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.
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 ( http://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.
MikeB:
I copy all your egregious post at December 2, 2012 at 8:23 am to demonstrate how false it is.
You wrote
My complete and proper answer is at December 2, 2012 at 7:51 am and said
Clearly, you lack reading comprehension, or you lack ability to understand my answer, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote.
Richard
I don’t know how accurate this article is but I thought it was interesting, especially with Monckton’s graph.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html
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.
rgbatduke says:
December 2, 2012 at 6:59 am
Agreed and seconded. Well put.
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.
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.
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.
Pat incredibly writes this silliness http://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.
IPeCaC or ipecac. Swallow either one and you get the same result. Look it up.
Viscount Monckton says
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.
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.
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
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
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]
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.
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
“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.
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:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
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,
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
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:
http://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.
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.
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.
@Patrick Guinness 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.
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.
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:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/mean:100
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.