Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Following my statement at the Doha climate conference last December that there had been no global warming for 16 years, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCC’s climate “science” panel, has been compelled to admit there has been no global warming for 17 years.
The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).
Engineer Pachauri said warming would have to endure for “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend. However, the world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality.
The Australian reports: Dr Pachauri … said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.
“In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth, the US shale-gas revolution, the collapse of renewable energy subsidies across Europe and the faltering European carbon market, Dr Pachauri said no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.
“In Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University, Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.
“‘People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,’ Dr Pachauri said.
“He said there was ‘no doubt about it’ that it was good for controversial issues to be ‘thrashed out in the public arena’.
“Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.
“Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.”
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134
Given that the IPCC spends a great deal more thought on getting the propaganda spin right than on doing climate science, one should be healthily suspicious of what Engineer Pachauri is up to.
Inferentially, the bureaucrats have decided they can no longer pretend I was wrong to say there has been no global warming for 16 years. This one cannot be squeezed back into the bottle. So they have decided to focus on n years without warming so that, as soon as an uptick in temperature brings the period without warming to an end, they can neatly overlook the fact that what really matters is the growing, and now acutely embarrassing, discrepancy between predicted and observed long-term warming rates.
At some point – probably quite soon – an el Niño will come along, and global temperature will rise again. Therefore, it would be prudent for us to concentrate not only on the absence of warming for n years, but also on the growing discrepancy between the longer-run warming rate predicted by the IPCC and the rate that has actually occurred over the past 60 years or so.
Since 1950 the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to little more than 1 Celsius degree per century. Yet the IPCC’s central projection is for almost three times that rate over the present century. We should keep the focus on this fundamental and enduring discrepancy, which will outlast a temporary interruption of the long period without global warming that the mainstream media once went to such lengths to conceal.
What this means is that the UN’s attempt to ban me from future annual climate gabfests for telling delegates at Doha that there had been no global warming for 16 years will fail, because soon there will be no more annual climate gabfests to ban me from.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Christoph Dollis says:
February 26, 2013 at 11:58 pm ………………
——————
Let’s for one minute accept that Pachauri does NOT acknowledge the standstill. What does that make him? I will not use the “D” word. The Met Office released its graph quietly on Christmas Eve. Would they have done this if they found that temps has begun to rise? Of course not. The longer the temperature standstill continues along with Pachauri NOT acknowledging the standstill then the worse he looks. Sooner or later these people are going to have to face the temperature demon of their own making.
Anthony Watts:
Really! Is this the criterion now, when something is citable as a reliable source here. What a hypocrisy.
REPLY: Mr. Perlwitz, your feckless advocacy is only exceeded by your ignorance – read this: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/20/cooking-the-books.html
And this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/12/pielke-sr-on-skeptical-sciences-attacks-on-spencer-and-christy/
And this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/11/on-skepticalscience-%E2%80%93-rewriting-history/
I’m giving you a 48 hour timeout to make certain you spend time reading up on why revisionism is a bad thing.
And there’s lots more, but I doubt you will seek out and/or read any of it, because you are a victim of your own environment, GISS, where revisionism of data is a regular occurrence, and thus SkS’s revisionism must seem like a feature to you.
Be as upset as you wish, but please don’t waste everyone’s time with your taxpayer funded bloviation on this thread playing this tribal game of yours.
– Anthony
You’re proving my point. You’re comparing apples to pineapples; the instrumental record vs climate change hundreds or thousands of years ago. We simply don’t know if today’s changes are different in scope or rate of change compared to other periods during this or other interglacials.
My analogy stands. We’re only looking at what’s happened in a VERY short time, and have nothing equivalent to compare it to. Mann and the “Team” tried to do it, and pulled the wool over a lot of people’s eyes. Fortunately for folks like McIntyre, Bishop Hill, and many others, we know that we don’t know.
[timeout]
Martin van Etten says:
February 27, 2013 at 2:55 am
Mark Bofill / February 26, 2013 at 6:41 pm
“Again, perhaps this is excusable due to the language barrier and difference in idiom, but I believe you ought to be aware that the query ‘are you for some reason avoiding the answer?’ is a somewhat rude way to phrase the question in English.”
please do a suggesting for a refrasing
———–
Sir, I am neither psychic nor your servant. I had hoped that your question ‘are you for some reason avoiding the answer?’ was a result of a language or idiomatic problem. If this were the case, obviously I couldn’t suggest a way to rephrase without understanding what you were trying to say. I suspect at this point that it was not in fact a language problem, and I begin to regret offering you the courtesy of walking back from your rudeness.
Statements like this:
demonstrate no respect for the people you are querying. Statements that amount to ‘I don’t know you and I don’t care, you are avoiding my question’ are rude and deserve to be answered in kind. Take a lesson on how not to communicate from Jan.
Although GISS led by Hansen has increasing public credibility exposure, and although a few of Perlwitz’s arguments are increasing their exposure, his overall argumentation is not GISS’s per se. His overall argument is merely Cook blog scripture of the central thrusts of the common proponents of alarming / dangerous AGW by CO2.
From my perspective, his active participation here makes him part of the newer open and more balanced climate science paradigm here that has taken the initiative from the old and problematic IPCC paradigm.
I thank him for that, even when the dialog has starkly harsh moments by the participants.
John
Philip Shehan says:
February 27, 2013 at 1:30 am
The question I raised in response to Werner was whether we were we on the logarithmic curve such that further increases of 2 or 3 times the current CO2 concentration with further industrial emissions would enter that part of the curve where it plateaus, approaching the horizontal. In that case further increases in CO2 make little difference to the temperature.
In my opinion, there is no question that we are at a point where additional CO2 makes virtually no difference. CO2 has only gone up 40% since 1750. Are there even enough hydrocarbons left to even get a single doubling since 1750?
See:
http://www.john-daly.com/bull-121.htm
“It is well recognised that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is such that its infra red absorption is close to saturation, particularly with the most prominent absorption band (15microm). (The Greek Letter mu came through as an m.) Further absorption with increase of concentration is considered to take place around the fringes of this band and in minor bands.”
@ur momisugly Mark Bofill
if I stepped on your toes, I said already sorry;
you wrote: “Take a lesson on how not to communicate from Jan.”
yes, he is clear and direct, I have no problem with him;
Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 26, 2013 at 8:11 am
I did not question the logarithmic relationship between CO2 change and temperature change. I know it is logarithmic. I asked where the formula “4.7ln(CO2) – 26.9″ in the graphic comes from and why it is annotated with “Global Warming Models”. At some other place in the same graphic it is described as “Warming Model Formula”. Why is that?
For some reason the author of the curve fit decided to use pCO2=306ppm as the reference value, I seem to remember bringing this up at the time but I can’t recall the outcome.
Werner Brozek says:
February 26, 2013 at 8:42 am
Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 26, 2013 at 5:41 am
I want to make sure that I understand you correctly.
My purposes are at least two fold. I think it is fairer to say a slope is 0 than to say a slope could be 0 at a certain level of significance, but that it could also be much higher at the higher end.
But secondly, by stating when a slope is 0, I can say if the models are good according to NOAA.
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.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
So I admit that Hadcrut4 does NOT meet this criteria yet, but three other data sets do. See the bolded ones below.
None of those datasets meet that criterion because as clearly stated in the NOAA report the simulations were run without ENSO and should be compared only to ENSO-adjusted datasets, it also said that the ENSO-adjusted trends observed were greater and gave good agreement with the trends observed in the model runs.
Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).
Ignoring Monckton’s obligatory ad hominem referred to by others, the data produced by Werner show nothing of the kind, here they are:
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
They all show warming!
For the null hypothesis that the real trend is less than or equal to zero, we find that it is rejected at the 95% level in all the cases (as I pointed out to Werner in the comments to his post). The chance of a sub-zero trend being the real trend of any those datasets is less than 1 in 30!
Werner admitted that he just took the data from the Skepticalscience blog and didn’t really understand the statistics.
For a web site that professes to bin less posts than the other side, banning perlwitz for 2 days for arguing (politely) seems well over the top. Your call of course – it’s just silly
AND
proscribing Skeptical Science for revisionis is somewhat 2 faced when in the last few weeks this happens
http://regator.com/p/259385993/pielke_jr_gets_booted_from_journal_for_giving/
Pielke Jr. gets booted from Journal for giving an unfavorable peer review to some shoddy science
///////////////////becomes:///////////////////////////
Pielke Jr. appears to get booted from a journal for giving an unfavorable peer review to some shoddy science
Posted on February 21, 2013by Anthony Watts
And of course from a few years ago the title of the freezing CO2 post was completely revised!
Its snowing CO2 in the antarctic!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/co2-condensation-in-antarctica-at-113f/
Phil. says:
February 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm
…
Werner admitted that he just took the data from the Skepticalscience blog and didn’t really understand the statistics.
—
Thanks for that last Phil. I don’t seem to find Werner admitting he didn’t really understand the statistics on this thread. It saves time when you make stuff up that’s easy to check.
mike lontic,
So you found a couple things to complain about, out of tens of thousands of articles. That is a far better record than the New York Times. I will compare WUWT’s excellent credibility with the incredible pseudoscience of SkS any time. They have no credibility, they are simply an alarmist propaganda blog that allows no dissenting views.
I don’t agree with your complaints, but the fact is that you can get comments like that posted. I have tried many times to post at SkS, RealClimate and others — very politely, because I know my comments will be scrutinized due to their skepticism — but not one of my comments was ever approved. So you are 100% correct when you admit that WUWT does not censor. A timeout is not censorship.
I strongly disagree with your opinion of Perlwitz, too. He isn’t as nasty as Eric Grimsrud, but he tries. No one is entitled to be posted. I’ve followed Perlwitz for a long time, and he can be very unpleasant. He deserves what he got [I’ve had timeouts, too.]
I also recall the freezing CO2 comments. So what? It was interesting, there was a lively debate, and as usual the facts were sorted out. What’s wrong with that? Some folks actually believe that CO2 will cause runaway global warming, too, without any testable scientific evidence. No difference between believing that CO2 could freeze at the South Pole, and believing that CO2 will cause climate disruption. Except that the freezing is more credible than CAGW, even though it is wrong.
Finally, what are you doing saving 2-year old comments and articles? Get a life, or you’ll end up an angry, miserable old man like Perlwitz. You don’t want that.
Phil. says:
February 27, 2013 at 3:23 pm
it also said that the ENSO-adjusted trends observed were greater and gave good agreement with the trends observed in the model runs
And if we eliminate both the 1998 El Nino AND the La Ninas that followed it, the slope is still 0 on RSS. See the two slope lines below.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2000.25/trend
Phil. says:
February 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Werner admitted that he just took the data from the Skepticalscience blog and didn’t really understand the statistics.
One does not need to be a mechanic to drive a car. And did we not also agree that SkS and Phil Jones use the same criteria to determine significance? If you think they are wrong, take it up with them, and if a new criteria is given by SkS, and agreed to by the whole climate science community, I will revise the numbers as needed, but until then, I will feel free to use the criteria SkS has used.
Mark Bofill says:
February 27, 2013 at 7:42 pm
I don’t seem to find Werner admitting he didn’t really understand the statistics on this thread.
It was my understanding earlier that if a slope of 0 was not ruled out using SkS, then we could only be less than 95% certain that warming was actually occurring. However one person asked a very interesting and thought provoking question, namely what are the chances that warming is occurring if the slope is something like 0.24 +/-0.24. I now believe that there is a 2.5% chance the slope is above 0.48 and a 2.5% chance the slope is below 0 if 0 to 0.48 has a 95% chance of occurring.
In the future, I will play it safe and say “According to SkS…..”
Werner Brozek says:
February 27, 2013 at 10:13 pm
It was my understanding earlier that if a slope of 0 was not ruled out using SkS, then we could only be less than 95% certain that warming was actually occurring. However one person asked a very interesting and thought provoking question, namely what are the chances that warming is occurring if the slope is something like 0.24 +/-0.24. I now believe that there is a 2.5% chance the slope is above 0.48 and a 2.5% chance the slope is below 0 if 0 to 0.48 has a 95% chance of occurring.
Exactly, the ‘one tailed’ test I referred to. As long as zero is more than 1.65 sigma below the mean then the probability of the true mean being less than zero is less than 5%. Which was the case for all of the examples you gave. A more accurate headline would have been “95%+ probability that the global climate has warmed over the last 17 years”!
Werner Brozek says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:38 pm
Phil. says:
February 27, 2013 at 3:23 pm
“it also said that the ENSO-adjusted trends observed were greater and gave good agreement with the trends observed in the model runs”
And if we eliminate both the 1998 El Nino AND the La Ninas that followed it, the slope is still 0 on RSS. See the two slope lines below.
What you did does not remove the influence of the ENSO.
Phil. says:
February 28, 2013 at 6:17 pm
What you did does not remove the influence of the ENSO.
Perhaps I will just have to wait for 17 years with a slope of 0. Three data sets are within a month of 16 years now.
See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”