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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“..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….”
“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” 😉
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.
Now that I have had time to reconsider, the “Whiiiee!” machine is better with floating parameters than even the tried and true “Play Station”
‘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.
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
“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.
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
“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.
OT but can we safely say that solar 24 has now passed maximum SSN. Well done David Archibald!
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif
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?
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…
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?
[snip . . OT . . mod]
“”””””……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.
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.
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.
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.
Pat Ravasio says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume Werner’s reply to you http://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.
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.
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.
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.
Opps and apologies
It really does pay to proof read properly!
should have read ‘AGW dogma”
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
An other amusing article by Monckton here: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10144 shows his usual incisive wit that seems oddly missing here.