in the interview that I repeatedly posted to show the evidence of a natural climate cycle is typical of low IQ warmist thinking capability.He simply fails to realize that his answer makes him a complete fool in the process as the evidence is clearly visible that there is nothing unusual going on temperature wise:

He writes,

“Backed off?? I don’t think so. More like gave up. Gave up because you posted the same damn graph that I had already addressed 3 times in 4 consecutive posts. I learned a long time ago that when you start idiotically repeating yourself over and over again that you don’t know what your talking about and are just repeating another denialist lie.”

The problem is that he never attacks what Dr. Jones said in the interview that the temperature chart is based on as shown in his FIRST response in the forum thread to the chart based on uber warmist own temperature data and I quote Buzz again:

“So What?? You keep making a big deal about this like it proves or disproves something. IT DOESN’T!! All it really shows is that global warming isn’t always going to be consistent.

There is just way too much more BS for me to debunk all of it tonight but I want to give you guys a link that repeats much of what I am saying and debunks some other common denialist talking points. See if you can respond to any of it without making yourselves look stupid.

The MetOffice link he posted: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/met-office-in-the-media-the-sunday-times-so-do-we-freeze-or-fry/

My reply here and he proves from them on afterwards that he has no idea what the NULL HYPOTHESIS is in his replies in regard to the chart I stubbornly keep reposting because he was being stupid as hell over it:

I really piled it on in 5 consecutive posts and he goes to pieces afterwards.

Ha ha ha ha ha….

164. Ray says:

If “denier” is considered to be perjorative, shouldn’t “alarmist” be considered the same? They are, after all, two sides of the same coin.

I would suggest that “skeptic” and “proponent” are more appropriate terms for the type of non-inflammatory discussion that is promoted here.

BTW, I am a skeptic. The facts alone should be enough to shame the proponents without the use of perjoratives and shaming proponents with the facts is something that this site and its’ contributors are very, very good at. Let’s not lower ourselves to their level by allowing our choice of perjorative while banning theirs.

165. Matt G says:

“Warmists are not blind to this fact, nor to the 15 year non warming minimum. Expect a paper out soon extending the date from 17 years to say 20 or 25 or even better 30 years of no warming.”

When or if that happens what little respect for science they had would have vanished. They can’t do that though and they know it because the period then becomes longer, than the warming scare was originally claimed. In fact it is already longer than the period that J Hansen claimed back in 1988. They have already extended these goal posts and been falsified by the scientific method.

Any longer just continues what charlatans they really are and about time the funding was withdrawn. In fact funding should be made available instead to show why natural factors have driven this period instead. There is no science to back up an excuse theoretical or evidence based on these extended periods mentioned. When a timeline becomes longer than the scientific conjecture time-frame, it no longer becomes the defining period.

166. Gail Combs says:

AndyG55 says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:46 am

Hint, Patricia.. remove the picture of the steaming chimney from your bucky link.. it makes you look like a FOOL !!!
___________________________________
Oh, go easy on him. He has correctly pictured the correct compound that is responsible for short term “Climate Change” BAN Dihydrogen Monoxide!

167. Jimbo says:

OOPS! Looks like a yearly failure now.

Independent – March 2000
Dr David Viner, CRU
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,…”

And 12 years later we still have that white stuff of the past.

2 December, 2012 UK
And the end of the cold snap is still not in sight, with freezing temperatures due to last into next week, possibly followed by more snow.

The white start to the month was enough to prompt record numbers of punters to place bets on snow falling on Christmas Day. According to bookmakers Ladbrokes, more money had been staked on a white Christmas on Saturday than by any other 1 December in its history.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/02/snow-icy-conditions-temperatures-plunge

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2635167

168. highflight56433 says:

Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm
“I hope you know that the vast majority of your readers are just curiosity seekers, wondering what the last deniers on earth will say and do to protect their turf.”

First and foremost is your underlying pinning projection that anyone who believes differently than you regarding AGW is a holocaust denier.

Secondly, I would suggest that of the over 600,000 pilots in the US,(http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/stats/pilots.html) plus the remaining world population of aviators plus the millions of folks with a hard science degree including the 33,000 that signed a petition discounting the AGW theory, plus the 50 very prominent NASA scientists and astronauts who issued a public letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr. requesting that NASA stop supporting unsubstantiated claims of manmade global warming, and those here at WUWT that they have a better understanding of weather and climate than you, and the 98 % consensus ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/ ) so proudly acclaimed by IPeCaC fellowship et. al.

Back to my early morning Dalmore.

169. richardscourtney says:

MikeB:

I copy all your egregious post at December 2, 2012 at 8:23 am to demonstrate how false it is.

You wrote

Andrew…you ask a very good question

“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”

Mr. Courtney thinks it’s a daft question because he clearly cannot answer it; so he decided to answer something else instead. He Probably didn’t read your question properly or maybe he was distracted by his mongoose. He also thinks that CO2 concentrations are rising exponentially. However, he is right about temperatures not having risen significantly over the last 16 years – but that wasn’t the question was it?
Does anyone have a proper answer?

My complete and proper answer is at December 2, 2012 at 7:51 am and said

andrew:

I write to answer your silly question at December 2, 2012 at 6:59 am in case there are any onlookers who fail to understand that it is daft.

Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?

I answer that this is because
the overall trend has varied prior to 1997 but stopped rising in 1997.

Nobody claims the overall trend was a constant before the global temperature stopped rising in 1997.

The important point is that global temperature has not risen for the last 16 years while atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued its exponential rise. Surely, even somebody sufficiently stupid as to ask your question can understand why that is pertinent to the AGW-hypothesis.

Richard

Clearly, you lack reading comprehension, or you lack ability to understand my answer, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote.

Richard

170. sceptical says:

richardscourtney says, “Nobody claims the overall trend was a constant before the global temperature stopped rising in 1997.”

In the next comment Jim Cripwell says, ” the rate of warming has got to exceed the 0.06 C per decade that has persisted for many decades, possibly back to the LIA.”

Surely, even somebody sufficiently stupid as to make the comment richardscourtney made can see the humor in him being shown to be wrong so quickly.

171. Stephen Wilde says:

rgbatduke says:
December 2, 2012 at 6:59 am

Agreed and seconded. Well put.

172. Gail Combs says:

Skunkpew says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:06 am

You think after all this time, they’d learn something and hold this convention in the middle of the summer when the alarmism is at its absolute peak. God help them, they can’t even get that right….
__________________________________
Why should they? They want a free vacation in some place nice and preferably warm. They kinda blew it with Copenhagen but I am sure Sex Workers (Prostitutes Offer Free Climate Summit Sex) kept them toasty.

173. Bruce Cobb says:

MikeB says:
December 2, 2012 at 8:23 am

Andrew…you ask a very good question
“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”
It’s actually an idiotic question, and only another idiot would think it has any merit. My guess, though, is that it is the type of “question” that trolls ask, in an effort to stop discussion. Do either of you dispute the Met’s own graph above? If so, why? And if not, go do your troll business elsewhere.

174. John F. Hultquist says:

Several writers (andrew@3:38, Dirk@4:42) have mentioned the scale of wind turbines and support facilities. Here are the facts as presented by the site I can see out my window — about 15 miles east of me.
http://pse.com/inyourcommunity/kittitas/Pages/Wild-Horse.aspx
Look beneath the photo for the “Fast facts” list

Concrete is measured in cubic yards; in this case 11,750. An average value for weight is about 150 pounds per cu. ft., but with a very light mix 100 pounds is possible and 300+ is attainable if a heavy aggregate (say hematite) is used. Play with the numbers, if you like. The anchor bolts and nuts are steel (also heavy) but I have never seen the combined weight.

Below are the coordinates for the installation in the link above.
47.012465, -120.201776
The building on which the view is focused is the visitor’s center (very nice and worth a visit). Zoom in and note the long white pointed thing next to it on the north side. That is a blade damaged in transit and used as a “touchable” display.
There is a smallish fixed angle solar unit to the northwest, here:
47.020556, -120.222968
The site gets very strong winds and they chose not to go with a “follow the sun” array because the units are more prone to damage.
Also, with the strong winds the turbines have to be “parked” – and produce no power.

175. Pat incredibly writes this silliness https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/#comment-1161809.

A partial quote from Pat “the comic” Ravasio:

“Boy are you sounding desperate. All the climate and environmental scientists in the world and only two of you are right? I hope you know that the vast majority of your readers are just curiosity seekers, wondering what the last deniers on earth will say and do to protect their turf.”

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

This is her FIRST comment in the thread and not a single effort to answer the blog post as written by Lord Monckton who spent the time to articulate a view of the science and the powers that be behind their fraud. Subsequent comments here show she has no interest in discussing what Lord Monckton has to say to instead drive some of the traffic from here to her brain dead blog and try to convince people who are far more rational and logical than herself about her utterly insane CAWG belief that long ago died scientifically.

We are invited to visit her blog site that make it clear she is not going to discuss what the affable Monckton wote here because she is not interested in what “deniers” have to say.Yes she calls us deniers over and over on her blog hardly a good setting for skeptical visitors.People,it is NOT worth the visit because it is like going into the Twilight Zone where Pat does the usual warmist stupid arguments something I long know about and now avoid because it is like entering the muddy pigs den there is nothing intelligent going on there.

This is a classic uber warmist troll who has no idea or interest in the discussion and will like so many other ignorant greenie push the CAWG propaganda no matter what the evidence show and what a pathetic show it is she is trying to push on us this late into the NO warming trend of the previous 16 years.

176. William Grubel says:

IPeCaC or ipecac. Swallow either one and you get the same result. Look it up.

177. Viscount Monckton says

…the report will hilariously suggest that up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in the past 60 years was manmade.

No, that is not a typesetting error. The new official meme will be that if it had not been for all those naughty emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the world would have gotten up to 0.8 Cº cooler since the 1950s.

How contrived this result is can be see from the 4th assessment report. Analyzing the UNIPCC’s own figures of Radiative Forcing Components, it can be seen that
1. A number of greenhouse gases have resulted in human-caused warming. But, after deducting negative forcings (aerosols), only CO2 matters. CO2 accounts for 104% of the net warming, but just 52% of the positive forcings. Very convenient when the only anthropogenic greenhouse gas increasing year-on-year is CO2.
2. The uncertainties in measuring negative forcings is huge. Just so happens that if you add up the range of uncertainties on the negative forcings, they are exactly 200% of the mid-points.
3. Similarly, just so happens that if you add up the range of uncertainties on the positive forcings, they are almost exactly 40% of the mid-points.
4. Add in that the only natural forcing they will admit to (volcanic) is tiny compared to the anthropogenic, and no mention of water vapor changes.

Now the UNIPCC may not have fiddled the figures to get this result. But with the many numbers falling so neatly together, and all making the result more extreme, it is unlikely to be otherwise.

I analyzed the figures here.

178. Why is it almost universal that warmists’ arguments are so threadbare when it comes to
scientifically acceptable data? They seem to rely on the fact that majority rules and the
(presumed) majority is always right. The only deniers I see are those who deny the absence of warming, the absence of predicted super hurricanes, etc. etc. Let’s start pointing out their denials
of patently obvious non-events, and data.

179. Alan Millar says:

MikeB says:
December 2, 2012 at 8:23 am

“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”

Does anyone have a proper answer?

Simple!

The years after 1997 were considerably hotter than the average temperature of the years in the 1950-1997 period. Obviously adding them to those years increases the overall average.

Indeed the 15 year period since 1997 would be the hottest 15 year period in the temperature record.

Still means though that there has been no statistically significant warming in this century.

Alan

180. Christopher Monckton,

I appreciated your post. Thank you.

QUESTION – If many scientifically skeptical independent thinkers are considering a new overal strategy to nullify the biased scientific research cherry picked by the IPCC to artificially force a CAGW ‘consensus’, what would be your recommendation for a new strategy?

John

181. Simon says:

Disingenious Sir. 1998 was a mega El Niño so you are starting from a high base. If you had used 1999 or pre-1997 as the startpoint you would have estimated significantly more warming. Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001. Two years of La Niña weather patterns have help keep the temperatures down.

[NOTE – you probably don’t realize that the graph isn’t Monckton’s, but the Daily mail newspaper, note also the tags of humor, satire. -mod]

182. Gail Combs says:

james griffin says:
December 2, 2012 at 2:09 am

It is impossible for CO2 to be the driver to extreme temperatures as CO2′s ability to create heat diminishes as you stack it up. By the time 300-360ppm is achieved a further 60ppm for instance will only produce less than one tenth of one degree. Based on this we have already taken 75% of any of the heat we will ever get from CO2. This appears to be well known but kept from the public as are a number of other things….
_______________________________
Just to add to that. GRAPH: log response of temperature vs increase in CO2 it shows we are at the point of diminishing returns.

183. michael hart says:

Mike B,
By carefully choosing (“cherry-picking”) starting and finishing points you can show temperatures rising or falling, according to your preferences.

Statistician William Briggs has a blog-post showing how easy it is too fool either yourself or other people with linear-trends drawn through a time-series.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5107

184. “I see what appear to be factual, indepth reports and comments from http://www.350.org, thinkprogress.com…”
Oh my aching sides!!
Whenever did either of those gangs of special pleaders ever produce anything factual or in-depth??
ROFL doesn’t start to describe it. You’ll be quoting SkepticalScience next.

185. Letter to Time Magazine (again)
Bryan Walsh continues to stir false alarm, this time claiming that “as the globe continues to warm”,
… “there is no way to know just how much man-made climate change might have amplified Sandy”.
Time Magazine (Dec. 3 2012)
Can I just point out again to him and your readers that there has not been any global warming in over 15 years now?
In fact, the trend over the past 10 years has been negative, i.e. global cooling:

According to my own analysis of 47 weather stations, this global cooling will continue:

http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

and indeed it is this global cooling that is generally causing more rain, more snow and cooler weather, globally, on average.

(Remember also that when water vapor in the atmosphere cools more, you get more clouds and more precipitation, at certain places).

As the farmers in Anchorage have noted,

the cooling is so bad there that they do not get much of any harvests.

And it seems NOBODY is telling them there that it is not going to get any better. The cooling will last until 2030-2040. See here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/

The sad story is, that as we enter 2013, and where the world should prepare itself for climate change due to (natural) global cooling,

for example, by initiating more agricultural schemes at lower latitudes (FOOD!),

and providing more protection against more precipitation at certain places (FLOODS!),

the media and the powers-that-be are twiddling with their thumbs, not listening to the real scientists,

e.g. those not making any money and nice journeys out of the gravy train that “global warming” has become.

186. Green Sand says:

AGW theory is that temperatures will increase as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. My question is simple, is it doing what it says on the tin?

10 year temperature trend is slightly negative -0.04C/decade
15 year temperature trend is slightly positive +0.04C/decade
30 year temperature trend is significantly positive +0.16C/decade

The above are monthly rolling HadCRUT4 trends up to and including Oct 2012.

Whilst the 30 year trend is at present significantly positive, if the 10 year and 15 year trends remain significantly below the 30 year trend it can only reduce. Is it doing what it says on the tin? Don’t know yet, only time will tell, but keep your eye on the shorter term trends because they will dictate the long term future of the 30 year trend. If they go above the 30 year trend then it will increase, if they stay below it will reduce. There will be short term ups and downs from the past data but they will not affect the long term trend. The 30 year rate of warming has been reducing for 9 years, whilst the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to increase.

187. Jimmy Haigh says:

RossP says:
December 1, 2012 at 9:04 pm

“Pat Ravasio — Even Ben Santer is starting scratch his head about how all those very expensive computer models keep exaggerating the warming all you guys desperately want to see.”

Well Ben. You might not know why but we do. It’s easy: You are wrong and so are your bloody models.

188. JohnH says:

@Pat Ravasio

I actually followed your link to 350.org, just to see what a real science site would look like. I was greeted by an aerial photo of 1200 students arranged to create a cartoon-like image of a lighthouse. That’s not science.

Maybe there was something better if I scrolled down. More photos, this time of people who were walking around, carrying signs in Doha. Silly slogans, similar to the “Think Green” bumper stickers I see on the back of minivans in the suburbs, and just as inconsistent. It’s a little hard to take someone seriously when they use fossil fuels to travel (either to Doha or to the local mall) while protesting the use of fossil fuels. That’s not science.

So I looked even farther down the page. FINALLY an article that contained some science! Concerns about the health effects of living near the proposed Keystone pipeline. Upon reading the article, I found this claim about living near the shipping channel in Houston:

The chances of contracting leukemia here are 56 percent, and of course, this is related to the petrochemical industry.

Really? 56% of all people living within 2 miles of the channel of Houston get leukemia? Well, it turns out that the real study found that leukemia rates were 56% higher than normal for a single type of leukemia, but that’s not nearly the same as a 56% rate of leukemia overall. So, yes, there was some science there, but it was ridiculously alarmist and obviously wrong. That article was posted on November 29th, and in the days that have followed NO ONE (including you) has bothered to fact check it or offer any skepticism about a wildly inflated bit of bad science.

189. highflight56433 says:

John Whitman says:
December 2, 2012 at 9:10

Christopher Monckton,

I appreciated your post. Thank you.

QUESTION – If many scientifically skeptical independent thinkers are considering a new overal strategy to nullify the biased scientific research cherry picked by the IPCC to artificially force a CAGW ‘consensus’, what would be your recommendation for a new strategy?

John

I suspect Lord Monckton will advise a strategy to defund; take away the buttery waste of wealth they acquire via criminally lying. Charge them with defrauding the public.

190. DirkH says:

MikeB says:
December 2, 2012 at 8:23 am

“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”

Because a least squares trend is a nonlinear operation. You can’t expect two partial trends to add up or average out to the trend over the whole series. Notice the behaviour of the OLDS trends against the moving average over a 100 months here:

191. DirkH says:

John Whitman says:
December 2, 2012 at 9:10 am
“QUESTION – If many scientifically skeptical independent thinkers are considering a new overal strategy to nullify the biased scientific research cherry picked by the IPCC to artificially force a CAGW ‘consensus’, what would be your recommendation for a new strategy?”

a) Throw it away and stop calling the IPCC reports a scientific work, they are not, as the mission statement of the IPCC says that they have the job of finding evidence for antropogenic warming. That is not how science works. The IPCC reports therefore are an entirely political work, and have been from the start. To be more precise, it is politics disguised as science.

b) Resume normal scientific operations. If a “professional scientific organisation” is not happy with that, boycot it, terminate membership, stop buying its journals, starve it to death. Organisations can and must be replaced if rotten.

192. Steve C says: December 2, 2012 at 12:48 am: Pat Ravasio – You want to see some facts? […]
It is precisely through ascertaining the facts that many of us became “disbelievers”: I, for example, used to think as you seem to, until a friend put cash on the table for anyone who could show him a proof of catastrophic manmade climate change. After a couple of weeks’ searching, I became seriously worried at the quality of the “science” I was seeing.

I was luckier: I only needed 30 minutes. It was models all the way down.

193. Tom Jones says:

Although the statistically-inclined will fight a rear-guard action to claim that the temperature trend is still rising, not many of even the faithful believe that. The big switch is on to talk about “Global Wierding” and forget about the temperature trend, or extend the first data at which it can be measured way, way out. Global Weirding only requires forgetting anything that we didn’t experience personally as an adult, making almost everything unprecedented in short order.

Pat:
“And should I be wrong, that you actually do beleive what you write, then you will publish this comment with a reply.”

195. MikeB says:

Thank you Alan Millar,
But Andrew’s question was not about averages – but about trends. That is to say ‘the rate of increase ‘ of temperature is seen to be higher if you extend measurements to 2012 instead of stopping at 1997. What you say about averages is of course correct but that was not the problem. Did you bother to plot this out on ‘WoodForTrees’ for example, as suggested? I don’t know which data set Andrew was referring to, it probably applies to all of them, but here it is for HADCRUT3.
The rate of increase from 1950 to 2012 is higher than that from 1950 to 1997 but warming clearly stalled after 1997. An interesting paradox. Not that simple!

196. Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:44 am
[…[It’s not about religion at all, but about calculating risks of doing nothing, versus the potential upside of facing what may indeed (and no one really knows) be the most serious issue our species will ever face.[…]

The precautionary principle!, or, how to consider hypothetical (conjectuarl, actually) assertions as if they were reality. Too post-modern for my taste and, in this subject, extremely expensive.

You’re into the arts or humanities, isn’t it? With all that importance given to narratives?

I knew it. Pat, that wasn’t nice, IMHO..

197. markx says:

Gail Combs says: December 2, 2012 at 8:04 am

The comment by Gail is something we should all read twice. That is what it is all about, someone somewhere is lobbying for an advantage that will benefit their pocket (usually successfully).

Now, having said that I don’t hold that there is a conspiracy or an “Ag Cartel” as such, but do agree that the end result is the same as if there was one.

The problem is that all these concepts of free trade and trade agreements are pursued and signed because someone, somewhere thinks they are getting an advantage. This is really our markets at work now, and, as you can see in every sector big business wins – computing, telecommunications, energy, agriculture, mining etc etc.

Some will also see this (carbon actions/or lack thereof) as being a useful trade barrier lever.

Government are usually lobbied and convinced into thinking they win too, but whether they do or not then the next election comes around and it no longer matters (Hey, the out of work pollie can always become a lobbiest, eh Algore?)

This whole show goes ahead because there are a myriad of sectors and individuals who think they can see an advantage, and there are a whole lot of “average Joe public” out there who will buy anything if you wrap it well enough and tell them a the same time they are saving the world.

198. theBuckWheat says:

The one constant among advocates of Man-Caused Climate Change is that only government can solve the problem, and the bigger the government solution the better, and the more it justifies destruction of individual rights and prosperity the better. I don’t need a PhD.to recognize socialists worshiping Gaia when I see it.

199. Grant says:

Haven’t you heard Mr. Moncton? 2012 is going to be the first, or second or third warmest year on record. Greenland and the Antarctic are melting at unprecedented rates and destructive storms are going to destroy us. Denier! (Sarc off )

200. son of mulder says:

“MikeB says:
December 2, 2012 at 8:23 am

“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”

Does anyone have a proper answer?”

I have a novel analogy, same principle. The Grand Old Duke of York is marching his men to the top of the hill and then marching them down again and he measures their height every hour and calculates average height since the start of their trek.

Every hour from the start of their trek their average height is higher than the previous hour. Whan he starts marching them down again the average height from the start of the trek continues to get higher for several hours. When they get back to the bottom he calculates their average height from the start and is surprised that at the end of the trek their average height by this method is approx half the height of the hill.

But The grand Old Duke fancies himself as a scientist and in the face of the empirical evidence he hypothesises that when you march your men to the top of the hill, because they are no longer putting weight on the zero level then the height of the ground level rises by half the height they have risen to the top.

He is also a great fan of Feynman and as he has already done the experiment by originally marching his men to the top of the hill and back he has validated his hypotheses. Just to prove his theory is robust to walking to the bottom of valleys and back up the other side he is not surprised to find that when they get to the top of the otherside of the valley his average height is approx half the depth of the valley below the level.

And the corollary of the story which Feynman failed to convey is that if you are as stupid as the Grand Old Duke of York don’t get involved with science.

201. LetsBeReasonable says: December 2, 2012 at 3:35 am – Werner, I must have done something wrong with the graphs. I changed the starting point at 1996 instead of 1997 and all the trend lines went up. What is happening?

Being a skeptic, I did that too. The conclusion is, there is warming (it has been around for some time) but not since 1997. The assertion “there has been no warming during the past 16 years” is true. (And what will happen now?)

202. Jimmy Haigh says:

I’ve just watched an excruciating report on the BBC on the Doha Climate Jamboree with uber warmonger Roger Harriban spouting 5 minutes of absolute climate bollocks. Absolutely outrageous stuff. I was swearing at the telly.

203. Kev-in-Uk says:

Jordan says:
December 2, 2012 at 8:04 am

Well said – I would be interested to observe the same ‘situation’ played out at RC or SkS – the good lady could try and post a query there about why there is no warming, perhaps posting a link to this piece? Anyone want to bet how long the post would survive?
That said, if the woman has any real interest in the environment, she will find out in short order how badly she is being mislead and conned and will return!
If any of the responses have ‘engaged’ her brain and her curiosity – and she does indeed start to question the consensus – this will be yet another small victory for science!

204. davidmhoffer says:

“Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That’s one of the dangers of messing with anomalies and trying to ram linear trends through them. Remember that anomalies are a difference from a starting point. So, two anomalies of the same value mean no change, but that’s now how the math comes out depending on what the average of the time series is and what those anomalies are in comparison to that average. I’ll use a made up and exagerated series to demonstrate.

Suppose we have 6 anomalies as follows:

1,2,3,4,5,15
The “average” anomaly would be 5. The trend would be 2*5/5=2

Now let’s add a 7th anomaly which represents 0 change from the 6th one:

1,2,3,4,5,15,15
The “average” anomaly is now 6.42. The trend would be 2*6.42/6=2.14

So….nothing changed from year 6 to year 7, but the trend over all went up. Let’s add another year of no change:

1,2,3,4,5,15,15,15
The “average” is now 7.5. The trend would be 2*7.5/7=2.14

At this point, the trend hasn’t changed much because there are more years of data, so adding one year is a smaller portion of the data as a whole. We’ve reached a break even point of sorts. If we add still one more year of no change, the trend will start to decline:

1,2,3,4,5,15,15,15,15
The “average” is now 8.3, still higher than before. But the trend 2*8.33/8=2.08 went down.

So, by adding anomalies which represent a change of 0 year over year, we can show that depending on the average and the number of data points on each side of the average, we can create a “trend” that seems to increase as we add additional years of no change, and then decrease as we add still more years of no change. If we wrote the whole data series as the year over year change we would get:

_,1,1,1,1,10,0,0,0,0

By looking at it “year over year” we can see that there were increasing temps for the first 5 years and then no change after that. Anomalies have many problems in terms of how they mask the real data, and this is one of them.

205. G. Karst says:

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am

… But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment?

Patricia, I think you will agree that all human caused disasters are caused by people doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. You are advocating just that. We could use all available resources to prevent further warming, only to be confronted by long and protracted cooling.

I cannot definitively point to the dire consequences, of diverting resources to the non-problem of AGW, as the consequences will only appear after the fact. Starvation and mass death are known consequences of protracted cooling and history should provide plenty of precedence of such. Comparatively, a fractional warming has always been a boon to the earth’s bio-mass and humanity. CO2 has been proven to be a boon to biosphere in both quantity and quality and to artificially declare it a pollutant, will prove disastrous, to the biomass and our economy.

The precautionary first principle is to take no actions unless the consequences of such actions can be predicted. Where is the model capable of such certainty?! You need to go back to the beginning, of your climate investigations, and read published papers, that do not support the current ideological driven research. There is much you are not aware of, and WUWT archives will give you an idea, of how much research you have missed.

The great hue and cry, by misinformed environmentalist to “DO SOMETHING… ANYTHING AT ALL” is a recipe for disaster, of the human kind. GK

• Pat Ravasio says:

So wait, you are saying that fossil fuels do not cause warming, but that if we shift away from them to clean energies, there is a risk of the earth cooling? Uh, could you just think that through and try agan?

206. Gail Combs says:

Silver Ralph says:
December 2, 2012 at 7:22 am

….I contacted Greenpeace UK about the ever increasing world population – which represents the greatest threat to the world environment, more so than any trace gas could possibly be.

Their answer was that “Greenpeace never has and never will campaign on population issues”. So there you have it. Greenpeace will never address or debate the most important factor in the moders world – overpopulation…..
____________________________________
They can not address it because the best method for reducing population is modern INDUSTRIAL civilization and they are opposed to industrialization.

Third world food production needs cheap labor aka child labor. Food production accounts for about 70% of child labor in the world. In some instances the children are sold into “Bonded labour” link 1 and link 2 Either way the child is look at as a financial asset for the family. Some child workers are reported to be as young as four according to the US department of Labor. As the report states “”Slavery is not dead.”1 It is found in the practice of forced or bonded child labor, which is considered to be the most exploitative and egregious form of child labor.”

Take a look at the fertility rates for different countries and you can see modern INDUSTRIAL countries have a fertility rate at or below the replacement rate of 2.1

207. Alan Clark says:

Pat… hilarious. Everything you say. Simply hilarious. I actually blew stuff out of my nose when you implied that 350.org is a credible source of “scientific” information. LOL! Here’s another extremely credible source of info for you… http://www.nationalenquirer.com/

LOL! LOL!

208. Mark says:

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:

What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy?
What would these forms be?
Wind power is literally prehistoric with the first photo voltaic cell having been made in 1839. Producing even modern wind turbines and solar cells results in all sorts of pollution. They are also both a very poor way to generate electricity. Needing 100% backup from either steam or gas turbine.
If wind power was so good commercial shipping would never have switched to steam (and later internal combustion) engines.

209. DirkH says:

Rufus says:
December 2, 2012 at 10:17 am
“Of course, predicting these advances in technology is just as difficult as predicting changes in the climate. One wonders how the models “control” for these factors. Of course, they can’t.”

Ray Kurzweil has occupied himself with that for the past 30 years. see
http://www.kurzweilai.net/

210. spvincent says:

It’s noteworthy that the article provides no references to back up the statement that there has been no warming for the last 16 years. Not entirely surprising, since it’s based on an article published in a British tabloid newspaper, the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29ZOznOnr), and which misrepresents the work of the Met Office themselves (http://earthsky.org/earth/uk-met-office-responds-global-warming-did-not-stop-16-years-ago)

211. Gail Combs says:

markx says:
December 2, 2012 at 10:07 am

…Now, having said that I don’t hold that there is a conspiracy or an “Ag Cartel” ….
____________________________________
Just to make it clear I did not come up with “Ag Cartel” Dr. John M. Connor, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University did. THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL GLOBAL CARTELS OF THE 1990s: OVERVIEW AND UPDATE

Private International Cartels: Effectiveness, Welfare, and Anticartel Enforcement
The sudden discovery of a global pandemic of international cartels in the mid 1990s, after a hiatus of a half century, is puzzling. That the greatest number and most injurious conspiracies should be clustered in the food and feed ingredients industries adds another element of mystery to the puzzle. Whatever the causes of this unexpected resurgence of global price fixing, the reaction of the antitrust-enforcement agencies has been fascinating….

International private cartels are at least 125 years old (Voigt 1962).[1] The German-Swiss dyestuffs cartel that was established around 1880 became a prototype for the late 19th century international cartels. It was an amalgamation of two pre-existing national cartels that through predatory behavior against smaller producers in the UK, France, and Italy was able to ensure Western European dominance for its Swiss and German members. Word War I destroyed international cartels of this type, though most of them were re-established in the 1920s….

So yes the Ag cartel was alive and well in the 1990’s and pushing for the 1995 WTO agreement on Agriculture that was written by Cargill VP Dan Amstutz.

212. Jimbo says:
December 2, 2012 at 3:18 am
I maybe wrong here but the 16 years without warming is more serious than previously thought. Are we getting near to falsification as projected by the IPCC / Hansen style????? If not then how many years would it take?

There’s no way to falsify a narrative or an ideology until it becomes entirely absurd, and even then it will have supporters.

213. highflight56433 says:

Josualdo says:
December 2, 2012 at 10:06 am

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:44 am
[…[It’s not about religion at all, but about calculating risks of doing nothing, versus the potential upside of facing what may indeed (and no one really knows) be the most serious issue our species will ever face.[…]

The precautionary principle!,

Exactly! Had the precautionary principle ruled mankind, a horse might never had been tamed, fire would have been left to the gods, the moon would have been only to view by the curious and so it would have been that mariners stayed on dry land as well.

The faulty claim in the precautionary CAGW crowd is: There is no tsunami to make an escape. Who would not enjoy the comfort of a warmer climate? Obviously those who spend entire lives living in Las Vegas manage 120+ degree days. Imagine I could plant banana trees and limes for my home grown agave tequila drinks; stay home to sleep off my tequila; play golf when I am not sleeping…everyday; read WUWT under a palm enjoying the warm CAGW breezes. (no flies please)

Point here is the CAGW alarmist are crying wolf but the only wolf are the alarmist wolves baiting their prey.

214. John West says:

@RGB@Duke

WOW! Great comment, worthy of being made into a post IMHO. Although, I would have preferred “fueled by” instead of “burning” with regards to uranium; but, oh well, it’s a small matter.

@Pat Ravasio
You insinuate your comment might not get posted and that its content is somehow difficult to our position with “then you will publish this comment with a reply” thereby accusing WUWT of censorship and WUWT’ers of having a delicate position highly dependent upon information control. I’m sure you’re psyche has rationalized away what should by all rights be a realization that it is your position that is delicate and requires careful control of information. After you’ve had a few days to digest what happened I want you to consider two things.

1) You cite the PR site [desmog] who likes to insult people by accusing them of PR, without realizing that we read that site too.

2) Why have you been reluctant to approve my comment on your blog? Please tell me you’re not exhibiting the projectionist tendencies that we’ve seen all too often among the alarmists.

————————————————————————————
Jimbo says: December 2, 2012 at 10:39 am
Patricia,
You have been replied to by physicist on WUWT. He always gets to the heart of the matter. You may learn a thing or two. Read it, you have nothing to lose.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/#comment-1162124

——————————————————————————-

John West says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 2, 2012 at 9:09 am
Wait a minute, “ill effects of fossil fuel mining and use are a much greater threat to humankind”, please compare and contrast life circa 1850 to now in countries that have developed fossil fuel infrastructures; then compare and contrast the standard of living in those countries to those that haven’t developed fossil fuel infrastructures before rattling on about how evil fossil fuels are. We owe a lot to fossil fuel use, including a better environment. Imagine if we were all still cooking with wood and riding horses, what an environmental disaster. Look, we didn’t grow dependent on fossil fuels overnight and we’re not going to switch to “renewables” overnight by abandoning our infrastructure investment either, that would be foolish. Yes, eventually fossil fuels will either be replaced or re-sourced but this kind of transition isn’t going to happen quickly nor does it need to. What’s the worst thing that could happen? 5+ billion people in the world with over half starving and/or freezing. That’s the real stuff of mayhem. Not to mention a whole new set of bureaucracies, taxes, and possible loss of sovereignty to an international organization with no checks and balances, regard to population (i.e.: Iran = 1 vote, USA = 1 vote), or fundamental understanding of individual rights and the potential loss of liberty that goes with all of that top down “we know what’s best” mentality in power. “Puh-lease”, I’d rather have the warming.
————————————————————————–
Pat Ravasio says: December 2, 2012 at 8:37 am
But even if this is correct, what’s the downside to developing clean energies that will not pollute the atmosphere, our water, our lands and our bodies? Especially since investing in these activities will stimulate the economy? Let’s take a small portion of that huge defense budget and defend ourselves against the known and unknown ill effects of fossil fuels.

215. rgb: I have seen many of your posts over time. Excellent stuff :-)

216. Stephen Richards says:

Jimmy Haigh says:

December 2, 2012 at 10:26 am
I’ve just watched an excruciating report on the BBC on the Doha Climate Jamboree with uber warmonger Roger Harriban spouting 5 minutes of absolute climate bollocks. Absolutely outrageous stuff. I was swearing at the telly.

I just watched the other lot (ITV) talking to the Tydall centre. Same ole same ole. Just unbelieveable crap.

217. Bruce Cobb says:

@Spvincent, the Met does a lot of tap dancing around the fact (and it’s an undeniable one) that since 1998 there has been no further warming. I will admit, the tap dancing is noteworthy.

218. Stephen Richards says:

spvincent says:

December 2, 2012 at 11:13 am
First of all you need to be more discerning. Read the Met off pr more carefully. Then go to the met off site and download their data and plot. Then go to the NOAA site and do the same. Then come back and apologise.

219. G. Karst says:

spvincent: Your rebuttal and that of the Met, consists only of repeated statements that we are currently warm. It confirms that temperatures have been flat: “The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.” So while we ARE warm there has been no significant warming for one half a climatic period. Even my grandchildren understand the difference between being warm and warming. It doesn’t say much, that you don’t. GK

220. Regarding steeper slope for 1950-2012 than for 1950-97:

There was a super El Nino year in 1997/98, skewing the average.

Mystery solved.

221. Gail Combs says:

spvincent says:
December 2, 2012 at 11:13 am

It’s noteworthy that the article provides no references to back up the statement….
_____________________________
But others here have. See Werner Brozek’s comment. Therefore your comment is a FAIL!

222. MrX says:

There is no warming and yet the alarmists insist there is. Their best argument is to laugh at the suggestion that two skeptics are correct and all the climate scientists are wrong. It’s quite ironic that you need to be a scientist to read that there has been no warming from those very same scientists. And yet they insist that skeptics are wrong when they mention the non-warming.

With alarmists, it’s like fight club. Rule #1 is that there currently is no warming. Rule #2 is no one talks about the non-warming.

223. AndyG55 says:

Silver Ralph says:

“Actually, Andy, since water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, perhaps the real devil is the cooling towers, and not the smoke stack!!”

The amount of water vapour released as steam by humans is infinitesimal compared to water vapour released by the forces of nature. Human steam, is a total irrelevance.

But PLEASE, don’t give the nonces that after world control any new ideas !!

They might decide steam is the next boggieman !!

224. Henry@davidmhoffer
Do the same plot with Hadcrut 3? Note the difference? Why?

(and no warming from 1997 or 1998)

My own results suggest we are heading for more cooling
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

looking at energy-in

Better be ready for more storms, cold and snow.

225. Matt G says:

I don’t agree with Had4, it only has been changed to show a little more warming where there was none. It was a travesty that no significant warming was occurring so the need to adjust for confirmation bias was due. With Had4 including Arctic data where there was none available in the past, it is like comparing oranges with apples. If it makes global temperatures warmer now it certainly will make global temperatures warmer in the past during similar periods. It may be improving the data in the long term for future, but it makes the older data a unfair comparison and more worthless for comparing honest trends in the past with data including more Arctic values. Saying that the honest trends comparing with historic warmer periods have been lost long ago. The Arctic stations say there is no difference recently to the late 1930’s/ early 1940’s.

The change by Had4 was explained due to including more Arctic data, but has been shown previously like the GISS Arctic temperatures would have to be many degrees higher just to affect the global data, so there has been moving chairs around the deck for other regions too.

The final irony that may not have been thought about with this change, is once the Arctic starts cooling in future it will have a bigger affect on cooling global temperatures. I bet you didn’t think about that one did you?

226. Steve Oregon says:

“So tomorrow’s predicted warming that has not happened today cannot have caused yesterday’s superstorms, now, can it?”

That has been my biggest sticking point for years but never put it so well.

All of the countless observations (and fabrications) being falsely attributed to global warming have come from alarmists pretending the future warming happened yesterday.

With 16 yrs (and counting) of no warming contradicting their scurrilous portrayal of the past, present and future alarmists have no where to go, no where to hide and no cards left to play.

They are sitting there at the table, clinging to the last of their chips with no friends in the room.

They are taking pathetic to levels mankind has never seen before.

227. Ian L. McQueen says:

@Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am

Welcome to our group. Please keep an open mind as you read the various comments. Some are a bit rough, but their writers feel that the comment is justified.
Re part of the information at http://truth-out.org/news/item/13083-meet-the-climate-denial-machine regarding the supposed confidence of “climate experts” (the (in)famous 97.4%), please read
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/ for the full story. If you investigate, you are going to find similar rebuttals for the views. of you or those with similar thinking.

IanM

228. Mindert Eiting says:

MikeB and others: regression slope is based on a sum of cross products (in which temperature is a term), but let’s keep it easy with a mean: In 1950 your village had one poor resident. Each year someone arrived who was a bit wealthier and in 1997 you saw the first millionaire. Since then each year a millionaire arrived but all millionaires 1997-2012 were equally rich. Compute over time the mean wealth 1950-1997 and the mean wealth 1950-2012.

229. spvincent says:

It’s a noisy data set, and what’s been done is to select a starting point corresponding to a large spike in temperature (the large 1997/98 El Nino event), pick a suitably small time interval, throw away the rest of the data and then blindly apply some statistical routines like regression analysis. With such a technique you can always find some period where the warming appears to have levelled off but it’s meaningless as a way to determine future trends.

This graph illustrates the point rather well.

Do you seriously think that the conclusion presented, that warming has stopped, would pass peer review?

230. davidmhoffer says:

Pat Ravasio says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm
So wait, you are saying that fossil fuels do not cause warming, but that if we shift away from them to clean energies, there is a risk of the earth cooling? Uh, could you just think that through and try agan?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Pat, it is customary to quote the person you are responding to so we know who said it, and exactly what they said.

Not knowing who said exactly what, my suggestion to you would be that most skeptics don’t argue that CO2 does not cause warming. They argue that the amount is far less than claimed, and certainly not catastrophic. As for potential for an ice age, yes that is a possibility. The earth has spent much more time in ice ages than in interglacials, and the current interglacial is in fact getting long in the tooth.

Would elevated CO2 levels save us? Doubtful. All the fossil fuel we have burned in the last century has only added about 100 ppm to the background CO2 levels. Please keep in mind that CO2 is logarithmic. To get one additional degree out of it, you would have to double current levels which are currently around 400 ppm. So if an ice age sets in, we’d need 6 or 8 degrees to save our butts. For an extra 6 degrees we’d need:

2 x 400 = 800 = 1 degree
2 x 800 = 1600 = 2 deg
3200 = 3 deg
6400 = 4 deg
12,800 = 5 deg
25,600 = 6 deg

So we’d need to pump into the atmosphere about 250 TIMES as much CO2 as we did in the last 100 years. And that’s assuming that feedbacks aren’t negative, and the data is increasingly suggesting that they are (in which case we’d need even more).

This same problem works in reverse by the way. If the planet’s temperature would otherwise be stable, those are the amounts of CO2 to cause those amounts of warming. Adding 100 ppm of CO2 to 280 ppm as we did in the last 100 years is a 40% increase. Adding 100 ppm to 400 is only a 25% increase, and correspondingly much less warming than the previous 100 ppm.

231. Ray says:

SPVincent,
The Met Office’s insistence that temperatures have continued rising over the past 15 years is based on their claim that the temperature trend for the period from 1997 to 2012 shows +0.03C per decade for a total temperature rise of +0.05C for that period.

That is to say, if the per decade trend continues, by the year 2345 the temperature will rise 1.0C over the current value. Whoa!!!

Of course, how they can measure a GLOBAL average temperature to the resolution of a few hundreths of a degree is a mystery to me. Further compounding the confusion over their statement, their graph actually shows a declining temperature trend since 2000. Go figure!

232. felikschfeliksch says:

Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 …

I’ll put it differently from Mr. Courtney. The 50ies and 60ies have been relatively cold, after it was 1997 relatively warm. As you add the warmer years after 1997- although they are cooler than 1997-98 – you have more warm years at the end and thus the linear trend has to increase; it goes over the temps in the last years of your data row. Try it out in a spreadsheet – you’ll beat Phil Jones.

233. DirkH says:

Pat Ravasio says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm
“So wait, you are saying that fossil fuels do not cause warming, but that if we shift away from them to clean energies, there is a risk of the earth cooling? Uh, could you just think that through and try agan?”

Pat, it would be helpful if you indicated to whom you answered. My answer is this: A doubling of CO2 (100% increase) has an increased radiative forcing of 3.5 W/m^2 as a consequence. We are only at 40% so probably only 2 W/m^2 or so for now . Compared to the variation of insolation at the surface due to variation of cloud cover totally insignificant. As Lüning and Vahrenholt show in Die Kalte Sonne
(english interview of Lüning here:

)
there is historical evidence for significant solar influence much stronger than that – probably modulation of cloud cover OR an effect of very variable UV radiation component of solar spectrum.
No matter which it is, this solar influence is NOT accounted for by the IPCC and is probably the REAL key to future temperature development.

Yes, antropogenic CO2 has an influence, BUT, it’s probably so small that we wouldn’t even be able to discern it in the noise if we tried to measure it. (I know of no conclusive observational proof of long term increased average backradiation in the CO2 absorption/emission band. )

234. Pat, the world is cooling, naturally. Got it? We have left you many clues. We can take a horse to the water but we cannot make him drink.

235. Bruce Cobb says:

Pat Ravasio says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm
So wait, you are saying that fossil fuels do not cause warming, but that if we shift away from them to clean energies, there is a risk of the earth cooling? Uh, could you just think that through and try agan?
Huh? How on earth did you come up with that? Reading comprehension FAIL.

236. Sean says:

Pat Ravasio says: “Hi my name is Pat Ravasio and I am an ignorant climate cult sock puppet”

Yes, thanks for the update Pat. Keep on drinking the Kool-aide at 350.org. Maybe try spreading some of that propaganda in your garden and see if it makes the plants grow…

237. TimO says:

I live in Florida and have not burst into flames yet. Also, we have gone seven years without being hit by a hurricane. Maybe we could encourage all the warmer panic’ers to move north and settle Canada and Alaska… Naked in the winter when they can feel the climate….

238. I would like to thank Anthony, the mods and everybody for having allowed me to read several excellent comments here. Such as those by Gail Combs, davidmhoffer on operations on trends and the very clear and quiet one by rgbatduke, which could be promoted to a post. Not to mention all the others.

239. richardscourtney says:

sceptical:

Your post at December 2, 2012 at 8:54 am is as ifnorakt, silly and daft as the question you are incapable of understanding and I answered.

It says

richardscourtney says, “Nobody claims the overall trend was a constant before the global temperature stopped rising in 1997.”

In the next comment Jim Cripwell says, ” the rate of warming has got to exceed the 0.06 C per decade that has persisted for many decades, possibly back to the LIA.”

Surely, even somebody sufficiently stupid as to make the comment richardscourtney made can see the humor in him being shown to be wrong so quickly.

The comments of Jim Cripwell and myself are both correct, but I would nor expect somebody of your limited intellect to be able to understand that.

Richard

240. Matt G says:

spvincent says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Same can be done with past shorter periods showing long term cooling, where the temperatures pause for a time.

The fact you missed was none of these were as long as the current non warming period. A short pause can occur for either cooling or warming, but we are not now at a short pause compared with these data sets.

The only other period that lasted longer than a decade with stable global temperatures was the start of a cooling period for 40 years, sound familiar?

241. DirkH says:

Matt G says:
December 2, 2012 at 2:16 pm
“spvincent says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Same can be done with past shorter periods showing long term cooling, where the temperatures pause for a time.

The fact you missed was none of these were as long as the current non warming period. A short pause can occur for either cooling or warming, but we are not now at a short pause compared with these data sets.”

and ask spvincent : How did the warming in the beginning of the 20th century come about? Anthropogenic CO2 emissions were insignificant.

242. Don’t know when Trenberth will retire, but it will certainly be fun watching him squirm trying to explain away the travesty of the “missing heat” over the next 17 (or 34) years, when earth & other solar system objects with atmospheres experience global cooling. There will be a frantic search of our planet for volcanic eruptions, no matter how small, even those too weak to loft SO2 molecules into the stratosphere. Or something. The theory that growth in a healthful trace gas near starvation levels from 28 parts per 100K molecules of dry air to 39, 40, 41 (or whatever) is the primary driver of climate change has to be good & true, no matter how many actually observed physical data say the contrary. It has to be because so much ($100s of billions in “research”) depends on this easily falsified faith. 243. spvincent says: December 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm I don’t normally respond to anyone linking to SS as they are … of a type shall we say. We are counting backwards. The chosen ‘starting point’ is TODAY. Measuring. Not cherry picking like your side’s charts. There has been zero global warming for the last 16 years *. What’s so difficult to comprehend in that sentence? *(17 years in a couple of months time) 244. Matt G says: DirkH says: December 2, 2012 at 2:25 pm Good point and not finished here with that warming period not having any stable periods longer than a decade either until a 40 year cooling. With limited data it supports that periods longer than a decade with stability are the planets response to a peak in global temperatures before the next phase of the cooling cycle occurs. 245. Eugene WR Gallun says: The Heat Is On The strangest thing upon us yet A sight to make the skeptics stare The warmists all are in a sweat They feel the heat that isn’t there It wasn’t there the other day It seems today the same is true Tomorrow if it stays away The warmists will be barbecue Eugene WR Gallun 246. Jordan says: @ Pat Ravasio “So wait, you are saying that fossil fuels do not cause warming…” Gravity has the CAPACITY to cause unsupported mass to fall to the ground. This can easily be shown in the laboratory. But does this mean that all unsupported mass will immediately plunge to the ground? There are examples where this does not happen, including powered flight and orbital motion (for example, the Moon). In the laboartory, we usually try to isolate and observe a specific phenomenon. Real-world situations are usually more complicated, and can appear contradictory to the observations in the lab. Gravity has the capacity to cause objects to fall to the ground, but there is not an absolute rule that this happens in every situation. Likewise, we have the opportunity to examine the properties of CO2 in the laboratory. It is reasonable to conclude that CO2 has the CAPACITY to cause warming in the atmosphere, although it does nof follow that additional CO2 in a mixed atmosphere WILL behave exactly the same as in a laboratory experiment. We must keep an open mind to the possibiltiy that some atmospheric physcal processes will compensate the warming effects of additional CO2. In the extreme, the atmosphere could be in a state of saturation, where any warming effect of additional CO2 is completely compensated by other processes. Before we go sacrificing any virgins to appease the global warming Gods, it would be worthwhile finding out why the hypothesised tropospheric hot spot has not been observed. The absence of any “vertical amplification” (greater temperature change aloft) should give us a hint that our uinderstanding of the Enhanced Greenhoues Effect does not presently justify any sacrifice. And if you are interested to learn more about the possibility of a saturated Greenhouse Effect, you might wish to examine the work of Ferenc Miskolczi. Perhaps you could present your reasoned analysis of Miskolczi’s work on the website you are trying to publicise. 247. Gail Combs says: John West says: December 2, 2012 at 11:36 am @RGB@Duke WOW! Great comment, worthy of being made into a post IMHO. Although, I would have preferred “fueled by” instead of “burning” with regards to uranium; but, oh well, it’s a small matter. _________________________________ Actually worth making a copy with attribution to Dr. Brown and sending to our Congress Critters, not that they would listen. 248. Gail Combs says: Pat Ravasio says: December 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm So wait, you are saying that fossil fuels do not cause warming, but that if we shift away from them to clean energies, there is a risk of the earth cooling? Uh, could you just think that through and try agan? _____________________________ It depends on which commenter. (We do not all agree,) Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist has some decent articles you should read (they are short) Global Warming 101 Global Warming: Natural or Manmade? Another site with a lot of good information is Lucy’s Greenworld Trust Climate Science Primer: This is a personal story of awakening, as well as a primer And her very informative Graph On the risk of CO2 and cooling is this peer reviewed paper. It agrees that we are at the point in the earth’s Milankovitch cycle that ushers in an ice age. The biggest question of course is why we are not covered in ice yet. Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started…. As far as CO2 goes, an increase will have little effect but a decrease will have a much larger effect see log response graph: link Of course if we lower the CO2 down to where it effects temperature we will all be dead anyway. Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California. 249. Steve Oregon says: RE: spvincent says: December 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm Your elementary use of the SS “escalator” graph (with it’s straw man claim of how skeptic’s view global warming) is a poster child tactic meant to substitute for authentic debate. skepticalscience.com can name no skeptic who views global warming in such a manner because there are none. The use of 1970 starting point to make up the nonexistent viewpoint is child-like. However, with the much smaller escalator steps being nearly meaningless compared to the recent 16 years the portrayal of the “realists” view showing a straight line of increase during these same 16 years is laughable. But it is truly their convoluted view. So that graph you posted shows nothing about skeptics while demonstrating the delusion and dishonesty of alarmists. I ask you, why do you seriously think that the shown straight line of increase over the last 16 would pass the last test? 250. Steve Oregon says: pardon me laugh test 251. Gail Combs says: Pat Ravasio says: December 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm I should also add. Fred H. Haynie. He is a retired EPA environmental research scientist who has devoted the past four years to a study of global climate change. This are his findings in a PDF 252. Kermit says: @RGB@Duke A couple of posters beat me to the comments here. Yes, great comment, and I was also going to say that I would really like to see this as a post. It has been many years since I studied physics and mathematics, and I have been appalled at the reluctance of physicists to publicly voice their feelings about the quality of science when it comes to climate. From what I have heard, commenting on the poor quality of the science is not good for a career at many universities. My experience has been building lots and lots of models of other coupled non-linear chaotic systems. I have used fundamentals to model selected commodity markets for two decades. What is being done in climate science is not much more than sitting at a computer playing SimEarth. They have finally run up against enough real time data that it is clear that the models are – even in their words – not working. Again, thank you for that post, Dr. Brown. 253. It has never ever been about the redistribution of money from the developed countries to the under- and undeveloped countries. It has ALWAYS been about redistributing wealth from the middle class to the upper class. “Help” in “development” of third world countries has been going on for three or four generations. If it was really a “hand-up” there would BE no third world. Instead the $$has gone in to the pockets of corrupt officials or corporations have moved in and wiped out local business. Not entirely true, Gail. In the 60’s US AID, Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation teamed up to transform India from a food importing country subject to drought-induced famines that killed people literally by the millions in the first half of the 20th century into a food exporting country that has never had another event comparable to those famines. This was the Green Revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution My father worked for Ford Foundation in India from 1959 through 1967, when the US got kicked out because of our increasing “imperialist” involvement in Viet Nam (which actually was not received with open arms throughout Southeast Asia). I grew up in India while this was happening. This is a specific counterexample. It did not redistribute wealth from the middle to the upper class. It truly was a hand up — to the point where India has done fine on its own ever since. It made a real, tangible difference. It wasn’t, actually, horribly expensive to the US — the point wasn’t to dump money into India, it was to develop new hybrids of rice and grain and analyze the entire agricultural economy of India to figure out how they could optimize their use of the resources they had. My father wrote a book about it for Harvard afterwards, before going to work for the World Bank (under McNamara) as an expert — perhaps “the” expert — on rice production in Southeast Asia, India in particular. There are actually a number of successful models for providing true aid, an actual hand up, to developing countries and to people in poverty in the US as well. They generally focus on developing infrastructure, not providing handouts, and they are generally run by people capable of doing a hard-nosed CBA and evaluating the ROI of any money invested. They also generally facilitate self-help — the country being helped has to be equally invested in the success. When those conditions aren’t met, I’m sure there are failures. And Viet Nam itself was, of course, a massive and successful boondoggle (as was Iraq) intended to transfer truly enormous amounts of money from the taxpayers into the pockets of the military-industrial complex’s owners. I rather expect CAGW is too — it is too difficult to come up with a good war these days (although I expect that the powers that be will work one out soon so they can continue to pick our pockets) and CAGW is like a pipeline to free money “forever” for those in the right position to regulate and divert the flow. But nevertheless it is incorrect to assert that it cannot be done right or has never been done right — that suggests that there is no point in even trying. rgb This is not to argue about the real point of the IPCC/UN action 254. Gail Combs says: milodonharlani says: December 2, 2012 at 2:31 pm Don’t know when Trenberth will retire, but it will certainly be fun watching him squirm trying to explain away the travesty of the “missing heat” over the next 17 (or 34) years __________________________ He was born in 1944 so I doubt he will last that long. “Science advances one funeral at a time “ ~ Max Planck 255. @William Grubel at 9:04 am IPeCaC or ipecac…. [Groan!] Thank you, William. I didn’t get the joke until spelled it out for me. I was trying to fit something phonetic or chemical. I guess I do too much programming to naturally ignore letter case. 256. RACookPE1978 says: Hmmm. Lettuce sea. T’was the night before bad case, and all threw the house, knot odd creature was stirring, not even a mousse … 257. Gail Combs says: rgbatduke says: December 2, 2012 at 4:12 pm Not entirely true, Gail….. ___________________________ Thanks for the information. I stand corrected. It is nice to know there were successes. Too bad there have not been more. I have no problem with US$$$ going into projects that actually help people. Input and buy-in from the locals is mandatory and I think missing in many cases.

In India there have also been horror stories: Farmer Suicides in India Linked to Debt, Globalization and retaliation Monsanto official Beaten by farmers in India over Failed GMO Bt Cotton Seeds

However horror stories always make the news, while success gets a YAWN.

258. rgbatduke says:

Although, I would have preferred “fueled by” instead of “burning” with regards to uranium; but, oh well, it’s a small matter.

Awwww, now you’re getting all picky on me;-)

Yes, I do understand — in a fair bit of detail — how and why fission produces energy, and no, it’s not “burning” in the sense that burning is a self-sustaining rapid oxidation. But surely we do use the word in a more general sense, as in “I burned through calories on my recent hike” (only if you doused yourself in gasoline first), or “I burned through my work so I would be done in time to go to the game” (only if you wanted to get fired — err, perhaps I should say “discharged”, oops, no, that won’t do either, rendered an ex-employee?). So while the Sun doesn’t actually burn hydrogen, it is hardly uncommon to find the phrase used loosely by physicists — google “hydrogen burning stars” to see numerous examples.

There have been a few attempts to publish cost-benefit analyses of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I have to say I doubt their objectivity — they generally begin by assuming what amounts to worst case catastrophe and then exaggerate every cost while ignoring every benefit. They also without exception seem to completely ignore the entire tree of costs and benefits associated with alternative investment of the resources associated with ameliorating them. I would very much like to see a much more sober and honest appraisal of costs and benefits, one that counted the cost of leaving the third world in energy poverty as a catastrophe in its own right, a cost at compound interest assessed over the entire intervening century. Instead what I see is piffle where people try to attribute “deaths due to anthropogenic global warming” — surely one of the most meaningless statistics in the history of statistics, given the near-impossibility of attributing the anthropogenic component of global warming and the (again) complete and deliberate ignorance of the death’s PREVENTED by global warming compared to, say, the Little Ice Age or the year without a summer or a year where one could only harvest a single crop of grain in the world’s north temperate zone breadbasket.

But I won’t hold my breath.

rgb

259. Andrew Clark says:

I have been as biased as I possibly can. I personally do not want global to be true I have read into the whole debate and feel like I can frame it as such:

1. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we repeatedly can demonstrate that in a lab. That fact is established, no one contests it.
2. The Temperature increases of the 20th century appear to match the CO2 releases remarkably well. Except for the 40s-70’s. Which would seem to indicate that CO2/temperature are not related.
3. I’ve observed that some opposing scientists(like lindzen) that contest that global warming seem to support the whole theory, they just think some other feedback is going to kick in to slow it.
4. Global warming hasn’t increased in 16 years, also pointing to no connection.
5. Summer sea ice in arctic has been cut down to 50% of its’ level in 1979.
6. Greenland and Antarctic ice have been accelerating their ice losses.
7. Sulfate Aerosols do play a role in cooling the Earth, how much so is really difficult to ascertain.
8. Glaciers are overwhelmingly losing mass and the the ocean is rising, in addition to lowering it’s Ph.
9. Coral Bleaching is becoming very common, appears to related to temperature.

Now, I’m not a scientist, and really have to look elsewhere for interpretations of what is really going on. So that brings me to these points:
1. Most attacks against climate scientists appear to go after their motives, i.e., they have something to gain by eliminating fossil fuels, and are doing it all for money/power.
2. Media and news outlets give contradictory information about climate, like claiming tornadoes are related to climate change, another says they are not.
3. The elephant in the room is this: energy companies, in addition to anyone making a lot of money right now all have a big interest in delaying doing anything. There is $172 trillion dollars of fossil fuel in the ground that won’t be available. 4. The only thing that I have found to explain the rise in temps is it’s a coincidence that it matches the CO2. 5. Regardless of the temp drops in 40’s-60’s and recently, I can’t find any solid things that would convince me. If you point me in right direction, that would be appreciated. 260. LetsBeReasonable says: Richardcourtney, let me first say, I am disappointed that you should resort to glib phrases like your brains are dropping out. Your postings are usually worth reading and are well thought out. By resorting to abuse, you are demeaning yourself to level of many posters who seem to think insulting people makes them more superior. You don’t need to do that as your comments show your true calibre. With regard to your second point. I would have thought the graph going up if you include 1996 data indicates that the heating occurred AFTER 1997, not before as you suggest. I also notice by including 1998 in the sixteen year sequence, (which is an outlier), would have helped the trend look level. Omitting it or starting the sequence from 1999 would have given a different result. I believe that writer was aware of this (after all he is a mathematician after all) and selecting 16 years and not say the 18 years (or thirteen years for that matter) to push a certain agenda rather than inform the public. 261. MikeB says: Hello Andrew Clark C02 is certainly a greenhouse gas and causes the surface of the Earth to be warmer than it would be without it; although, whether that can be totally demonstrated in a lab is questionable. “Temperature increases in the 20th century appear to match C02 releases remarkably well“ Don’t think so, unless you mean C02 has increased and temperature has increased somewhat over that period. C02 concentrations have moved up relentlessly (almost linearly) during that period but temperatures have fluctuated up and down. For example, from 1880 to 1910 temperatures decreased,; from 1910 to 1940 temperatures increased,; from 1940 to 1970 temperatures decreased; from 1970 to 2000 temperatures increased and, as we have seen, from 2000 onwards temperatures have remained flat. Do you see any pattern in that? “Opposing scientists(like lindzen) ….think some other feedback is going to kick in to slow it” That’s the wrong way around. With no feedback at all there is no problem, the C02 absorption bands are saturated ( or close to it ). So with no feedbacks the potential warming from a doubling of C02 concentration will be about one degree Celsius (according to the IPPC). In fact the assumption of a positive feedback is required to sustain theories of catastrophic runaway warming. With no feedback, there is no problem. Lindzen thinks that if there are any feedbacks at all they are likely to be negative (so warming will be less than one degree). “Greenland and Antarctic ice have been accelerating their ice losses” I believe that Antarctic sea ice has actually increased this year to an all time high. Could somebody confirm? As for following the money, I take a rather a different approach. The oil companies are going to find their product in demand whatever happens – aren’t they? But Global Warming Research ( for want of a better name) has now become a multi-billion dollar industry. The beneficiaries of that funding are not as stupid as some commentators here suggest. They realise that as soon as they say that there is no problem their funding is going to dry up. So what are they going to say? However, Truth is the Daughter of Time, so let us see. 262. davidmhoffer says: Andrew Clark; 4. The only thing that I have found to explain the rise in temps is it’s a coincidence that it matches the CO2. >>>>>>>>> But it DOESN’T!!!! The earth’s temperature has been rising at about the same rate for the last 400 years, since the Little Ice Age. CO2 didn’t start increasing by any significant amount until about 1950. It has increased on a slightly exponential curve since then, going from 280 ppm to 390 ppm, Of that increase, about 1/3 has been in the last 15 years. Yet temperatures have leveled off. The two did not track each other from 1600 to 1950, and they haven’t tracked each other from about 1998 to now. First temp went up when CO2 was flat, and now temps are flat while CO2 is going up. There’s only one period of time when they went up together, and it is a very brief period of time. If there is a coincidence, that’s it. 263. Gail Combs says: Andrew Clark says: December 2, 2012 at 4:56 pm I have been as biased as I possibly can. I personally do not want global to be true I have read into the whole debate and feel like I can frame it as such: convince me. If you point me in right direction, that would be appreciated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you read nothing else read: Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? By Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv Also read about the politics that keep the sun out of the IPCC: Judithgate: IPCC consensus was only one physicist (translated from Czech) “…Judith Lean and Claus Fröhlich are responsible for scandalous rewriting of the solar activity graphs… R.C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites): “Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments… “ Lean as lead author (and only solar physicist) vetted and included only one paper and that was the one in which she was the co-author. Also look at the links I posted in comment 1 and in comment 2 and THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD applied physicist and engineer. CO2 The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. (He was fired and denied funding link ) That is just the tip of the iceburg, there is a ton more information. The Videos that Anthony is putting up may be a lot easier than all the reading for some. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/23/the-next-video-from-wuwt-tv-dr-ross-mckitrick/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/30/more-wuwt-tv-interview-and-presentation-with-dr-sebastian-luning/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/26/another-wuwt-tv-segment-engineer-and-aviation-pioneer-burt-rutan-on-why-he-doubts-global-warming/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/29/another-wuwt-tv-video-mike-smith-severe-weather-expert/ 264. Werner Brozek says: I try to go through all responses before responding, but with 274 so far, it takes a while. Thank you to the people who have already responded on my behalf who are often in a different time zone. I will add my thoughts to a few that have caught my eye and hopefully will not repeat what was said by others. LetsBeReasonable says: December 2, 2012 at 3:35 am Werner, I must have done something wrong with the graphs. I changed the starting point at 1996 instead of 1997 and all the trend lines went up. What is happening? I am reminded of an exchange a few years ago when a beggar asked for a coffee. I obliged and gave him a 2 dollar coupon for Tim Hortons which was nearby. He then changed the goal post on me and asked for a toonie which is a 2 dollar Canadian coin. I refused saying he asked for a coffee and I gave him one. So what does this have to do with NOAA? They said certain things would be true if certain conditions were met (or not met). I responded with respect to the 15 years and then some. So yes, if you start in 1996, there will be warming. The other question that also could be answered is if this is significant or not. Below, I plotted RSS and the graph from 1997 has a slope of 0 but from 1995, the slope is 0.004/year. (You may recall the interview with Phil Jones where he said that 0.012/year over 15 years was NOT significant, so I would imagine that 0.004/year over 18 years is not significant either.) I believe it was Richard Lindzen who said we had no warming since 1997 and no significant warming since 1995. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1995/trend 265. rgbatduke says: So wait, you are saying that fossil fuels do not cause warming, but that if we shift away from them to clean energies, there is a risk of the earth cooling? Uh, could you just think that through and try agan? No, that’s just some people on the list who are “certain” — with no more grounds than those of the warmists — that the Earth is about to cool. In the long run, of course, they are correct — the current interglacial (the Holocene) is bound to end at some point soon in geological time, but that could be anytime from “starting right now” to “in a thousand years” or even longer. Some are silly enough to fit a sine function to some fragment of data and believe that that has predictive value. The problem is that nobody knows why the Eocene ended and the Pleistocene (the current ice age) started, and nobody knows exactly where and why the Pliestocene is a modulated series of glaciations followed by brief stretches of interglacial. There are theories — see e.g. the Milankovitch cycle — but they have no quantitative predictive value and the actual causal mechanism is far from clear. So we do not know what the temperature outside “should” be, with and/or without CO_2. We do know historically that the Little Ice Age that ended around 200 years ago was tied for the coldest century long stretch of the entire Holocene — that is, the coldest for the last 11,000 or so years (where it might surprise you to learn that the Holocene Optimum was between 1.5 and 2 C warmer than it is today, without CO_2). So the fact of the matter is that there is a risk of the Earth cooling — in fact, there is a risk of a return to open glaciation, the start of the next 90,000 year glacial era — but it is not a particularly high risk and we have no way to meaningfully do much better than to say “sometime in the next few centuries”. CO_2 might, actually, help prevent the next glacial era (or at least, might delay it) but even that is not clear — the Ordovician-Silurian ice age began with CO_2 levels of 7000 ppm. That is around 17 times the current level, almost 1% of the atmosphere CO_2 — and persisted for millions of years with CO_2 levels consistently in the ballpark of 4000 ppm. If the Earth’s climate system (which we do not understand, in my opinion, well enough to predict even a single decade out let alone a century) decides it is time for glaciation, I suspect that nothing we can do will have any meaningful effect on the process, just as I don’t think that we have had any profound warming influence on the Earth so far. The fundamental issue is this. We have some thirty three years of halfway decent climate data — perhaps twice that if you are very generous — which is the blink of an eye in the chaotic climate system that is the Earth. There has been roughly 0.3 C warming over that thirty-three year stretch, or roughly 0.1 C/decade. It is almost certain that some fraction of that warming was completely natural, not due to human causes and we do not know that fraction — a reasonable guess would be to extrapolate the warming rate from the entire post LIA era, which is already close to 0.1 C/decade. It is probably reasonable to assign roughly 0.3 C total warming to Anthropogenic CO_2 — that is everything, not just the last thirty years but from the beginning of time. It might be as much as 0.5C, it might be as little as 0.1C (or even be negative), but the physics suggests a warming on the order of 1.2 C upon a complete doubling of CO_2 if we don’t pretend to more knowledge than we have concerning the nature and signs of the feedbacks. At the moment there is little reason to think that we are headed towards catastrophe. When the combined membership of the AMA and AGU were surveyed — this is surveying climate scientists in general, not the public or the particular climate scientists that are most vocal on the issue — 15% were not convinced of anthropogenic global warming at all, and over half of them doubted that the warming anthropogenic or not would be catastrophic. It’s the George Mason survey — feel free to look it up. The general consensus was, and remains, that there has definitely and unsurprisingly been warming post LIA, that humans have caused some part of this (how much open to considerable debate as the science is not settled or particularly clear), that there is some chance of it being “catastrophic” warming in the future, a much larger chance that it will not be, and some chance that it will not warm further at all or even cool. The rational thing to do is to continue to pursue the science, especially the accumulation of a few more decades of halfway decent data, until that science becomes a bit clearer, without betting our prosperity and the prosperity of our children and the calamitous and catastrophic perpetuation of global poverty and untold misery in the present on the relatively small chance of the warming being catastrophic and there being something we can do about it to prevent it from becoming so. So far, if catastrophe is in the cards, the measures proposed won’t prevent it even according to those that predict it! In fact, it won’t have any effect on the catastrophe at all according to the worst case doom and gloomers. We could stop burning carbon worldwide tomorrow and if the carbon cycle model currently in favor with the CAGW crowd is correct (which I doubt) it would take centuries for the Earth’s CO_2 level to go back to “normal” — whatever that means, given that it varies by almost a factor of 2 completely naturally from glacial era to interglacial. In fact, according to that model the CO_2 levels will continue to go up as long as we contribute any CO_2 at all, because they’ve stuck an absurdly long relaxation time into their basic system of equations (one with very little empirical foundation, again IMO). Again, I suggest that you reread the top article carefully. I actually do not think it is the best example of Monckton’s writing — a few people have noted that its tone is not terribly elevating, and I have to agree — but I sense and sympathize with his frustration, given the content of the article. There is a stench of hypocrisy that stretches from Al Gore’s globe-hopping by jet and his huge house and large car all the way to a collection of people with nothing better to do who have jetted to Doha to have a big party and figure out how to continue their quest for World Domination, hypocrisy with king-sized blinders that seem quite incapable of permitting the slightest bit of doubt to enter, even when bold predictions like those openly made in the 2008 report come back to bite them in the ass. I myself am not a believer in CAGW. Nor am I a disbeliever. The only thing that I “believe” in regarding the subject is our own ignorance, combined with a fairly firm belief that there is little reason to panic visible in the climate record, and that is before various thumbs were laid firmly on the scales. Remove those thumbs and there is even less reason to panic. My own prediction for the climate is this. We will probably continue to experience mild warming for another ten to twenty years — warming on the order of 0.1C per decade. It will probably occur in bursts — the climate record shows clear signs of punctuated equilibrium, a Hurst-Kolmogorov process — most likely associated with strong El Ninos (if we get back to where strong El Ninos occur — the last couple have fizzled out altogether, hence the lack of warming). In the meantime, we will without much additional effort beyond existing research and the obvious profit incentives drop the cost of solar power by a factor of four, and it will become at least competitive with the cheapest ways of generating electrical power. We will also have at least one major breakthrough in energy storage technology. The two together will cause solar to become more profitable than coal independent of subsidy, for much but not all of the world. Without anybody being inconvenienced or “doing” anything beyond pursuing the most profitable course, global consumption of carbon will then drop like a rock no matter what we do in the meantime. Beyond twenty years I don’t think anybody has a clue as to what the temperature will do. I don’t even have a lot of confidence in my own prediction. It wouldn’t surprise me if it got cooler, especially if the Sun enters a true Maunder-style minimum. Nor would it surprise me if it got warmer than my modest prediction. But either way, I think roughly 500 ppm is likely to be the peak level of CO_2 before it comes down, and it may well fail to make it to 500 ppm, and even the catastrophists would have a hard time making a catastrophe out of that given 0.3 C of warming in association with the bump from 300 to 400. We could make it more likely to cut off before 500 ppm — invest massively in nuclear power. Nuclear power is actually relatively cheap, so this is a cost-benefit win, if we regulate them carefully for safety and avoid nuclear proliferation (both risks, but less catastrophic than the inflated predictions of the catastrophists). But I don’t think we will, and in the end I don’t think it will matter. rgb 266. rgbatduke says: However, Truth is the Daughter of Time, so let us see. Well put. Let us see. rgb 267. davidmhoffer says: HenryP says: December 2, 2012 at 12:30 pm Henry@davidmhoffer Do the same plot with Hadcrut 3? Note the difference? >>>>>>>> Interesting, and you got me thinking. Why would I try and depict this using an arcane system of thermometers with varying degrees of siting and observational quality that report about 0.00000001% of the earth surface when we’ve got a few$billion of satellites up there that are orders of magnitude more accurate?

Of course, we only have data from 1979…. but the result is far more dramatic and makes the point better. I was stunned at how pronounced the transition is:

268. Ray says: 8:29 am
If “denier” is considered to be perjorative, shouldn’t “alarmist” be considered the same? They are, after all, two sides of the same coin. I would suggest that “skeptic” and “proponent” are more appropriate terms…

Can we agree that ‘denier’ is a pejorative in a scientific sense. (a word or phrase that has negative connotations or that is intended to disparage or belittle)?

A ‘skeptic’ might not disbelieve in Global Warming; rather they are not ready to believe Global Warming is all Anthropogenic much less Catastrophic.

Skeptic: — “One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.” To me, that sounds pejorative enough.

Alarmist: “A person who …alarm others, as by … exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe” “Exaggerated” is the Skeptics’ main issue. Looks like a perfect fit.

How about alternatives that might be a better choice:
“Proponent” — you jest! They are certainly not PROponents of CAGW. They are not in favor of it.
“Catastrophists” — those who predict catastrophe. That might fit some, but goes too far for most. I don’t think it will or should catch on.
Warner – Someone who gives a warning to others — too general.
Warmer – Someone who give a warning of warming? Likes warming? It is too confusing
Tipper – Someone who expresses danger of a CAGW tipping point or is in bed with Al Gore.
Scaremonger,
Conspirator, (see Climategate).
Zealot
Flimflamer
Beguiler

I think “Alarmist” is the best of the bunch.

At this time there are two other terms that I want to be put on the table:
Chicken Little — a panicky innocent who thinks the world is coming to an end and leads his friends straight to
Foxy Loxy and were never seen again.
Re Gail Combs: 8:04 am

It has never ever been about the redistribution of money from the developed countries to the under- and undeveloped countries. It has ALWAYS been about redistributing wealth from the middle class to the upper class.

The word I would use to classify Gail is Astute

269. rgbatduke says:

2. The Temperature increases of the 20th century appear to match the CO2 releases remarkably well. Except for the 40s-70′s. Which would seem to indicate that CO2/temperature are not related.

Well, and then there is the 1700-1940s, where the temperature increase clearly hasn’t got a bloody thing to do with the CO_2 levels. Even proponents of CO_2 driven CAGW acknowledge that pre-1950 CO_2 levels were too low to have any meaningful effect on the basic climate. The rise before that time was the result of warming, not the cause, just as the LIA was not caused by a “drop” in CO_2. There are obviously other major regulators of climate. We obviously do not know or understand what they are, not well enough to predict them. The other regulators of climate have caused temperature variations as large as that seen at the end of the 20th century repeatedly, if one can believe the proxy reconstructions of the Holocene. Note well that this includes dips we cannot explain as well as rises we cannot explain. The Arctic melted once before, in the 1930s, at a time when the cause could not possibly have been CO_2 — it caused scary headlines at the time, although of course we had no satellites or instrumentation handy to systematically record it like we do now.

You are basically right, though — it is probable that CO_2 has had some effect, possible that it has had no effect, possible that it has had a relatively large effect. We simply do not understand the science well enough to know which, not yet, probably not for decades still (if not a century). There are many time scales at play here, in a huge chaotic system with nonlinear feedbacks galore. There is little reason to think based on the historical record that the climate is massively nonlinearly unstable on the warm side, but it is absolutely certain that it is massively nonlinearly unstable on the low side, as between 80 and 90% of the last 500,000 years have been spent with the Earth in the grip of relentless glaciation the likes of which humans have not experienced since they invented the written word or cities or agriculture.

We’d like for the Earth’s climate to remain unchanged, because really, it is a pretty great time to be alive. Not too warm, not too cold. Nature, on the other hand, may have other ideas.

rgb

270. F. Ross says:

Nail – that would be you Pat – meet hammer – that would be:rgbatduke says: December 2, 2012 at 6:59 am.

271. Werner Brozek says:

andrew says:
December 2, 2012 at 6:59 am
Why is the long term temperature trend from say 1950 – 2012 higher than for 1950 – 1997 if warming stopped in 1997 as per the article, surely the long term trend should be lower or the same if you include data points from 1997-2012 if warming stopped in 1997?
Here is my perspective. I did try my method from 1950 and I must confess it did not work, but it did work from 1985, as shown below. What I assumed was that warming did not stop in 1997, but rather that the temperatures follow a (very poor) sine wave. So if there was a slope of 0 for 16 years, then the top of the sine wave would be after 8 years or at 2005. You could argue that a flat slope of 16 years consists of warming for 8 years and then identical cooling for 8 years. If you get the slope from 1985 to 2005 and then from 1985 to date, the latter slope is lower as shown below. However going back to 1950 gives virtually identical slopes with this method.

272. Doug Allen says:

Andrew Clark and Pat Ravasio-
First Andrew. You are correct about temperatures in the 40’s thru 70’s and the past 15 years. Here’s the fact- only 20 years (1978 to 1998) of the past 70 years has shown warming despite steadily rising CO2 emissions and concentrations. What does that suggest?
And Pat- you are correct that few posts show or mention the data. That’s because most here are familiar with the science and data which Anthony has conveniently linked at the “Reference Pages” above. Study them and do the necessary homework to understand them- a year’s worth of study minimum for most of us. For extra credit, go to the scienceofdoom website (listed by Anthony as an AGW site) and study there. I find that, with many exceptions, the skeptics and lukewarmers are more conversant with the science and the data than are the alarmists. Many at all the web sites are personally invested in one side or the other or have political agendas. From them you can learn the power of confirmation bias! Learning enough to form your own educated opinions is an exciting journey. Enjoy!

273. davidmhoffer says:

rgbatduke says:
December 2, 2012 at 6:45 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Life is not fair. There’s only 13 minutes between your last two comments. You wrote that last one in 13 minutes? I couldn’t write something that clear and precise in 13 hours and you tossed it off in 13 minutes?

Anthony – how about a resource page? “the collected works of rgbatduke” ?

274. markx says:

Gail Combs says: December 2, 2012 at 11:27 am

“….Just to make it clear I did not come up with “Ag Cartel” Dr. John M. Connor, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University did. THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL GLOBAL CARTELS OF THE 1990s: OVERVIEW AND UPDATE…”
http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/staff/connor/papers/Private_Intl_Cartels_7_18_03.htm

Thanks Gail… fascinating stuff. Certainly some cartels at work there ….. but really he was not so much talking about the big farming and grain trading companies, rather particular products – lysine, vitamins, citric acid, choline chloride … in this case cartel (price fixing) behavior can be seen.

But big agriculture takes over the world by related but different methods … WTO based “free” trade agreements, food aid to starving nations with “free trade agreements” attached, the power of being able to make huge shipments, and just by getting very close to governments, especially in developing nations. Governments justifiably love these guys, they do bring great efficiency of scale, and keep right up with technology ….. but in the end, they do control the price (but not necessarily via cartels).

Their power is amazing – I was trying to pursue a project in Indonesia, but with disputes over land ownership due to vague and overlapping records and fraudulent grabs linked to government officials (which lower level government are very happy to see as it then guarantees their involvement) – I spoke to one of the two biggest oil palm groups. I asked how they deal with land disputes as they expand. He said “Well, we win, unless it is with the X group (the other large group), then it is a fair fight, but with anyone else, we win”.

Today I am in Thailand. Two companies here control 70% of both the pig and chicken farming in the country, and both are fully integrated from feedmills through to packaged food. Good companies, but very, very powerful.

But back to the discussion at hand: The problem we have discussing this is when we use words like Ag Cartel, Big Oil, etc, the average Joe stops reading …. brought up with the indoctrination of ‘free capitalist systems’, the power of the ‘market’, and the belief that anyone can succeed if only he works hard, they don’t even want to think for a moment how bent the system is and how they are being pillaged.

So, I try to stay away from the “catch phrases”, even if they do encapsulate the reality of the situation.

275. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranational bureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.”

The simplest explanation is that at long last there is someone near the top of the UN who understands how important fossil fuels are to the future of mankind.

Qatari deputy prime minister Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah, president of the UN Climate Change Summit, is in charge of the Doha “Event”. He wants more hydrofracking and other new extraction technologies.

Please support Attiyah. We need more people like him near the “Levers of Power”.

276. gallopingcamel says:

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranational bureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.”

The simplest explanation is that there is (at last) someone near the “Levers of Power” at the UN who understands the importance of fossil fuels to the future of mankind. I refer to Qatari deputy prime minister Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah, president of the UN Climate Change Summit, who promotes hydrofracking and the mining of methane clathrates to avoid planetary energy disaster.

Please support Attiyah. We need more people like him.

277. gallopingcamel says:

davidmhoffer,
rgb is a multi-talented dude. He even brews his own beer.

278. markx says:

I agree that rgbatdukes comments above are well worthy of elevating to full post status… in fact I might print them out and frame them to put on my wall:

rgbatduke says:
December 2, 2012 at 6:59 am

rgbatduke says:
December 2, 2012 at 6:21 pm

…and I just saw the one at :

rgbatduke says:
December 2, 2012 at 6:45 pm

and

rgbatduke says:
December 2, 2012 at 4:12 pm

Between Gail and rgb, this is a helluva thread.

279. Gail Combs says:

davidmhoffer says:
December 2, 2012 at 7:18 pm

rgbatduke says:
December 2, 2012 at 6:45 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Life is not fair…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I figure his students are very lucky. One of my Intro. Physics profs. was so bad we all went to the lectures by the other prof much to the horror of the school admin. Talk about a vote of no confidence.

And yes it would be nice to have his best comments collected but that is better left to Ric Werme.

280. gallopingcamel says:

rgbatduke, December 2, 2012 at 6:21 pm

I really enjoyed that essay. As you point out, we have an inkling about what causes “Ice Ages” but we lack the knowledge to make forecasts or even convincing “Backcasts”.

The thing that is missing from the work of the IPCC’s technical folk (Working Group 1) is the kind of perspective that you provide.

For example the IPCC tries to scare us by mentioning that global ice is melting at the rate of ~300 Giga-tonnes per year while failing to mention that there is an “Inventory” of 30 million Giga-tonnes of ice. If they told us that it will take 100,000 years to melt all the ice at the present rate, would anyone be alarmed?

281. spvincent says:

To address some of the points made in response to my previous posts:

The essential point is that the perceived lack of warming over the last 16 years is a statistical artefact caused by a large El Nino event at the start of that period. Doesn’t this figure of 16 strike anyone as suspicious? It ought to, and in fact when you look at trends using periods of 14 and 18 years you get very different results.

@Werner Brozek and others: try changing that value of 1997.25 in your graphs by a couple of years either way and you will see what I mean.

Taking the Hadcrut4 dataset, here are the trend values in degrees C/decade over five closely-related time periods.

1995-2012 +0.109 +/- 0.129
1996-2012 +0.107 +/- 0.129
1997-2012 +0.058 +/- 0.142
1998-2012 +0.052 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.095 +/- 0.162

Let’s look at a satellite-derived dataset (UAH)

1995-2012 +0.139 +/- 0.203
1996-2012 +0.138 +/- 0.227
1997-2012 +0.106 +/- 0.252
1998-2012 +0.063 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.179 +/- 0.262

A couple of things: first see what a big difference the choice of starting year makes, and secondly note that, even during the period when there was allegedly no warming (start year 97 or 98: take your pick), there was STILL an overall upward trend in the data according to these 2 datasets (and others I’ve looked at).

The claim that global warming stopped in 1998 is simply false.

Data taken from http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php : that from woodfortrees.org gives similar results.

————————

@HenryGalt: the point about that ‘escalator’ graph is not to cherry pick but to demonstrate how easily data can be cherry picked. If you think otherwise, please explain why.

—————

@DirkH: Many factors such as solar variability and changes in Earth orbit are known to affect earth’s climate: a bit of variability is to be expected whether or not any additional AGW forcing is imposed.

————–

@others: The “levelling-off” of warming in the middle of the last century is attributable to a negative forcing due to stratospheric aerosols. Global warming is affected by other factors in addition to CO2.

282. Greg House says:

rgbatduke says December 2, 2012 at 4:12 pm: “And Viet Nam itself was, of course, a massive and successful boondoggle (as was Iraq) intended to transfer truly enormous amounts of money from the taxpayers into the pockets of the military-industrial complex’s owners.”
==========================================================

Really? Sounds exactly like communists propaganda to me. This is their favourite topic, “military-industrial complex’s owners”. I did not now that military had “owners”.

According to my information, America defended South Vietnam from being taken over by the North Vietnamese communists.

283. DirkH says:

spvincent says:
December 2, 2012 at 9:08 pm
“@DirkH: Many factors such as solar variability and changes in Earth orbit are known to affect earth’s climate: a bit of variability is to be expected whether or not any additional AGW forcing is imposed.”

Very good. So you have just confirmed that we do not need CO2’s influence to explain the warming during the 80ies and 90ies. By Occam’s Razor we can declare the CO2AGW theory as interesting but not necessary to explain observed temperatures.

What was it again with “the biggest crisis we will ever face”…? (Not your words; some other believer, maybe Pat) Oh, ’twas a natural variation wiggle, you know what they do , those wiggles, ’twas nothing really…

284. henry@davidmhoffer &dr Brown

get it? Hadcrut 3 shows a similar result of a drop of about 0.1 degree C since 2002. My own data set shows a drop of almost 0.2 degree C since 2000. It is not a lot, as far as yet,

but, DO YOU ALL GET THIS: we are cooling!!! Globally. Naturally.

Furthermore, my own (silly?) results, showing a 88 year sine wave of 44 warming and 44 years cooling,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
suggest that this cooling will accelerate and carry on well until at least 2035. By that time all arctic ice loss will freeze back. As it did from 1922-1945.
There is at least one other scientist that agrees with me

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/

285. Silver Ralph says:

.
For anyone who saw that disgusting Roger Harrabib report on Doha, on the BBC, please make a complaint via this online form.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

.

286. Robert A. Taylor says:

It is far far to late for this correction, but unfortunately
Werner Brozek says:
December 1, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Gave the correct quote from the NOAA.gov “State of the Climate in 2008” Report

”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

but gave the page number as 23; the correct page number is 123.

It is in a two page section (pp 122 & 123) with a blue instead of white background to emphasize it, with the heading

DO GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS OVER THE PAST DECADE FALSIFY CLIMATE PREDICTIONS?

This short section they emphasize has no printed page numbers.

287. P. Solar says:

Monckton of Brenchley says:
>>
No doubt “JB” has not read the report, but he should not assume that his own indolence and ignorance are universal.
>>
Now that sounds more like the Monckton we know.

>>
Finally, a Mr Ravasio seems not to like what I wrote in the head posting, but has failed to identify any particular fact that I had gotten wrong.
>>

But what’s this? Even assuming his travels and much discussion and contact with those speaking an american dialect have caused him to start using the awful past tense of ‘get’, the sentence is still incorrectly mixing tenses: “I wrote” , “I had gotten”.

Either : I had written + I had gotten or I wrote + I got

This would be so anathema to someone as bight and educated as Monckton I find it hard to imagine he could possibly write such a sentence in the first place, let alone re-read it without noticing.

I’m of the conclusion the his lordship too busy with the behind the scenes politics at Doha and is now subcontracting this sort of blog activity to a college of non-british origin, probably an Aussie.

288. It seems everyone here forgets again that a large part of the increase in CO2 is caused by the natural warming from 1950-2000 of the oceans. There are giga tons and giga tons of bicarbonate in the oceans. Everyone knows that if you switch on your kettle, filled with water,
you get this chemical reaction
(more) heat + HCO3- => (more) CO2 + OH-
So the first smoke you see when the water gets warmer is CO2.
Cause and effect, get it? Smoking causes cancer, but cancer does not cause warming.
There is a causal relationship, showing more CO2 in the past, due to it becoming warmer.

The closed box experiments that Tyndall and S.Arrhenius used or any other proposed closed box experiment, cannot be applied to prove that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is (also) that of more warming. I have explained this here:

In this respect I have challenged anyone, even dr. Brown, to provide me with the balance sheet, as referred to at the end of the above blog post.

289. As the farmers in Anchorage have noted,

the cooling is so bad there that they do not get much of any harvests.

And it seems NOBODY is telling them there that it is not going to get any better. The cooling will last until 2030-2040. See here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/

The sad part of this story is, that as we enter 2013, and where the world should prepare itself for climate change due to (natural) global cooling,

for example, by initiating more agricultural schemes at lower latitudes (FOOD!),

and providing more protection against more precipitation at certain places (FLOOD!),

the media and the powers-that-be are twiddling with their thumbs, not listening to the real scientists,

e.g. those not making any money and nice journeys out of the gravy train that “global warming” has become.

290. P. Solar says:

spvincent says:
>>
The essential point is that the perceived lack of warming over the last 16 years is a statistical artefact caused by a large El Nino event at the start of that period.

A couple of things: first see what a big difference the choice of starting year makes

@DirkH: Many factors such as solar variability and changes in Earth orbit are known to affect earth’s climate: a bit of variability is to be expected whether or not any additional AGW forcing is imposed.
>>

Funny isn’t how this “statistical artefact” was an integral part of climate and was to a large extent what was defining the hockey stick and the slope all the defective climate models were tuned to reproduce. Now it’s just an artefact that we are supposed to ignore.

Similarly, anyone who suggested a solar link to climate got laughed of the face of the catastrophically warming Earth. Now we’re supposed to “adjust” to data to account for it.

For two decades we’ve been presented with climate “trends” . Now the trends are going the wrong way they suddenly become “misleading”.

This kind of duplicity seems central to those still trying to pretend that CO2 has any significant impact on climate. But that’s “OK” because it’s for The Cause. It’s OK to twist the truth, to lie and deceive , it’s a moral imperative !

So perhaps spvincent can remove the statistical artefacts the cooled 60s and 70s and the one that warmed 80s and 90s, account for the warming caused by solar variations as well a wanting to adjust for recent declines and tell us what is left of the run away global warming that we are supposed to sacrifice our economy, social structure and nation sovereignty for.

I think he has raised some good points about natural variability, let’s see the upshot of his reasoning.

291. Dan Pangburn says:

@ Steve Jones:
Thanks for the Feynman show. I refered to it as follows but had not before actually seen it.

Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some politicians and many others stubbornly continue to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide was the primary cause of global warming.

Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.

The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased since 2001 by 23.2 ppmv (an amount equal to 25.9% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; October, 2012, 394.32 ppmv).

The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat. (Some agencies show flat since 1997)

That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 23.2 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.

It might not be realized by some, but average global temperature actually has little to do with meteorology so the wrong experts have been trying to figure it out. The so-called Global Climate Models (aka General Circulation Models) are actually weather models and they do a pretty good job of predicting weather for a few days. Their predicting ability declines into computational noise within days. It is profoundly naive to perceive that a weather model can be turned into a climate model by running it longer.

Average GLOBAL temperature anomalies are reported on the web by NOAA, GISS, Hadley, RSS, and UAH, all of which are government agencies. The first three all draw from the same data base of surface measurement data. The last two draw from the data base of satellite measurements. Each agency processes the data slightly differently from the others. Each believes that their way is most accurate. To avoid bias, I average all five. The averages in Celsius degrees are listed here.

2001 0.3473
2002 0.4278
2003 0.4245
2004 0.3641
2005 0.4663
2006 0.3930
2007 0.4030
2008 0.2598
2009 0.4022
2010 0.5261
2011 0.3277

A straight line (trend line) fit to these data has no slope. That means that, for over a decade, average global temperature has not changed. If the average thru October, 2012 (0.3691 °C) is included, the slope is down.

292. Dan Pangburn says:

@rgbatduke
Follow the link in my first post above to see eye-opening graphs and a rational equation that, with only one independent variable, calculates average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy.

293. Kev-in-Uk says:

Greg House says:
December 2, 2012 at 9:21 pm
…Really? Sounds exactly like communists propaganda to me. This is their favourite topic, “military-industrial complex’s owners”. I did not now that military had “owners”…

I think rgb was referring to the owners of the industrial manufacturers FOR the military – not the military themselves….

294. Although there is some suggestion that some ocean regions have begun to cool since 2008 or so, it is clear that the oceans continued to warm after the atmosphere leveled off in 1997. The oceans are the predominant source of atmospheric warming so it is strange that they have continued to warm without transferring their enthalpy. It is certainly not surprising that the oceans would lag any change in trend, but they should not have allowed the atmosphere to flatilne…

From spvincent on December 2, 2012 at 9:08 pm:

Taking the Hadcrut4 dataset, here are the trend values in degrees C/decade over five closely-related time periods.

1995-2012 +0.109 +/- 0.129
1996-2012 +0.107 +/- 0.129
1997-2012 +0.058 +/- 0.142
1998-2012 +0.052 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.095 +/- 0.162

Let’s look at a satellite-derived dataset (UAH)

1995-2012 +0.139 +/- 0.203
1996-2012 +0.138 +/- 0.227
1997-2012 +0.106 +/- 0.252
1998-2012 +0.063 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.179 +/- 0.262

A couple of things: first see what a big difference the choice of starting year makes, and secondly note that, even during the period when there was allegedly no warming (start year 97 or 98: take your pick), there was STILL an overall upward trend in the data according to these 2 datasets (and others I’ve looked at).

The claim that global warming stopped in 1998 is simply false.

Data taken from http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php : that from woodfortrees.org gives similar results.

Actually the only thing worth noting is you don’t understand the uncertainty ranges. As all of the negative uncertainty values exceed the claimed warming trend, none of those figures prove warming. Indeed, within those uncertainty ranges it is possible that there was global cooling during every last one of those figures, as the value minus the (absolute value of the) negative uncertainty amount is always negative.

So the many values you stated give no proof of any global warming whatsoever.

296. richardscourtney says:

LetsBeReasonable:

You begin your content-free post at December 2, 2012 at 5:27 pm

Richardcourtney, let me first say, I am disappointed that you should resort to glib phrases like your brains are dropping out.

Then please refrain from posting mindless questions that can only have the purpose of misleading onlookers.

There has been no global warming discernible at 95% confidence for the most recent 16 years while atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued its exponential rise.
This is a ‘problem’ for the AGW-hypothesis.
Live with it.

Richard

297. Alex G says:

I have read that some 95+ % of the extra energy (extra from energy imbalance) goes down into the oceans. So in my mind we should perhaps be looking more to the oceans and less upp in the air. Perhaps even so that even if we would have had a really huge rise in average air temps it would still be more relevant to stay focused on the oceans.The air is secondary in the end. Also the current sea level rise points upwards and that fact should make us pulling the handbrakes of both coastal exploration aswell as trying to fix the heat balance. With this in mind I think that those who works pro heat storage and ocean level rise should reconcider their standpoint.

298. markx says:

Greg House says:
December 2, 2012 at 9:21 pm

“….Really? Sounds exactly like communists propaganda to me. This is their favourite topic, “military-industrial complex’s owners”. …. According to my information, America defended South Vietnam from being taken over by the North Vietnamese communists….”

Geez Greg, I was going to pick out rgb’s phrase there too, except to put if forward as a great truth!

Perhaps you could stop and consider whether you really think that only one side is capable of propaganda. Taking as fact everything your country and your leaders feed to you is not alway justified.

No doubt there were people who truly believed they were saving the world from communism, but a lot of those were then, and are now, more worried about the financial bottom line of their companies, or the jobs for their voters, or their own employment, be it military or military connected. For FY 2010, USA Department of Defense spending was 4.7% of GDP, that is excluding the $3.7 trillion so far (to June 2011) spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Think about it for one moment. In a country where so many people are involved in the supply of military hardware, weapons, equipment, rations, uniforms, fuel, etc etc there are one helluva lot of well connected people who NEED a war to be ticking over somewhere in the world just to ensure business does not shut down. Even if it does send the nation broke, they benefit. And the military structures themselves NEED a few wars ticking over to ensure advancement, promotion and continued opportunities, especially amongst the senior decision makers. The whole thing is self perpetuating, but unfortunately not self supporting. rgbatduke says December 2, 2012 at 4:12 pm: “And Viet Nam itself was, of course, a massive and successful boondoggle (as was Iraq) intended to transfer truly enormous amounts of money from the taxpayers into the pockets of the military-industrial complex’s owners.” Whether or not the intention was precisely as stated by rgb, that absolutely and certainly was and is the happy outcome. 299. wayne Job says: Thankyou mogamboguru for pointing out the new and revised world average temperature change. Being now in my twilight years I remember it was accepted world wide for maybe a century that the world average was 14.7 C at 1013 Mb. I would like to see the scientific study that changed these long held views. 300. P. Solar says: spvincent “The claim that global warming stopped in 1998 is simply false.” No, the idea that you can evaluate whatever you think “global warming” means by fitting straight lines to a chaotic non-linear system displaying strong repetitive cycles is what is false. Oddly this was never a problem until such straight lines no longer showed the desired result. 301. Ryan says: Oh Jesus, I wish there had been some global warming, because 40 years of Christmas shopping and its colder than ever here in Britain. In fact it frankly to cold and icy to go out and do the Christmas shopping this time round. So please, stick your climate models where the sun don’t shine. Nobody needs them anymore – its obvious the planet isn’t getting warmer. Anybody that still believes otherwise is living in a state of total sensory deprivation. 302. davidmhoffer says: December 2, 2012 at 7:18 pm rgbatduke says: December 2, 2012 at 6:45 pm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Life is not fair. There’s only 13 minutes between your last two comments. You wrote that last one in 13 minutes? I couldn’t write something that clear and precise in 13 hours and you tossed it off in 13 minutes? lol. As I said, the man is clear. 303. Ryan says: “3. The elephant in the room is this: energy companies, in addition to anyone making a lot of money right now all have a big interest in delaying doing anything. There is$172 trillion dollars of fossil fuel in the ground that won’t be available.”

Isn’t it interesting that nobody has suggested stopping the production of fossil fuels? The focus is always on controlling the consumption, i.e. controlling the people not the corporations. Surely it would be much easier to simply tell Saudi Arabia to stop producing oil. It is 60% of the production. There are fewer producers than there are consumers, so it is easier to control the producers.

Why is it that when I go to EU Parliament it is surrounded by banners telling me what a great job Shell and BP are doing on renewable energy and how the EU Parliament should help them by giving them more funds? In the end they are energy companies and they will sell energy – they will use their funds to acquire whatever energy source they require to sell on to us. Makes no odds to them if they acquire a solar panel company or an oil field in Nigeria. Even better for them if they can find some naive politicians to hand them some taxpayer cash in the process.

304. Alex G says
So in my mind we should perhaps be looking more to the oceans and less up in the air.

Henry says
True. We do. Look out for the regular posts from Bob Tisdale here.
Dont forget: Earth stores energy in its waters, vegetations, chemicals, even in winds, currents and weather, etc. On top of that we have earth’s own volcanic actions which also provides heating/cooling, whatever.
Ice, more or less of it, also becomes a factor. I also found that earth’s inner core, molten hot iron, also changes position sometimes, creating more heat in one place and less in another. So whatever comes out as average surface temp. is bound to be very confusing.
Maxima is a much better parameter to look at as it gives us a sense of energy in.
It seems I am the only one who is plotting them, but it gave me some very good results.

305. Dan Pangburn says

Henry says
sorry I did not see a link anywhere, and I was interested

306. Bruce Cobb says:

Wow, the ability of the Warmist mind to simply waive inconvenient truths such as the lack of warming, despite record-levels (and continually increasing) of their magic gas C02 the last 16 years is truly amazing. Satellites even reveal a slight cooling trend. One could even say that they are in denial, which is a defense mechanism. It is understandable, I suppose. Their CAGW Belief system is crumbling, and that has to be painful.

307. rgbatduke says:

Life is not fair. There’s only 13 minutes between your last two comments. You wrote that last one in 13 minutes? I couldn’t write something that clear and precise in 13 hours and you tossed it off in 13 minutes?

Anthony – how about a resource page? “the collected works of rgbatduke” ?

Back in the day when I was actively doing massive computing on beowulf-style clusters and an equally active member of the beowulf list, I was accused on more than one occasion of not actual being human but rather a bot. In fact, I think you can still find a few of the comments googling rgbbot beowulf together.

Bear in mind that I write constantly. As in, I practically live at the keyboard when I’m not fishing, or teaching, or sleeping. And I actually took typing wa-a-ay back in high school, learning to touch type on a genuine IBM Selectric. I got an A. I have no idea what my typing speed is, but it is at least as fast as I would speak to a slightly slow and dimwitted child, a word every 2-3 seconds, so figure 60-80 characters per second when I’m on a tear.

As for the “clear and precise” — bless you, but I wish. I know what I know clearly enough (even where it is probably wrong) but there is too much to know and too little time to learn it.

Beyond that, regarding your woodsfortrees plots for/with HenryP — you will get even more interesting if you fit the data with a set of zero trend lines — that’s right, zero trend — separated by step function jumps. IIRC, you can build a rather decent fit with only one jump (as you’ve observed) — the data is “nearly” flat on both sides of 1997-1998, with a large jump associated with the El Nino. You can do slightly better with 3 or 4 jumps, only one of which is at all large and a couple of which are slightly negative.

This is exploring the Koutsoyiannis approach to climate statistics (what he calls Hurst-Kolmogorov statistics). My own interpretation of this is that the thermal climate is best described as a series of punctuated equilibrium transitions between locally stable attractors in a generalized chaotic phase space. Those attractors are not dense — there seems to be decent phase separation (hence the local stability) but nevertheless there are several attractors available, probably with very different circulatory character, with similar mean temperatures.

This hypothesis describes the data decently — the small transitions are likely to be of the latter character, and may be triggered by relatively “large” events modulating the external forcing or they may well be triggered by nothing at all — a “butterfly wing transition” if you like. The kinds of circulatory changes they represent are probably things like persistent blocking highs or macroscopic modulations of the jet stream or global decadal circulations or thermohaline circulation or nonlinear combinations of all of the above plus solar effects. The large transition visible is almost certainly due to the El Nino that occurred in the 1997-1998 time frame, and is extremely visible in Bob Tisdale’s SST data as well. In fact, you would find it interesting to correlate that SST data (with similar HK fits) and the RSS data.

This is why I think that we simply don’t have enough data to understand the climate system. You can’t squeeze blood from a turnip or spin gold out of straw or turn inadequate data providing insight into a chaotic system into a meaningful and unique model. With a single “major” transition triggered by an obvious event, and fewer minor transitions than one has fingers on a single hand over a mere 33 years of data, one is truly sucking serious wind if one wishes to somehow connect all of these dots into a model with something vaguely approximating predictive power, and if one DID build such a model at the top it would resemble a quantum Langevin model — a stochastic ODE describing transition probabilities between locally stable states in some ensemble where we cannot even begin to describe those states or the forces that cause transitions in between them. What the climate is almost certainly not is a continuously/smoothly varying system — that is an illusion produced by “smoothing” the thermometric record in various ways.

This has enormous implications. If one makes the simple assumption that the past thermal record has this same punctuated equilibrium character, but that it has been smoothed and undersampled and oversampled and adjusted until it is impossible to resolve the transitions, then things like the downturn in temperature in the mid-20th century become critical things to understand, as they demonstrate that there are distinct downward pathways open to the natural phase evolution of the system. It also suggests that there are several very long timescale, slow processes at work shifting the centroid of the mean global temperature distribution associated with the locally stable attractors. It is these processes that people on this list are constantly trying to identify e.g. asserting that solar activity as reflected in sunspots or magnetism or whatever is one, asserting that the positions of the major planets (perhaps as a proxy for where the Sun is relative to the center of mass of the solar system in its highly chaotic orbit) is one, asserting that the phase of the PDO is one, asserting that positive feedback between a warming trend and CO_2 released from the oceans is one. Or, of course, that all of these and more are or may be important, and what’s more, that they may be important two or three at a time!

Everybody looks for simple stupid linear covariance in the climate models. Why is that, one wonders? It might well be that the centroid of global mean temperatures varies with sunspots/solar activity, but only when one, two, or three other conditions are just right. For example, PDO positive and high sunspot count is warming, PDO negative cancels the warming, NAO positive can double down with the PDO to produce warming or cooling independent of the state of the sun, ENSO trumps all on short time scales bumping the system around among the ensemble of locally stable attractors, and what the hell, might as well let volcanoes and human aerosols and the climate 100 years ago that is surfacing in the thermohaline circulation get in on the act.

Is it so surprising that the climate system is nontrivially multivariate? Yet over and over again people look for linear/trivial correlations and accept or reject causal influence because there is/is not a simple linear/trivial correspondence.

Of course I understand why — to fit a nontrivial nonlinear multivariate model requires a shit-pile of data and we don’t got it and ain’t gonna get it in less than decades from now. 33 years of satellite data. Less than 15 years of ARGOS data. We haven’t even spanned the natural variability of the known important drivers, the decadal oscillations, and what we would need to do is span the permutations of their states with permutations of solar and geomagnetic states in order to fit a nonlinear model. This is — and I speak professionally and with deep knowledge — for all practical purposes impossible with the data we have in hand at the moment.

Being an optimist, I think we might start to have a clue in twenty more years, especially if the Sun cooperates and we do indeed sample a Maunder-style minimum in the next cycle (although I frankly doubt the predictive capabilities of the solar climate models that suggest that it might, and wouldn’t therefore be surprised if we don’t). It also might help if the north atlantic oscillation changes phase, or if the oceanic thermohaline circulation varies in such a way that it provides clues (now that we have sampling buoys in place that can give us a full 3D picture of what is going on across the thermocline in something like a global network of oceanic locations, although it still tragically undersamples and non-uniformly samples the ocean). But it has been suggested that it might take 100 years of data (post 1979, if not post 2000) to get enough data to resolve the nonlinear coupling of all of the probably important parameters. And sadly, this could be right — or rather, it almost certainly is right if one wishes to descend the tree far enough to start to resolve things more than three at a time, but I still think we could get a decent first approximation in fifty.

After only thirty we are still waiting to see what the solar cycle will do in coincidence with the PDO, ENSO, the NAO, volcanoes, air pollution, SSTs, the varying polar albedo, CO_2 driving, ozone driving, methane driving, particulates, deep changes in the thermohaline circulation, the slow but inexorable changes in the Earth’s troika of orbital parameters and their ill-understood but obviously nonlinear tendency to drive the Earth back into glaciation, and did I leave anything out? Of course — don’t forget that damned Brazilian Butterfly because it’s not like you can dial all of these parameters into anything and get one answer — the butterfly is capable of making it warm when it “should” cool or cool when it “should” warm because it keeps batting its wings to cause transitions between warming and/or cooling attractors due to what amounts to “noise” in ways that defy prediction by any model.

rgb

308. John West says:

RGB@Duke:
“(only if you wanted to get fired — err, perhaps I should say “discharged”, oops, no, that won’t do either, rendered an ex-employee?).

ROTFLMAO! ……. Touché.
BTW, an entire string of great comments.

I agree with David, these RGB gems need to be collected and put somewhere we can send people who are really just getting in to this issue (Ric?). He’s probably shot down every straw-man argument and half-baked position that the advocacy sites propagate to the naïve, who then get the idea they can come to the poor deluded WUWT’ers and educate us with the “Truth”™.

gallopingcamel says:
“The thing that is missing from the work of the IPCC’s technical folk (Working Group 1) is the kind of perspective that you provide.

For example the IPCC tries to scare us by mentioning that global ice is melting at the rate of ~300 Giga-tonnes per year while failing to mention that there is an “Inventory” of 30 million Giga-tonnes of ice. If they told us that it will take 100,000 years to melt all the ice at the present rate, would anyone be alarmed?”

Yep, that’s the nature of Zohnerism, you can make anything sound bad if you just know which facts to present and which facts to withhold.
http://www.dhmo.org/

309. rgbatduke says:

For example the IPCC tries to scare us by mentioning that global ice is melting at the rate of ~300 Giga-tonnes per year while failing to mention that there is an “Inventory” of 30 million Giga-tonnes of ice. If they told us that it will take 100,000 years to melt all the ice at the present rate, would anyone be alarmed?

Yeah, I noted that too. Or, one could do some simple arithmetic. The surface area of the world’s oceans is 360 million square kilometers. A square kilometer is a million square meters. The surface area is therefore $3.6 \times 10^{14}$ square meters. Conveniently enough, one cubic meter of water has a mass of one metric ton (1000 kg). Forget the .6 in the area. We melt $3 \times 10^{11}$ metric tons of water and distribute it on $3\times 10^{14}$ square meters, and it produces precisely 1 mm of Sea Level Rise (SLR).

Or does it?

One thing that I am amazed by is that the alarmists have forgotten their scaling laws (or perhaps they never knew them). Let’s take Greenland, as an entirely apropos example. Suppose that, as occurred last summer, Greenland has an anomalously warm week. We’ll be generous and assume that a whole centimeter of surface ice melts, turning from ice into water at the freezing point that is well mixed into the snow on the surface. In fact, it turns that snow into slush. However, the water content of that slush is not free, and it is hundreds to thousands of miles away from the ocean. A few days later, the surface re-freezes, and one has a relatively dense layer of ice that will lie under this year’s snow pack. This water will not actually appear in the ocean until it makes its way to the perimeter of Greenland through one or another of the active transport mechanisms that cause it to gradually shed ice and water around the perimeter. Those mechanisms take far, far, longer than is relevant to any discussion of the next century to operate.

And Antarctica is even worse. IIRC, the bulk of the “melt” they are worried about is in one relatively small branch of Western Antarctica. Antarctica is a goddamn continent, and almost none of its ice is within a hundred miles of the coast, and most of that ice is frozen rock solid from the top to the bottom and trapped so that it can’t migrate to the coast.

This means that one cannot actually assert that 100% of the 300 Gt of “ice melt” that they claim makes it into the ocean, producing a whole millimeter of SLR. Only a fraction — probably less than one hundredth of this amount — makes it into the ocean. If this “accelerated” melt rate held for 100 years, and the meltwater migrated a whole mile towards the ocean every year — they might get to where a whole half-millimeter of SLR could be attributed to it, if one could resolve this “melting signal” from the background noise of fluctuations in annual snowfall that directly modulate the melt rate at the coasts where meltwater enters the oceans.

They are presenting a static result — a snapshot of a single, tiny time interval on a geological time scale — as if it describes the full dynamic process.

I noted that even Gavin Schmidt was very hesitant about claiming that this was proof of something in the article announcing this “important” news. He knows better. It is direct proof that there is no reason to panic, not proof that we should be panicking, not when one does the arithmetic.

If we more than doubled this rate of ice loss, magically transported 100% of the melt into the sea regardless of where it occurs, and endured 2.5 whole millimeters of SLR on top of the 2.5 millimeters of SLR that has persisted (erratically) over the last 140 plus years, the ocean would rise a spectacular 2 inches per decade instead of the inch to inch and a quarter per decade it is rising now. However, this possibility has to be balanced against the possibility that SSTs have globally stabilized post the 1998 El Nino, which means that the thermal expansion rate might actually be stabilizing as well (although God only knows where the “true equilibrium” thermal distribution of heat in the ocean lies compared to its current one, if the concept has any meaning whatsoever). Dumping lots of freshwater ice melt in could interrupt the THC in nonlinear ways, could make it easier to refreeze the surface of the polar oceans and hence provide negative feedback by modulating the albedo, could increase winter precipitation to that increased snowfall compensates for the increased melt — or have the opposite effects. We don’t even know the sign of the probable feedbacks, yet people are predicting with arrogant confidence that SLR of over a meter by the end of the century is likely and we should take enormously extraordinarily expensive measures now so that we’re ready for it then.

rgb

310. Alex P,

It is not correct to say that 95% of the energy imbalance goes into the oceans. The imbalance you allude to is the supposed increment from human greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gasses can warm the atmosphere but they cannot warm the oceans, yet we have ocean warming after the atmosphere has leveled off.

RGB has repeatedly and correctly pointed out that we are blind monks grasping at an elephant. We will continue to grasp and probe with our limited tools. Maybe we can reach a stick…..

311. rgbatduke says:

“….Really? Sounds exactly like communists propaganda to me. This is their favourite topic, “military-industrial complex’s owners”. …. According to my information, America defended South Vietnam from being taken over by the North Vietnamese communists….”

Geez Greg, I was going to pick out rgb’s phrase there too, except to put if forward as a great truth!

I was actually thinking about a statistic that I read right after the war that suggested that just about exactly 50 cents out of every dollar spent on Viet Nam was looted and never actually went to fighting the war. Everybody had their hand in the till, all the way down to servicemen who were disassembling whole jeeps and shipping them home. Our troops are still being shot and blown up with ordinance stolen during the Viet Nam war.

Personally, I think Communism is stupid, but I also think that in the particular case of Viet Nam, we should have been fighting on the other side (or not fighting at all). Remember that the war was started to rebel against French Imperialism. Read a bit about how that went. The government of South Viet Nam was so corrupt that we at the very least acquiesced in the assassination of its president early in our involvement in the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem. Otherwise we would have lost the entire army. Naturally, we replaced one corrupt puppet with another and then tried to fight a war that wasn’t a war with rules that weren’t rules that prevented us from having any possible chance of winning. If we could have invaded North Viet Nam, we could have one the war in a month or two. Of course, we might have triggered world war three, thermonuclear style, but so it goes. Otherwise we had zero chance — the best we could have hoped for was a Korea-like stalemate, and look at how successful that has been!

Of course, we probably should have been fighting on the other side in Cuba as well, or at least, if we had behaved ethically before the Cuban Revolution and actually opposed the open and revolting exploitation of the economy by organized criminals and rich landowners and promoted democracy and social justice there, perhaps the revolution would never have been necessary.

Nixon, bless his ruddy little soul, had the right idea. Get out of an unwinnable war, make friends out of our enemies, change the world. Yes, he got Cambodia wrong — everybody wants to win — but he was nothing if not a realist and knew when to fold the hand.

Our country has a sad, sad history of having one standard of freedom and human rights for its citizens, and another one altogether for nations that have something that we want, be it oil or sugar or diamonds or uranium or wood. We also have a sad history of treating communism per se with the same sort of religious perspective seen in the great Global Climate Debate. McCarthyism might yet rear its ugly head and bite “deniers” in the ass — some idiots actually call for treating deniers as “traitors” on slashdot and once you have that sort of madness infecting the masses, it only takes a thin pretext for the witch trials to begin.

rgb

312. ghowe says:

Thank you Mr. Monckton for the Doha summation. It made my day. And thank you Dr. Brown for your insightful comments. I have one question, now that this thread is just about done. Have you ever caught a Roosterfish? :)

313. rgbatduke says:

Isn’t it interesting that nobody has suggested stopping the production of fossil fuels? The focus is always on controlling the consumption, i.e. controlling the people not the corporations. Surely it would be much easier to simply tell Saudi Arabia to stop producing oil. It is 60% of the production. There are fewer producers than there are consumers, so it is easier to control the producers.

Actually, the really interesting thing is that everybody wants somebody ELSE to tell them what they can do, and generally they really want that somebody else to tell somebody else. For example, Al Gore calls for draconian legislation and expensive measures to control energy consumption and save the world, but does so owning a huge house and driving a huge car and flying in huge jets all over the huge world. Do as I say, not as I do. England, as Gail has pointed out, is a particularly sorry example, returning the entire country to WWII-like levels of energy privation because “it is the right thing to do”. If it is ever proven that it is the wrong thing to have done, there will be heads that roll, quite possibly literally, galore. I have no idea how we would “tell Saudi Arabia to stop producing oil” — last time I looked it was a sovereign nation selling a valuable commodity to a world with a huge demand for it. We could, of course, at any time stop buying Saudi oil — the day we are all willing to see gas prices spike up through the roof and our own economy to come crashing down.

That’s the tricky thing about the CAGW argument. They have made it so extreme that in order to “save the world” we need to take infinitely draconian measures now, literally stop burning carbon tomorrow and MAYBE we’ll only end up with an endurable catastrophe in 100 years instead of end of world 4 or 5 degree warming, a return to the Eocene with a land run in Antarctica to replace the shorelines lost to the rising sea. The price we pay is that those infinitely draconian measures are a catastrophe now, one that would be measured out in human lives and misery every single day, as not one single aspect of American civilization would withstand the shutting down of the oil spigot for real. Our entire cultural and economic infrastructure is based on rapid, cheap transportation, and even if we wanted to (which we don’t) we couldn’t rebuild it into an alternative WITHOUT using rapid, cheap transportation in the meantime, over multiple decades.

We are now thoroughly damned if we do, damned if we don’t, and damned if we do (take active measures now) is certain and immediate where damned if we don’t is highly uncertain, however “certainly” its proponents attempt to portray it. Obama is often demonized, but so far I think he has been entirely reasonable in almost completely ignoring the CAGW nutters (who have to vote for him anyway, who are they going to vote for otherwise when at least he will make some investments in e.g. alternative energy while still working to make the US oil independent). We aren’t supporting the oil and coal industry because we love them or hate them — we love the freedom and wealth that oil and coal buy us in the form of cheap energy and transportation to drive our entire economy. Provide an alternative to burning coal that is cheaper, that’s fine. Try to give up burning coal in favor of more expensive alternatives, that is directly equivalent to reducing wealth and security for every single person that does so.

Cost benefit analysis is really all that matters, and we all vote with our everyday choices. Americans aren’t “evil” — if they fail to vote for the draconian measures needed to avoid the predicted catastrophe, it is because they very reasonably doubt that catastrophe. And they are wise in doing so. By polarizing the discussion and framing it in terms of catastrophe, the CAGW advocates have actually created a huge obstacle to their own success, one that will never come down while total LTT warming is 0.1C/decade no matter how “alarming” they try to make natural disasters supposedly caused by “climate change” in the meantime.

rgb

314. rgbatduke says:

I have read that some 95+ % of the extra energy (extra from energy imbalance) goes down into the oceans. So in my mind we should perhaps be looking more to the oceans and less upp in the air. Perhaps even so that even if we would have had a really huge rise in average air temps it would still be more relevant to stay focused on the oceans.The air is secondary in the end. Also the current sea level rise points upwards and that fact should make us pulling the handbrakes of both coastal exploration aswell as trying to fix the heat balance. With this in mind I think that those who works pro heat storage and ocean level rise should reconcider their standpoint.

Hopefully you’ve read some of my remarks above that contradict both of these suggestions, but here is a more focused reply. First, we have decent data on SSTs for the last 33 years as well — read Bob Tisdale’s extensive posts on them or buy his inexpensive book. We have very decent data for perhaps a decade or a bit more — before that it is dicey even in the satellite era because SSTs don’t describe what is happening in the bulk where this heat is supposedly going. Average SSTs are not terribly distinct from lower troposphere temperatures and show absolutely no signs of running away, and it is far too early to say what is happening to total oceanic heat content as we don’t even have one whole solar cycle as a baseline and our sampling in ARGOS is still somewhat indifferent. The major changes in SSTs are strictly associated with the ENSO, IIRC, and SSTs have been remarkably flat over the same time interval post-1998 that LTTs have been flat.

As for SLR — look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

The graph isn’t “skeptic” propaganda, it is the actual mix of tide gauge data all the way back to 1870 spliced in a not-quite-apples-to-apples manner to satellite data on the end about 20 years ago. Surely you will agree that there is absolutely nothing remarkable in this graph. The level of the sea has risen by 9 whole inches in 140 years. At least five stretches of ten to twenty years are visible in the data where it has risen at precisely the rate the satellite data suggests that it is rising today — permitting us to argue that the rate is rougly 2 mm/year plus or minus 1 mm/year due to entirely natural, non-CO_2 forced factors! It is utterly impossible to statistically resolve the SLR behavior of any point in this curve from the rest — if I chopped the curve into pieces are reassembled it so that the current rise occurred in the 30s and the 30s rise occurred today, you wouldn’t even notice unless you knew the data like the back of your hand (and it would change nothing).

So I’m sorry, but this is bo-ring. Wake me when there is some actual evidence of a crisis in SLR. A rise rate of 3 mm a year is normal, in the precise sense that if you pick a random year between 1870 and the present, the odds of the slope of the SLR curve at that point being 3mm/year are around 1 chance in 3. Even if 3 mm/year persisted throughout the entire next century, it would represent only around 12 inches of SLR by 2100.

There are very good reasons to think that it will not speed up, but even if it does there is plenty of time — decades at least — to do something about it.

rgb

315. Werner Brozek says:

Robert A. Taylor says:
December 2, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Werner Brozek says:
but gave the page number as 23; the correct page number is 123.
3. Stratospheric temperatures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..20
Those blue pages follow “ Stratospheric temperatures” on page 20.
For some reason, they have a skinny S in front of the page number and you may have thought this was a 1. But page 23 is correct for this quote.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

316. Werner Brozek says:

Dan Pangburn says:
December 2, 2012 at 11:11 pm
To avoid bias, I average all five.

Are you aware that woodfortrees does this automatically for 4 of the sets, namely GISS, Hadcrut3, RSS, and UAH? Then one can find the longest time for a 0 slope using a combination of all four. It turns out to be since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August). See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2000.9/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend

The reason it goes to August is due to the fix that UAH made a month or two ago. So while UAH is now the latest, the combination still apparently uses the old UAH values.

P.S. spvincent says:
December 2, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Yes, I agree that different times and different data sets give different results. But to repeat what someone else said, there is no significant warming on any set since 1995. Right?

317. rgbatduke says:

I think rgb was referring to the owners of the industrial manufacturers FOR the military – not the military themselves….

More specifically, I was referring to the group referred to by one Dwight David Eisenhower in a fairly famous speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Enjoy. This is one of several “shadow governments” we have that diminish our true political and economic freedom. Another one is organized crime, especially drug-related crime. In fact, since post world war II drug money has been relentlessly been laundered and used to buy into the military industrial complex, at this point a lot of the owners of the MIC are people who made their nut importing drugs and investing their freshly washed income into the market, where it buys them respectability, political power, high level protection, and of course substantial compounded wealth and income in its own right. Yet another is the Catholic Church (in particular, although several others e.g. Latter Day Saints and the Baptists wield similar amounts of tax sheltered wealth and disproportionate elective power).

I only brought it up because these shadow government groups are the ones that Gail — mostly correctly — observes are the ones to profit from things like wars, foreign aid (inappropriately designed), and CAGW. Halliburton is a rather famous and obvious example from the Iraq war. I doubt that we will ever know how many tens of billions of dollars were funneled into Halliburton out of the hundreds of billions borrowed and spent on this war — the up-front amounts IIRC were order of twenty billion, but I’m sure that the reality was probably many times that by the time the eye loses the pea under the many shells available in a war-torn and enormously corrupt foreign power. Then there are the indirect profits to the oil industry resulting from the “incidental” effects on the oil marketplace due to the war — profits best described as the wholesale rape of the American people and trashing of the entire economy for half a decade, coincidentally timed to a dramatic reduction in the capital gains rates that permitted a much faster rotation of money through the money pumps of the marketplace so that the rich could get richer selling each other well-laundered stones (see e.g. Bain Capital).

I’m sorry I’m such a cynic, but my father (the same Dorris D. Brown who wrote the aforementioned IADP book on agriculture in India) was a Harvard Ph.D. in economics who taught me economics — occasionally with a rod and with hand-maintained spreadsheets — starting when I was as young as ten years old and he funded me in a “business” raising chickens to produce money I then (had to) invest in the market. Along the way I learned — the hard way — that copper is a wartime commodity that rises in price while there is a high demand for shell casings and then falls when the war that needs the shell casings ends. After that eye opener it became relatively easy to track the hundreds of billions we spend on the MIC even when there is no war, so that we will have it if there ever is one, to the extent that whenever a whole decade goes by without one we start one to restore it to health. Always for the best of reasons, of course.

It is getting harder to do so. We’re down to only two or three venues that can rationally sustain a US military interventions post the cold war. Iran has been well-prepared and is hanging there like a ripe fruit, ready to pick as Afghanistan and Iraq wind down (assuming that we don’t involve ourselves in Syria). North Korea is always a fallback option but it is batshit crazy and might cost even the MIC more than it bargained for when it nukes Tokyo or San Francisco in retaliation (and interrupts the highly profitable trade arrangements with China in the process). I strongly suspect that the next “war” is going to be a war to save the earth from global warming, complete with artificial markets ready to manipulate to divert vast sums of taxpayer money into “repurposed” MIC pockets.

Too bad we cannot actually declare a REAL war on the entire MIC itself, and do things like legalize drugs (boom, instant loss of a half trillion or so per annum in global illicit income and all of the wealth and power it buys), destroy North Korea and Cuba by starting to freely trade with them, and end the implicit tax subsidy of religions. But whoever tried would be assassinated in short order.

rgb

318. John Satterfield says:

Climate scientists have “fudged” the numbers every year for the past 30 years. These are the adjustments made to raw data, as well as the incremental increases done by switching from one temperature proxy to another in the creation of the famous hockey stick graph. Now that everyone has their thumb on the scale and cannot push it up any higher, it is logical that the official “global temperature” sooner or later would have to plateau. We are there. They are done. The temperature can only drop now due to normal variations in climate. They certainly recognize this and will be pushing harder than ever to affect the economy crippling changes they have proposed all along. The next five years are critical. If they do nothing, it all goes away with dropping temperatures. We can still win this.

So if we’ve seen no statistical warming since 1995 but the purveyors of these various data sets continue to make adjustments upwards, doesn’t that indicate the real temperature trend is downward?

And if so, by how much?

Are we facing catastrophic foodstuff curtailment without prior notification by the very people that should be telling us the truth?

Inquiring minds want to know.

320. rgbatduke says:

In this respect I have challenged anyone, even dr. Brown, to provide me with the balance sheet, as referred to at the end of the above blog post.

Dearest HP,

I wouldn’t dream of it. The point I make with regard to your posts is twofold. First of all, you assert knowledge that “the world is currently cooling” that I do not think is justified any more than it is justified to conclude that it is currently warming. Learn about $R^2$, it is your friend when looking at linear trends. At the moment, the climate seems not to be doing much of anything — multiple La Ninas, weak El Ninos when they happen at all, a weak solar cycle, the longest stretch without a category 3 or better storm making landfall in the US in recorded history, reduced frequency and energy in last year’s tornadoes, and nearly flat temperatures both LTT and SST (and with that, who really cares about HADCRUT, although it’s pretty flat too). So no, the world is not “cooling”, nor is it “warming”, not at any statistically significant level. It is boringly flat, although the current plateau is at the end of 400 years of on-average warming at an unremarkable and not-particularly dangerous rate that might well continue since we don’t have any good idea why it got cold in the LIA or why it has warmed subsequently in the first place.

Second, it is a mistake to assert that the CO_2 greenhouse effect “does not exist”. That’s simply nonsense, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out and will continue to point out. Read Perry’s work. Top of atmosphere spectrographs are direct — mind you, direct — evidence of the GHE and its connection to GHGs. TOA compared to BOA spectrographs even more compellingly so. The physics is well-known and thoroughly understood, and takes absolutely nothing out of the 19th century — it is understood at the level of molecular QED and there isn’t the slightest bit of doubt that it exists. It does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, the first law of thermodynamics, or any other such nonsense. One can easily build a trivial model that demonstrates the latter — one that one can solve with paper and pencil (or pen), not a computer.

With that said, as Dick Lindzen (and many other quite competent physicists) have pointed out, the magnitude of the direct CO_2-linked GHE warming on reaching 600 ppm by the end of the century is around 1.2 C, where at least 1/3 of this and probably more has already happened. This is hardly catastrophic. Catastrophe comes not from the CO_2-linked GHE, but from a hypothesized positive feedback from stronger GHGs, notably water. This is where the last fifteen years has been a complete disaster for climate theories and models. First of all the water content of the stratosphere dropped by roughly 10% four or five years ago, roughly coincident with the drop in solar activity of the current weak solar cycle. Wrong direction, in the worst possible place, in the toplevel greenhouse blanket, and as far as I know still not well understood. Second, the CO_2 levels have increased substantially but the temperature has not over the last fifteen years, and the average gain over the last 33 years is entirely unremarkable and become less remarkable with every passing year. What this is doing is forcing the gradual reduction in the estimates of climate sensitivity, especially in models that probably overestimated it in the first place.

In a nutshell, we are seeing only the warming one might expect from the CO_2 increase alone, to the extent that one can imagine separating this “signal” from the natural, and unknown, climate “noise”. This has forced people who still have confidence in their models to attribute more and more of the current flatness to a natural downturn that is canceling the gain from CO_2 and water vapor feedback, but their own models prevent them from looking for a “signal” in the form of reduced solar activity (because that has almost zero impact on insolation) and they are thus scrambling about looking for indirect evidence of some kind of occult “warming” e.g. ice melt, accelerating SLR, increased violence of storms to justify the cancellation of two increasingly divergent terms. This has the smarter ones — and there are plenty of smart ones — to hedge their bets and openly consider the possibility that the entire model is wrong, but of course that doesn’t alter the political landscape that overstates the risk in each successive AR even as that risk systematically declines.

As Lindzen and Roy Spencer both point out, net feedback could rather easily turn out to be within a hair of complete neutrality. Or (as you seem to favor, although I cannot for the life of me imagine any evidentiary basis for the belief) net negative. Or very weakly positive. Even the arguably biased participants in the IPCC’s process are starting to reject the more extreme positive values as being definitely excluded by the good data of the last 33 years, while I don’t think that the evidence that it is completely neutral or net negative has any particularly strong basis either. The probability of disaster is systematically reducing with every year of essentially flat temperatures, and if ENSO is indeed fizzling and the solar maximum has indeed either been reached or almost reached, even the most ardent of CAGW enthusiasts has to worry some about the prospects of any sudden increase in temperature. After all, they too can read the graphs — the only major temperature increase in the modern/satellite instrumental record happened during a particularly strong ENSO in coincidence with a string of arguably stronger than average solar cycles (leaving open the question of whether or not they were “Grand Maxima” as at least one researcher seems to conclude). Now that phenomena like the MWP and Roman Warm Period have been rehabilitated, so that a 1000 year cycle is once again visible in the data, they also have to be worry about how much of the current upturn is part of that cycle (which they do not understand and cannot predict).

At this point we are at a bit of a crossroads. If the current near-neutral temperatures persist, or if temperatures actively drop (as you perhaps wishfully thinking insist that they will) there will be at first an orderly retreat, then a panicked retreat from the predictions of disaster. We may already be seeing a bit of this — I detect more than a hint of moderation appearing in the comments coming out of warmist scientists even as the press continues to if anything increase its exaggerated reporting of climate “extremes”. If 15 or 16 years is a problem, imagine 20. They are, and they know that even though they do not understand and cannot predict why, the global climate is at least somewhat less likely to get substantially warmer on the downhill side of the current solar cycle, and that could be starting any time now. It could be seven or eight years before there is any reasonable chance of a substantial upturn, although they could get lucky and have a butterfly wing warming episode at any time. Why not? It’s a chaotic system! The same damn butterfly could beat its wings backwards, though… and then there is the pesky probability of a Maunder Minimum and/or a major volcanic eruption or other cooling event. Their scientific and political credibility is on the line, and nature is not cooperating.

On the other hand, if they are right, at some point we’ll have another substantial 0.2C or more “instant” warming event to catch the temperature up to the high feedback predictions, and this will happen in spite of confounding things like the lack of a strong ENSO or high solar maximum. The problem there is that over the period where we have good data, this sort of thing pretty much has never happened — they are trusting in two terms in all of their complicated climate models to trump everything else and force the system up in a way that has not been observed.

This could happen, because they could still be right. We have nothing like the evidence required to prove their models or theories wrong. Truth is the daughter of time and all that. Wait and see, and in the meantime it is better to not make egregious predictions without carefully stating that they are egregious and somewhat unlikely to be correct no matter what they are, little better than educated guesses and be thought an overcautious fool than to state with complete conviction and certainty that the weather is going to do precisely this over the next decade and very likely remove all doubt at the end of it.

I myself have no idea what the climate will do. My best guess is pretty much the same as it has been doing — slowly warming at a non-alarming rate that gets some small part from anthropogenic stuff and the bulk of it from slowly varying stuff and nonlinear multivariate effects that I certainly do not understand, only note in the historical record as a centuries-long trend with no known cause and hence with no good reason to believe will suddenly change. I wouldn’t be surprised if it cooled some. I wouldn’t be surprised if it warmed more than I expect. At this point I would be somewhat surprised if it warmed a lot more than I expect. I think catastrophe is rather unlikely.

In this belief I actually think that I agree with the bulk of real climate scientists. Some might think it will warm a bit more, some a bit less, but continued non-catastrophic warming is emerging as a very weakly supported consensus opinion. Another few decades of observation should turn it into real science one way or the other, maybe even with a sound foundation and predictive skill.

In the meantime, do not panic, and hold onto your wallet!

rgb

321. dr Brown says
This is why I think that we simply don’t have enough data to understand the climate system. You can’t squeeze blood from a turnip or spin gold out of straw or turn inadequate data providing insight into a chaotic system into a meaningful and unique model.
Henry says
I know we are in the same army, against our mutual enemy, ignorance, but I have to set you straight here. You (and all climate scientists) don’t get it right because you keep looking at the wrong parameter. You still don’t get it that means won’t give you the right answer until it is far too late…..
If you (i.e. the climate scientists) had studied maxima more intense as all the (noisy) means you guys would all have figured it out, long ago, as I did, here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

This is not a model. This is a fit. There is no “smoothing” here. If you look a bit below the global fit you can see that the fit for Anchorage (luckily) proves that it is probably the best fit. Namely, if I had to use the binomial fit (r squared= 0.998, which is unbelievable HIGH) things would be looking a lot worse.
Either way, we are cooling. And my tables say the speed of this cooling is at its highest rate, just about right now. We will drop now by as much as maxima are dropping because earth’s energy stores are depleted now. We already changed sign in 1995. We will drop 8 x 0.035 = ca. 0.3 degrees C globally by 2020. All the lost ice in the arctic will be back by 2035. Mark my words.
The world is not ready for it, because there are too many people ignorant on the whole subject….
The sad story is, that as we enter 2013, and where the world should prepare itself for climate change due to (natural) global cooling,

for example, by initiating more agricultural schemes at lower latitudes (FOOD!),

and providing more protection against more precipitation at certain places (FLOOD!),

the media and the powers-that-be are twiddling with their thumbs, not listening to the real scientists, e.g. those not making any money and nice journeys out of the gravy train that “global warming” has become.
(I am a hobbyist)

322. Henry@drBrown
Thanks for your reply, it seems we posted both at around the same time, but mine is bedtime now. We will pickitup again tomorrow.

323. rgbatduke says:

If you (i.e. the climate scientists) had studied maxima more intense as all the (noisy) means you guys would all have figured it out, long ago, as I did, here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

This is not a model. This is a fit. There is no “smoothing” here.

Dearest HP,

I don’t think you know what the term model (in statistics) means. In the spirit of that “combatting ignorance” that we are both engaged in, I will once again try to educate you, although empirically it is pointless. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_model

http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/673/

(grab the preprint) focussing your attention on the first figure, where Koutsoyiannis fairly clearly illustrates the fallacy of fitting finite blocks of data with arbitrary functions.

To summarize, when you fit data to a presupposed curve, that is precisely the definition of a statistical model. When you fit a finite, carefully cherrypicked segment of data that happens to result in a good fit to your presupposed model (while ignoring all of the other data that does not work or might even lead to results that contradict it, you are doing a really, really bad job of building a statistical model. When there isn’t the faintest shred of underlying causal mechanism to motivate the particular choice of the functional form you are fitting, you are doing a meaningless job of building a statistical model. Finally even if you had done everything correctly — started with a physically motivated, defensible functional form for the fit, fit it without prejudice to all of the available data and not just the data where the fit seems to work, and still got a decent fit, the statistical model you ended up with would be no better as a predictor of the future than the physics or other causal arguments underlying the fit form, and you would be ill-advised to bet the ranch on the extrapolation of that fit to arbitrary future times unless the physical system involved was particularly simple and linear, in particular not so strongly nonlinear that it is chaotic.

To conclude, the model you have proposed without any underlying physical justification, fit to a tiny, cherrypicked fragment of all of the available climate data, that fails to hindcast the arbitrary past and remains untested against the arbitrary future is a veritable poster child for things one should not do in climate science or any other part of science involving data analysis. As I have pointed out to you, in considerable detail, before.

Surely you don’t think that your sine function extrapolates all the way back to the start of the holocene, for example. Or back to the LIA. Or back to the MWP. Or back to 1940. Because rather obviously, it does not!

So why in the world do you think that it extrapolates forward? What is special about the sine function? What physical mechanism is it capturing? Where is evidence that that mechanism has been present, consistently, from time out of mind?

rgb

324. davidmhoffer says:

If I may, I’d like to present my summary of the science and how it has evolved to date. No disrespect to rgbatduke intended or implied:

The Physicist and the Climatologist

Climatologist; I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?

Physicist; The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.

Climatologist; Well what if I change the composition of the system?

Physicist; See above.

Climatologist; Perhaps you don’t understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?

Physicist; There would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, and perhaps a change in temperature distribution from surface to top of atmosphere, but for the long term average of the system as a whole… see above.

Climatologist; But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would have to raise the temperature of the system.

Physicist; There would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average of the system as a whole… see above.

Climatologist; That can’t be true. I’ve been measuring temperature at thousands of points in the system and the average is rising.

Physicist; The system being of unknown complexity, it may be due to one or more cyclic variations that have not completed, or are coincidental, and a few thousand measuring points across an entire planet are insufficient in any event, even if you have thousands of years of data, which you don’t. Unless the energy inputs have changed, the long term temperature average would be… see above.

Climatologist; AHA! All that burning of fossil fuel is releasing energy that was stored millions of years ago, you cannot deny that this would increase temperature.

Physicist; Is it more than 0.01% of what the energy source shining on the planet is?

Climatologist; Uhm… no.

Physicist; Rounding error. For the long term temperature of the planet… see above.

Climatologist; Methane! Methane absorbs even more than CO2!

Physicist; See above.

Climatologist; Clouds! Clouds would retain more energy!

Physicist; See above.

Climatologist; Ice! If a fluctuation in temperature melted all the ice less energy would be reflected into space and would instead be absorbed into the system, raising the temperature. Ha!

Physicist; The ice you are pointing at is mostly at the poles where the inclination of the radiant energy source is so sharp that there isn’t much energy to absorb. Anyway, removing the ice would expose water that is warmer than the ice which would then radiate more heat to space, cooling the planet and…. see above.

Climatologist; Blasphemer! Unbeliever! The temperature HAS to rise! I have reports! I have measurements! I have computer simulations! I have committees! United Nations committees! Grant money! Billions and billions and billions! I CAN’T be wrong, I will never explain it! Billions! And the carbon trading! Trillions in carbon trading!

Physicist; gasp! How much grant money?

Climatologist; Billions and billions…. Want some?

Physicist; Uhm…

Climatologist; BILLIONS AND BILLIONS

Climatologist; Hi. I used to be a physicist. When I started to understand the danger the world was in though, I decided to do the right thing and become a climatologist. Let me explain the greenhouse effect to you…

325. MarkW says:

Pat:

If 350 is the safe level, how did life ever survive when the level was over 2000?

326. MarkW says:

Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am

The problem is that your so called clean energy sources aren’t clean in the first place and are expensive and unreliable to boot.

327. richardscourtney says:

rgbatduke:

Thankyou for your very fine series of posts in this thread. Much of what you have written I applaud, some I would discuss, and a little I would dispute. But overall your posts are outstanding. Thankyou.

I write to support an argument which you provide at December 3, 2012 at 6:55 am where you say

This is why I think that we simply don’t have enough data to understand the climate system. You can’t squeeze blood from a turnip or spin gold out of straw or turn inadequate data providing insight into a chaotic system into a meaningful and unique model. With a single “major” transition triggered by an obvious event, and fewer minor transitions than one has fingers on a single hand over a mere 33 years of data, one is truly sucking serious wind if one wishes to somehow connect all of these dots into a model with something vaguely approximating predictive power, and if one DID build such a model at the top it would resemble a quantum Langevin model — a stochastic ODE describing transition probabilities between locally stable states in some ensemble where we cannot even begin to describe those states or the forces that cause transitions in between them. What the climate is almost certainly not is a continuously/smoothly varying system — that is an illusion produced by “smoothing” the thermometric record in various ways.

I wholeheartedly agree and have been saying much the same for a long time. For example, I posted the following on WUWT some years ago.
The basic assumption used in the models is that change to climate is driven by change to radiative forcing. And it is very important to recognise that this assumption has not been demonstrated to be correct. Indeed, it is quite possible that there is no force or process causing climate to vary. I explain this as follows.

The climate system is seeking an equilibrium that it never achieves. The Earth obtains radiant energy from the Sun and radiates that energy back to space. The energy input to the system (from the Sun) may be constant (although some doubt that), but the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun ensure that the energy input/output is never in perfect equilbrium.

The climate system is an intermediary in the process of returning (most of) the energy to space (some energy is radiated from the Earth’s surface back to space). And the Northern and Southern hemispheres have different coverage by oceans. Therefore, as the year progresses the modulation of the energy input/output of the system varies. Hence, the system is always seeking equilibrium but never achieves it.

Such a varying system could be expected to exhibit oscillatory behaviour. And, importantly, the length of the oscillations could be harmonic effects which, therefore, have periodicity of several years. Of course, such harmonic oscillation would be a process that – at least in principle – is capable of evaluation.

However, there may be no process because the climate is a chaotic system. Therefore, the observed oscillations (ENSO, NAO, etc.) could be observation of the system seeking its chaotic attractor(s) in response to its seeking equilibrium in a changing situation.

Very importantly, there is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP). All the observed rise of global temperature in the twentieth century could be recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the DACP to the MWP. And the ~900 year oscillation could be the chaotic climate system seeking its attractor(s). If so, then all global climate models and ‘attribution studies’ utilized by IPCC and CCSP are based on the false premise that there is a force or process causing climate to change when no such force or process exists.

But the assumption that climate change is driven by radiative forcing may be correct. If so, then it is still extremely improbable that – within the foreseeable future – the climate models could be developed to a state whereby they could provide reliable predictions. This is because the climate system is extremely complex. Indeed, the climate system is more complex than the human brain (the climate system has more interacting components – e.g. biological organisms – than the human brain has interacting components – e.g. neurones), and nobody claims to be able to construct a reliable predictive model of the human brain. It is pure hubris to assume that the climate models are sufficient emulations for them to be used as reliable predictors of future climate when they have no demonstrated forecasting skill.

Richard

328. Jim G says:

Truthseeker says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:28 pm
“All true from the good Lord, but how do we stop the gravy train?”

One cannot fight entertaiment propaganda with science as I have tried to point out in other posts. Those “scientists” who are on the gravy train do not care about science and will never be convinced. The voting public do not understand science. We need to fight false science with entertaining propaganda with the other side of the story. A tough job, to say the least, with the leftists in media and Hollywood pushing the AGW bandwagon. But it’s the only way to make headway. See the movie “Idiocracy” for some idea as to how this could be done. Movies like “The Day After Tomorrow” sell an agenda to the public. Our agenda needs to be sold. Too little CO2 means a dead planet, no photosythesis. Would make a great basis for a futuristic movie with good scare tactics which sell well. Presentations that are less science and more entertainment like Algore’s.

329. F. Ross says:

@davidmhoffer says:
December 3, 2012 at 11:58 am

Good one LOL!

…and many thanks to rgbatduke for his many fine and, as usual, illuminating posts.

330. HB says:

@andrew and MikeB,

The question about trends from 1950; it’s a step change in 1997-98 with the super el-nino that did it. I can’t see anyone else having made that point, but Bob Tisdale frequently shows that the ocean temps have gone up in step-changes. One in 1997-98 (not sure of the exact timing). So the trend starting in 1997 is flat, as the start point is elevated. There has been no significant warming from a high point in 1997-98. I note that we haven’t hit any significant new high points regardless of el-nino’s since then.

331. rgbatduke says:

Very importantly, there is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP).

Replace “caused” with “is correlated with” and I agree, but let us also agree that correlation is not causality and in fractal chaotic oscillators periodicity is usually “quasi” periodicity — almost an accident that, as you note INITIALLY (before calling it a cause) — might not have anything whatsoever to do with any cause other than the particular non-Markovian history of the system.

It’s kind of scary, how little we can be certain of, but one still has to be very cautious about jumping on fourier components supported by at most a few cycles of very noisy data with huge error bars.

rgb

332. spvincent says:

@DirkH:

So because factors x,y, and z can all result in global warming, it’s impossible to quantify the contributions made by each? Has it not occurred to you that people have looked at the reasons why there has been warming in the last 50-odd years? Well it turns out they have. Solar output did not increase during that period, and changes in the temperature profile of the atmosphere (troposphere temperatures rise while those in the stratospheric fall) match those predicted to arise from increased levels of greenhouse gases.

@P. Solar

The “statistical artefact” is not the data points themselves, but the negative trend in the regression line caused by the inappropriate use of statistical routines that include those data points.

And to pretend, as you seem to do, that CO2 levels have no significant effect on climate is to throw away several hundred years of work in physics and chemistry. There’s not a single reputable climate scientist in the world who would agree with you.

The point was to demonstrate the inadvisability of using trends over short periods as a predictive method, since so much depends on the start and end points. It’s not me who is claiming that this data proves a warming trend over this period (although the data is certainly suggestive) but rather it’s the authors of the Open Letter who are claiming that this data disproves any warming trend. Which it most certainly fails to do.

And any error might equally well be on the high side.

@Werner Brozek

No I do not agree that there has been no significant warming since 1995. I’m not quite sure what your basis for that assertion is (nor why you chose 1995 as the start point) but in every dataset I look at there’s a long term increase over that period.

333. richardscourtney says:

rgbatduke:

Thankyou for the response to me which you provide at December 3, 2012 at 2:07 pm.

I apologise for the confusion caused by my lack of clarity. Of course, I agree that correlation does NOT indicate causation. I attempted to outline a series of different possible interpretations of climate behaviour. One of those possibilities is that the existence of apparent climate cycles may be an indication of real climate cycles and – if so – then the ~900 year cycle did cause the RWP. DACP, MWP, LIA and the PWP. Alternatively, one or none of the other possibilities which I stated may be true.

The important point is that nobody knows what – if anything – actually governs climate behaviour.

Richard

334. Greg House says:

rgbatduke says December 3, 2012 at 7:53 am: “… but I also think that in the particular case of Viet Nam, we should have been fighting on the other side”
======================================================

I see, on the side of the North Vietnamese communists, to help them take over the South Vietnam, establish a totalitarian state and slaughter millions of people.

Thank you for helping the readers get to know you better.

335. Greg House says:

Sorry, I meant “get to know you better”.

336. Werner Brozek says:

spvincent says:
December 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Werner Brozek
No I do not agree that there has been no significant warming since 1995. I’m not quite sure what your basis for that assertion is (nor why you chose 1995 as the start point) but in every dataset I look at there’s a long term increase over that period.

I think we are discussing definitions here. The parts below are from another entry as shown. Keep in mind that HadCRUT3 and RSS have values even closer to 0. Look at every single number below. Then look at the +/-. Note that the +/- number in every case is larger than the first number. What this means is that +0.109 +/- 0.129 could range from -0.02 to +0.238. In other words, it COULD be 0. And with that being the case, you CANNOT be 95% sure that there has been warming. In this case, if he plotted what I think he plotted, you may be possibly 93% sure there has been warming, but NOT 95% sure. And if you cannot be 95% sure, then we say “ there has been no significant warming”. Now as for choosing 1995, it is since then that the warming was not significant. It IS significant since 1994, at least on Hadcrut4 as far as I know.

December 3, 2012 at 12:28 am
From spvincent on December 2, 2012 at 9:08 pm:
Taking the Hadcrut4 dataset, here are the trend values in degrees C/decade over five closely-related time periods.
1995-2012 +0.109 +/- 0.129
1996-2012 +0.107 +/- 0.129
1997-2012 +0.058 +/- 0.142
1998-2012 +0.052 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.095 +/- 0.162
Let’s look at a satellite-derived dataset (UAH)
1995-2012 +0.139 +/- 0.203
1996-2012 +0.138 +/- 0.227
1997-2012 +0.106 +/- 0.252
1998-2012 +0.063 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.179 +/- 0.262

davidmhoffer says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Would elevated CO2 levels save us [from another Ice Age]? Doubtful. All the fossil fuel we have burned in the last century has only added about 100 ppm to the background CO2 levels. Please keep in mind that CO2 is logarithmic. To get one additional degree out of it, you would have to double current levels which are currently around 400 ppm. So if an ice age sets in, we’d need 6 or 8 degrees to save our butts. For an extra 6 degrees we’d need:

2 x 400 = 800 = 1 degree
2 x 800 = 1600 = 2 deg
3200 = 3 deg
6400 = 4 deg
12,800 = 5 deg
25,600 = 6 deg

So we’d need to pump into the atmosphere about 250 TIMES as much CO2 as we did in the last 100 years. And that’s assuming that feedbacks aren’t negative, and the data is increasingly suggesting that they are (in which case we’d need even more).

Or pushing it the other way, to what level would CO2 have to drop to give us 6 degrees of cooling?

1/2 x 400 = 200 = 1 degree
1/2 x 200 = 100 = 1 degree
50 = 1 degree
25 = 1 degree
12 = 1 degree
6 = 1 degree.

Hard to imagine that CO2 is the controlling factor in temperature–perhaps water has something to do with it! (Plants will be eliminated at <150 ppm and the temperature will have dropped less than 2 degrees.)

338. Greg House says:

davidmhoffer says, December 3, 2012 at 11:58 am: “What a great thread!”
=========================================

Yes, David, it is, I absolutely support your opinion! Actually, not just this one, but each one, where we can freely express our criticism of AGW and related issues.

Now let me tell you, what I do not like on this thread: everything (no, just kidding). Seriously, there is one thing that bothers me a little bit. A mean this central point celebrated by our beloved Christopher: “For the past 16 of the 18-year series of annual hot-air sessions about hot air, the world’s hot air has not gotten hotter. There has been no global warming.”

I am just thinking, what if someone posted an article “Christopher has not raped any woman for the past 16 days”. I am not sure if Christopher would be amused. Neither am I with his “16 years”. But OK, I will certainly get over it.

339. Dan Pangburn says:

HeneryP
Here it is again: Analyses that can be reached at the link (highlighted in red) given at http://www.switched.com/profile/2996642/ include a simple equation based on rational physics that, without considering any influence from CO2 whatsoever and using only one independent variable, has calculated average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 88% (R2 = 0.88, correlation coefficient = 0.938). Including the influence of CO2 (a second independent variable) increased the accuracy to 88.5%

Weather is complex. Average global temperature is comparatively simple.

340. Werner Brozek says:

Greg House says:
December 3, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Neither am I with his “16 years”.

I think I understand where you are coming from. But keep in mind that NOAA set the “goal post” at 15 years. Was the goal post too high or too wide? That is not for me to say. However the “goal post” was set and Earth scored a “goal” depending on your perspective of course.

Greg House says:
December 3, 2012 at 6:07 pm

davidmhoffer says, December 3, 2012 at 11:58 am: “What a great thread!”
=========================================

Yes, David, it is, I absolutely support your opinion! Actually, not just this one, but each one, where we can freely express our criticism of AGW and related issues.

Now let me tell you, what I do not like on this thread: everything (no, just kidding). Seriously, there is one thing that bothers me a little bit. A mean this central point celebrated by our beloved Christopher: “For the past 16 of the 18-year series of annual hot-air sessions about hot air, the world’s hot air has not gotten hotter. There has been no global warming.”

I am just thinking, what if someone posted an article “Christopher has not raped any woman for the past 16 days”. I am not sure if Christopher would be amused. Neither am I with his “16 years”. But OK, I will certainly get over it.

Wow, Mr. House–if that’s your logic, no wonder Warmistas have no credibility.

I also believe you owe Christopher a public apology. Comparing his behavior to the likes of Mr. Gore does your side no favors and proves you are one facinorous dude.

(It just shows your side has lost the debate.)

Oh, I forgot to wish you a good day. On purpose.

342. Ron Richey says:

“I am just thinking, what if someone posted an article “Christopher has not raped any woman for the past 16 days”.”
Seems pretty obnoxious just to make a point.
The 16 year benchmark was defined by “them” not Mr. Monckton.

PS
I agree with others who suggest archiving rgb’s comments.
The man can think it and type it faster than I can read it.
His, and other regulars here @ WUWT, are “Rosetta Stone” reference material for part timers like me.

343. Greg House says:

RockyRoad says, December 3, 2012 at 7:58 pm: “Wow, Mr. House–if that’s your logic, no wonder Warmistas have no credibility.”
=====================================================

Sorry, RockyRoad, but I am afraid, you completely misunderstood my point.

344. Lew Skannen says:

Well done Mr R.G.Batduke!
I don’t know how you have accumulated so much knowledge but I think I will be saving this page for future reference.

From spvincent on December 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm:

So because factors x,y, and z can all result in global warming, it’s impossible to quantify the contributions made by each? Has it not occurred to you that people have looked at the reasons why there has been warming in the last 50-odd years? Well it turns out they have. Solar output did not increase during that period, and changes in the temperature profile of the atmosphere (troposphere temperatures rise while those in the stratospheric fall) match those predicted to arise from increased levels of greenhouse gases.

How old is your copy of the Book of Immutable (C)AGW Predictions? The tropospheric “hot spot” never materialized, the predictions failed, it’s been awhile since anyone around here has tried to claim that “proof” as it doesn’t exist. See this article, “Atmospheric Hotspot” section and Figure 6: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/

You need one of the newer revisions where that “same as they ever were” prediction got dropped.

And yeah, it is hard to quantify what contributed how much warming. The climate science of the IPCC reports still doesn’t know much about the effect of clouds. Dr. Roy Spencer figured out a mere 1-2% decrease in global cloud cover could account for all of the late-20th century global warming, and it’s sure looking like the decrease did happen:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/04/spencers-posited-1-2-cloud-cover-variation-found/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/

And to pretend, as you seem to do, that CO2 levels have no significant effect on climate is to throw away several hundred years of work in physics and chemistry. There’s not a single reputable climate scientist in the world who would agree with you.

Reputable climate scientists will not deny the physics that state the greenhouse effect of CO₂ is logarithmic, nor the evidence said effect is saturated, further increases in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will not yield any significant global temperature increases by themselves.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/support-for-the-saturated-greenhouse-effect-leaves-the-likelihood-of-agw-tipping-points-in-the-cold/

The (C)AGW conjecture relies on unproven proposed positive feedbacks, and CO₂ alone will not give the temperature increases to hit the imagined “tipping points”. Meanwhile real-world observations show there are negative feedbacks regulating global temperature, don’t expect that “catastrophic” warming anytime soon. Here’s info on a peer-reviewed published hypothesis about a major negative feedback mechanism:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/07/further-evidence-for-my-thunderstorm-thermostat-hypothesis/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/willis-publishes-his-thermostat-hypothesis-paper/

The point was to demonstrate the inadvisability of using trends over short periods as a predictive method, since so much depends on the start and end points. It’s not me who is claiming that this data proves a warming trend over this period (although the data is certainly suggestive) but rather it’s the authors of the Open Letter who are claiming that this data disproves any warming trend. Which it most certainly fails to do.

A couple of things: first see what a big difference the choice of starting year makes, and secondly note that, even during the period when there was allegedly no warming (start year 97 or 98: take your pick), there was STILL an overall upward trend in the data according to these 2 datasets (and others I’ve looked at).

The data you presented as saying there was STILL an overall upward trend, showed there was no overall upward trend, as none of those values exceeded the uncertainty. You were claiming that data proves a warming trend.

I don’t know what “Open Letter” you’re referring to, but certainly this data does not disprove any warming trend. With uncertainty that large, all it can state is there might have been warming, or cooling, but either way what happened was not significant. This data does not disprove a warming trend, but it cannot support one either. Without evidence that supports a warming trend, the default assumption must be there was no warming trend.

346. Jorge says:

A lot of words in this thread. Would´nt it be better for the most prominent of you to gather your stats and publish it in some good journal? I truly mean it, if everything we believe is wrong then we should get to hear the news. Just wrap up your data and add the necessary mechanisms and physics and off you go. It should be of utmost importance to know the true data and mechanisms of “no warming” and sea level rise being only fluctuations, and certainly not meltwater from glaciers and all that stuff. When reading the thread (and other similar threads) the reality is set up to be like an origami, one group folds it into an eagle and the other ones fold it into an sparrow. Fine folding, but its only one sheet of paper and It can´t be both at the same time.

347. R.Brown says
there isn’t the slightest bit of doubt that it (i.e. the GH effect) exists.
Henry says
I did not say that it does not exist.
It does exist. Especially at night in winter when it is cloudy.
But in the case of CO2,
there is also radiative cooling, due to absorption in the UV, 1-2 um, and 4-5 um. I am saying that the cooling due to back radiation in these regions of the molecule that goes on 12 hours per day might be just as much as the warming (or:delay in cooling) due to the back radiation coming from earth 14-16 um, that goes on 24/7. So WHERE is your balance sheet that you say does “exist and is well understood?”

On top of that we have an increase in vegetation over the past 50 years which has been considerable.
Plants and trees need both warmth and CO2 to grow. Or did you ever see a tree grow where it is very cold? So how much biological cooling was caused by the CO2 due to the increase in vegetation over the past 50 years?
.
You see what the problem is? You cannot say: if there is an increase in CO2 it must be getting warmer (even though that might be very small) until you have first proven it by doing some physical testing. The closed box experiments do not tell you how much radiative cooling is caused by the increase in CO2. And you cannot “calculate” that which has never been measured.

348. richardscourtney says:

Jorge:

Your ignorance is astounding. At December 4, 2012 at 3:22 am you write
A lot of words in this thread. Would´nt it be better for the most prominent of you to gather your stats and publish it in some good journal? I truly mean it, if everything we believe is wrong then we should get to hear the news. Just wrap up your data and add the necessary mechanisms and physics and off you go. It should be of utmost importance to know the true data and mechanisms of “no warming” and sea level rise being only fluctuations, and certainly not meltwater from glaciers and all that stuff. When reading the thread (and other similar threads) the reality is set up to be like an origami, one group folds it into an eagle and the other ones fold it into an sparrow. Fine folding, but its only one sheet of paper and It can´t be both at the same time.
Firstly, many of us DO publish in journals; e.g. a list of over 1,100 papers sceptical of catastrophic AGW and published in peer reviewed journals is at

These publications are achieved despite the problems of getting such papers published against the activities of the Team to prevent such publication. The climategate emails reveal the extreme methods they have been using to block publications which do not support their “cause”.

An example of a paper blocked by nefarious method and explanation of how it was blocked is at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

There has been no global warming for over 16 years while atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued to rise. Think about what that indicates before posting more of your ignorant and offensive twaddle.

Richard

349. R.Brown says
or if temperatures actively drop (as you perhaps wishfully thinking insist that they will) there will be at first an orderly retreat

Henry says
I get the impression that you think a) I don’t know much about statistics, and b) I did not take a random sample (of 47 weather stations) and c) I fiddled around with the results to make them say what I wanted them to say.
LOL
I wish that were true.
I wish I did not have to be the prophet of doom. Although I don’t really know if -0.035 degrees K per annum globally over the next 8 years really will be such a disaster.
Is that much, Werner?
I estimate it will be about -0.3 by 2020. My wife laughs at me, that I even worry about it.
But I do fear that some places will become too cold to farm\. e.g

My sample (of 47 weather stations) was random, although I will admit to carefully looking first if the daily records of the weather station was (more or less) complete. If there were too many missing data I threw the sample away. That was fair? I balanced the sample by latitude and by 70/30 @sea and inland. I figured longitude does not matter, do you know why? Antarctica was also not included because I could not find data there. Why did I stop at 47?
Simple, … because I knew enough….. somebody (from Above) had thrown me a ball and I was seeing the curve….

To prove my honesty, if you are interested, I can provide you with my tables as reported here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/04/23/global-cooling-is-here/
(all results of 47 weather stations analysed)
so you can check each individual result.

To quote from the above report:

We note from my 3 tables below that Maxima, Means and Minima have all turned negative (from warming to cooling) between 12 and 22 years ago. The change in signal is best observed in that of the Maxima where we can see a gradual decline of the maximum temperatures from +0.036 degrees C per annum (over the last 38 years) to -0.016 (when taken over the last 12 years).

If we plot the global measurements for the change in Maxima, Means and Minima against the relevant time periods, it can be shown that the best fit for each of the curves is given by a polynominal of the 2nd order (parabolic fit).

Namely, for maxima it is

y= -0.00006 X2+ 0.00480X -0.06393

r²= 0.997

Update

I have added a few more stations, (including Washington DC) which brought my correlation to r²= 0.998

The speed of warming/cooling for maxima now is 0.036 degrees C/annum from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years).

end quote

RSS and Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4 all show a negative trend from 2002, mostly showing a fall of ca. 0.1 degree C over the past decade. My own data set shows we fell already almost 0.2 degrees C since 2000.

Hopefully the polynomial quoted above, even though it has unbelievable high correlation, is still incorrect. Let us hope it is rather this sine wave:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
which seems very likely, if I look at the results from Anchorage from 1942
( shown a bit below the global sine wave in blog quoted above).

We are cooling. Whether you like it or not. And my tables say the speed of this cooling is at its highest rate, just about right now.

350. CodeTech says:

Jorge, I don’t see a lot of journals publishing such items as “Pigs don’t fly” or “Grass is usually green”, for the same reason that newspapers don’t often publish “Dog bites man”.

To put it another way, journals don’t usually publish things like “Speed of light determined to be approximately 186,000 miles/sec”, because that is something so basic and fundamental (in the modern era) that it hardly needs noting.

Now, newspapers DO publish “man bites dog” stories, being unusual and different, and most journals seem pretty eager to publish “climate warming, planet is doomed” type items. Why, just look at the breathtaking results of a catastrophically warming planet as endlessly documented by Nature (and for that matter, National Geographic in endless full color gloriousific splendor).

What they won’t publish, however, is “We had it all wrong, there’s not actually any sign of problematic warming and the planet is just fine”, or “just kidding, that whole CO2=temperature thing was pretty much disproved long ago”, and especially not: “Our entire monolithic edifice that we have been building for decades turns out to have been built on sand, and is now crumbling before our eyes”.

Your own sarcasm notwithstanding, there’s no NEED to “know the true data and mechanisms of “no warming” ” as you put it, because the majority of people involved with anything scientific know that the onus is on those claiming there is a problem to prove it. So far, they have failed to do anything other than spread low-level panic and confusion.

If these self-proclaimed “climate scientists” (of whom there were exactly ZERO just a few years ago) were to actually study the science of climate instead of radical advocacy, we’d probably have some pretty decent knowledge by now of just what drives climate and climatic changes. However, what is becoming increasingly clear as each passing year with increased CO2 and no significant warming passes is that CO2 and warming, while correlated once, are now not.

You can’t prove causation with correlation, but you NEED correlation to prove causation. There is no correlation, and the continuing search for “confounding factors” is getting tiresome.

It’s not up to the “skeptic” to show causation, although I for one would like to know better just what things are driving the long-documented cycles recorded historically. But come on… before you can attribute warming to CO2, it would sure help if there actually WAS warming…

And don’t even get me started on the entire “For absolute certain CO2 is increasing due to human activity”, because even among skeptics that meme is getting a bit tiresome. Usually it’s just tossed in there as a given.

What we DO know is that the relatively reliable instrumental record of CO2, which began only in the 50s, has shown a relatively steady increase in atmospheric CO2, with clearly visible seasonal variations. Fine. Of course, since we don’t have any reliable record prior to this time, we have nothing to compare it to, since long-ago attempts to measure atmospheric CO2 seem inconclusive and probably tainted, but definitely don’t seem to show any clear evidence that pre-industrial levels were 280ppm.

And the relatively reliable instrumental record of temperature, which began only in 1979, has shown a few increases, and a few steady phases. But currently we are seeing a temperature plateau for HALF of the satellite era’s data, and that is significant.

While we’re at it, the relatively reliable instrumental record of sea level also is only about 30 years old, and is STILL not rising at an accelerating rate, quite the contrary. Instead it seems to be about the same rate as estimated for centuries.

There are things you KNOW, but aren’t so. Keeping an eye out for these things is sound advice that more people should follow.

351. rgbatduke says:

So WHERE is your balance sheet that you say does “exist and is well understood?”

Read Grant Perry’s book, look at the data therein. I’m just sayin’… kind of difficult to argue with direct spectroscopy and the integration of a power spectrum. But believe what you like.

I do not think that CO_2 acts as a net cooling molecule, and it does seem like this is a unlikely error for radiation physicists to make. If you think otherwise, please provide a quantitative argument. During the day, CO_2 and/or water vapor and ozone become a mechanism that contributes to the warming of the air and may well divert some energy from the surface to the atmosphere, but there the ALR and the fact that the troposphere is cold compared to the surface prevents CO_2 from functioning as a net cooling molecule. Well, that and the shift in spectral peak from absorption from a source at 6000 or so K followed by emission from a source at a few hundred degrees K, plus the SB law.

rgb

352. rgbatduke says:

We are cooling. Whether you like it or not. And my tables say the speed of this cooling is at its highest rate, just about right now.

And you clearly haven’t understood a thing I’ve said this time, as well. Sigh.

rgb

353. Werner Brozek says:

HenryP says:
December 4, 2012 at 5:37 am
Although I don’t really know if -0.035 degrees K per annum globally over the next 8 years really will be such a disaster.
Is that much, Werner?
I estimate it will be about -0.3 by 2020.

Just to clarify something: You say “-0.035 degrees K per annum globally over the next 8 years” so that would be a drop of 0.3 from today. And the latest Hadcrut3 average is 0.4, so a drop of 0.3 from that would give 0.1, which happened in 1993. On the other hand, an anomaly of -0.3 happened in 1964. CO2 went up since both dates so growing food should be better, whether or not the anomaly is 0.1 or -0.3. However the biggest ”problem” would be for the people promoting CAGW in either case.

354. Eugene WR Gallun says:

The Heat Is On

The strangest thing upon us yet
A sight to make the Skeptics stare
The Warmists all are in a sweat
They feel the heat that isn’t there

It wasn’t there the other day
It seems today the same is true
Tomorrow if it stays away
The Warmists will be barbecue

Throw Chicken Little on the grill
And funding pork that tainted meat
The Warmists broil despite the chill
Their goose is cooked by absent heat

355. R.Brown says
Read Grant Perry’s book, look at the data therein. I’m just sayin’… kind of difficult to argue with direct spectroscopy and the integration of a power spectrum. But believe what you like.
Henry says
I think a clever man like you would have figured that there is no balance sheet in there, with the right dimensions. In fact the last posts from you prove to me that you do not understand how a gas behaves in the atmosphere and because of this you will also never understand exactly WHY we are cooling.(there are some clues …)

Gheewish, Could I be a genius to be that far ahead of all of you here….?

356. Werner Brozek says
so growing food should be better,

Henry says
Thanks. You say: there was no disaster then so there will not be a disaster when we drop 0.3K from 2012 – 2020. In a peculiar way, you are right about growing (more) food in a cooling period because I do find that we do get more precipitation in a cooling period (such as the one we are in)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/#comment-192

So all we are looking at is a bit of inconvenience with a few extra storms and more wind here and there and extra snow to remove and extra rain, etc. but that is about it. It should not affect the crops. If anything, crops should be getting bigger. Interesting.

And, like you said, an INCONVENIENT truth for quite a lot of people.

357. rgbatduke says:

Gheewish, Could I be a genius to be that far ahead of all of you here….?

Sure, that must be it. Glad you thought of it.

rgb

358. Nichlas Berghrack says:

Am I the only one starting to see the climatologists understanding of science similar to that of scientologists?

359. Lord Monckton:

Those climate model “predictions” are non-predictions dressed up to look like predictions through applications of the equivocation fallacy.. Predictions state claims about the relative frequencies of the outcomes of events. The relative frequencies are a property of the complete set of these events, the so-called “statistical population.” For global warming climatology, however, there is no such population and thus are no relative frequencies.

360. spvincent says:

@Werner Brozek

There is nothing magic about the figure 95%. It is perfectly permissible of me given the quoted data to say that warming has occurred over this period, just as long as the confidence with which that statement is made is specified (Monckton doesn’t let such mundane considerations bother him)

Now then, after much diligent searching through the manonfidence for a ty different available datasets, someone has found a 15 or 16-year interval where the statistical cemperature increase is less than 95%, perhaps 92%.

Does this means that the foundations of climate science have come crashing down?

Sorry, no.

The relevant section of the 2008 NOAA report (which I suspect few here have read) specifies a confidence value for their quoted statement (something Monckton has conveniently ignored) : the occasional 15-year interval where no significant warming occurs is in no way inconsistent with the simulations and is indeed to be expected once in a while.

@people who think that because CO2 absorption bands in the lower atmosphere are nearly saturated further additions will have little or no effect.

Time to brush up on some mainstream climate science.

@people who enjoy fitting sine curves to climate data

This is a totally meaningless exercise unless you can identify a physical process affecting the climate that has that period.

You might just as well use epicycles.

361. D Böehm says:

spvincent,

You do understand that the real world is deconstructing your beliefs, don’t you?

OOPS!

362. Werner Brozek says:

spvincent says:
December 4, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Monckton doesn’t let such mundane considerations bother him

Monckton says:
“For the past 16 of the 18-year series of annual hot-air sessions about hot air, the world’s hot air has not gotten hotter. There has been no global warming.”

This statement is true to the nearest year, but not to the nearest month, at least on the three data sets I presented. I will assume you are familiar with significant digits. If I were to say that a table was 43 cm by 65 cm and if I were to ask for the area, well multiplying 43 by 65 gives 2795 cm^2. However the “correct” answer would be 2.8 x 10^3 cm^2 since the answer should only have 2 significant digits as in the question. Is this a “mundane consideration”? I am not going to go there.

But note that in the following blog on skeptical science, he was more precise and did say: “5. The fact that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for 16 years is described as a “myth”. Yet the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset favoured by the IPCC indeed shows no statistically-significant warming for 16 years. “

Now as for your 92% comment, do you know if this is true even for 18 years on any data set? See your own post:
spvincent says:
December 2, 2012 at 9:08 pm

Taking the Hadcrut4 dataset, here are the trend values in degrees C/decade over five closely-related time periods.
1995-2012 +0.109 +/- 0.129
1996-2012 +0.107 +/- 0.129
1997-2012 +0.058 +/- 0.142
1998-2012 +0.052 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.095 +/- 0.162
Let’s look at a satellite-derived dataset (UAH)
1995-2012 +0.139 +/- 0.203
1996-2012 +0.138 +/- 0.227
1997-2012 +0.106 +/- 0.252
1998-2012 +0.063 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.179 +/- 0.262
It seems to me that Monckton would even have been correct to say that there was no statistically significant warming for 18 years.
(By the way, does this stop at December 31, 2011? If so, the slopes may be even lower when going to October, 2012. It is no big deal, but when going from 1995 to the present, for Hadcrut4, I get 0.097 +/-0.113 which is just very slightly lower than your number to the end of 2011.)

However we are to interpret their 95%, they are on thin ice and they know it. Are you familiar with Santer’s 17 years?

363. LetsBeReasonable says:

Richard,

I think that the writer of the article is mis-leading the public by cherry picking his start and end time to come up with a statement that in isolation is true but doesn’t represent the true situation in general/ That is there has been no significant warming in the most recent 16 years. The public, may therefore think that the world is not undergoing a warming phase. However, if he had increased his period by one year, it would also have been significant but would have come up with a better representation of the what is happening to the world. As you know, including the 1998 readings early in the sequence produced a flat graph for that period of time.

Pointing this out appears to have upset you. For that I am sorry and I hope that our continued discussions maturely and that if there is something that I might write that upsets you, that you can refrain from personal abuse. You do a lot to help educate people about a very complex problem and resorting to abuse demeans that contribution.

364. sp vincent says
This is a totally meaningless exercise unless you can identify a physical process affecting the climate that has that period.

Henry@ LetsBeReasonable, spvincent

Well why be so unreasonable? If we look from 2002

we are cooling!! Both on Hadcrut3 and Hatcrut4.

This is something I had expected as I had already calculated that there has been a regime change in 1995, from warming to cooling.

Earth stores energy in its waters, vegetations, chemicals, even in currents and wind and weather, etc. On top of that we have earth’s own volcanic actions which also provides heating/cooling, whatever. Ice, more or less of it, also becomes a factor. I also found that earth’s inner core, molten hot iron, also changes position sometimes, creating more heat in one place and less in another. So whatever comes out as average temp. is bound to be confusing.
Maxima is a much better parameter to look at as it gives us a sense of energy in.
Eventually, after analysing all daily results from 47 weather stations (47x365x38) since 1974, I came up with this curve:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
This is the “energy-in” curve.
There must be a lag between energy out and energy in, so instead of the 88 year curve I am more inclined to believe in a 100 year cycle consisting of a 50 year warming cycle and a 50 year cooling cycle (44 + ca.5 ; remember 7 x 7 + 1 jubilee year? Know your Bible?)
The reason that the ancients knew about these cycles is because they looked (and measured!) the height of the Nile at certain places.
To explain weather cycles, before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense, scientists looked in the direction of the planets, rightly or wrongly. See here.
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
To quote from the above paper:
A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
(The 1990 turned out to be 1995 when cooling started!)
Please note: indeed one would expect more condensation (bigger flooding) at the end of a cooling period and minimum flooding at the end of a warm period. This is because when water vapor cools (more) it condensates (more) to water (i.e. more rain).
Now put my sine wave next to those dates? Not too bad?
1900- minimum flooding : end of warming
1950 – maximum flooding: end of cooling
1995 – minimum flooding: end of warming

So far, I do not exclude a gravitational or electromagnetic swing/switch that changes the UV coming into earth. In turn this seems to change the chemical reactions of certain chemicals reacting to the UV lying on top of the atmosphere. This change in concentration of chemicals lying on top of us, i.e. O3, HxOx and NxOx, in turn causes more back radiation (when there is more), hence we are now cooling whilst ozone & others are increasing.
I hope spvincent is satisfied now?
Hope this helps a few people.

365. richardscourtney says:

LetsBeReasonable:

At December 5, 2012 at 1:27 am you say to me

I think that the writer of the article is mis-leading the public by cherry picking his start and end time to come up with a statement that in isolation is true but doesn’t represent the true situation in general/ That is there has been no significant warming in the most recent 16 years. The public, may therefore think that the world is not undergoing a warming phase. However, if he had increased his period by one year, it would also have been significant but would have come up with a better representation of the what is happening to the world. As you know, including the 1998 readings early in the sequence produced a flat graph for that period of time.

NO!
I know that there is no “cherry pick”.

The start time is NOW and there has been no discernible warming at 95% confidence for the previous 16 years since now.

Climate modellers said such a ‘stasis’ of more than 15 years would be problematic for their models. You are trying to pretend that the problem does not exist: it does.

And don’t claim I “know” what I refute. Similar ‘stasis’ is observed by considering trends for periods since 2000 (i.e. after the 1998 peak). But those shorter periods do not provide the ‘stasis’ of longer than 15 years which modellers said would be a “problem” for their models.

Clearly, lack of warming DOES mean “the world is not undergoing a warming phase”. I am strongly of the opinion that the public have a right to be informed that “the world is not undergoing a warming phase” when some people are trying to justify political policies by promoting the lie that the world is in a warming phase.

Of course, the world will again enter a warming or a cooling phase at some time, but it is not in either at present.

I am offended by your disingenuous posts.

Richard

366. Werner Brozek says:

LetsBeReasonable says:
December 5, 2012 at 1:27 am

However, if he had increased his period by one year, it would also have been significant

To the nearest year, there is NO warming for 16 years on at least 3 data sets and NO 95% SIGNIFICANT warming for 18 years on all data sets that I am aware of. For proof, see my post above your latest one.

367. Henry@Werner Brozek

thanks for all your comments Werner, on WUWT, I always find that they help giving me some insight.
You probably know that I like stats and that I trust my own data set better than any other, simply because I know how I put it together. I measured the average difference from the average temp. over time periods and this is therefore less dependent on actual calibration and other sources of error.
According to my own set we fell about 0.2 degrees K since 2000. It seems now that Hadcrut 3 and 4 are beginning to see this cooling too but UAH is still not seeing things right.:
I still suspect that UAH does not have its reference zero or calibration points right.
I am not sure if you have considered this, and what your thoughts are on that?
( I am vaguely suspecting that you might have excess to the sources of those that put UAH together)

368. Conclusions such as that “…there has been no significant warming in the most recent 16 years” “are based upon a host of assumptions about the manner in which the data are distributed; for example, it is assumed that the population mean varies linearly with the time. These assumptions are, however, indefensible and thus all conclusions that a consequence from them must be regarded as either false or unproved.

369. richardscourtney says:

Terry Oldberg:

At December 5, 2012 at 12:01 pm you say

Conclusions such as that “…there has been no significant warming in the most recent 16 years” “are based upon a host of assumptions about the manner in which the data are distributed; for example, it is assumed that the population mean varies linearly with the time. These assumptions are, however, indefensible and thus all conclusions that a consequence from them must be regarded as either false or unproved.

No.
Warming is a rise in temperature and cooling is a fall in temperature.

If there has been no discernible rise in temperature at X% confidence then there has been no warming discernible with X% confidence.

There has been no global warming discernible with 95% confidence for 16 years.

However, a system may be varying in temperature in a systematic manner and, in that case, a change in temperature would be indicated over a complete series of variations. If the form of the variation were not known then apparent warming (or cooling) could be an artifact of the existing phase(s) of the variation. Hence, in that case, a determination of any true variation would require the form of the variation to be known so the phase effects could be removed.
(This possibility is analagous to the change of current during part of an AC electricity cycle: there seems to be a change of current but that is an artifact of sampling a small part of a cycle).

There may be such systematic variations of climate, but if there are then they are not known. And they are not relevant to the present issue.

Richard

• richardscourtney:

Thanks for taking the time to reply! In the 16 year interval, the temperature rises and the temperature falls. Thus, the claim that there has been no warming in this interval is literally false.

My understanding of the process that produces the opposite conclusion is derived from the presentation by the physicist Lubos Motl at http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/no-statistically-significant-warming.html. Motl achieves this end by placement of constraints on the ways in which the temperature can vary with respect to the time. In particular: a) the mean value of the temperature in the underlying population is constrained to vary linearly with respect to the time and b) for fixed time, the data are constrained to vary per the normal distribution function. Additionally, Motl assumes the data to be statistically independent.

He assumes his data to be randomly drawn from the population. The process by which the data are produced results in sampling error and resulting uncertainty in the rate of change of the temperature with respect to time. To this uncertainty, Motl applies the notions of statistical confidence bounds and statistical significance in reaching his conclusion.

370. richardscourtney says:

Terry Oldberg:

Firstly, let me thank you for drawing my attention to the arguments of Lubos Motl at http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/no-statistically-significant-warming.html
I had not seen it and he makes some interesting observations. Thankyou.

But Motl says

That doesn’t mean that I think that the CO2-induced warming trend is zero. I just think that there exists nothing in the data so far that would allow us to prove it at a satisfactory confidence level. After all, the overall theoretically calculated, feedback-free temperature change caused by our CO2 emissions since 1800 is close to 0.5 °C while the largely (?) unpredictable natural temperature changes were above 1.5 °C. In some sense, one can say that the CO2 warming is a 0.3-sigma effect.

In other words, his arguments conclude that the data does not indicate no warming, but no warming is probable.

Also, he says

Such insignificance can be seen in many ways. For example, the 1910-1945 warming was equal to the 1974-2009 warming (both are 35-year periods) even though the CO2, man-made contribution in the earlier interval was smaller by a factor of four or more. It implies that the natural factors in 35-year periods must be of the same magnitude as the recent human influence. If you agree that most of the natural changes are unpredictable at this moment (and new and new predictions for 10 more years etc. consistently fail), it means that the recent 35 years of warming can’t be more than a one-sigma effect – no signal of an unusual warming.

So, it seems to me that Motl is making an ‘Angels On A Pin’ argument.
Despite that I think his arguments are an important indication of how difficult it is to obtain meaningful information from the data.

Secondly, I agree with you when you say

In the 16 year interval, the temperature rises and the temperature falls. Thus, the claim that there has been no warming in this interval is literally false.

Indeed, I had a flaming row with the egregious Perlw1tz on WUWT because I made the same point.

However, with respect, I think that pedantic point is an irrelevance. The warmunists set the target of no significant warming over 15 years at 95% confidence as indicated by a linear trend over the period. They set the ‘rules’ and I am accepting them.
According to those rules there has been no warming for the last 16 years.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Richard

• richardscourtney:

It sounds as though you’ve won your debate with the warmunists. Though impressive, your victory provides an inadequate basis for policy decisions on CO2 emissions.

For the purpose of making policy, policy makers need information about the outcomes from their policy decisions in advance of the occurrence of these outcomes. The methodology of the investigation of global warming that is described by the IPCC in AR4 provides no such information. Thus, while the question of the confidence bounds on the rate of change of the global surface temperature in the past 16 years is titilating, more pertinent questions are if and how the methodology can be changed to produce this information.

371. Werner Brozek says:

HenryP says:
December 5, 2012 at 10:48 am
I still suspect that UAH does not have its reference zero or calibration points right.

I often comment on their site and I am aware of the discrepancy you mention. My understanding was that they admitted to a problem and some version 6 was to fix it. However they have not had time to do the fix yet so they implemented an interim fix to narrow the gap, so to speak, but I believe they themselves would admit they are still too high relative to RSS. At least their latest is not their final word.

372. richardscourtney says:

Terry Oldberg:

Your post at December 5, 2012 at 3:33 pm says to me

It sounds as though you’ve won your debate with the warmunists. Though impressive, your victory provides an inadequate basis for policy decisions on CO2 emissions.

For the purpose of making policy, policy makers need information about the outcomes from their policy decisions in advance of the occurrence of these outcomes. The methodology of the investigation of global warming that is described by the IPCC in AR4 provides no such information. Thus, while the question of the confidence bounds on the rate of change of the global surface temperature in the past 16 years is titilating, more pertinent questions are if and how the methodology can be changed to produce this information.

OK. You raise two distinct issues.

My major concern is the science. Climate science has been corrupted to become a pure pseudoscience, and this is damaging the reputation of all science. The record shows this has been my major concern about AGW for decades.

I hope you are right when you say the debate with the warmunists is “won”, but I remain to be convinced. I will agree – or not – when I read the next IPCC Report. I will agree that the matter is “won” when an IPCC Report admits the AGW-scare is unfounded or, alternatively, IPCC so-called ‘science’ is publicly exposed for the pseudoscientific political propaganda which it is.

I do have a concern about the politics which feeds – and feeds on – the AGW-scare. That also requires public exposure of the IPCC so-called ‘science’. The political issue was lost by the warmunists at Copenhagen in 2009. The issue is dead but continues with the appearance of life because politicians fear the loss of ‘face’ (i.e. loss of votes) if they are seen to have been wrong. Therefore, they continue to pay lip-service to AGW, and they continue to use AGW as an excuse for e.g. taxation policies.

Exposure of the IPCC so-called ‘science’ would permit the politicians to overtly abandon AGW without themselves taking the blame. Indeed, it seems that the ‘Hockey Team’ sees the writing on the wall and is turning against Michael Mann as their scapegoat.

In terms of the AR4, there are two very, very important issues; viz. the disappearance of “committed warming” and the absence of the ‘hot spot’. Either would falsify IPCC so-called ‘science’ and together they are devastating. The lack of warming over the last 16 years is direct evidence that the prediction of “committed warming” was wrong.

The AR5 must address these two failures of the AR4 science or be publicly called to account for failing to address them. Hence, I think the issue cannot be “won” until the AR5 is published.

Simply, the politics and the IPCC so-called ‘science’ rely on each other and if one is defeated then the other folds, but only the IPCC so-called science can be defeated by the cold light of reality.

Anyway, that is how I see it.

Richard

373. spvincent says:

@HenryP. I look forward to seeing your remarkable work, incorporating as it does such diverse elements such as biblical numerology and unknown gravitational or electromagnetic switches, written up and published in Nature or Science: it would be a shame to see such groundbreaking research published in some other journal.

374. Bruce Cobb says:

davidmhoffer says:
December 3, 2012 at 11:58 am
That is excellent, David. Beautifully written, and succinct. For anyone who missed it, I strongly advise them to “see above”.
That one goes in my “Climate” folder.

375. D Böehm says:

spvincent,

Henry P is always the gentleman, and he does his own research. What have you added to the conversation, besides mindless snark?

376. richardscourtney says:

Terry Oldberg:

At December 5, 2012 at 4:48 pm you assert

Predictions have a one-to-one relationship to the events in a statistical population. As AR4 references no such population, it is clear that there are no predictions from the IPCC climate models.

Rubbish! Such sophistry up with which I will not put.
If somebody says, “The globe will warm” then that is a prediction (i.e. it is something foretold)..

The IPCC AR4 predicted that the globe will warm at a rate averaged over the first two decades after 2000 of 0.2deg.C per decade (+/-20%) as a result of greenhouse gases already in the system. This was “committed warming” which would occur unless there were significant changes to volcanism and/or solar activity which have not happened.

Since 2000 there has been no such global warming.

Richard

• richardscourtney:

If you’re in the UK then you’re up late!

It sounds as though you’ve not read my paper at http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ . If so, please pause to read it and report back.

If you read the paper, I hope you’ll come away from this experience with the understanding that climatological arguments suffer in a major way from the presence in them of the fallacy that is known as “equivocation.” In a recorded lecture, a professor of logic states that “one cannot draw a proper inference from an equivocation” or words to that effect. This being the case, in logical discourse it is essential for all parties to avoid the ambiguities of reference that are common in the natural languages, including English. This can be accomplished through the use of a mutually agreed upon disambiguated language. If one of the parties to a conversation rejects the very idea of using a disambiguated language then logical discourse is not possible. That is where we presently are in this conversation.

377. Robert A. Taylor says:

Werner Brozek says:
December 3, 2012 at 8:41 am

Re pg 23 v 123 in the NOAA 2008 report.

Thanks. You’re right; it IS page 23. It seems I can’t tell the difference between “S” and “1” Honest scholarship, like honest science, depends upon confirmation, and acknowledging mistakes.

378. richardscourtney says:

Terry Oldberg:

At December 5, 2012 at 6:54 pm you write

richardscourtney:

If you’re in the UK then you’re up late!

It sounds as though you’ve not read my paper at http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ . If so, please pause to read it and report back.

If you read the paper, I hope you’ll come away from this experience with the understanding that climatological arguments suffer in a major way from the presence in them of the fallacy that is known as “equivocation.” In a recorded lecture, a professor of logic states that “one cannot draw a proper inference from an equivocation” or words to that effect. This being the case, in logical discourse it is essential for all parties to avoid the ambiguities of reference that are common in the natural languages, including English. This can be accomplished through the use of a mutually agreed upon disambiguated language. If one of the parties to a conversation rejects the very idea of using a disambiguated language then logical discourse is not possible. That is where we presently are in this conversation.

Yes, I was “up” until nearly 2 am. It is now 8.30 am and I have not yet had breakfast. But I did not want you to think I was ignoring your posts.

I read your paper some time ago when you then pointed me to it. That paper is not relevant. It attempts to determine what is – and what is not – a justifiable prediction by use of a computer model.

We are discussing a prediction made by the IPCC. The failure of that prediction is important. An how they made that prediction is of no importance.

As I said

If somebody says, “The globe will warm” then that is a prediction (i.e. it is something foretold)..

The IPCC AR4 predicted that the globe will warm at a rate averaged over the first two decades after 2000 of 0.2deg.C per decade (+/-20%) as a result of greenhouse gases already in the system. This was “committed warming” which would occur unless there were significant changes to volcanism and/or solar activity which have not happened.

Since 2000 there has been no such global warming.

There is no “equivocation” in that prediction.
1.
It says the globe will warm.
2.
It says the average rate of warming over a stated period.
3.
It asserts a confidence in the accuracy of the predicted rate of warming.

And it is not relevant whether that clearly specified prediction was produced using a computer, or by astrology or was ‘seen’ in a dream, or was a deliberate falsehood, or …
It is a prediction and – so far – it is plain wrong.

Your excuses are letting the IPCC pseudoscience ‘off the hook’. I reject your excuses.

Richard

• richardscourtney:

I’m relieved to hear that you got some sleep!

I assume that your reference is to the Web page at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html. Under the title “Projections of Future Changes in Climate” the IPCC states that “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. {10.3, 10.7}”

Please note that the quoted text uses the term “projection” rather than the term “prediction.” “Projection” is a term in the IPCC’s disambiguation of the polysemic term “prediction”; see Vincent Gray’s paper entitled “Spinning the Climate” for his notes on the origin of this disambiguation. Under this disambiguation, “predictions” have a one-to-one relationship to events in a statistical population thus supporting statistical validation of models. Lacking a statistical population or predictions, the IPCC models do not support statistical validation of themselves.

A “projection” is nothing more nor less than a computed time series. Through its use of the polysemic word “about” as a modifier on “0.2°C per decade” the IPCC makes an equivocation of the statement that “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected…” thus ensuring that a projection does not state a falsifiable claim but sounds as though it states one.

379. spvincent says
it would be a shame to see such groundbreaking research published in some other journal.
(sic. perhaps this should read: …NOT to see)

Henry says

looks like somebody already beat me at it:

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 108, 1003, 15 PP., 2003
doi:10.1029/2002JA009390

Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ∼12,000years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes

Alexei N. Peristykh

Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA

Paul E. Damon

Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA

Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar–terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar–terrestrial,and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar–terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record— …..

Maybe I could be the first one to have put some figures to the cycle?

OK. You can be me co-author.

380. rgbatduke says:

May I insert, into the courteous and exemplary discussion so far, a reminder of the utility of ordinary statistics as well as its limitations?

There is this thing called “hypothesis testing” that can be used to assess whether or not a hypothesis has explanatory value, or for that matter comparative explanatory value given a specific alternative hypothesis. For example, for the data segment in question, one might compute Pearson’s $\chi^2$ for a null hypothesis of no slope, and invert the result into a p-value (the probability of getting the data if the null hypothesis is true). One might then compute the Pearson’s $\chi^2$ for an alternative null hypothesis of the best linear regression fit and turn it into a p-value. One might then compare the $\chi^2$‘s or their associated p-values. Or, one might use a good cooefficient of determination argument (compute $R^2$) to accomplish much the same purpose, provided that one first learned about the serious limitations of the conclusions one can legitimately draw from it in a case like this comparing the two hypotheses.

Or, one could look at the data, go “gee, it is pretty obvious that a linear trend with nonzero slope has at most a tiny amount of additional explanatory power compared to one with zero slope, given the variance in the data” and not bother (if one had any experience with statistics).

Or — and this is the interesting pair — one could assert as the null hypothesis a specific straight line (one with slope 0.02/year), and either a) fix the start point at 2000 and compute $\chi^2, p$; or b) obtain the best fit permitting an arbitrary intercept (basically moving fixed slope straight line to where it minimizes $\chi^2$) and etc.

The advantage of doing this with the actual data is that it eliminates the bullshit assertions of “95% confidence” in this discussion which, taken out of any specific context, mean absolutely nothing. In fact, the term “95% confidence” doesn’t mean what it says in English even in the context of hypothesis testing — the p-value it just gives you some measure of getting the data, given the null hypothesis, which is not in any way interpretable as being the probability that the null hypothesis is right or wrong. p-values really are only useful when they are absurdly low — not the 5% that is often used as a basis for rejecting the null hypothesis (one in twenty odds? Puh-leeze. Chances like that happen all the time). Show me a p-value of 0.001 (especially on the first or only test one can make) and we’re talking, maybe.

Here is the way I would interpret p-values in the current discussion. Personally I prefer the “gee, …” interpretation up above, because it is perfectly obvious that all alternative analyses will lead one to the same conclusion, they’re just more work. It’s not that the data doesn’t have some linear trend — any method of generating a simulated data set with some noise and a fixed (non-trended) mean would have some linear trend that beats zero slope — it is whether or not the linear trend of the actual data is “surprising” or “large” compared to precisely this sort of expected accidental linear trend due to noise/natural variation that doesn’t necessarily reflect any causal/explanatory feature of the underlying process that generates the series.

The first pair of p-values are a decent way of arriving at that conclusion a different way — they will both be the same, and will both be utterly unremarkable. The second pair are the ones associated with the 2008 report. Somebody wishing to convince the world that the 2008 hypothesis is incorrect will use the first method, because that will lead to the largest $\chi^2$ and the lowest p-value, let’s say (depending on what you call the number of degrees of freedom in a time series with a significant time correlation even if the series has zero trend so that adjacent years are hardly independent samples) that it is as low as 0.03. Does that mean that it is 97% certain that the 0.02/year hypothesis is false? Only if you are smoking something other than tobacco at the time. It means precisely what it says — if the hypothesis, stated as “compare the annual data to a line with intercept of T(2000) and slope 0.02, with annual error/variance set to thus and such”, is true, then the probability of getting the data by random chance is 0.03, or it would happen in roughly on in 33 Universes where the experiment was done from identical starting conditions.

Somebody wishing to defend the 2008 hypothesis would let the intercept float, moving the intercept towards the center of the time series to align with the most favorable linear segment that matches the data. This might drop the p-value to (say) 0.2. Does this mean that the null hypothesis is correct and the world is warming at this rate? Of course not. It means what it says, that the chances of getting this result given the null hypothesis and some assumptions about the way the data is (normally) distributed around the proposed linear trend with the best intercept is one in five Universes, or around 20% of the time simulated data sets that were truly randomly generated would have at least this large a $\chi^2$.

Neither number has any other meaning. Neither number is sufficient for the rejection of any of these hypotheses. A zero trend provides a satisfactory explanation of the data. So does almost any trend with a small linear slope. The particular linear trend with slope 0.02 is not a particularly good fit to the data — terrible if you fix the start point, not that great (but perhaps not terrible) if you pick the best possible one.

Valid conclusions to draw from the data? Not many, I’m afraid. It does not prove that the “warming has stopped” — that is a causal statement and post hoc ergo propter hoc, in spades. It does not prove that the “warming continues” (somehow hidden under this or that) ditto. To be able to do any better, one has to look at more of the relevant timeseries. But nobody wants to do this, everybody wants to cherrypick this interval, or that one, and make overblown and actively silly statstical claims.

It’s easy to lie with statistics. It is easy to be misled by statistics, blinded by the science. But if you use it with just a tiny bit of common sense, statistical analysis can be your friend.

Here’s an easy test. Give the time series to a friend who is a statistician but don’t tell him what it is! Say that it is the annual production of widgets or something. Ask him or her to tell you if it is safe to conclude that widget production is definitely increasing, and if so, by how much and how reliably. The answer is going to be “gee,…” but they will be able to do ever so much better a job of demonstrating it.

rgb

• Well said! It can also be said that computations of confidence bounds assume the statistical independence of those events whose count maps to the confidence bounds. However, this count is indeterminate pending the identification of these events by the climatological establishment.

Under a convention of climatology, an independent event has a duration of not less than 30 years; this is the averaging period over a meteorological variable in arriving at a climatological variable such as the spatially and temporally averaged global surface air temperature. Under this convention, in an interval of 16 years the count is nil and thus statistically significant conclusions about the alleged warming are impossible.

381. Henry@Werner & D.Boehm